i just finished wading through a debate between chomsky and foucault, two philosopher theorists. for a while there i was sustained by the photos of them looking thoughtful, and chomsky's entertaining glasses:
but i quickly realised that i'm completely rusty on academic language, and have no clue what they're talking about. for example:
"In the history of knowledge, the notion of human nature seems to me mainly to have played the role of an epistemological indicator to designate certain types of discourse in relation to or in opposition to theology or biology or history."
i kept reading to the end, partly cos i'm expected to have something intelligent to say about it by wednesday, and partly in the hope that exposure to academic language will help me regain my ability to understand it. i got bits and pieces of the 20 or so pages. it's all a bit off-putting, really. i used to be able to follow this stuff, though i never wrote such convoluted wank myself, and now i haven't the foggiest what they're banging on about.
on the other hand, being back at my desk is instantly familiar: productive and reassuring and challenging. i just have to keep working through this transition.