Posted Jun 11, 2002 by Ashley
Never has an entry made me raise my head from my omphallic contemplations as this one has...
|
 
|  | |
|
|
Posted Jun 11, 2002 by Felonious Monk: Piano Thief
if you really want to do your head in, read 'Intellectual Impostures' by Alan Sokal. It's full of this kind of gibberish, and it's written mainly by Frenchmen with names like 'Derrida'.
|
| | |
|
|
Posted Jun 11, 2002 by Ste
Derrida is impossible. He makes his own words up. I am reliably informed that once his text is penetrated it makes a great deal of sense.
|
| | |
|
|
Posted Jun 12, 2002 by Felonious Monk: Piano Thief
That's not what Sokal thought, from my reading of his book. I've heard Sokal's analysis described as a 'forensic examination of sackloads of ordure from the French postmodernist stable'.  When all this stuff is 'deconstructed' (for want of a better word) it turns out to be complete and utter gibberish. Avoid it like you would a band of roving Jehovah's Witnesses.
|
| | |
|
|
Posted Jun 12, 2002 by Ste
My wife's own analysis would strongly disagree with that statement. *Tries to get her on h2g2*. But it's way above me I'm afraid.
Ste
|
| | |
|
|
Posted Jun 15, 2002 by Felonious Monk: Piano Thief
Why? Because she's a postmodernist? Or a Jehovah's Witness? 
OK: does she agree with this interpretation of postmodernism as 'today's interpretation of yesterday's vision of tomorrow'?
Discuss (10 marks).
|
| | |
|
|
Posted Jun 15, 2002 by Felonious Monk: Piano Thief
Why? Because she's a postmodernist? Or a Jehovah's Witness?
OK: does she agree with this interpretation of postmodernism as 'today's interpretation of yesterday's vision of tomorrow'?
Discuss (10 marks).
|
| | |
|
|
|
|
Key |  |  |
A: An older reply to the parent Posting
B: The parent Posting, to which this is a reply
C: A newer reply to the parent posting
D: The first reply to this Posting
| | |
Click on this icon to make a complaint about a specific Posting | |
Home
Reply
