Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
you can see it? then please explain it.
|
There's really not much to get. Fissure with reality. It's a return to the Cartesian cogito with a destabilised (but by no means absent or irrelevant) empirical truth. It's a logocentric theory that's oriented around contingency. I can't think of anyone who's produced a more workable, or plain metaphysics
Also, Lacan is all over film, as Zizeck has been diligently pointing out for some 30 years. Film is essential to popular culture. Hugely relevant to a very large part of most people's lives.
I get what you're saying about 'relevance', but it really isn't difficult to argue for Lacan, Derrida, Foucault, Butler or whoever's relevance. None of these people are particularly obscurantists, they just approach the world in a manner distinct from the norm (/normative) that makes better sense of it than the colonial mindset for the woolly liberal.
I think everyone's on the same page about the sheer number of fatuous, know-nothing turds within the humanities. But there's often a sense of attack the father for the son's misgivings. 1 Foucault (who I don't like) is worth 1000s of landfill academics. Within that landfill, there's naturally a lot of 'jargon', or technical terms. Those terms are meaningful when applied well.