Can someone tell me anything of actual substance that comes out of post modern philosophy...

What do you even consider of substance?

>"So there's no theory in any of this stuff, not in the sense of theory that anyone is familiar with in the sciences or any other serious field. Try to find in all of the work you mentioned some principles from which you can deduce conclusions, empirically testable propositions where it all goes beyond the level of something you can explain in five minutes to a twelve-year-old. See if you can find that when the fancy words are decoded."

Neither "everybody" nor "most people" nor "most left wing people". Outside of some very special circles, PM is pretty much dead in academical philosophy. Only literary "scientists" use PM theories.

I don't know about philosophy but they are still very alive in other fields outside of philosophy and very popular with the nonacademics.

>French intellectuals

Ayyyy dios mio

Attached: 1469783571753.jpg (1280x1280, 263K)

My prediction for this thread is a lot of name calling but no one giving any information because they can't.

My prediction is the humanities will be folded in to STEM education as some form of codified documentation and standards entity.

The study of literature of any kind in higher education will be completely dead within the century.

>very popular with the nonacademics.
that should tell you everything.

puritanical "leftists" abusing literary criticism to attack de wayt mang is not philosophy.

>empirically testable propositions

what an idiot, the only thing he'd be right about is that french philosophy is purposefully pretentious.

a variety of disciplinary counternarratives for problematizing hegemonic discourses

Attached: foucault56.jpg (338x450, 83K)

yeah but Philosophy still fell for the fad at one point didn't it, can't just sweep it under the rug like it never happened.

I feel like such a pleb trudging through “The Order of Things.” Should I go back further to get background for what he talks about or am I doomed to be pleb forever?

BEING NORMAL BAD
RELIGION BAD
GENDER ROLES BAD
GAY AND MARXISM GOOD
EVERY SOCIAL NORM IS ARBITRARY
There, I just saved you some trouble.

In my studies, I’ve found a few to be good reads.
Foucault’s work on madness was really fantastic, and it encompasses such a breadth of history that you end up researching a multitude of topics as you read through it. In particular, his observation on how the ‘mad’ were perceived through time (from those who may have some greater metaphysical knowledge to scorned outcast) was fascinating.

Baudrillard’s work on simulation as stand-in for reality was solid, as was Debord’s. In particular, I’m interested in how our perceptions of what is genuine (and how often we expect genuinely) have shifted. A nice intro into this kind of study that’s easy-to-read and well-done is The Pyrotechnic Insanitarium, which essentially chronicles the evolution of this modern phenomenon by way of things like carnivals, meta movies (Scream), etc. it isn’t French postmodernism, but a good selection of essays nonetheless.

I’ve used Deleuze’s work on film on occasion, but it’s mostly a bit ridiculous for me.

I've never heard any good refutation to this point

It is all just pedantic overanalyzing and sadistic sex perverts who hate all people who are simple and happily alive. Cocksucking french peacocks preening their feathers and giving each other handjobs. Their rejection of tradition is just another tradition, they reject everything that came before while vainly thinking that their ideas are at all original and will not just be forgotten like they already have.

This, but unironically

>they reject everything that came before
Well, this is simply untrue

Origins of the work of art

Foucoult was so retarded he thought the mentalli ill were just 'oppressed' and 'outcasts' like faggot french pseudointellectuals

No, user, he speaks instead of how they were perceived/treated (with fear, with cautious reverence, with scorn) by society and how THAT shifted based on power structures. It’s just interesting to read.
He didn’t think they were “just ‘oppressed’ and ‘outcasts’”

>it's a Chomsky with another opinion about a subject he doesn't understand but people eat it because it's Chomsky
OMG, Chomsky, I can't wait to see you talk about Inca folklore during the 13th century and the water crisis in Mongolia. You know everything!

then why did you use that pic?

that sounds more like anglo american positivists who don't even understand the genealogy of their own ideas.