/lit/ - Literature

I'm reading Heidegger, and his writing is dense to the point of illegibility to me.

How do I stop from being filtered by Heidegger, /lit/?

Toxic/Chad Derrida

I'm taking an interest in philosophy as a casual hobby to read in my spare time but I realized that the best works out there constantly references other philosophers or is rather difficult to understand.

So I'm not sure if I should just pick up a book and start wherever I want.

Where should I start, /lit/?

What would Derrida say about this if he were present at this moment in time?

What should I read by Derrida?

When will be a /lit/ tinychat revival? I'm sick of discord degeneracy

Finishing my read of Revolt, and as an avid Hegellian, could it be possible to reconcile traditionalism with Hegellianism? Or is it impossible to relate the ages of man and the Hegellian dialectic? Because

I'm determined to tackle, or at least try to tackle post modernism. I'd like advice as to the best place to begin with postmodernism, whether I should follow a chart or whatever.

Just any advice really and general discussion as to how to approach this branch, especially ideas on how to avoid or think about all the negative characterizations of the philosophy.

>>10275263
Imagine someone saying something similar about history or literature anon, that's how you sound. To me atleast this stuff is like art or religion. An important aspect of history because of how it evolves and interacts. Comparing it to physics is the complete wrong approach

>tfw to intelligent for monolingual ameridumbs

What did he mean by this

>>9652272
Shut up brainlet

>mfw when there's still people who haven't denounced the metaphysics of presence

>>8169646

>not any of those three
Manit took me one whole year to fully understand the thought processes of Hegel, Heidegger and Derrida.
Actually Baudrillard is not that hard (but then I might be biaised because I'm reading it in my native language)

>>7761128

>>7253350

jej

admit defeat

I've had this same thought

>structuralism
>post-structuralism

What's the deal with people's sudden obsession with this? In the last two years I keep seeing it all the time on 4chan. And I heard it in real life a few times too, used by "hipsters" (it's a meaningless buzzword, but I don't know what to call them) and nerdy suburban white teenagers. Seems like ever since this Derrida guy got more popular and acknowledged, all the kids have been talking about this and name-dropping this "le epic structuralism" and "post-structuralism". Is (post-)structuralism an epic new meme?

Why do people keep using this so much? Is it to show that they know a new word or something? To seem cultured? Can someone explain this to me? And what exactly are these terms? Why are they being mentioned so often? And is it somehow related to "deconstruction" (and what is that?, I read that no one knows, not even the guy who coined the term)? And what do people usually refer to when they mention structuralism or post-structuralism? What areas/activities or studies? Is it related to philosophy? Is it a movement in philosophy? Is it related to arts? Literature? Sociology? Psychology? What is it? Is it somehow related to modernism and metamodernism?

What books should I read to learn more about it?

Am I first supposed to start with the Greeks, all le ancient philosophers, then all the relevant philosophers in the last 1000 years, you know, Kant, Heidegger Foucault, Saussure, Descartes, Locke, Marx, Hegel, Sartre and everyone else? If that's the case then forget about it. But I doubt any of you actually read works from all of them and are still capable of understanding (post-)structuralism.

Daily reminder this evil old elf man doesn't believe there's any differance between good and evil, right and wrong, truth and lie.

>>6306642