Why is Deleuze taught in English, Anthropology, Media Studies...

All those authors were taught in my american university undergrad.

where did you study?

People seem to forget but the whole ‘analytical vs Continental’ divide is very real. If you go to school in the Anglosphere the chances are there is only going to be a small handful of courses on continental topics, and the rest will be either historical or analytic. My school only had one course on continental philosophy, plus the occasional grad seminar. But you could take more than one course one the philosophy of science, or symbolic logic.

Why is Deleuze taught in architecture? Just curious.

The answer is that they teach him in all those departments and philosophy, and he's taken seriously in all of them. End of thread.

rhizomes

extrapolate

Parce que l'intellectualisme est une exclusivité française, que veux tu de plus

c+t

>People seem to forget but the whole ‘analytical vs Continental’ divide is very real. If you go to school in the Anglosphere the chances are there is only going to be a small handful of courses on continental topics, and the rest will be either historical or analytic. My school only had one course on continental philosophy, plus the occasional grad seminar. But you could take more than one course one the philosophy of science, or symbolic logic.

this, my undergrad was similar, if you wanted continental philosophy you could get it in the english dept, our only non-analytic course was on ancient greece

aesthetics

Attached: Ministry-of-Highways.jpg (590x439, 92K)

Awful

Heidegger is the most important philosopher of the twentieth century.

He's definitely not though.

>inb4 lul maybe not in your second rate department

toni negri is a fucking joke

yup

Because he's not a philosopher.

Him and most others from the last century (Land, Derrida, Heidegger), following in the style and spirit of Nietzsche and Hegel, wrote verbose fan-fiction, or, at best, rhapsodic anthropology, not philosophy. Some explicitly deny any objective grounds for truth;--

Take Wittgenstein:
>Anyone who understands me eventually recognizes [my principles] as nonsensical.

or Derrida:
>Therefore we will be incoherent, but without systematically resigning ourselves to incoherence.

It is all vain rehashing of Nietzsche's nonsensical, self-indulgent starting point:
>Admitting all the value accorded to the true, the truthful, the selfless, it is nonetheless possible that a higher value should be ascribed to illusion, to the will to deception, to self-interest, to greed -- a higher and more fundamental value for all life.

The true philosophic spirit found in Plato and Kant reads nothing like the pompous drivel of such sophists.

>The true philisophic spirit found in Plato and Kant
shitpost disregarded

Attached: 1542244192410.jpg (680x680, 85K)

Well thought out, just knowledgeable enough to feign erudition but just ignorant enough to piss people off. 8/10

t. rhapsodic anthropologists

So much this. We had one module in 2nd year for phenomenology but that was it for conti. Ofc we did 3 years of logic and the problem of induction

He's a tongue in cheek joke among progressive academics.

If you study Philosophy in the *nglosphere, you truly understand the significance of the analytic-continental divide. I am fortunate to be a postgraduate at one of the (very) few UK universities with a substantial continental contingent in the Philosophy department. The majority of the department has a broadly continental focus, but the majority of undergraduates are obliged to study a broadly analytic syllabus. The price you pay for being a philosopher with any significant interest in continental thinkers is having to wait until a postgraduate qualification to write anything with substance on the topic of your choosing, and even then one must rely on the goodwill of the department to pursue anything like an academic career.

Warwick or Essex?