Are these guys just a bunch of quacks?

Are these guys just a bunch of quacks?

Attached: foucault-guattari-derrida-lacan-baudrillard-bataille-deleuze-barthes-lyotard.jpg (900x900, 215K)

Test test test

Why do critics periodically proclaim their helplessness or their lack of understanding? It is certainly not out of modesty: no one is more at ease than one critic confessing that he understands nothing about postmodernism; no one more ironic and therefore more self-assured than another admitting shamefacedly that he does not have the luck to have been initiated into the philosophy of the Extraordinary

All this means in fact that one believes oneself to have such sureness of intelligence that acknowledging an inability to understand calls in question the clarity of the author and not that of one's own mind.
One mimics silliness in order to make the public protest in one's favour, and thus carry it along advantageously from complicity in helplessness to complicity in intelligence.

postmodernism was a valid response to history at the time

only christian doctrine had a better explanation f the horrors of the 20thC

but the christians had no credibility for large swaths of the human race and so it fell to the postmodernists to theologize ww2

Isn't Deleuze a Spinozan Vitalist? He seems based

He was, he is

yeah based. I absolutely hate seeing him lumped in any of these guys except Foucault. he wasn’t like any of them, and when he wanted to he wrote a lot better too

Pic related.

Attached: 1565461667093.jpg (825x635, 64K)

Foucault and Bataille are because they're not smoking

and a Bergsonian