ugh.. so i tried to read impossible exchange and finding it impossible.. i really dont get these silly philosophers and their need/compulsion to babble big words in big sentences to try to sound like they have big brains.. really.. cant you just say what you're saying? why do they feel it necessary to try to use big words and sound all fluffy brained and all.. this mutual mental masterbations while showing off how big their phallic brains/thoughts are in efforts to make those of us reading it think, "well, it must be big, important, deep, and meaningful coz it makes no sense whatsoever
( ... )
yeah. i'm done complaining about tat--just ignore 'em (altho it's hard when you're in the academe!). people like derrida and yes, baudrillard, make life a living hell when their books are required. i don't get it either.
i'm tracing colonial and postcolonial monuments here in the philippines, and working with the notion of 'monuments to forgetting'--they actually make people forget instead of help with remembering... and how most monuments show a suffering theme.
Wow, looks like some interesting/challenging reading. I had a philosophy class last sem. and we had to read some really dense passages. I don't get why philosophers insist upon writing at a level that the average person can't understand, but I guess it's par for the course. Wasn't sure if you were still posting here anymore or not, glad yo see you are!
Comments 4
i like your readings! doing work on monuments too, so those look interesting! and yes, good to have a 'light read' beside all those!
Reply
Reply
i'm tracing colonial and postcolonial monuments here in the philippines, and working with the notion of 'monuments to forgetting'--they actually make people forget instead of help with remembering... and how most monuments show a suffering theme.
Reply
Melba
Reply
Leave a comment