Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Most pretentious theorist

HerbertS

New Member
Would honestly like to know who is the most pretentious theorist of all time.
Zizek?
Badiou?
Derrida?
Foucault?
Deleuze and Guattari?
Lacan?
Judith Butler?
Gayatri Spivak?
Or some other master of bullshit?
Or have i got it wrong and there is some deep profundity beneath all this stuff?
 
Would honestly like to know who is the most pretentious theorist of all time.
Zizek?
Badiou?
Derrida?
Foucault?
Deleuze and Guattari?
Lacan?
Judith Butler?
Gayatri Spivak?
Or some other master of bullshit?
Or have i got it wrong and there is some deep profundity beneath all this stuff?
What's your opinion?
 
Zizek and his guru Lacan. Probably.
But curious more on the criticisms made by Chomsky on this type of theory. 'Parisian cults'.

But i honestly want to know what people into 'theory' get out of it.


Damning criticism.

And this

What do peeps make of these articles?
 
Zizek and his guru Lacan. Probably.
But curious more on the criticisms made by Chomsky on this type of theory. 'Parisian cults'.

But i honestly want to know what people into 'theory' get out of it.


Damning criticism.

And this

What do peeps make of these articles?
I read half of your second article. I gave up on it because it was saying nothing and using a hell of a lot of words to do so. The CIA were interested in culture and philosophy’s effect on politics in 1985? Ok, so? Of course they were. (And if I wanted to understand this, I could probably start more recently than 35 years so too.)

The article then just meanders all over the place without investigating any concrete implications of this beyond “oooh, scary”. Certainly in that first half an article, it makes no attempt to actually use or examine any of the theory of Foucault or Sartre, despite invoking their names, for either its cultural or political value or the opposite.

3/10
 
Zizek and his guru Lacan. Probably.
But curious more on the criticisms made by Chomsky on this type of theory. 'Parisian cults'.

But i honestly want to know what people into 'theory' get out of it.


Damning criticism.

And this

What do peeps make of these articles?
I attended a surveillance studies conference 12 years and was talking to a prominent academic who told me that the Israeli military were well versed in theory with a thousand plateaus being in particular a title they read. So there must I think be something in it because I doubt such people read books like that for fun
 
zizek more pretensious than baudrillard? not sure.

i'm not deleuze and guattari are pretensious or not, but i do find it too difficult to bother reading.

derrida i don't think is very pretensious really, just obtuse. i think it's interesting.
 
I agree about Derrida. Both on the impenetrability and the fact the ideas are interesting!
 
I don't think I've ever read any theorists, or philosophy books. Maybe a few pages of Camus, if that counts.

Is there any convincing reason why I ought to?
 
I'm gonna say Ernesto Laclau is a decent shout, although this may be influenced by a personal irritation both at his work and the influence it seems to have.

I particularly hate his concept of "empty signifiers" and the influence it's had on new left parties.

It's probably a toss up between Zizek and Foucault though.
 
I don't think I've ever read any theorists, or philosophy books. Maybe a few pages of Camus, if that counts.

Is there any convincing reason why I ought to?
Just that it can be interesting. I have to say though that I get more from reading what other people have written about it. The originals can definitely be, as Flavour says, obtuse.
 
I guess. I just like the idea more about reading things that happened rather than how someone tries to explain it. Not a very well worded reason that, is it. Maybe if I read more theory it would help lol
 
I read half of your second article. I gave up on it because it was saying nothing and using a hell of a lot of words to do so. The CIA were interested in culture and philosophy’s effect on politics in 1985? Ok, so? Of course they were. (And if I wanted to understand this, I could probably start more recently than 35 years so too.)

The article then just meanders all over the place without investigating any concrete implications of this beyond “oooh, scary”. Certainly in that first half an article, it makes no attempt to actually use or examine any of the theory of Foucault or Sartre, despite invoking their names, for either its cultural or political value or the opposite.

3/10

I pretty much agree with you about the 2nd article (cia reads...)
 
Curious if people have come across this:

It is about the may 68 intellectuals and 'age of consent' laws in France.
 
What do peeps make of these articles?

As Chomsky says, the bourgeois intellectual class is there to justify their paymasters actions. They do not realize this half the time though.

The second article is fascinating.

Second, the power brokers of the present have a vested interest in cultivating an intelligentsia whose critical acumen has been dulled or destroyed by fostering institutions founded on business and techno-science interests, equating left-wing politics with anti-scientificity, correlating science with a purported—but false—political neutrality, promoting media that saturate the airwaves with conformist prattle, sequestering strong leftists outside of major academic institutions and the media spotlight, and discrediting any call for radical egalitarian and ecological transformation. Ideally, they seek to nurture an intellectual culture that, if on the left, is neutralized, immobilized, listless and content with defeatist hand wringing, or with the passive criticism of the radically mobilized left. This is one of the reasons why we might want to consider intellectual opposition to radical leftism, which preponderates in the U.S. academy, as a dangerous political position: isn’t it directly complicit with the CIA’s imperialist agenda around the world?

Quite relevant to current affairs :/
 
Last edited:
I'm gonna say Ernesto Laclau is a decent shout, although this may be influenced by a personal irritation both at his work and the influence it seems to have.

I particularly hate his concept of "empty signifiers" and the influence it's had on new left parties.

It's probably a toss up between Zizek and Foucault though.

I was gonna say Laclau too.
 
I found Laclau/Mouffe 'post-marxism without apologies' an interesting text.

I dont mean to dismiss 'all' of theory.

What do people make of the Frankfurt school?

My main problem with some 'theory' is that it is not clearly written and diverts real issues to seemingly pointless ones.

There is also a kind of 'cult of personality' around some of the main people.
 
Back
Top Bottom