Wednesday 20th of February 2019

la filosofie deconstructionée: chalk and cheese...


Not long ago, a friend of mine—an Air Force veteran now serving elsewhere in the public sector—interviewed a young, well-spoken, female applicant with a strong academic portfolio from a respected public university. A few questions into the interview, she started talking about “power structures” and their influence on every part of society. My friend, a bit bewildered, asked her to explain. He got a mouthful of pedantic jargonese about race and power that implied that he, a white male, was perpetuating a system that exploited and oppressed all manner of disenfranchised peoples, including the applicant, an Asian American. My friend patiently reminded the applicant that insinuating that he was racist might not be the most advised means of acquiring a job.

What my friend had encountered were concepts from some of the most predominant philosophical schools in the West: postmodernism and deconstructionism. Many conservatives and Christians know they’re supposed to be wary of these ideologies, as well their most notorious advocates, 20th-century Frenchmen Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Jean-Francois Lyotard. There is good reason for this wariness, given that postmodernism and deconstructionism, as they are understood at the popular level, are based on initial premises of skepticism and cynicism towards established authorities and beliefs. Yet a proper understanding (which admittedly is itself a problematic moniker for what those two words represent) reveals that they are an effective tool in dismantling the falsehoods of modernism, even if they ultimately fail to offer a robust, coherent alternative.

The problem with even classifying the thought of Foucault and Derrida is that they weren’t necessarily seeking to create a unified intellectual system to explain reality. Indeed, postmodern philosophers are de facto suspicious and critical of such attempts. They’re far more interested in making observations—often true and insightful—regarding certain aspects or subsets of knowledge. The problems develop when people try to universalize these observations.

Consider first Michel Foucault, whose most famous aphorism is that “power is knowledge.” This observation stems from Foucault’s experience with various institutions of power, including mental hospitals and prisons, though his analysis extends to factories, sex, and money, among other things. In his Discipline and Punish, Foucault argues that knowledge is not disinterested or innocent, but inextricably united to power relationships that affect both the exterior and interior of man. This “disciplinary society” forces people, including through implicit societal surveillance, to conform to various cultural standards. Those who exist outside the ad hoc boundaries are often demonized, pathologized, and criminalized. Those who enjoy power and privilege aim to control those who do not.


Read more:



A lot of these thinking guys from the smelly Camembert country were filosofers. They were stirrers... and good at it. for example, Paul-Michel Foucault, generally known as Michel Foucault, the French philosopher who was an historian of ideas, a social theorist, and a literary critic addressed the relationship between power and knowledge, and how they are used as a form of social control through societal institutions. His quote "power is knowledge" is absolutely demonstrated with the rise of Trump.

Trump knows nothing but power. Having power, one "can decide". Look at this other little runt, MBS, Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, of Saudi Arabia. His rule is the law. 

The one important thing that all these "post-modern" stirrers did was to steer the populace away from the dominion of the illusion of god. It is quite telling that this article in The American Conservative is written by a student, Casey Chalk, of the Notre Dame Graduate School of Theology at Christendom College. 

The name Chalk is ironic here. It's the case of chalk and cheese. The French filosophers (Gus term for post-modernist philosophers), these French cheeses, knew far more about the philosophical past than Chalk. Chalk mentions we should heed the words of the American philosopher Mortimer J. Adler, who declared that all philosophy is bound to fail when it arrogantly rejects out of hand the wisdom of the ancients (and Medievalists) who synthesized so much of human knowledge and wisdom that was indeed true, good, and beautiful.

This is the point of these French filosofers doing deconstruction: for yonks, human "knowledge" had only been a pretext to maintain power. This is why for many years, education was limited and knowledge (powerful fake godly news maintained by fear mostly) was exclusive to kings and religious institutions. Wisdom was NEVER TRUE, nor good, nor beautiful, but served only to maintain the differential between kings and their subjects — or between rulers and their peasants (even during the times BC)... This is partly why theatre was "invented" as a counterpoint to "exclusive" rule and as a way to let steam off with piss-ups and orgies. Soon theatre became satire, the mocking of the religious mob and their gods, and became mimed when forbidden to speak — till theatre was completely shut down by the "powerful" catholic church around 400 AD. No anti-religious views, please or you will be shot...

Up until the advent of proper sciences, "knowledge" was a made up concoction of beliefs that had morphed into "laws". Nothing true, nothing good, but "power". Even democracy is still paddling in mud because the "old hand the wisdom of the ancients (and Medievalists —idiots) who synthesized so much of human FAKE knowledge and EXCLUSIVE wisdom that was indeed NOT true, NOR good, and NOT beautiful" — is still mucking it up.

And please, let's not mention that sad sour spivvy sod, René Girard, in the same breath as these colossal deconstructionists.

the invisible hand...


Gus is a rabid atheist...

we are thieves...

"The decisive outcome for the philosophies of Antiquity was their capacity to produce a few wisemen; in the Middle Ages, to rationalize dogma; in the classical age, to found science; in modern times, it is their ability to justify massacres."

                   Michel Foucault


All throughout human "history", we have been robbing each other — intellectually and practically — by various means under various pretexes. Even during the Antiquity, wars and empire were the soup of the day, despite the "wisdom". 


"Capitalism robs the public commons and Communism robs the individuals. We are thieves."  

                  Mama Leonisky


It ain't going to end well, unless we stop the plunder.