Think its a good idea to get involved with a 20 year old?

[cork_soaker]

ridiculous

[cork_soaker]

nesss

[Luke de Spa]

i'm not

[Luke de Spa]

projexting

[null123]

Originally Posted by Luke de Spa

that's just the cost of doing business

all I really wanted was to find some Smashing Pumpkins b-sides

[cork_soaker]

flip over the single, baby

[Luke de Spa]

Originally Posted by Charmbag

all I really wanted was to find some Smashing Pumpkins b-sides

did you find them?

[null123]

I have two different rips of Machina II

[Luke de Spa]

that's okay, you don't have to listen to them

[Eric Blair]

Originally Posted by FoolofaTook

Your generalizations and oversimplifications attest to a vibrant, healthy mind. I am overjoyed to remember that you teach philosophy. You must have so much to teach and share.

I majored in English.

We were expected to apply Freud's theories uncritically and this has been pretty much the same expectation for any other theory - be it queer theory, Marxist theory, Darwinian theory, post-structuralism etc.

For some reason we were supposed to understand how the case of Little Hans illuminated Jekyll and Hyde. Because I studied this case in psychology I knew that Freud basically manipulated the data to support his hypothesis. For example, when he claimed the boy's fear of horses was to do with the fear of his father, Freud neglected to mention that the boy had seen someone crushed by a horse shortly before he developed his phobia. Apparently, this got in the way of some really interesting interpretations.

You are going to have to forgive me for not giving a fuck about this kind of academic nonsense.

[Eric Blair]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

Plenty. The most egregious ridiculousness was probably in Dora.

And Little Hans. And Anna O.

[FoolofaTook]

Originally Posted by Eric Blair

I majored in English.

We were expected to apply Freud's theories uncritically and this has been pretty much the same expectation for any other theory - be it queer theory, Marxist theory, Darwinian theory, post-structuralism etc.

For some reason we were supposed to understand how the case of Little Hans illuminated Jekyll and Hyde. Because I studied this case in psychology I knew that Freud basically manipulated the data to support his hypothesis. For example, when he claimed the boy's fear of horses was to do with the fear of his father, Freud neglected to mention that the boy had seen someone crushed by a horse shortly before he developed his phobia. Apparently, this got in the way of some really interesting interpretations.

You are going to have to forgive me for not giving a fuck about this kind of academic nonsense.

Fair point. I only minored in English in college, so I never got to see the approach to criticism on that level.

In English grad school though, we were always required to analyze every theory critically and acknowledge its flaws, if not its complete uselessness.

[Eulogy]

edit: to eric blair

You had a much different experience with Freud in English than I did. I took an entire class on it. We read some Lacan and some Zizek too. But the discussion always at least touched on "hey we all know he's kind of a life-ruining crazy person right?" my prof was pretty awesome. came from cambridge, left for u of chicago. super nice too.

[FoolofaTook]

I still don't think it's very bright to indict (rhyme!) most college English departments and professors based on your personal experience at (I assume) one university.

I had a college English professor that was smarter than hell, and I really doubt she would teach critical theories in such a worshipful and accepting manner.

[cocksure]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

edit: to eric blair

You had a much different experience with Freud in English than I did. I took an entire class on it. We read some Lacan and some Zizek too. But the discussion always at least touched on "hey we all know he's kind of a life-ruining crazy person right?" my prof was pretty awesome. came from cambridge, left for u of chicago. super nice too.

welcome to the world of science, where the usefulness of theories is examined based on how "crazy" an author was

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by cocksure

welcome to the world of science, where the usefulness of theories is examined based on how "crazy" an author was

consider it implied that we also discussed the application of his theories to the cases he actually wrote about and talked about whether or not they made any sense at all practically speaking

when did you reduce yourself to solely making snarky, douchey, one-off comments

not a good look.

[Mo]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

You had a much different experience with Freud in English than I did. I took an entire class on it. We read some Lacan and some Zizek too. But the discussion always at least touched on "hey we all know he's kind of a life-ruining crazy person right?" my prof was pretty awesome. came from cambridge, left for u of chicago. super nice too.

You read works by a Slovene, an Austrian and a Frenchman in an English class?

[cocksure]

i dont know, im bored, dont take it personal

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Mo

You read works by a Slovene, an Austrian and a Frenchman in an English class?

apparently

[FoolofaTook]

Originally Posted by Mo

You read works by a Slovene, an Austrian and a Frenchman in an English class?

You don't know much about literary criticism, do you?

[FoolofaTook]

Joseph Conrad: Polish.

Oh no! Oh my! Oh no! No room for him in English literature!

[cocksure]

isn't there an obvious difference between a foreign author who writes in english and foreign authors who don't? i don't think mo is ciriticising anyone for reading these people, but it's odd that they should be taught under the "english" tag

[Eric Blair]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

edit: to eric blair

You had a much different experience with Freud in English than I did. I took an entire class on it. We read some Lacan and some Zizek too. But the discussion always at least touched on "hey we all know he's kind of a life-ruining crazy person right?" my prof was pretty awesome. came from cambridge, left for u of chicago. super nice too.

Right, yeah. I don't know. I find placing such a strong emphasis on theory just ruins literature, yet you can't get tenure without it. Zizek can be sensible sometimes, but he makes up for the fact he is trying to understand the subconscious with stupid theories with an obtuse writing style. I have found most critical theory to be like this.

[Eric Blair]

Originally Posted by FoolofaTook

Fair point. I only minored in English in college, so I never got to see the approach to criticism on that level.

In English grad school though, we were always required to analyze every theory critically and acknowledge its flaws, if not its complete uselessness.

Yeah, but even when it was analyzed, I never found it to be engaged with in any meaningful sense. People to sit around discussing Derrida, for example, but nothing they say ever really makes sense, because his theories are all bullshit in the first place. Yet academics view him as some kind of intellectual giant - and I don't get this just from personal experience.

[Eric Blair]

Seriously. There is a reason why Freud is only taught in English departments, despite being a psychologist. There are reasons why Saussure is only taught in English classes, despite being ignored by linguists. There is a reason why Foucault is only taught in English departments, despite being more or less ignored by historians.

[cocksure]

people are pretty critical of derrida around here, in fact he's mentioned more often in jest than in earnest.

but in the end, you can't agree with all theories, and you can't read all of them, and you don't have the time to constantly check for flaws in the theories you accept. people using derrida might not be worth reading coming from your perspective, but that doesn't mean they're all dumb or bandwagon-hoppers or anything of that sort.

and let's not get into the details of derrida's thought plz

[FoolofaTook]

Originally Posted by cocksure

isn't there an obvious difference between a foreign author who writes in english and foreign authors who don't? i don't think mo is ciriticising anyone for reading these people, but it's odd that they should be taught under the "english" tag

Yeah, I see the distinction.

But still, no one studies Freud or Derrida as English literature. Their theories are simply examined because notable English critics base their criticisms on them. I don't see what's odd about that.

[cocksure]

that is true. i was just reminded of how we read shakespeare and sophocles in german at school and that always struck me as a little funny

[FoolofaTook]

Originally Posted by Eric Blair

Seriously. There is a reason why Freud is only taught in English departments, despite being a psychologist. There are reasons why Saussure is only taught in English classes, despite being ignored by linguists. There is a reason why Foucault is only taught in English departments, despite being more or less ignored by historians.

I don't know man. Chomsky was far more prominent in my professors' lectures than Saussure, and from what I've been led to understand, he's rather foundational.

[FoolofaTook]

Originally Posted by cocksure

that is true. i was just reminded of how we read shakespeare and sophocles in german at school and that always struck me as a little funny

Yeah, that's dumb. I mean, I love reading Dostoevsky and Kafka, but clearly much of the artistry is lost in translation.

Of course, studying translation as another literary form could be a valid scholarly approach, though I doubt your school approached the German translations in that manner.