sharingan10

Derrida and Foucault were, for example, barely repentant Marxists, if repentant at all. They parleyed their 1960's bourgeoisie vs proletariat rhetoric into the identity politics that has plagued us since the 1970's.

The most famous example of 1960's identity politics ( a modern sort of catch all used primarily to designate politics concerning race, gender, sex, etc....) was the civil rights movement. If he was, as you say putting in identity politics at the time it would be hard to view this as a bad thing

EDIT: misclicked, below is the rest of my thoughts:

Foucault's fundamental implicit (and often explicit) claim is that power relations govern society. Derrida's hypothetical concern for the marginalized is a version of the same thing. I don't really care if either of them made the odd statement about disagreeing with the Marxist doctrines: their fundamental claims are still soaked in those patterns of thought.

It would seem ( perhaps I'm misunderstanding you) that any movement which critiques power structures would be "soaked in those patterns of thought". Granted that not all movements which critique power structures are inherently good, but it seems a touch hyperbolic to deny that unjust power structures exist in the world. This would paint mostly good movements (e;g 1960's civil rights movement, gay rights movement, etc...) as inherently untrustworthy, and would seem to imply that inequities in our societies are "natural" ( and by implication "good").

For example: Postmodernism leaves its practitioners without an ethic. Action in the world (even perception) is impossible without an ethic, so one has to be at least allowed in through the back door.

I don't understand this at all; Postmodernism mostly deals with metaphysics, and epistemology. This complaint seems to be that postmodernism is bad because it doesn't as a school of thought make explicit ethical goals. This appears (to me) to miss the point. Sure, some postmodern philosophers discuss morality as part of metanarratives, but if your critique of postmodernism is that it doesn't make explicit moral goals then why would this not apply to any field of study which doesn't make explicit moral and ethical claims? This could apply to anything from economics to gauge theory in physics.

The dominance of postmodern Marxist rhetoric in the academy (which is a matter of fact, as laid out by the Heterodox Academy, among other sources) attests to that. The fact that such an alliance is illogical cannot be laid at my feet, just because I point out that the alliance exists

Could you give a specific example as to how this is a trend? Perhaps one where a decent chunk of academia says/does something that is simultaneously postmodern and "neo marxist"? Because from this reading I'm gathering that you view these things less as explicit philosophical schools, and more like forces of nature, and I'm trying to understand the point you're making about this.

Given that these units are now going to be expressed in terms of fundamental units; do you think that education at the primary level is going to shift in a way that will focus on using natural units?

Hey science babe, long time fan of yours.

I've always wondered why your blog had advertising for adult toys on it, any comment on that?