/lit/ - Literature

Elaborate.

music

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRGrNDV2mKc

>>14229302
>Anything which determines something else (its interpretant) to refer to an object to which itself refers (its object) in the same way, this interpretant becoming in turn a sign, and so on ad infinitum. . . . If the series of successive interpretants comes to an end, the sign is thereby rendered imperfect, at least.

>>14229340
fashionable nonsense. well, not fashionable anymore at least.

>>14229380
This thread is not for you as you lack basic reading comprehension. Maybe the Harry Potter threads will be more entertaining for you.

>>14229392
Derrida et al have literally admitted as much. There is no satisfactory answer to the question you are asking, because it is not coherent. It it what a smarter person than you would call aporetic or paradoxical.

And further I want you to explain in your own words the material consequences of a "sign being rendered imperfect." Literally one example that matters to a reasonable person in 2019.

>>14229427
Sad cope.

>>14229434
>one example
Everything in the world is an example of it.

>>14229472
>>14229481
Not an argument. Shit thread. Derrida has very poor champions for his nonsense.

>>14229598
>Not an argument
Wait, you calling the very argument incoherent was a sound argument? The state of your brain...

>>14229633
>you calling the very argument incoherent was a sound argument?
Yes. I didn't specify the fallacies but they are plain enough for any half-intelligent boob to see. Are you saying you don't even see them?

>>14229278
>Define define

>What do you mean by what you just said?

>Symbols are just symbols for other symbols!

Fuck this sophist

>/lit/ loves Wittgenstein but hates Derrida
lmao that's how you know this place is mostly pseuds

>>14229644
>plain enough
Why are low quality posts and posters like that allowed in this board. They have already conquered most of the board and now they just shamelessly shit up the few threads that are way beyond their knowledge. Maybe you should start self-reflecting to realize how vulgar you're. Good night from me.
>>14229657
Right, why care for clarity!

>>14229708
>>14229707
you're a fucking retard

>>14229708
>Why are low quality posts and posters like that allowed in this board. They have already conquered most of the board and now they just shamelessly shit up the few threads that are way beyond their knowledge. Maybe you should start self-reflecting to realize how vulgar you're. Good night from me.
Alright I guess you're a half-intelligent boob then and I have to spell it out.

>"the sign is thereby rendered imperfect"
Non sequitur. It does not follow.

>ad infinitum
Literally impossible to know.

>signs pointing to signs that point to each other
There is no meaning here. It's gibberish. And I dare you to explain how it's not. Until you do, I'll have to assume that in fact YOU are the moronic low-effort poster who's just posting a cool duck-lipping "philosopher" and using his pseudery as a pose for your own.

>>14229278
>>14229340
The spoken and written Word is a gift bestowed to us by higher powers which we did not always have. Seek virtuous community with engagement of the passions. Elephant Talk by King Crimson, actually all of King Crimson, should be listened to

>>14229735
based

my favorite is Islands, especially the last two tracks

>>14229725
good luck getting through to the retard

>>14229735
the evolution of language is unironically miraculously impossible

and some stupid cunt says it's all lies

jesus just read nietzsche if you want a better dialectic of truth and lies, not some braindead jew

>>14229737
We are indeed fortunate they put all their shizz on Spotify
I think Red’s my favorite

>>14229757
Consciousness evolved language. We have nukes. We can no longer be unconscious tribesmen

>>14229278
PicRel is the real answer

>>14229779
jesus christ another retard

>>14229793
Begone, foul fatalist

>>14229793
my guess is that he's another victim of too much (or not enough) anime

>>14229781
Have you read it?

I read Manhood of Humanity and it's peak low IQ. Imagine black science guy lecturing a bunch of humanists about topics he has no idea about, because muh science and progress. I haven't read Science and Sanity but if it's the same Korzybski then I don't have much hopes for it, this guy is a glorified Pinkerton

>>14229807
>>14229809
nice projection. let me guess, you were the same peterson fans 6 months ago?

>>14229793
You preach false light like that of the artifice of the Moon, yet she has impressed upon you her liminal deliverances and you can no longer turn back

>>14229809
misquoted you. whoops >>14229821

>>14229835
nice metaphor stupid retard. you wear a wizard hat too

:)

>>14229278
fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me

>>14229936
what did he mean by this

>>14229814
Haha ok kid

>>14229849
I am a man of science—did you know the shape of the benzene molecule was discovered after the German Kekule fell into a trance and had visions of ouroboros, and based his formulation upon this event?

>>14229951
Derrida himself criticizes the system, but it's up to you to un-fool yourself.

>>14229984
I actually want to know your thoughts on Science and Sanity. Do you have any?

>>14229278
The lie is real.

>>14229985
I've heard that story. Much inspiration has come from mystic sources such as dreams and omens

to inspire: to blow into (latin inspirare)

>>14229998
he makes no criticism that is valuable or more than trivial. more, better people have done this philosophy of language such as nietzsche, wittgenstein

>>14230003
It's brilliant stuff.
It talks about how language and conceptual metaphor are bullshit.
This is stuff Gurdjieff taught. Master Game by DeRopp is much more practical and accessible tho.

I think you just don't like the 1930s style of Korzybski

>>14230037
>are bullshit
But they're not.

>>14230037
Ok. I'll give Kski another try. But I already don't agree with language and metaphor are bullshit. All science rests on metaphor

>the attraction and repulsion of forces
>falling in love

I read Gurdjieff and got a false prophet vibe off him

>>14230064
more "scientific" "metaphors":

>genetic blueprints

>ecological footprints

>invasive species

>agents of disease

>food chains and food webs

All language is metaphor, as per Nietzsche and Wittgenstein. On the other end, it does not mean that truth is impossible, as the Derrida fan seems to say

>>14230053
>>14230064
Honestly, Attention Schema Theory makes the idea much more lucid and articulate.
No, Language and Metaphor are indeed real things, but they are extremely limited and are actually lies in that they are caricatures of reality.
Graziano in Consciousness And The Social Brain (AST book) has a great example-- white light. For practical biological purposes we perceive white light as "low color, high brightness" when we know that it's really the muddiest color, being a mixture of all colors.

It will be appreciated if I condense so essential and so new an insight into four theses. In that way I facilitate comprehension; in that way I provoke contradiction.

First proposition. The reasons for which “this” world has been characterized as “apparent” are the very reasons which indicate its reality; any other kind of reality is absolutely indemonstrable.

Second proposition. The criteria which have been bestowed on the “true being” of things are the criteria of not-being, of naught, the “true world” has been constructed out of contradiction to the actual world: indeed an apparent world, insofar as it is merely a moral-optical illusion.

Third proposition. To invent fables about a world “other” than this one has no meaning at all, unless an instinct of slander, detraction, and suspicion against life has gained the upper hand in us: in that case, we avenge ourselves against life with a phantasmagoria of “another,” a “better” life.

Fourth proposition. Any distinction between a “true” and an “apparent” world — whether in the Christian manner or in the manner of Kant (in the end, an underhanded Christian) — is only a suggestion of decadence, a symptom of the decline of life. That the artist esteems appearance higher than reality is no objection to this proposition. For “appearance” in this case means reality once more, only by way of selection, reinforcement, and correction. The tragic artist is no pessimist: he is precisely the one who says Yes to everything questionable, even to the terrible — he is Dionysian.

[...]

The true world — we have abolished. What world has remained? The apparent one perhaps? But no! With the true world we have also abolished the apparent one.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/friedrich-nietzsche-twilight-of-the-idols.pdf

>>14230087
>a great example
>it's an analogy
You're trapped in this language boy and you ain't never gettin' out.

>>14230102
Yeah, and so?

>>14230087
Ok, thank you

I understand the idea that language does not / cannot capture reality, and is a model or map or caricature at best (this may be my western idea of buddhism)

>>14230100
~t. Has Never Seen An Optical Illusion

Your senses lie to you all the time.

>>14230102
Shut up derrida

A great example is an example
a great analogy is an analogy

It's trivial and a first-grader can do it, which is why real philosophers don't attach on this problem

>>14230108
Analogies are what the half-retarded Greeks used. They are by nature an imperfect reproduction of a necessarily different set of circumstances and relations.

21st century philosophy needs a formal critique of language, something more rigorous than an analogy.

>>14230110
That's what Science And Sanity is about. But as a buddhist-curious guy, you really will like Master Game by DeRopp. Teaches you to think without language

>>14230117
I don't think that was the point. So you're a skeptic of empiricism? Or maybe this is babby's first philosophy class?

Jesus read a book before you enter an objection that has been gone over one hundred million times

>>14230121
Or maybe they (and you) should learn and use Ithkuil instead, if you're limited by your language, construct a better one

>>14230126
>master game
that was the one that seemed interesting to me

>>14230121
not retarded, just innocent. and a lot of innocent things are not necessarily inferior

>21st century philosophy needs a formal critique of language, something more rigorous than an analogy.
>foundational
Oh boy, sounds Germanic

>>14230128
Read Rogozinski, fag

>tfw i'm an anglophonefag and permanently doomed to discussing philosophy in an inadequate language
maybe next lifetime

>>14230153
the Polish explorer of Africa? or the Mexican economist?

>read this book instead bro because I can't write a single braindead comment

If language was perfected would we be omniscient deduction makers?

>>14230173
>if this statue was completed it would be beautiful

No, if anything there would be more wars than ever

>>14230191
>>14230173
Let me elaborate. Can you imagine if the arguments for genocide were found to be correct? Can you imagine if the arguments for preventing genocide were completely correct as well?

It wouldn't help one bit. There is an extent to which sometimes it is better not to know.

>>14230191
wars are the result of inequality and injustice. i think a perfect language would lead to perfect understanding, wouldn't it?

>>14230220
If they were correct then it should be so. Perfection is perfection and implies incorrigibility, so if genocide was correct objectively, then genocide should happen

>>14230255
You didn't read it right. What if both sides are correct?

>>14230223
wars are the result of close contact. a perfect language would lead to more arguments, and understanding too closely your neighbor. do you really want to fully understand everything about everyone at all times? in my opinion it would be a perfect tribal village, everyone up in everyone else's business

>>14230255
>inb4 NOOOOO only one side can be correct
that kind of implies you already have a bias and are looking for proof for your opinions instead of looking for conclusions from the evidence

>>14230170
Jacob Rogozinski, French philosopher

>>14230311
so no comment then. thank you

>>14230282
>both correct yet contradicting
That’s not how deduction happens. If you want to add “yes in a respect” or “yes in a sense” instead of just “yes,” then you’re gonna have to work harder to find the uniformity. The dialogue Parmenides bastardized his original message on this matter, and while I admit that the uniformity of nature is an assumption taken for granted, the ideals of coherence, uncovering, and foundation seem pretty solid throughout nature as actual values, so I would imagine they have something to do with omniscience, or maybe at least “intersubjectience”

>>14230326
I'm not here to amuse you

>>14230347
Go read a book on logic you stupid fucking retard

>>14230347
is this woman dancing left or right? if you say left you're right. if you say right you're also right.

>>14230351
this board is for literature, not amusement.>>>> r/reddit is that way

>>14230355
Stupid AND retarded

Sure showed him

>>14230282
>a perfect language would lead to more arguments
but arguments are founded in either misunderstandings or actual cause; i.e. a real inequality.

>>14230355
I’ve taken three classes so far. Elaborate

>>14230372
You’re missing the point, my perspective is not what I’m talking about, I’m talking about a perfect language, in which case your nitpicking would be self referentially incoherent

>>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?

>>14230380
is this the morning star or the evening star? it's the planet venus. contradiction doesn't exclude truth. it simply means to speak against.

>>14230372
*spinning not dancing for you autists out there

>>14230389
it's wittgenstein's most famous example the duck-rabbit (it's actually a graphic from an austrian newspaper). he gave other examples, such as this cube from the tractatus

>>14230425
>speak against
Like out loud? In person?

>>14230385
you're forgetting that for the majority of humans, arguments are just verbalized aggression not an ideal communication as imagined by philososphers like Habermas

>>14230405
we're talking about truth buddy

the original example was about genocide

you claimed that there could only be one (geocide justified, or genocide not justified)

not a situation in which both are found to be completely justified

>>14230434
contra = against
dicto = to speak

contradiction means two statements that are against each other. they don't mean two statements where one is false and not the other.

>>14230423
Derrida is just an asshole. it's not you

>>14230452
fair point and one that hadn't been brought up yet. but at the higher levels, at levels of government, surely reason would hold the reins.

i guess maybe even a perfect language wouldn't make us immune from politics and backroom deals.

>>14230405
>I’m talking about a perfect language, in which case your nitpicking would be self referentially incoherent
fortunately for humanity, a perfect language is not your own personal opinions

feel free to make half an educated or even lucid point. I know I called you a retard but I've made a lot of points that are very easy to understand

>>14230493
I'm not so optimistic. We've heard a rehash of this argument many times before

>With just a little more technology, a little more education, a little more wealth we would be better!
>Surely THIS will be the war to end all wars! Come on, it's the 20th century
etc.

>>14230463
>>14230454
I don’t mean to imply that this hypothetical or hypotheticodeductive language would use contradiction or modus tollens but it may need to overcome the problem of synthetic statements. The conditions would be fine for immediately seizing on what is truly needed and truly acting upon them and corresponding them to others. I don’t imagine people would come to a point of rest at all though, I see more cyclical processes of engagement and efficient ways of learning and repeating. Why would there be wars if we were in tune with our inner intuitions and mind world affinities? Everyone could know and pursue what they want instead of what they “see fit” to do. Is self knowledge not a benefactor of a perfected language?

Induction is impossible to justify period. I’m reading churchland about that right now. Deduction has it’s own problems with engaging the phenomenal so a better version of it would need to learn how to expand on that.

>>14230523
I am sure you are a wonderful individual to speak to in better circumstances

>>14230476
>>14230423
The reason why Derrida is an asshole, and thank him for picking a math example, is that math works. I know that a circle is the set of equidistant points from a center. Various other people know this or will know, in various other languages, in various times in history from Euclid to the future. His infantile "define define" method is literally not much more high IQ than a kindergartener or a 4chan troll, just with more words and more convolution, which is why he is a sophist

>>14230117
Go back. You're out of your depth.

>>14230529
As I've said here >>14230523, this utopian "if we had more of _ we would be better" format had been rehashed many times before in history.

So you think that a perfect language would be the end to injustice and war? Ok, great but I wouldn't put so much hope in language. Not even Wittgenstein would think so.

>>14229434
Derrida's claim is that the 'sign being imperfect' is the basis of Western philosophy in general, which organises and regulates itself based on the idea that the sign belongs to a fallen exterior world, rather than the ideal interior 'being' which is, in philosophy, conflated (unjustifiably) with presence. Most if not all legislation, argumentation, justification, philosophy, etc. is in some way based on this metaphysics that privileges presence over absence, e.g. what is signified over the signifier (the sign).

>>14229427
It is coherent but Derrida admits at least there is no moving 'beyond' this metaphysics as this is an idea (moving 'beyond') that is contingent on the metaphysics it seeks to escape. He talks about the metaphysics of the 'sign' being the cause of Western metaphysics and its own deconstruction.

>>14229657
Language is only language by its ability to clarify itself through it's own polysemia. Translation would be impossible if the semiological network was made meaningless by its endless deferral. You've made the metaphysical presupposition that without a centred structure the whole thing collapses into nonsense which is what Derrida was actually arguing against. Read White Mythology and Positions.

ITT: PicRel

>>14230569
It wouldn't cause it, it would be associated with it in the way that beauty is commonly associated with ideas of final science theories

>>14229725
Signs point to other signs because there is no thought outside of language from which we can draw meaning. The Western tendency to claim that there is a transcendental signified, some perfect being from which all things issue forth, is the unfalsifiable nonsense you should be questioning, not Derrida who points out this illusion for what it is.

>>14230025
Maybe you should stop reading Wikipedia summaries of philosophers and claim to understand them.

>>14230638
>there is no thought outside of language from which we can draw meaning

That is the most brainlet thing I've ever read. Language is for communication of thought, not composition of thought.

>implying the "lie" is not a matter of strength
If you are weak, you suffer life and seek alternatives, creating schisms such as truth vs. lie; if you are strong, you feel synonymous with life itself, and the issue becomes a non-issue altogether.

>>14230625
no, that picture is not FUCKING related to any aspect of this thread, and it's a shame that you're incapable of understanding even that much because it also means you're incapable of grasping what a waste of the finite matter of the universe you have precipitated just by willing your blind deaf dumb body to post just that single image: the electricity generated and then discharged whose atoms may never again be part of an electrical field were all for waste; the atoms which compose the genetic material which composes your pitiful mind and body has been wasted giving instructions to broken machine, a life undeserving of life; and the atoms of metal, the countless atoms of metal and plastic and silicon which have been expunged from the places in the earth where they rested for so many millions of years just so that you would have the right and the unbreakable to urge to post some shitty pseud fucking reddit meme in a mediocre derrida thread on a degraded literature board on an anime website which only exists so that people like you and me have nothing left to do but continue to waste electron after electron as the singular spark of consciousness that man was endowed with hurtles fruitlessly into the endless black of nothing

>>14230537
You know how I can tell you haven't read Derrida's introduction to Husserl's Origin of Geometry?

>>14230569
>this utopian "if we had more of _ we would be better" format had been rehashed many times before in history.

>>14230589
>>14230598
I would argue that good Western philosophy, legislation, argumentation is actually a fight against this prioritization of the "sign", you could pose Diogenes, Boethius or Kierkegaard against an autistic Sophist or Analytic or Businessman for example, and Western law uniquely protects the "spirit of the law" or the intention of the law, no matter how shark lawyers and loophole finders try to profit off the lay of the text

It's hard for most people to intuitively agree with the presumption that there is nothing outside the text, as they know by instinct that there IS something. One doesn't need to be a romantic to know just by having lived experience as a human being that meaning, intention are separate things from the spoken word. Have you heard a dying grandmother, who has started to lose her powers of speech, tell you "I love you" with her final murmurs? Have you understood communication from someone, using only body or other means of language, maybe you are trying to be discreet or speak in a way that others wouldn't understand? Communication, meaning, intention are obviously separate from the form of language used; I've communicated successfully without having said anything at all, I've understood hints just by "reading" the reactions or reading a room; and so on.

I would claim that every human being knows that Derrida is a liar.

>>14230623
>>14230638
>>14230644
These are (un)fashionable word puzzles that benefit only a puzzle seller.

>>14230676
That's a long way to go for a "no-huh"

>>14230668
>Language is for communication of thought, not composition of thought.
THANK YOU

Proposition:
every honest human being knows that Derrida is a liar

>>14230687
*spoken or written

>>14230638
>don't believe in God, believe in Le Tigre
yeah nah and

>"there is no thought outside of language from which we can draw meaning"
This is false. Meaning exists before we capture it in words. Thought any good thoughts or seen any good paintings lately.

>>14230589
>>14230598
How is this not just warmed over Kant.

>>14230679
shut the fuck up

>>14230679
>buy this next edition of puzzlebook so you can solve the last puzzlebook

Why should anyone read Derrida at all? Derrida's not cannon because Derrida says he's cannon.

>>14230669
based /fitlit/

>>14230668
Can you prove that? You've "communicated" the values of language, communication, composition, thought, etc. without any recollection of its very real written history in Western philosophy. Your thoughts aren't as pure as you intend them to be, unfortunately.

Give Speech and Phenomena a read.

>>14230638
>The Western tendency to claim that there is a transcendental signified, some perfect being from which all things issue forth, is the unfalsifiable nonsense you should be questioning not Derrida

Nah Derrida and his shills should be the ones we in this thread and everyone else in the world should be questioning

>>14230728
>Pls proof it

Prove that rape is wrong

>>14230687
You're the liar who is not actually attacking any Derridean argument. "Nothing outside the text" is a single line from one of his books, not a quote that accurately stands in (i.e. functions as a sign) for Derridean argument in general. Ironically you're falling into the trap of metaphysics here.

>a fight against this prioritization of the "sign"

You can't read. The prioritization is not of the sign but what is signified, and in this case you agree with Derrida.

>>14230706
'Good thoughts' isn't meaning and the meaning of painting is codified by its own history. Its meaning comes from meaning assigned to it, produced, created.

>How is this not just warmed over Kant.

Not a bad thing.

>>14230738
Gonna have to be craftier than that if you want to escape the argument.

>>14230718
Because it may save people embarrassing themselves if they go on tirades of their own personal philosophy while attacking strawmen of what Derrida is supposed to be (to them).

>>14230750
You're a liar because you just said
>The Western tendency to claim that there is a transcendental signified, some perfect being from which all things issue forth,

and actually stand for it yet claim that
>there is nothing outside the text
is a misreading of Derrida

>The prioritization is not of the sign but what is signified, and in this case you agree with Derrida.
No, too many of us (sophists, analytics, shark lawyers) prioritize too much the written/spoken text. Like Derrida.

You're a disingenuous hack who argues for both sides and argues in circles, you're the one who can't (or don't want to) read

Intention >>> text is a good thing almost universally, in law, in literature, in life, in philosophy

Intention is only inferior compared to acts, which is where Kunt is wrong >>14230764

Fuck lying Derrida and virgin Kant

>>14230780
>their own personal philosophy
All philosophy is personal, and Derrida's (and yours) are among the most embarrassing.

>>14230775
I escape the argument by ending all interaction with you.

I wash myself of your sophist filth. Good bye, human scum.

>>14230764
You're one of the people that has to point at the text and mouth the words in order to read, aren't you?

The rest of us are capable of actual thought

>>14230805
I bet he rereads the text 5 or 6 times to make sure he got the right words when reading

>>14230782
>prioritize too much the written/spoken text.

There's a difference between written and spoken which is the lynchpin of Derrida's deconstructive project. This is how I know you have not read him.

The West prioritises the 'spoken' over the 'written', i.e. the signified (immediate, aural expression of interior, living consciousness) over the sign (mediated, contingent substitution of something that is otherwise absent, open to corruption, etc.). This prevalence of the spoken (that is, shorthand for presence as being) corresponds to the idea of the transcendental signified, which is a thought outside and before language, an ideal. Again, that is the Western claim. Derrida can only encounter this idea of what is written about it, i.e. with signs, which is from a borrowed language that the writer must draw from in order to communicate meaningfully with others. This is what he means when he says there is 'nothing outside the text', by placing the notion of 'writing' as something not before or after the development of language. It is a 'spacing' in general of which the written sign is only a part.

>>14230805
Your 'actual thought' is an illusion of how alphabetic language functions, unfortunately.

>>14230853
not him but I was referring to inspiration. not reading letters/words.

>>14230782
>Fuck lying Derrida and virgin Kant
this tbrqphwydesu

>>14230764
>Its meaning comes from meaning assigned to it, produced, created.
No. When you look at a natural scene or the night sky... no one made that. Its meaning is not man-made. It is interpreted by man and meaning comes after. The same is true even of paintings, which is the example I provided earlier. You may know what art is, and you may know what a painting is, but viewing a painting for the first time can still surprise you. You don't take the whole meaning of the artist necessarily. Some of it is your own, made spontaneously, and it exists before you can phrase it into words.

>>14230933
you'd have more luck educating a retard than hammering some sense into this guy

>>14230933
>It is interpreted by man and meaning comes after.

Haha ok

>>14230948
I don't think you actually got anything out of the nonsense post you're replying to.

>When you look at a natural scene or the night sky... no one made that. Its meaning is not man-made.

*hits blunt*

>>14230853
Nope. No it's not. You think thought is talking to yourself inside your head. But not only can you think in any sense simulation you want, including full sensory.
You can also think totally without any kind of imagery or symbol.
It works when you do math problems in your head, as an easy example. I don't imagine numerals or a chalkboard, I just let it come out.

That's how actually intelligent people do math, or anything. An idea just comes, and you can just work out a problem.

Dogs and babies do it too. Weird huh?

>>14230951
>Haha ok
I'm serious. The act of you picking out words for how to phrase a thought is the act of interpreting meaning. It exists in your mind already, you just haven't found a way to express it yet. It's automatic in most people but if you slow down and actually notice what's going on you'll see what I describe is accurate.

>>14230987
infants, the insane, the drugged, an enlightened monk, an avant-garde artist

it's obvious and trivial to escape the 'codified' meanings.

also don't reply anymore to that guy. the only way to break a sophist is to ignore him

>>14231003
>Don't reply anymore

Agreed

>>14230987
>You think thought is talking to yourself inside your head.

Nope.

'Actually intelligent' people can recognise your brainlet phenomenology for what it is.

>>14230992
>The act of you picking out words for how to phrase a thought is the act of interpreting meaning. It exists in your mind already

So meaning doesn't come after?

>>14230837
Can't help but notice this post is untouched while the other autists hyper-focus on what thinking means to them like it has any relevance in a philosophical discussion LOL

>I think things then the words pop out!

>>14231067
sure it comes after. it is the product. you interpret meaning from your senses. meaning is a reaction to the senses, via the conscious and unconscious mind.

>>14231003
'Codified meanings' was in specific reference to paintings, not thought in general you illiterate simp

The thing I enjoy about this thread is that it appears to be an attempt to get people into Derrida, and yet has successfully alienated anyone who might have been intrigued in any way.

Flies with honey, they say

>>14231109
No, you said it exists in the mind already.

>>14230837
Not the anon your replying to but

>idea of the transcendental signified, which is a thought outside and before language, an ideal. Again, that is the Western claim.
Sounds like a Derridan strawman to me.

>Derrida can only encounter this idea of what is written about it, i.e. with signs
Fair enough. But this discussion is about more than just speech or written word. It's about that sense reaction that is the seed of meaning, which occurs in brain chemistry that is only moments later interpreted and phrased in one medium or another. It's the source of surprises and punchlines and insights and all commentary. I think Derrida is a brainlet for associating this mechanism with some "Western claim" about a transcendent being. He's no theologian. Quite the opposite.

>>14231123
see >>14231142

>>14231142
Don't conflate 'transcendental signified' with 'transcendental being'. That is not Derrida's claim. In the West often they are conflated, i.e. that the perfect, present 'Being' is God, but 'Being' is not 'being', or vice versa. They are two different words referring to two different things.

>But this discussion is about more than just speech or written word.

Yes as is Derrida's project, so it is clear when people think they have outsmarted Derrida by calling out 'there is nothing outside the text'. Speech/writing is only a specific angle from which to approach deconstruction.

>It's about that sense reaction that is the seed of meaning

What does that have to do with Derrida? Or are we just supposed to sit in here masturbating to the idea that we're smarter than a man we have yet to properly engage?

>>14231178
>we're smarter than a man we have yet to properly engage?
Nah he's a sophist that has been pretty well btfo by now. Plus he's an egomaniacal pedo with pathetic dreams of being cool.

And I was not the one to conflate them, you were. You called it an ideal. We were in agreement on a definition until you slipped that in.

>>14231253
First you might want to respond to the whole post. Dropping bits and pieces of argumentation just makes it look like you are losing. I'm guessing that this is why you are saying things like 'Nah he's a sophist that has been pretty well btfo by now.' instead of actually engaging with the argument. There are too many of those claims in this thread but not a lot of anything to back it up.

>You called it an ideal.

What the fuck are you reading, retard? I said the transcendental signified was an ideal, yes. I didn't say it was God.

We're not going to be in agreement on anything if you don't learn how to read within the next five minutes.

>>14231335
>We're not going to be in agreement

But you're not even attempting to be agreeable in the first place

>>14231335
>I said the transcendental signified was an ideal, yes. I didn't say it was God.
LOL

aight i'm out. you don't see it. maybe learn something besides sophistry from a gaulic pedophile and we can talk again.

>>14231365
You think that because you're an idiot who can't read, demonstrated consistently throughout this thread

>>14231118
serves OP right for posting on a Neoplatonic board

>>14231369
You're right I don't see your dumb irrelevant consideration of God that you are unable to communicate because you are either an English language learner or incredibly stupid.

>>14231423
>bullying and ad hominem
lol if you had asked i might have explained it but since you're a cunt you can stay in your pomo ignorance. i'll explain it to everyone else though. suffice to say i was laughing at you describing God then saying it wasn't God.

>transcendent
>signified
>ideal
If that isn't a form of the good I don't know what fucking is you stupid bozo.

>>14231491
Yes we've already discussed that the West tends to conflate them and you are indeed demonstrating those Western tendencies I was describing earlier. If you were smart you'd see I have been ready to move on from that for a while now, and you are stuck being pedantic about something I've already covered. This is what happens when you don't read.

Welcome back to the thread by the way.

>>14231516
>choose your words more carefully
>NO YOU CHOOSE MY WORDS MORE CAREFULLY
okay retard

>>14231525
Are you having a stroke?

>>14231530
>more ad hominem
if you're not going to say what you mean then you're the one who has killed this dialogue, not me.

>>14231545
I said what I meant nearly 2 hours ago and you're still struggling to understand what I'm talking about. The worst part is it's a fraction of what I've been saying since I first started posting in the thread. If you go back through the thread you can see the decline in quality of discussion is no fault of mine.

Which of these are you btw?
>>14230668
>>14230687
>>14230711
>>14230718
>>14230729
>>14230782
>>14230794
>>14230805
>>14230827
>>14230948
>>14230987
>>14231003
>>14231024

Outstanding.

>>14231575
you really are mentally deficient.

anyway, i'm done. i've got to be up early tomorrow and don't have time to waste with some pretentious french lapdog. later dweeb.

>>14231590
Haha too busy avoiding the (You)s to actually understand the point that I am not at fault for the decline. Again, no reading comprehension. It was bad from the outset and my only problem was I stepped foot into brainlet central having actually read Derrida which made people hostile. See you in the next Derrida thread where you can get BTFO again and not change a damn thing.

>>14231601
>I btfo out of everyone!
>they couldn't understand me because I refused to make myself clear!
literally the definition of a sophist, get the fuck out loser

>>14231615
I can tell you realised the mistake you made earlier so don't bother.

>>14231631
nice job defending derrida. i don't see why everyone was so hostile, you were making perfectly clear and understandable points. everyone else here is a brainlet. clearly derrida makes total sense, they just don't get it. lets go smoke cigarettes and get inside each others asshole man.

>>14231637
Are you done or do you want to actually engage with the points I made about Derrida? We've already covered that point about the transcendental. We can continue from there.

>>14231658
nah you fucked up when you started tossing out ad hominem and acting like a soft cunt

I'll play along just to show you how magnanimous I am.

>Derrida can only encounter this idea of what is written about it, i.e. with signs, which is from a borrowed language that the writer must draw from in order to communicate meaningfully with others. This is what he means when he says there is 'nothing outside the text', by placing the notion of 'writing' as something not before or after the development of language. It is a 'spacing' in general of which the written sign is only a part.
Yeah, that's what we've been talking about since then. Meaning is a result of interpretation. It's fucking obvious when you write it out like that. And therefore meaning (in the mind) is not a thing that comes out fully formed, rather it is an ineffable presence that is sensed, processed, and codified by the mind into words (or whatever)

And that's the last thing of substance you posted.

>>14231673
Yes and in the West there is a privileging of the interior 'presence' over the exterior codification (words). Now we can go back to my very first post in the thread:

>>14230589

>>14229278
Give me the rundown of this man. I've heard professors announce him as a genius or declare him as the worst thing to ever occur in philosophy. I know literally nothing about him because none of them every dissected what he said nor what he said.

>>14231860
Hes a genius, go read him

>>14229340
If a priori knowledge is what seek then the divine science is for you

>>14232353
Its for anyone

So, what are we supposed to do then? How do we even begin to make an objective framework.

Haha! He is upside down!
The Frenchman is upside down!
How many electrons inconvenienced?

>>14229340
This is blatant plagiarism of Charles Sanders Peirce. See section 9 of this in particular:
http://www.peirce.org/writings/p32.html

This thread is hilarious

>>14230308
>Schrodingers cat is Aidleavie

I saw Jacques Derrida at a grocery store in Paris yesterday. I told him how cool it was to meet him in person, but I didn’t want to be a douche and bother him and ask him for photos or anything.
He said, “Will you sign this age of consent reduction petition?”
I was taken aback, and all I could say was “Huh?” but he kept cutting me off and going “voila? voila? voila?” and closing his hand shut in front of my face. I walked away and continued with my shopping, and I heard him chuckle as I walked off. When I came to pay for my stuff up front I saw him trying to walk out the doors with like fifteen Milky Ways in his hands without paying.
The girl at the counter was very nice about it and professional, and was like “Sir, you need to pay for those first.” At first he kept pretending to be tired and not hear her, but eventually turned back around and brought them to the counter.
When she took one of the bars and started scanning it multiple times, he stopped her and told her to scan them each individually “because each barcode only refers to another,” and then turned around and winked at me. I don’t even think that’s true. After she scanned each bar and put them in a bag and started to say the price, he kept interrupting her by yawning really loudly.

>>14235979
kekd and saved

>>14231740
>he assigns the failure to "a fallen exterior world"
>not to man's imperfect understanding
wew

>>14236170
...What?