/lit/ - Literature

I'm very unhappy but also very stupid. Are smart people really so stupid that they don't understand stupid people are capable of being unhappy?

>>14229340
I had a hard time understanding this, so I tried to create a literal example:
>If 'having four sides' determines that something is a square, then the sides ARE the square, and the definition is therefore not meaningful.
If I'm thinking about it properly, can't this piece of rhetoric be defeated by requiring definitions which entail multiple sub-definitions (i.e: a square must have four sides, AND the sides must be equal in length)? I suppose the same basic problem would apply to the body of definitions as a whole, but a body of definitions cannot be one-to-one referential to a single object the way a single definition can be. You create a system of inter-dependent definitions wherein no one is a "sign" for any one thing without the presence of the other ones.

Does this make any sense? Is Derrida just an asshole? Or is it me?