4 ms·

And anyone who wants to know a bit more about some of these theorists might want to read 'Intellectual Impostures' by the Left-leaning physicist Alan Sokal.

doorhurdle 7y ago
And Fools, Frauds and Firebrands by Roger Scruton.
chalst 7y ago
It is funny that of these three names, two were among the four explicitly exempted by Sokal and Bricmont of being impostors in a 1997 letter to Liberation following publication of the book: "Famous thinkers like Althusser, Barthes, Derrida, and Foucault are mainly absent from our book" Orig. https://next.liberation.fr/livres/1997/10/18/sokal-et-bricmont-s-etonnent-du-tolle-suscite-en-france-par-impostures-intellectuelles-qui-s-attaque_217100 https://next.liberation.fr/livres/1997/10/18/sokal-et-bricmo.... Cf. http://www.critical-theory.com/read-derridas-response-sokal-affair/ http://www.critical-theory.com/read-derridas-response-sokal-...
- yesenadam 7y ago
  I don't think it's fair to say they were "explicitly exempted of being impostors" - Intellectual Impostures focuses exclusively on the use of scientific and mathematical terms by philosophers, as it's often clearly evident when an author doesn't know what they mean, and/or is using them in a totally absurd way. It's easier to catch them in the act of perpetrating nonsense. The four you mentioned just don't happen to use mathematical or scientific terms in the same egregiously nonsensical way. That is very far from the only way of writing bad philosophy. For some of the many others, see David Stove's What is wrong with our thoughts? (which, by the way, features Foucault) http://www.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/wrongthoughts.html http://www.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/wrongthoughts.html
cdavid 7y ago
Putting all the "French philosophers" in one bucket is not fair. Lacan is clearly a charlatan, Foucault, while controversial, is absolutely a deep thinker. There is some truth about their writing being too obtuse, but this is (was ?) unfortunately a requirement in some circles in Paris. Also, culturally, being pedant in French has been for a long time a sign of sophistication culturally speaking (http://www.openculture.com/2013/07/jean_searle_on_foucault_and_the_obscurantism_in_french_philosophy.html http://www.openculture.com/2013/07/jean_searle_on_foucault_a...). I find French more "overfit" for pedantism than English, but that could just be because French is my native language / culture. [edit] the link above in openculture.com actually links to a video when Chomsky and Foucault discuss about social organizations. Foucault is as clear, if not clearer than Chomsky. I find Chomsky's language extremely dry, to a point where it is difficult for me to stay engaged.
- lordgrenville 7y ago
  Great link. It's amusing that the url Frenchifies him to "Jean Searle" (although the text gets his name right).
- jimbokun 7y ago
  > There is some truth about their writing being too obtuse, but this is (was ?) unfortunately a requirement in some circles in Paris. In the article, that is one of the criticisms Paglia raised. That it doesn't make sense to apply the techniques of these French thinkers to non-French culture and art, when their work is so specific to French academic traditions.

doorhurdle 7y ago

And Fools, Frauds and Firebrands by Roger Scruton.

chalst 7y ago

It is funny that of these three names, two were among the four explicitly exempted by Sokal and Bricmont of being impostors in a 1997 letter to Liberation following publication of the book: "Famous thinkers like Althusser, Barthes, Derrida, and Foucault are mainly absent from our book" Orig. https://next.liberation.fr/livres/1997/10/18/sokal-et-bricmont-s-etonnent-du-tolle-suscite-en-france-par-impostures-intellectuelles-qui-s-attaque_217100 https://next.liberation.fr/livres/1997/10/18/sokal-et-bricmo.... Cf. http://www.critical-theory.com/read-derridas-response-sokal-affair/ http://www.critical-theory.com/read-derridas-response-sokal-...

yesenadam 7y ago
I don't think it's fair to say they were "explicitly exempted of being impostors" - Intellectual Impostures focuses exclusively on the use of scientific and mathematical terms by philosophers, as it's often clearly evident when an author doesn't know what they mean, and/or is using them in a totally absurd way. It's easier to catch them in the act of perpetrating nonsense. The four you mentioned just don't happen to use mathematical or scientific terms in the same egregiously nonsensical way. That is very far from the only way of writing bad philosophy. For some of the many others, see David Stove's What is wrong with our thoughts? (which, by the way, features Foucault) http://www.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/wrongthoughts.html http://www.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/wrongthoughts.html

cdavid 7y ago

Putting all the "French philosophers" in one bucket is not fair. Lacan is clearly a charlatan, Foucault, while controversial, is absolutely a deep thinker. There is some truth about their writing being too obtuse, but this is (was ?) unfortunately a requirement in some circles in Paris. Also, culturally, being pedant in French has been for a long time a sign of sophistication culturally speaking (http://www.openculture.com/2013/07/jean_searle_on_foucault_and_the_obscurantism_in_french_philosophy.html http://www.openculture.com/2013/07/jean_searle_on_foucault_a...). I find French more "overfit" for pedantism than English, but that could just be because French is my native language / culture. [edit] the link above in openculture.com actually links to a video when Chomsky and Foucault discuss about social organizations. Foucault is as clear, if not clearer than Chomsky. I find Chomsky's language extremely dry, to a point where it is difficult for me to stay engaged.

lordgrenville 7y ago
Great link. It's amusing that the url Frenchifies him to "Jean Searle" (although the text gets his name right).
jimbokun 7y ago
> There is some truth about their writing being too obtuse, but this is (was ?) unfortunately a requirement in some circles in Paris. In the article, that is one of the criticisms Paglia raised. That it doesn't make sense to apply the techniques of these French thinkers to non-French culture and art, when their work is so specific to French academic traditions.