The Greatest Intellectual Scam of All-Time: French Postmodernism (page 6)

OUTLAW

Outlaw judges Gad Saad to be "Intellectually Dishonest and Delusional"
That's funny......cofty

Let me rephrase that,so you understand correctly..

"You Personally (just you)" are both Intellectually Dishonest and Delusional..

I hope that helps..

slimboyfat

Never a JW I can say what books influenced me and gave me an initially favourable view of poststructuralism and its impact.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Postmodernism-Historians-INF-Callum-Brown/dp/0582506042/

Earlier edition of this book:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Invitation-Social-Construction-Kenneth-Gergen/dp/1446296482/

The latter book in particular argues for a strong constructionist conception of truth to which scientific discourse is not immune.

Then there is The Order of Things by Foucault and Archaeology of Knowledge, Mythologies by Roland Barthes and Contingency, Irony and Solidarity by Richard Rorty, How to Read Derrida by Penelope Deutscher.

cofty

I hope that helps.. - Outlaw

If you asked your imaginary linguistic prof how to spell that might help.

If you are addressing one person it is "You're both Intellectually Dishonest and Delusional", not "your both Intellectually Dishonest and Delusional."

You might want to behave like an annoying child but there is no need to write like one.

slimboyfat

Kenneth Gergen explaining why constructionism is world changing, and why a bottle is not aimply a bottle. Likely to excite or make you want to pull your hair out depending.

https://youtu.be/-AsKFFX9Ib0

Fisherman

For example someone might say:
The light of the moon is shining brightly tonight.
And a physicist might respond:
Actually the moon is not a source of light, it is reflecting light emitted by the sun.

Whether that response is pedantic, helpful, playful, annoying or whatever probably depends on a complex set contextual considerations. But whatever the intent or reception, it is nevertheless a meaningful distinction that is being made.

Is it your opinion then that since the moon's light is derived that the earths shape could also turn out to be illusory?

slimboyfat

Fisherman I think Kenneth Gergen explains it excellently in the video above. The bottle in itself is not anything. It is only something in relation to how it's constructed for various purposes. Strip things of all contexts and webs of meaning and nothing can be said about them. True for a bottle, the earth or anything. It's not so much that the phrase "the earth is a sphere" may be wrong, but that it only makes sense within a context, And other statements about the same object may make sense under different constructions.

OUTLAW

If you are addressing one person it is "You're both Intellectually Dishonest and Delusional", not "your both Intellectually Dishonest and Delusional.".....cofty

My buddy pointed out..

That I hadn`t written my thought out clearly enough..

The spelling was incorrect,so he read it the same way you did..

He liked my next post clearing it up though..LOL!!..

cofty

Outlaw let go of the imaginary friend.

Grow up and take responsibility or your own bullshit and hostility.

Either I'm right and you invented your prof as your sock-puppet, or you are right which shows that education and decency are not always connected. Either way, tell him to get a life and stop being a prick.

never a jw

Slim,

I did some reading on the concepts that you mention and moved me from ignorance to a state of confusion. Possibly my argument, if I had any, is that philosophy in recent times will almost have a null effect in the methods we use to discover and learn, as well as in our ethics and our moral and political philosophy. Roughly, starting with Descartes and Francis Bacon, and ending with the existentialists, the lion's share of philosophical thought that shaped modern western society was done. Anything after this period is so abstract that I hardly believe it will ever be settled in the near future. I am just an average man who finds some of the latest philosophical schools impenetrable or impractical.

cofty

I am just an average man who finds some of the latest philosophical schools impenetrable or impractical. - never a jw

It is intended to be impenetrable and obscure. Listen to the three quotes in the video in the OP, or google search any of the many online examples. There are even a number of pomo random essay generators. That way the followers can pretend that if you don't get it you are just not clever as they are.

Notice that this is the very accusation that has been made by Orphan Crow and by Outlaw's imaginary prof.

It is a classic case of the Emperor's new clothes. Gad Saad is pointing at the dangling genitalia.

The Greatest Intellectual Scam of All-Time: French Postmodernism

Share this