/lit/ - Literature

>tfw no presence

>You will never be a pseudo French philosopher who throws out complex non sensical jargons to pretend to analyze society and attracts a huge harem of cute college girls and twinks who worship you and relentlessly fuck them.

I’m cursed.

>>13185810
>git gud
You can't git gud at such thing, not yet.

I'm reading Derrida and it's not going well. I'm reading writing and difference. what the fuck force is he talking about in chapter 1 force and signification? Also general Derrida thread. I'm not really interested in hearing from people who have not read him. I have my biases to but I'm trying to learn something.

So did Derrida pretty much prove that it's impossible to know the meaning of words or what. Did anybody disprove him compellingly?

If he's right then what's the basis of our literature and our codified laws?

>>10512410
It’s in the différance

>dude stop thinking writing is inferior to speech lmao
What did Derrida mean by this? Is it refutable?

What kind of anime would Jacques Derrida like?

Did Derrida basically find the right answer to meaning's relationship with text, that it can't be ascertained? I haven't found any decent criticisms other than calling Deconstruction nihilistic.

If it's true meaning can't be ascertained and we're all looking at our own preconceptions then exactly on what basis are we continueing to judge literature?


And why exactly is lit theory research in the grave compared to the 20th century if we haven't found an answer to the nature of literature (theory's whole purpose)?

I'm honestly scared to read modern philosophy, especially continental, because of what it might do to me. I don't want to be lost in an eternal existential crises for the rest of my life. Philosophy has only made my life much more difficult, yet I feel that I need to keep reading. Is it worth it to read the French, the postmodernists, or are they just drivel, or will they fuck me up eternally?

What was his endgame?

>theorists spend the 20th century studying liteary theory to uncover the nature of literature
>theory is barely going on these days

So... did we find the nature of literature? What's the answer...?

If we didn't, why does nobody give a shit anymore and theory is going nowhere compared to its 20th century activity when there's still a quest to be had?

Can someone please 'deconstruct' Derrida's use of the word "violence" with regard to what is done to an object when it is "signified" by a "sign"?

Is the "violence" the result of a signifier signifying something (thereby loading it with implications of the sign? is this "violent" because it effectively alters the reputation of the signified compared to the actual attributes or function of the signified?

I just don't understand what is concept is being signified by the word violence (...this loss through communication also seems to be the point).

>>6097059

>>6060980
>making utilitarian value judgements of ontological methods
Ontology is a vicious circle, man, and it does not make you smarter, but actually more stupid (Just like at Heidegger or any other ontologist, who are just people that see the world with a dumbfounded and stupid sight and think they're better in all possible ways because they've realized that the world "is").

And yes, even if science is not the Truth, with a capital T, it's the most useful tool society has now. Wanting to find the essence of the world and believing that without all the rest of the knowledge is supposed and niggling is a derridean stupid thing to do.