Annoyed by Foucault

[hmpf]

I'm reading this introduction to Foucault, and it *seems*, sometimes, as if Foucault could be rather useful in discussing Finder... but I'm sadly incapable of really understanding almost anything. I mean, I get these sort of... vague *glimpses* of What It All Means, here and there, but they're interspersed with lots of Really Dense, Really Incomprehensible Philosophy - I can read entire pages without understanding a single sentence. Much like my attempt to read/understand some Judith Butler a few months ago, this foray into theory seems doomed by my too-low intelligence (or my lack of years and years of previous experience reading philosophy).

I wonder - is there any theory that might be useful for my thesis that is actually comprehensible to a student of only *slightly* above average intelligence and not a lot of experience reading philosophy? I get the impression that even most of the introductions to the great theorists are written for people who already have a fairly good grasp of the canon of great thinkers of the past two centuries or so, and/or a much higher IQ than me.

Comments

[mikes-grrl.livejournal.com]

(or my lack of years and years of previous experience reading philosophy).

More like. Philosophy is its own WORLD and even some of the smartest people I know hiss like drunken snakes when forced to read/discuss it. Which is my way of saying, don't beat yourself up about it. Anyway, most introductions to such books are designed to show off the brain writing the introduction, not make the work easier to understand.

A good friend of mine (a mathematician) gave me this advice and it has salvaged my brain (because, you know, I love Camus and NO ONE inspires more brain wankage from scholars than Camus, IMHO): Read the introduction AFTER you've read the book/essay.

Really, it is brilliant advice.

Anyway, good luck! <3

[scottishlass.livejournal.com]

As was said before, read the intro AFTER reading the book/essay. You know how it goes ... most intros are written after writing the main bulk of the thesis anyway, and then you loose yourself in self-wankage anyway as you are soo glad it's almost over, that some folks really get flowery and whatnot.

Btw, today, while looking for fantastic literature, I came across one of my favourite authors (Alan Garner) and he and three other authors of the same genre have been discussed in a book. I don't know if it helps your MA thesis but perhaps it provides an entertaining read in between studying (and you need to give your brain a wave of fresh air time and again during thesis writing - been there, done that, got the bloody title :))
Four British Fantasists: Place and Culture in the Children's Fantasies of Penelope Lively, Alan Garner, Diana Wynne Jones, and Susan Cooper

[jazzymegster.livejournal.com]

We kind of by-passed Foucault in Post-Modernism this morning, and I don't think it's just you - Mike did say that the main three writers that Post-Modernism is based on (which I know is not what you're doing, but one of them is Foucault) are very hard to get to grips with, unless you really really know what they're on about.

All of which is a long-winded way of saying: it's not just you.

Also I find philosophy hard at the best of times - it took me three goes to get my head around Hume, and he's about the only philosopher I understand (I dread the day I ever get around to reading Baudrillard).

[mjlaw.livejournal.com]

I don't get Foucault at all, and yet I think I understand that he say things that might be important.
So it's not just you.