post-structuralism has been one of humanities biggest mistake

I think post-structuralism is interesting to consider on a non-practical solely academic level. I think if anything the catastrophe spawned by post-structuralism is related less to the existence of the philosophy in a nutshell and attributed more to the absolutely batshit crazy "monkey on a typewriter" way academia works in the rest but how we've refused to simultaneously decouple academia from wider institutional influence. Stuff like metalanguage is actually pretty cool to consider for example, but simultaneously do we really need Foucault to be like the #1 cited academic in every single field every year why are people in math citing Foucault why do academics pretend anything Deleuze said is important to anyone besides nerds

Not based

I’m reading the Wikipedia and this s*** makes no sense

the simple explanation for post-structuralism is that if, under structuralism (very simplified synopsis), concepts or phenomena can be understood through intersecting structures and how those said structures allow phenomena to occur or concepts thus to be defined, then under post-structuralism all things should be interpreted not by how those structures allow phenomena, but in the meta-context of how we ourselves can even think to allow such interpretation of structures separate from what they are being used to define or construct. Instead of deconstructionism, which is breaking down a sum of parts into individual parts to be understood separately, post-structuralism is like "we can only think of these parts because we already know the structure they make, so us even trying to define the parts is already arbitrary, thus we must look at our interfacing with anything as itself a construction".

tl;dr it's an attmpted justification for pedophilia

This gave me a f***ed up advertisement about some American Revolutionary War s***

So basically it’s attaching all emergent concepts to the structure itself rather than seeing them as “emergent”

I guess that'd be one way of saying it. It's very hard to really succinctly define because it doesn't really have any proper administration beyond speaking in incredible abstracts.
It's trying to get to the idea that you can't actually even begin to define structures because the process of defining a structure is dependent on the participant recognizing that even their recognition and discussion of such is itself a structure, and there is no way to define a structure therefore w/o reliance on relational structures, so unlike structuralism pointing to intersecting structures, it's implying ultimately these structures do not exist in a concrete form since they can only be defined by the relational meta-structure used in communication.
i was being sarcastic in the tl;dr but realistically i have yet to see a philosopher who uses this idea without eventually using it to argue for abolition of the age of consent or legalization of rape or something

I don’t see how a reliance on a prior relative structure can detract from the definition of a new one

But yeah lol French pedos amiright

It's because they don't think any structures actually exist in a definitive form, they're all reliant on a meta-context which allows them to be seen as a concept mimicking what is believed to be a structure, thus they're only interpreted relative to the capacity they're allowed to exist in; they don't think there are actual "structures" only "interpretation of structures", so like instead of a deconstructionist concept of thinking of a structure as a sum of parts or relations, they're saying a structure isn't a structure, it's only ever an interpretation of the assumption of what a structure constitutes from meta-context, thus the interpretation is what is to be a***yzed, not what is actually being interpreted
if it sounds like non-sense that's because the majority of it is

That just sounds like a layered version of structuralism in that you’re still a***yzing structural relations between concepts and their conditions LOL

Whatever

there is great disorder under the socialism thread

atm

that's because that's basically just what it is

i'm just trying to explain aspects of it i'm not talking about its validity

I'm gonna a***yze their a***ysis of the a***ysis what they gon do now

Any ideology/philosophy starting with "post" is usually dumb as shyt

F*** all that lacan shyt ima finish wretched of the earth first sry zizek

that's how the entire school of thought works to begin with

youre better off reading (almost) literally anyone except Lacan

I was talking abt the sublime object of ideology but why lol