Reply #22: It's either a piss-poor algorithm

[markses]

Or your edits stink. ;-)

Either way, the funniest part about your post is that the critique of such jargon-filled writing is all the rage now in the academic humanities - the jargon-filled writing itself being soooo 80's, as Lyotard might say.

But, to be more serious, I do think everyone mentioned in the posts has important things to say about culture, thought, and language. Certainly, one would have to have never read any Foucault to think he writes like THAT! Same goes for Derrida and Marx. I'll have to give it to you on Lacan ("friggin object petit-a" as the program may have said more humorously), although last time I checked, the term was Lacanian and not Lacanist, though that may be a function of the program. What any of these folks (with the exception, of course, of Marx) have to do with Jean Paul Sartre will remain a great mystery, however, since they are all opposed to his version of phenomenology, Foucault perhaps most vehemently.