Will you please critique this small bit of philosophy of mine?

Question:"The power relations of discourse stem from the social construction of the idealized body which turns out to be an artificial creation of discourse as such in its capacity as a performative speech act. In addition to discourse functioning as a sociogenic activity insofar as it constructs or constitutes social reality in part, knowledge as episteme further shapes the power relations of discourse which often function oppressively with respect to those deemed feminine or unfit in the material struggle for existence."

You'll notice that my philosophical comments are influenced by Michel Foucault, but the words or ideas are all mine.

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: "The power relations of discourse stem from the social construction of the idealized body which turns out to be an artificial creation of discourse as such in its capacity as a performative speech act. In addition to discourse functioning as a sociogenic activity insofar as it constructs or constitutes social reality in part, knowledge as episteme further shapes the power relations of discourse which often function oppressively with respect to those deemed feminine or unfit in the material struggle for existence."

You'll notice that my philosophical comments are influenced by Michel Foucault, but the words or ideas are all mine.

Lots of wordy-words. Combined, do they have meaning?

If you think about it, there must be a more verbose manner in which to...state the question.

it sounds plagerized. for your sake i hope it is. makes no sense to me. however, this is from a girl who has no interest in regurgitating the filth you are tought in college. this makes no sense. ISN'T PHILOSOPHY UNDERSTANDABLE TO A SMALL CHILD? no offence but this is PRETENTIOUS

well i don't agree with this very wordy statement
it is coming from a very male chauvinistic point of view that was ok about 100 years ago !

Your ideas are fine, but your sentences are obtrusively long and language excessively contrived. So your ideas are somewhat lost in the shuffle. Try again with a simplified version that is easily grasped by everyone.

RW is right. This sounds like it was deliberately made obtuse in order to sound pretentious. If you want actual discussion, you need to do a better job of getting your meaning across. If you want to inflate your ego by trying to appear intelligent enough to understand this, consider your ego punctured.

Now, if you want to restate this in terms that the non-philosophy major can understand, we'll have another try at critiquing it.

Sorry but its psycho-babel....

I feel its obtuse because you pontificate to the point were it is voluminous and searching. A luminary such as yourself should be direct and get to the point. Don't obfuscate the facts.

If you think the speeches governments give is lip service... say so. If you think a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth... say it. If you think political colloquy shapes an ethereal reality... okay, but you loose me when you differentiate or characterize efeffeminate or feminate materialistic struggle for existence.

My composition teacher would hold you by the necktie off of the top of the empire state building if she met you.

Seems to me the same point could be made much more concisely, and it could be more easily understandable.

But to answer your question, I never really took the time to think that through, but I guess it seems to make some sense. I think that discourse serves a more wide array of purposes than what you've listed, though (I don't care to elaborate, however... too lazy to think).

sounds ok to me

Your thesaurus must be smoking right now...