Is this (from Barry Allen's letter to prospective graduate students) just an individual assessment or the expression of a wider pattern for understanding the complicated landscape of continental (French) philosophy? If the second, how could the pattern be stated in abstract form, i.e. without reference to those specific names?

A frank admission of prejudices might be useful in deciding whether we can work together. After some effort I have decided that I never want to read Lyotard again. I have never read Levinas and nothing I have heard makes me want to start. I have the same reaction to Badiou. I think phenomenology is philosophically empty. I don't think Hegel or Heidegger have anything to say to us anymore. I find it difficult to take Freud as seriously as I need to to take Lacan seriously. I am bored with Foucault, and exhausted by Derrida.

On the other hand, I am very interested in the work of Michel Serres, Gilles Deleuze, and Bruno Latour. Nietzsche still seems imminently worth thinking about in connection with pretty much anything. I have recently become deeply impressed with the neglected philosophy of Bergson.

closed as off-topic by virmaior Aug 31 '15 at 0:47

  • This question does not appear to be about philosophy within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    Even when I agree with many of Allen's aversions and prejudices, he does not more than just expressing his personal view and experience. His statement lacks any argument. - What is your question now? Shall we provide the missing arguments and find the common denominator for Lyotard, Levinas, Badiou, Hegel, Heidegger, Freud, Lacan, Foucault, Derrida? - Instead, could you pick up please one or two precise questions for this blog? – Jo Wehler Aug 30 '15 at 5:32
  • 1
    I didn't take this post on his website to be trying to argue generally so much as saying, if you want to write on these people, find someone else (along with a frank off-the-cuff style assessment of why -- probably so people don't imagine he could be convinced). – virmaior Aug 30 '15 at 7:25
  • I don't think its a serious critique of the continental tradition; or to be fair, an explicitly serious critique: after all Freud influenced Lacan, and Derrida Deleuze - perhaps he wants new perspectives? Most of the philosophers he mentions have been around some time ie Hegel, Heidegger and Levinas. – Mozibur Ullah Aug 30 '15 at 15:15
  • 1
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because well, in context, he's just explaining what sort of graduate students he wants to have write with him. While this might reflect his views, it's not really a well-developed argument, so we're just reading between the line to guess. – virmaior Aug 31 '15 at 0:47

I'm really not sure what is intended,but isn't this part of a general frustration with the trajectory of subject-centered ontologies since Kant, and the seeming political dead-end of constructivism, hermeneutics, and textual analysis? One impulse seems to be the recovery of some sort of non-dogmatic attachment to the natural sciences, and hence to "nature" of some sort. More of a poplar "mood" than a new classification.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.