Am I a brainlet for viewing the likes of Butler, Deleuze etc. as just excessively wordy, bourgeoisie garbage?

Am I a brainlet for viewing the likes of Butler, Deleuze etc. as just excessively wordy, bourgeoisie garbage?

Attached: 624350E5-8852-4903-8DD5-BBE737D04DBC.jpg (1600x1067, 658K)

Deleuze and Butler aren’t the same thing lol. And yes, you’re mostly wrong.

speaking if bourgeoisie, who is the bourgeois cunt in the pic? if you’re going to larp as marxist because you saw a neato debate recently where a maxist won, you’ll need a more visceral distaste for the bourgeois than snazzy word choice

Butler is just a retard who regurgitates Sartre. Deleuze is a genius

>Butler is just a retard who regurgitates Sartre. Deleuze is a genius
What makes him a genius?

His formulation of capitalism as an inherently schizophrenic ideological force is wildly more accurate than all previous embarrassing Marxist attempts to speak of a single Capitalist mandate

Yes, it‘s all extensively verbose yet completely vacuous mental diarrhea produced solely to keep humanities grad students busy and feign a semblance of knowledge generation in fields that constitute nothing more than autofellatory wordwank to ensure they won‘t get defunded.

Attached: 14059FC2-4DD7-4F63-8380-5EB029F36E98.jpg (499x467, 25K)

She isn't any harder to understand than eg Kant, but because Kant is old and has more prestige, people cut Kant some slack. If Kant was writing now the same people would bitch about how obscure he is

It's Butler...

>Butler is just a retard who regurgitates Sartre
wow, just say you havent read a line of her text

The way humanities academics talk to one another is both interesting and scary. I would compare it to twin language or the way A.I. systems can develop their own languages unintelligible to humans--but less sophisticated or sincere.

The jargon didn't arise naturally, it came out of attempts by academics to mimic the formality and intellectual rigor of scientific language, but through sheer will and force it's adopted a sense of meaning unto itself. Yes at its core it's pseudoscientific gibberish, totally devoid of style or meaning or honestly, but that very meaninglessness means that it can mean anything.

Pareidolia is the tendency of people to see faces and objects in random visual noise. To be a humanities academia you must have this tendency in order to convince yourself that you believed what you read. It's very remarkable, but, like I said, scary. They're just making noise! It's only noise for the sake of noise

Gender performatism is literally just muh existence before essence garbage

>the likes of Butler, Deleuze
>Butler likes Deleuze
>Butler Deleuze likes
>Buler Deleuzelikes
>Buller Delikes
>Bull Dikes
>bull dykes

Based, but analytic philosophers generally don't allow each other to get away with this. From what I've seen there is a generally enforced standard of autism which exposes the fakers pretty effectively.

>Based, but analytic philosophers generally don't allow each other to get away with this.

Instead they just get away with disigenuous unstated ontological assumption and hidden petitio principi reductionism.

There are legit good analytic philosophers (Kripke for instance) but an awful lot of the field is like a meme version of mathematics. The continentals thrive in unclarified language but the analytics sleep on unexamined premises.

Kripke is one of the worst of all.

I suppose all poststructuralists were just existential humanists too? idiot

Very much so yes. They're all just fags who misread Heidegger and Satre was the first source

Real philosophy died in the early 20th century. All that's left is incoherent, postmodernist rambling and nick land.

Maybe but I just like modal logic like really bad.

IT SEEMS TO ME

Who the fuck cares?