Okay which one should I read first?

>>8973917
You are aware that we're against women, postmodernism, continental "thought", degenerates, and leftists, right?

Take the redpill, retard. Your big words won't make your feels true. We have science and rationality for that

>>8973935
go

Read all of it a critical mind. Doesn't matter where you start.

>>8973942
With*

>>8973942
It kinda does tho, especially with texts so embedded in traditions such as those in OP's pic

First sentence is spot on though. Don't accept it because it's fashionable but equally be open to where these thinkers might offer insight.

>>8973935
>we
I was just shitposting but I'm going to read all of it now, faggot.

>>8973949
Maybe you're right. Most of that tradition is based on Nietzsche and Heidegger, so perhaps he should read them before he even begins on what is in that pic.

Is Derrida worth reading or is it just insufferable navel gazing?

>>8973978
He's good.

>>8973978
He's too much of a nihilist for my tastes, but if you like that sort of thing go ahead.

>>8973917

I've just remembered I have a copy of The Second Sex somewhere. Anybody read it?

Is the whole graphic intended to be Feminist/Queer Theory? It says it at the top, but then there's a single section for it, so I'm confused.

>>8973996
I had a class on it in University. It was okay, though it was kind of annoying wading through her criticism of Freud(That women suffer from penis envy etc).

>>8973917
>how to become an insufferable twat starter pack

>>8973935
fpbp

if not Wittgenstein, you're a normie

>>8973917
Why not actually read something written by Marshall McLuhan rather than reading texts about Marshall McLuhan? He's a little difficult at first, but once you pick up on his terminology he's not hard, easier to read than Baudrillard.

I recommend Understanding Media.

Things Fall Apart can be read without any background knowledge, and it's also a very good novel.

File: AugusteToulmoucheLeBillet.jpg (502KB, 753x1024px) Image search: [Google]

502KB, 753x1024px

>>8973963

no. most of the tradition is actually based on emerson and william james: what santayana called "the genteel tradition"
think about it: the roots of 20th century postmodernism, which pretty much incoherently marries a crushing moral certainty with an equally crushing moral relativism, is really a product of the antinomian philosophies of emerson and james that spawned in the 19th century. emerson and james basically called for the mind to look ever inward, rather than outward, and in this introspection find the entire world; and they did, by bypassing scientific standards and inaugurating the same focus on the "self" and hyperindividualism that stands behind the equally as incoherent liberal politics of clinton, etc.

postmodernism has far less to do with nietzsche and heidegger than it does with the actual lives politics of the american genteel tradition--of course it wants to think differently, but it has appropriated and bastardized an intellectual tradition it knows virtually nothing about.