/lit/ - Literature

>*solves philosophy*

Absolutely embarrassing that it took so long for "philosophers" to understand they were "philosophizing" in a language

>>17333061
You'd notice it all forms an impossible metaphysics of presence

>How to interepret -- but here interpretation can no longer be a theory or discursive practice of philosophy -- the strange and unique property of a discourse that organizes the economy of its representation, the law of its proper weave, such that its outside is never its outside, never surprises it, such that the logic of its heteronomy still reasons from within the vault of its autism?

Is he right? Is philosophy autistic?

How is it possible that the most based philosopher African?

Did you get filtered by him?

Reading Derrida, I've found him to be easily understandable. Is there something wrong with me? Am I just doing it wrong?

*sublates Hegel*

>How to interepret -- but here interpretation can no longer be a theory or discursive practice of philosophy -- the strange and unique property of a discourse that organizes the economy of its representation, the law of its proper weave, such that its outside is never its outside, never surprises it, such that the logic of its heteronomy still reasons from within the vault of its autism?

What did he mean by this?

Who was the smartest French philosopher? And the dumbest?

Pic related smartest, Barthes dumbest.

Can Aufhebung be translated as relever?

>Oh he's so hard to understand! It's all nonsense!
No. Either you have never read him or you are a fucking moron. There is no other option. Either way you must leave /lit/ forever.

>he wrote nothing original
>what he wrote was meaningless

You can only pick one. Or whoever heard of meaninglessness that is not original?

This guy is easy as fuck to read. The only real problem I have is with the concepts used by the philosophers he is discussing. Where did the obscurantist meme come from? Are people just dumb?

*solves retroactivity*