4. Foucault: Schools are prisons.
3. Deleuze: The world is an egg.
2. Baudrillard: The Gulf War didn't happen.
1. Lacan: Women don't exist.
Are they right?
Top 4 claims in French philosophy
4. Foucault: Schools are prisons.
3. Deleuze: The world is an egg.
2. Baudrillard: The Gulf War didn't happen.
1. Lacan: Women don't exist.
Are they right?
Based.
Kinda cringe but based.
Hyperbased.
I wish but Lacan was a larping homosexual.
>Women don't exist
What did he mean by this?
"Women have no existence and no essence; they are not, they are nothing." - Weininger
4. Yes, and I don't think this is remotely controversial
3. I don't think so, but I'll admit I was filtered by Deleuze
2. Yes, in the sense in which he meant it
1. I haven't read Lacan, but from Googling it, it sounds like he's saying that there's nothing in particular to define a person as being a woman; it's just the word that's assigned to all people that are not men. My inclination is to say no, he's not right, but I haven't thought much on the issue and from my quick research didn't come across a compelling argument either way.
So it's a pro-troony argument
lol
Maybe sort of yes, but also no. You could only consider it pro-troony if you believe that trannies aren't men, which means it doesn't really add anything to the troony debate.
>3
he stole that from the hindus
>he stole that from the hindus
What do you mean?
the cosmic egg
poos stole it from the birds
>tfw you will never eat goyslop with your gf in Egypt
>1. Lacan: Women don't exist.
I fricking wish.
Baudrillard and Lacan didn't sign it.
Yes, that's why you shouldn't ask them.
Only 'cause they beefed with Foucault and Deleuze. Don't think it's about principles, just connexions and relations.
They're all correct, and I usually despise french philosophers.
4. Correct
3. Unsure, in a way possibly
2. He was just being facetious likely
1. Kind of?
4) Obviously there are some similarities, but the identity relation is too strong.
3) It was probaby a metaphor or something.
2) See above. He wraps everything he says in ten layers of "I didn't mean it LITERALLY — OR DID I?" so he can't be held accountable for anything.
1) He's probably trying to make some sociological point.
Damn I hate French intellectuals. On the other hand, they do turn out a decent number of decent mathematicians (or used to; dunno about these days).
I remember Baudilliard also said the watergate was like a fake democracy simulation and with the shit Trump has faced I am starting to believe Nixon was right. Murican elites do fake democracy grandstandings instead of actual democracy. So he is probably right about the gulf war as well.
OK but what's number 5
Derrida: There is nothing outside the text
That is actually mistranslation
It should be "there is no such thing as 'the outside of text'"
is this related to how a formal system cannot prove it's own consistency? which is to say, a formal system cannot transcend itself. is derrida saying that a piece of text cannot transcend itself, this this way?
>The Gulf War didn't happen.
This is the best summary of the last two years.
I get the feeling that while these guys may have had been insightful, everything worthwhile they had to say would probably fill half a pamphlet.
Am I wrong?
>Durr, everything's subjective and truth is relative
Why do the French hate firm reality so much?
because they understand logic and her paradoxes (notice how I gendered logic. problem?)
Yes
No
Didn't happen on the subtext of wanting to be and sound off like a smartass or say it was a Freddie glowop, but historically it did, so point invalid
Yeah, we know how much they don't for being prostitutes and all in the 'modern' era but if I gave you a chaste Virgin or your himeno mommy gf, then I'm certain you'd change your mind in a heartbeat