/lit/ - Literature

Being and Time and Repetition and Difference

>Being and Time
Da
>Repetition and Difference
Nein

>>16092391
>Are there any texts that lay out the fundamental theoretical developments of post-structuralism and their ontological implications clearly and concisely?
you have no idea how hilarious this question is anon

>>16092435
not really. unless you believe post-structuralism cannot be explained technically and with philosophical terms in a few paragraphs, like every other philosophical position concerning foundational matters

>>16092435
Right? OP sounds like he should read anything but post structuralism.

Not that I know of. It helps if you just see the whole French scene as parasitic on the Germans. Deleuze and Guattari are just doing ordinary hermeneutics, phenomenology, and Marxist/post-Marxist critique of "ideology." The fact that so many retards mistake this for novel philosophy, let alone for metaphysics rather than just yet more phenomenology, is a testament to how stupid it is to write in a deliberately obscurantist way. Derrida sucks shit but at least he acknowledges he is basically a Heideggerian hermeneutic phenomenologist. Ricoeur too, except Ricoeur is not a faggot.

>>16092460
>unless you believe post-structuralism cannot be explained technically and with philosophical terms in a few paragraphs, like every other philosophical position concerning foundational matters

>>16092464
Wow how do I become as smart as you

>>16092460
>yeah dude, i've read that Fichte, Schelling and Hegel were idealists bro so their ontologies must be the same idk don't ask me you tell me i just read it somewhere you tell me

>>16092479
Get held under water as an infant

>>16092482
the structure of their philosophy is fundamentally the same, they just differ in the importance attributed to certain categories, the character of the dialectic, etc. The variations can be laid out quite neatly

>>16092464
which is wrong because the french scene with the exception of Sartre and Merleau Pnty it's more like a coming back to rationalist roots against german philosophy, therefore the resurgence of Spinozism

>>16092464
>metaphysics rather than just yet more phenomenology
as far as i know phenomenology is just a method. If you claim there can be no knowledge through transcendentalism then that is a metaphysical claim

>>16092391
The Theory Toolbox lays it out in a straightforward, accessible way.

>>16092495
and this is why Socrates said that people confuse beliefs about things with knowledge those things

>>16092483
BRAPTISM

>>16092518
fuck socrates, i dont care

The long and short of it is: get over structure

>>16092517
ty

>>16092536
that was pretty obvious already

>>16092537
how is this possible? structure is basically the conceptual form of things right? what philosophical development convinced these philosophers that this kind of knowledge is untenable

>>16092391
One of the whole points of post structuralism is that you have to figure it out by engaging directly with primary sources
>inb4 some under grad posts capitalism and schizophrenia: a users manual

>>16092482
Not that poster but the example you cite proves his point more than yours. Yes there are huge differences between Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel, and it's simplistic to say that they are all simple modifications on a single theme, but they do have a relatively small set of core concepts that they all refer to and work with in similar ways. Why do you think most books explaining Hegel explain him in terms of Fichte and Schelling?

Deleuze himself in What is Philosophy? says that most philosophers can be boiled down to a handful of truly innovative and signature conceptual movements, the rest being expressions and extensions of these ideas. In the case of Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel, just like in the case of the French poststructuralists, many of these core ideas are shared.

That isn't to say that you can make some kind of autistic flow chart like "believes in free will y/n" to define each philosopher, but if you read them for long enough you will start to realize they are saying similar or identical things in different ways.

>>16092479
Be born a powerful BLACK BVLL like me.

>>16092500
That strikes me as massively wrong. Merleau-Ponty was weaned on Husserl's unpublished Nachlass and studies of gestalt psychology and so forth. I sort of understand how you draw the Spinozist connection since he suggests a kind of panpsychism in his phenomenology but he is not primarily concerned with that. He is a transcendental philosopher. Insofar as you can argue Husserl and Kant were rationalists for their belief in pure (transcendental) logic, maybe you could all Merleau-Ponty rationalistic but that would be extremely tenuous.

I have no idea what you mean by saying Sartre was a Spinozist or rationalist, he is an existentialist and anti-rationalist par excellence in not caring about systematic first philosophy whatsoever.

Is this a Deleuzian reading you're drawing from? I wouldn't trust him to read past philosophers. I know there's a French Spinozist who is currently popular since an anon used to post about him here but I wouldn't trust him either, whatever his other merits. The French are notoriously indifferent to anachronism in their appropriations of past philosophy.

In any case, neither of those figures are poststructuralists. Merleau-Ponty died in the '50s and is often noted as being a kind of honorary German in his style of thought, along with Ricoeur.

>>16092515
Sort of. My point was that anyone who reads Deleuze as a metaphysician is very wrong. Sadly it's fashionable for every moron college student to do this these days. They even try connection him to Whitehead which is just sad. And offensive to Whitehead.

>>16092547
any stoner could have come up with this same quote, just because you attach the name of socrates to it doesn't mean anything for me. unless you have an argument i will just dismiss your posts

>>16092568
The world was seduced from the beginning, but the problem with the perfect crime is it’s never perfect. All the attempts to cover the world in signification result in a proliferation of simulacra that are whitewashed in the obscenity of information, a body pregnant with itself but unable to be delivered.

>>16092582
> Deleuze conceived of philosophy as the production of concepts, and he characterized himself as a “pure metaphysician.”

>>16092585
dude you don't have to be such a women about it, phil it's not hard, it's just a matter of how much you put into it

>>16092611
Yeah, this is, like I said, why writing in an obscurantist way is really stupid. Here he is saying the opposite of what he means, to some readers, because by metaphysics he means that reality is transcendentally immanent (similar to Merleau-Ponty since you seem familiar with him) or "transcendental all the way down" insofar as we can interact with it. He is NOT positing a precritical, practically presocratic arbitrary metaphysical framework. Not even Whitehead or Bergson does that.

Only internet interpreters and "accelerationists" resort to this shallow reading. Then again, Deleuze creatively misread several people so I guess it's fair game.

>>16092620
still no argument. i simply dont have the attention span to read long books but i think im smart enough to understand their basic claims. what is your problem with this? can i not be an amateur

>>16092582
i thank you for taking the time to reply but i think you misread my post

>>16092642
i mean the opposite bro
being a professional amateur is highly encouraged

>>16092568
Lots and lots of acid. But in seriousness, basically just realizing there's two sides to every story, and scaling that up to N sides, and realizing that this multiplicity of views are all right, even though many contradict, and thus, there is no one true story.

>>16092631
On one hand o agree with you that Deleuze and MMP consider reality imminently transcendent, but in different ways. The latter MMP wrote to Sartre (something like In the shadow of silent voices iirc) shows that idea differently then the D+G book What is Philosophy, where Deleuze talks about how philosophy occupies space in chaos. It’s definitely metaphysical in a very obscure, off to the side way but also isn’t metaphysics. like how baudrillard is and isn’t a philosopher/sociologist/art critic

>>16092568
>structure is basically the conceptual form of things right?

No, poststructuralism is primarily a chronological term and not a logical one. It's just the people who came after structuralism. In some ways they are reacting to structuralism's fundamental assumptions in ways that are logically opposed, but in other ways they continue to assume the existence of structures (if only to overcome or problematize them).

Structure is the term vaguely used by the structuralists for any kind of structure whatsoever, linguistic, social, cultural, or symbolic primarily, and slightly less often psychoanalytical. The implicit ontology of structuralism was that structures (in whatever field is being analyzed) overdetermine or account for contingent, emergent, particular phenomena. The poststructuralists often focused on problematizing such structures (thus accepting the epistemology of structure) and the epistemology of structure in itself. But there is no essential continuity. There is more of a continuity between German and French thought.

Unironically a useful summary by Judith Butler, which won her some "worst academic writing ever" competition:
>The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.

>>16092546
You can also get Literary Criticism by Bressler. And you can save money by getting the first edition of The Theory Toolbox and the third edition of Literary Criticism. The newer editions of both don't have significant updates.

>>16092671
how does this follow from Heidegger? I know they are heavily influenced by him and particularly his notion of "ontological difference", supposedly the ontic-ontological distinction. I assume that they identify Being as such to be inaccessible and therefore beings are defined in terms of each other through their differences, hence "deferral" of meaning and Derrida's Differánce, am I correct in this?

>>16092715
That won the obscure writing contest? Have they heard of Baudrillard?

>>16092715
this is helpful, thanks

>>16092711
Yeah possibly in some abstract sense, but I hate this wishy-washy shit, I don't think it means anything to say "he is and isn't" a philosopher/etc., just fucking say he's a philosopher. Baudrillard is great, I don't see any reason to drag him down any further than he already is into this parochial, dated, French form of posturing.

It's the same thing that enables complete hacks like Meillassoux to posture and bluff about "non-philosophy" because everyone is afraid not to get it. Or that other hack Badiou to posture about his pseudo-mathematical ontology and be systematically evasive about whether he means it literally or not.

Some Frenchmen escape being this retarded but most don't. And now they have equally bad Anglo followers, like the object-oriented ontology crowd which was just embarrassing.

>>16092730
I mean this unironically: you are expecting too much from the French because you assume smart people would at least do the bare minimum to not embarrass themselves, and you must be the one who doesn't "get it." Heidegger was not really studied well in France, excepting Derrida and plenty of nobodies who didn't get as famous, because they actually understood Heidegger and could reproduce his ideas, making them instantly boring to the average French intellectual.

Try to find one deliberate, systematic interaction between any of these famous Frenchmen and Heidegger. I guarantee you will only find it in Ricoeur and Derrida. You are expecting German levels of actually trying to understand your predecessor generation's philosophical foundations so you can critique them and build on them.

The French don't do that. They appropriate psychoanalysis and turn it into a cult for a while, without ever deciding whether they really believe in its (borderline reductive and rationalist) Freudian foundations. They appropriate Hegel and spend two decades claiming to be in the thrall of Hegel, when they really only read Hegel through Kojeve and maybe Wahl if you're lucky. They have very limited, queer readings of Nietzsche through tryhards like Klossowski. The French are not systematic thinkers or readers. I'm not saying it out of hate, it's just the case.

You already understand Derrida and Heidegger, try reading Order of Things and seeing how Foucault is like a weird mix of an amateur phenomenologist and a structuralist (while denying being a structuralist in the English preface of course, since he doesn't want to seem dated or easily placeable).

>>16092870
You just saved me a lot of time then, lol i guess i will just skip the french pseuds

>>16092870
For sure, but for baudrillard when he’s engaging with dialectics in Fatal Strategies that’s definitely hitting on philosophy, but then he’s got stuff that’s straight sociology, and some things where he’s clearly still discussing his ideas but not tied to philosophy so you get a ton of cunts taking about how it’s “theory-fiction”. I feel like most the flack I’ve seen for these guys comes from the fact that most English speaking philosophy departments are analytics and get real salty about prose that it’s actually interesting.
>ooo
Hahahaha, have a rare baudrillard

>>16092391
Just read Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences.