/lit/ - Literature

>>17221486
seems to me that heideggers posits being as an entity and derrida's X is nothing

>>17221535
I get what Heidegger's saying here, but Derrida's putting of experience itself under erasure would mean putting oneself out of being, and that boggles my mind.

Wittgenstein did in one short book what Derrida took 40 years to bullshit about and only half accomplish. And Wittgenstein didn't have to surrender the possibility of science or metaphysics to do it. Derrida thinks he's escaping all metaphysical naivete but all he is doing is hypostatizing language. Heidegger's "weakness" in failing to fully immanentize the subject in language, and retaining traces of the transcendental nature of Being, is actually his strength, since total linguistic immanentism is only useful as a theoretical position, already superseded once it has been thought of. Derrida devoted his entire career to being a fucking thought experiment for a halfway point between metaphysics and linguistically self-conscious metaphysics, and annoying everyone and jacking off constantly while he did it. He even convinced himself he was profound. Wittgenstein did the same thing as an afterthought and as a natural result of philosophical conversations, then applied himself to other things. Derrida will be a footnote in the history of philosophy, Wittgenstein and Heidegger will be the actual chapter.

>>17221535
this is weird though because for what I recall heidegger's being is equal to nothing, so they would be saying the same
>>17221580
for what I understand in the text it's not that experience is absent (rather that experience has to be understood as a metaphysical concept subject to hystorical development) but being is an absence. This isn't so weird to me though, you get what is, and to reach a concept of being you have to substract everything that is, so being is only reached as a negativity of what is

>>17221638

Sorry bro it's all gibberish to me. I'm retart

I hate the faggy little striked-out term shit that continentals do.

>>17221486
WHY THE FUCK DO THEY WRITE LIKE THAT? WHY ARE THEY LIKE THIS? WHY MAKE THINGS SO UNNECESSARILY CONVOLUTED? WHY TAKE WHOLE PARAGRAPHS TO SAY THINGS THAT ARE EASILY EXPLAINED IN ONE COHERENT, SIMPLE SENTENCE? I'M GETTING FILTERED SOO HARD IT'S NOT FUNNY ANYMORE.

>>17224251
Lost in their own abstractions. They've gone past using abstraction as a tool to elucidate the concrete, and have become infatuated with purely imagined dichotomies and dinstinctions. There is no escaping empiricism.

>>17221624
Agree 100%

>>17224310
Reading hacks like Debord and Baudrillard made me want to kill myself. It's especially ironic considering that their works were aimed at the "working class", but their prose is so esoterically unintelligible and up its own ass.
This is the main fault with leftist "philosophers". Regardless of the validity of their ideas, whether or not they could sufficiently elucidate them in order to reach their target demographic is what separates true genius from the pseuds and hacks. This is why people unironically follow brainlet conservatives like Peterson and Shapiro. At least they can communicate with their audience.

Will French "philosophers" be remembered as the Sophists of our age? We need a chad German Plato to fuck them up their frog asses

>>17224382
Sadly, the modern age is fucked from that point. There are no "no nonsense" philosophers left, only snobs and wannabe elitists that require you to be a 9000 IQ genius in order for you to comprehend their purposefully convoluted shit vernacular.