2 ms·
What? Well, given their dismissal of the whole of the humanities, and the ridicule with which they spoke about Foucault, I doubt they're going to be reading Th
by Emma_Goldman 9y ago
What? Well, given their dismissal of the whole of the humanities, and the ridicule with which they spoke about Foucault, I doubt they're going to be reading The History of Sexuality or The Archaeology of Knowledge anytime soon. Or am I being too defensive, and mis-judging the post?
Some 'continental philosophers' are difficult to read. Derrida is a spectacularly bad writer, for instance. Foucault is not one of them however. Discipline & Punish is about as readable as Dickens IMO.
- igravious 9y ago> Or am I being too defensive, and mis-judging the post? I think so? :) Read it again – You could nitpick the absolute shit out of any non-trivial work in the humanities--even the great ones--but most people have enough sense not to. (Emphasis mine.) They are saying that there are trivial and non-trivial works in the humanities. Some non-trivial works are great works. You could nitpick those non-trivial works--even the great ones-- but you'd be wrong to because while you're busy at that you're missing the wood for the trees. To me it sounds like they've read quite a few texts from the humanities, just not Foucault.
- Emma_Goldman 9y agoAh okay, I'll go with your more charitable reading! I'm just very used to people dismissing an entire cultural and philosophical movement based on hearsay. It's not that hard to just pick up and read Foucault, Derrida, etc., and find out for yourself.