I&#x27;m trying to struggle through the linked discussion of Kwasi Wiredu, and it&#x27;s not encouraging.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.iep.utm.edu&#x2F;wiredu&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.iep.utm.edu&#x2F;wiredu&#x2F;</a><p><i>Indeed, terms such as reflective integration and due reflection offer the critical spaces for the theoretical articulation of something whose existence has not yet been concretely conceived.</i><p>...<p><i>This reading gives an entirely different perspective on acts and themes of resistance as panoptical surveillance in the age of global neoliberalism becomes more totalitarian in nature at specific moments.</i><p>...<p><i>Another crucial, if distressing, feature of decolonization as advanced by Wiredu is that it always has to measure itself up with the colonizing Other, that is, it finds it almost impossible to create its own image so to speak by the employment of autochthonous strategies.</i><p>I know there are Western philosophical traditions that embrace this kind of language (Derrida is mentioned frequently in the above-linked piece, and I also think of Foucault and Baudrillard), but I didn&#x27;t study those in my MIT philosophy program either! Conversely, there are plenty of non-Western philosophers who embrace a clarifying analytical style over this kind of semiotic obscurity. Not that the latter isn&#x27;t potentially insightful and fun: We&#x27;re humans, after all, not computers.