1 pointHere's a quote I've always found relevant to the 'stigma' associated with K debaters and critical theorists/philosophers in general: â€œNo one gets angry at a mathematician or a physicist whom he or she doesn't understand, or at someone who speaks a foreign language, but rather at someone who tampers with your own language.â€ - Derrida That particular excerpt made just fine sense. Considering that the class itself is focused on some difficult theorists, dealing with the concept of stupidity, and (s)he is essentially reducing a class of already high level material to a paragraph excerpt, I don't expect him/her to explain everything about the class in perfectly understandable language right there. I think it's unfair to essentially judge an entire discipline that features intersections of all forms of cultural, sociological, and philosophical studies on this one course description. A lot of the times the ideas and concepts themselves are very hard to grasp, which makes them seem nonsensical to someone who is not willing to put the time into understanding it. Sometimes the language itself is more verbose than it need be for a variety of reasons; Deleuze particularly uses his dense writing as a means of combating conventions in language and literature he finds problematic. Some author's ideas could probably be explained in simpler terms, but they would lose a lot of the nuances of the original and essentially be bastardized by the transition and fail to give a full grasp. Others, like Heidegger, require a new set of terms that are so precise in meaning they can't be translated. Even the authors that right in 'simpler' language are often much more nuanced than they seem to be. The interpretations High School courses and casual readers have of Nietzsche and those of Nietzsche scholars or people within academia are radically different to the point where they reduce entire aspects of writing to things like "he doesn't believe in god" and "he thinks morals are bad". I've heard Nietzsche's fable as a reason why nothing matters and also as the fundamental finitude of thought in the context of Lyotard's solar catastrophe. The same goes with any of these old school philosophers; Plato, St. Augustine, etc.. In fact, a lot of Buddhism is fucking ridiculously difficult to understand and is only taught in the way of seemingly non-sequitur fables and allegories. How is this any different than an academic article with difficult language? As someone who understands a fair amount of critical theory, has explained it in a very logical manner to other debaters and in round (although sometimes I cheat myself with the jargon and verbosity), and has read parts of critical theory that intentionally do veer on the side of absolutely nonsensical (Negarestani, Nick Land, etc.), it's not utter bullshit just because the language is above a high school reading level. Read it, read it again, break it down line by line if you have to, a lot of the times I find that a learn more and more the more I read it.
This leaderboard is set to Chicago/GMT-05:00