As long as analytical tradition keeps reducing philosophy into "logical programming," it'll always fail to appreciate the meaning and value of interesting conti

As long as analytical tradition keeps reducing philosophy into "logical programming," it'll always fail to appreciate the meaning and value of interesting continental ideas such as postmodernism. This paper is just a very typical example of that failure. Getting buried under `P and Q, therefore R` statements, nitpicking individual examples, missing the whole, thinking mechanically and all... For example, the author confuses Foucualt's notion of "truth" with basic "truth conditions" and refers to Tarski's "material adequacy condition" to "debunk" Foucualt's reasoning as "false theory." The author also mechanically replaces the word "truth" in Foucault's quoted writing with Foucault's so-called "definition" of truth and expects a fairly reasonable reading to come out as if English semantics was as mechanical as Lisp. Sorry, the paper has failed to pass the facepalm test while attempting to "expose" the most cited author in the whole field of Humanities as "false." This kind of mechanical, logic based reasoning ignores the poetic style, metaphors, and most importantly, the whole context of writing by focusing on the details and missing the whole. It's like teaching an AI to understand Shakespeare's poems but AI constantly finding "contradictions" that "does not compile." Foucault's philosophy is mostly "political philosophy" and has nothing to do with truth conditions. He also deliberately does not ground his arguments on definitions after definitions. Rather, it is more like an ongoing, deep, open reflection on power, truth and subjectivity in general. As to "social construction" of truth, you would be amazed at how beautifully Foucault traces back the emergence of "free market" as a "site of veridiction" for "truth" starting from 18th century and how that interacts with "power," "governance" and "subjectivity," all constructing a "regime of truth," covering multitude of implications that a "syntactic analysis of English grammar" cannot explain. I think there are more things to be found that would interest a hacker in postmodern thought yet gone missed.