As far as I know, Freudian psychoanalysis has been dead academically as long as I've been alive. Complaining about it is pretty close to complaining about how physics is stuffed with all these people who believe in the lumineferous aether. [1]

Were a lot of Freud's initial ideas discredited? Definitely. But the same is true of Isaac Newton, who was an alchemist and theologian. Consider his recipe for curing plague with toad amulets. [2]

The beginnings of any sort of knowledge are messy. But progress is possible.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/02/isaac-newton-p...

Foucalt is the intersection of power and media: the use of “science” as a body, rather than a process, as a means of control.

Deluze is methods of community organization beyond the heirarchial.

Derrida is, well, literary criticism. You want Baudrillard for a less-incomprehensible take.

(Oedipus is Freud and Electra is Jung, and they are both well-understood to mostly be full of nonsense.)

As someone with multiple degrees in philosophy... yes, there are obviously very eccentric views. Just steer clear of Continental Philosophy if it bothers you.

The idea that we aren't teaching children the works in the Modern and Analytic tradition is truly a shame, however, given the conflict with religiosity, it does not surprise me that public education programs avoid it for political reasons.

Have you read Discipline and Punish? Foucault be hard to read in parts but he did the research and it shows up on every page. I disagree vehemently with his thesis, but there's no denying it has impact for a reason.