A Conversation for Sesquipedalian Obscurantism

Huzzah!

Post 1

Ashley


Never has an entry made me raise my head from my omphallic contemplations as this one has...


Huzzah!

Post 2

Felonious Monk - h2g2s very own Bogeyman

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'.


Huzzah!

Post 3

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.


Huzzah!

Post 4

Felonious Monk - h2g2s very own Bogeyman

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'. smiley - smiley 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.


Huzzah!

Post 5

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.

Stesmiley - earth


Huzzah!

Post 6

Felonious Monk - h2g2s very own Bogeyman

Why? Because she's a postmodernist? Or a Jehovah's Witness? smiley - winkeye

OK: does she agree with this interpretation of postmodernism as 'today's interpretation of yesterday's vision of tomorrow'?

Discuss (10 marks).


Huzzah!

Post 7

Felonious Monk - h2g2s very own Bogeyman

Why? Because she's a postmodernist? Or a Jehovah's Witness? smiley - winkeye

OK: does she agree with this interpretation of postmodernism as 'today's interpretation of yesterday's vision of tomorrow'?

Discuss (10 marks).


Key: Complain about this post