Letters to the Editor
WinSmith
Published Letters: 102
-
Caiubbi
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think you mean, "What exactly are you implying." A small but not exactly trivial semantic point. Anyone who claims to have a Ph.D. should be able to do better.
No matter how educated or uneducated I am, you're still an asshole.
Maybe you do have a Ph.D. Maybe you don't.
Maybe I'm a secret plant by the Neo-Cons. Ooohh... scarrry...
But your repeated invocation of the Frankfurt folks is extremely interesting and extremely painful to any thinking person. As others have pointed out, Lacan had nothing to do with Frankfurt.
Congratulations. You're a genius.
Lacan, the Frankfurt school, Bourdieu and the post-Structuralists all came after the simplified "true/false" 19th century "logical fallacies" of wonder genius Paul R.
I'm not sure how many times bringing up Lacan and Frankfurt will make you feel you "got" me on some point I never made. I listed a number of 20th century innovators who expanded on the simple linguistic textual analysis that seems to be all Paul is capable of engaging in.
But go ahead dude. Pat yourself on the back.
Neither did the truly noble Bourdieu. The guy you really are relying on is the supreme idiot, Derrida.
Oh man, classifying philosophers with one word perjoratives. You're an intellectual giant, friend. Your significant other must hate you with a raging and supressed passion. I knew people like you in grad school. Let me guess. No teaching job. Researcher? Hang in there, bro. Someday you'll pay off the loans.
It is possible to have a certain amount of "affective" sympathy for Benjamin--though very little for his German collaborators (and I use the term advisedly). Still, one has to admit that Benjamin's nastily elitist views on music (for example) were and are extremely unpleasant.
German collaborators? Adorno? Kracauer? "Sympathy"? What in Marx's name are you saying? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
But let me come to the point(s)
Please. Dear God please make a point.
1) Having--or claiming to have--a Ph.D. is irrelevant. I spent all my adult life work around people with that degree, and I'm here to tell you they were, as a group, as dumb as a box of rocks. Your (claimed) degree cuts no ice here.
Judging by your inanities, it's not hard to see why you reject the process.
2) The Frankfurt introduction of "affect" into the "dialectic" was first, trivial, since it amounted only to the assertion that the way people FEEL about something has an effect on the way they THINK about it (or think they think about it); and, second, pernicious, because it encouraged the nasty and dangerous "deconstructionist" notion that we can't ever really know anything.
Wow. I could write another dissertation simply on your pathology. This literally makes no sense. The Frankfurt school's critical innovations revolutionized cultural studies, historiography, media studies, gender and race studies, visual studies, and works today in compliment with psychoanalysis, semiotics, queer theory and just about every other branch of academia.
But since Caiubbi dismisses it, I'll let the academy know. Time to rewrite the canon from scratch.
In a different context, this was a notion already amply explored by the American pragmatists. But in their view, this was a difficulty to be confronted in practice. In the view of the inheritors of the Frankfurt School, it was not a difficulty at all, but something to be celebrated around academic tribal fires, as the defeat of reason.
So sayeth the Neo-Cons. Closing of the American Mind and all that. They'd love you at the Heritage Foundation.
What, nothing on how it's all a secret agenda to indoctrinate young people into neo-Marxism?
The net effect was to have intellectuals trying to tell hungry people that they were not hungry, but were only trapped in an inescapable epistemological maze.
Wow. Just wow. No idea how to respond to this. Your academic bitterness is very sad.
3) Piss off.
Indeed.