/lit/ - Literature

nigga looks like columbo

>>17734068
I would bet my dick yo haven't read him

>>17734068
Retarded meaningless nonsense. French people are faggot beta pedos who are responsible for like 75% of all degeneracy in the modern age.

>>17734068
His skin is too brown to have solved anything

>>17734068
summarize his solution in no more than 3 sentences or I'll never read him

If I see one more of these retarded ass "X writer/poet/philosopher solved Y" threads I'm going to punch my computer screen.

>>17734217
>The center is not the center.
There you go.

>>17734305
But that violates the principle of non-contradiction

>>17734321
That's pomo (((philosophy.))) Enjoy.
that was a direct quote, by the way.

>>17734335
What is the center if not the center, and what basis do they have to suggest I can't apply the same irrationality to whatever answer they give?

>>17734321
The principle of non-contradiction is not the principle of non-contradiction

>>17734321
In many ways, Derrida's entire career was a (successful) attempt at revealing the absurdity of the principle of non-contradiction

Here's the full quote for those with an IQ above room temperature:
>the center is, paradoxically, within the structure and outside it. The center is at the center of the totality, and yet, since the center does not belong to the totality (is not part of the totality), the totality has its center elsewhere. The center is not the center. The concept of centered structure—although it represents coherence itself, the condition of the epistémé as philosophy or science—is contradictorily coherent. And, as always, coherence in contradiction expresses the force of a desire. The concept of centered structure is in fact the concept of a play based on a fundamental ground, a play which is constituted upon a fundamental immobility and a reassuring certitude, which is itself beyond the reach of the play. And on the basis of this certitude anxiety can be mastered, for anxiety is invariably the result of a certain mode of being implicated in the game, of being caught by the game, of being as it were at stake in the game from the outset. And again on the basis of what we call the center (and which, because it can be either inside or outside, can also indifferently be called the origin or end, arché as telos), the repetitions, the substitutions, the transformations, and the permutations are always taken from a history of meaning [sens]—that is, in a word, a history—whose origin may always be reawakened or whose end may always be anticipated in the form of presence. This is why one could perhaps say that the movement of any archeology, like that of any eschatology, is an accomplice of this reduction of the structurality of structure and always attempts to conceive of structure on the basis of a full presence which is beyond play. (279, italics in original)

>>17734433
>viola.

>>17734433
>The center is at the center of the totality
OK
>since the center does not belong to the totality
What?
>the totality has its center elsewhere.
What?

I feel like we're missing important context here as to what he even means by center and totality.

>>17734421
I think you mean a successful attempt at revealing the absurdity of his own mind

>>17734525
>I feel like we're missing important context here
Have you read Derrida before? Have you read the entire history of philosophy up to the 60s, especially Kant, Hegel, Husserl and Heidegger? This is the context. Derrida is endgame, don't expect to just jump in and get it.
>>17734546
filtered

>>17734581
Why is it that a sentence from Kant is intelligible if you learn what the words mean and you can explain the idea in simpler words but I never see anyone do this for these french faggots

>>17734581
I've read Kant, Hegel's PoS and a small amount of Heidegger. Can't you try to explain to me what these terms mean so we can evaluate them? As far as I'm concerned, if you can't do this, then you haven't understood him either, and I have no intent to waste my time with something which will likely just turn out to be garbage which violates the most basic principles of logic for some inexplicable reason. Try to explain in your own words what Derrida even means here with relying upon linguistic obscurantism, surely you can do it.

>>17734600
Simplifications of Derrida are abundant. You've just decided in advance through /pol/-tier reasoning that he's not worth your time so you haven't bothered looking for them.

>>17734628
I have never seen anyone on this board ever talk about his ideas in a clear manner, there are hundreds of threads where people discuss Kant's ideas clearly. I made a thread once about deconstruction and the best answer was unironically a series of quotes from Derrida about how you can't define the word deconstruction and various things that were wrong definitions of it.

>>17734621
>>17734637
Have you ever thought that perhaps the reason why others' explanations of Derrida never quite satisfy you is that you simply don't have the chops for him? No slight intended, but it's a likely possibility. We have no have no qualms in raising this possible explanation in regards to failure to understand other bodies of technical knowledge

>>17734664
It's possible, but the fact that whenever anyone is asked to explain what he means they say something like what you just said instead of explaining it doesn't bode very well. Very curious reluctance to actually discuss the ideas

>>17734664
Even the people I talk with about Derrida tell me they can't really explain it, so from my perspective it has nothing to do with me and more to do with the fact that no one has ever even been able to attempt to tell me what he actually meant with the words he uses. You're doing it right now by refusing to even attempt to put a simple 6 word sentence into your own words. It's just more evidence to me that no one after Kant even knew what they were talking or writing about, except for the "regular" existentialists who explicitly forewent the more formal types of philosophy.

>>17734178
>he thinks the greeks were white
Ohnononononoonono

>>17734694
>>17734695
This just demonstrates that you've put zero effort into actually understanding him. Once again, there is an abdundence of simplifications out there. There is no reluctance to explain whatsoever.

>>17734734
You're not even going to attempt to explain what the sentence means are you lol

>>17734734
Look, daddy, I can be a pomo too!
1 does not equal 1

>>17734739
I've interacted with too many of you people in wrongly placed good faith to ever do that again. The ball is now in your court.

>>17734760
lmao of course how convenient. we all definitely believe you could explain it, you just don't want to. Have a good one

>>17734753
Jordan Peterson grade cringe

>>17734766
the number one is, paradoxically, within the set of integers and outside it. The number is inside of the totality, and yet, since the number one does not belong to the totality (is not part of the totality), the totality has its number one elsewhere.

>>17734765
This thread was never made with the intent of understanding Derrida. Until that intent changes to one of a genuine attempt at understanding, no answers to your questions will be found.

>make thread praising Derrida
>someone asks you to explain something he said
>how dare you ask me this, stop arguing in bad faith
the absolute state

>>17734765
In all seriousness, you can’t “explain Kant”— someone would have to have a well-formulated question or an aspect of Kant’s work worth explaining. This is true of much simpler philosophers as well— how would you “explain” Plato? Maybe Aristotle’s Ethics could be summarized in a post, but not his politics, and I’d even challenge the former a little bit as well.

What is it about Derrida you want explained?

>>17734779
Literally nobody believes you understand what that sentence means, you would have just given a brief description 10 minutes ago instead of arguing at length about how you don't want to

>>17734217
stop being gay
plato was right

>>17734786
You can explain a particular sentence or paragraph of Kant, as people do all the time, which is what is being asked about this 'the centre is not the centre' concept

>>17734791
In that 10 mins you could have just googled an explanation of it. You don't actually want to understand him

>>17734809
You can just admit you don't know what it means, this is getting ridiculous

>>17734800
was meant for op

>>17734813
>if I don't understand it, that must mean no one else understands it!
Infantile.

>>17734068
In what way did he solved philosophy?

>>17734809
Let me ask you this, would it be correct if Derrida said this:
>What appears to be the center is not actually the center
instead of this:
>The center is not the center

One of them expressly denies the law of non-contradiction, the other one makes it clear that what we believe the center is, is merely an illusion. Which one is more accurate?

>>17734824
Nobody ever does this when asked to explain something that a philosopher like Kant said lmao. Every single time this charade appears of some guy claiming it means something and never explaining it

>>17734832
Getting so tired of it.

>>17734832
No one does it with Derrida. There are hundreds of explanations written for 'tards that are published online

>>17734842
I mean that an anon will explain in his own words what the idea means. Unlike you, who apparently could do this, but is just not going to. It is literally always one of you doing exactly this, it's almost surreal

>>17734855
Look in the archive, it's been done hundreds of times

>>17734867
Why would you even go into a thread about a philosopher you apparently like and then refuse to discuss his ideas, but commit to arguing at length about how you don't want to discuss them? This is deranged behavior

>>17734871
It's what denying the law of non-contradiction does to a person. They no longer behave by any rational standards.

>>17734694
From what I’ve read here and elsewhere, the only justification those fond of the continental tradition have for its stylistic tendencies is that it allows them to feel superior to others. Hell, you just have to look at this thread to see it.

>>17734321
Learn how language works retard

>>17734871
I think they might just not have the ability to rephrase Derrida. That is, Derrida is, as stated elsewhere, an endgame philosopher. His work is notoriously complicated to even begin to understand, especially since a lot of his work was on the imperfection of language. There are countless simplifications of his work but they're all missing something, and that's also part of why Derrida had to write things and deliberately cross them out.
As for the quote far earlier ITT, it seems to be available with further context here http://www2.csudh.edu/ccauthen/576f13/DrrdaSSP.pdf and I'll take a stab at explaining some of what Derrida was getting on about here, although I can't explain all of it, because most of my work with Derrida has been superficial and his simpler seminars. Sorry for that, Anon.
What he's saying is that, within a system (imagine a circular circus tent as the "space" in which variations within a particular system can occur) the center that upholds the tent may exist within the tent, as one valid method within a system, but it is simultaneously not within the tent/system, as the center does not allow variation, and yet this center is somewhat a variation upon the other things within the system. However, being the center, it is also not allowed to be changeable or changed.
Having caved and googled what epistémés are, it seems that this is also speaking about how our intellectual frameworks are a fixed center yet they also move and adapt over time, but I'm not wholly sure.

>>17734525
totality of a structure
center of a structure
structure as subject of structuralism

>>17734637
>I have never seen
You have never looked. The whole point you even visit Derrida threads is to associate with him in some way while also never being 'convinced' of the arguments. Grow up

>>17735008
>the center that upholds the tent may exist within the tent, as one valid method within a system, but it is simultaneously not within the tent/system, as the center does not allow variation, and yet this center is somewhat a variation upon the other things within the system. However, being the center, it is also not allowed to be changeable or changed.
wat

>>17735013
You aren't going to explain it either lel

>>17734695
I've definitely explained 'center is not the center' in threads before but idiots like you argue in poor faith. It's a losing game to ever engage with people like you because you are dishonest

Derrida's project is essentially a reductio ad absurdum of the transcendental argument [in his early works on Husserl he referred to his project as an "ultratranscendentalism". He would later adopt the term "quasitranscendental"], in that instead of finding a stable ontological ground—a presence (or an absence, which is functionally identical to the former)—instead finds an unstable movement—between absence and presence. That is, if the condition of possibility can be described as language qua différance/"writing"—that is, as signifier of signifier—and that this condition can be described as having the qualities of the latter—provisional, contingent, conditioned—then this condition of possibility is simultaneously the condition of its own impossibility ("the centre is not the centre").

>>17734780
You've been fixated on this one quote for weeks

>>17735025
Yeah yeah we know you can explain it, you just don't want to, you already whined about this for half an hour

>>17734829
Derrida is not using the term 'center' in the same sense both times so the law of non-contradiction does not apply

>>17734871
No one even asked to have the quote explained until you started saying "you didn't explain the quote!"

>>17735017
To rephrase it (without a metaphor):
In a given system, there is a certain amount of free play. The center on which the system is fixed does not allow free play and variation. Therefore, while the center could be counted as a form of play/valid variation within the system, it also isn't a form of play as it's rigidly defined and can't vary.
I hope that helps, I'm definitely punching above my weight a bit here.

>>17735024
Are you going to use your words and ask me to explain it to you?

>>17735043
You wont explain it either

>>17734469
>tip it on its side and cellooo, you've got a bass

>>17735050
see
>>17735049

>>17735049
You can do whatever you like

>you won't explain it!!!!!!!!!

>>17735056
You won't explain what you mean

>>17734217
necessities are accidental and accidents are necessary

>>17735048
>The center on which the system is fixed does not allow free play and variation.
Does not allow free play in the system? because that would be a contradiction. What allows the free play in the system?

>>17734433
Uggghhhh this hurts my brain!!!!! you won't explain it!!!!!!

>>17735062
I'm just curious what the sentence means

>>17735069
>this violates the law of non-contradiction!!!!!!

>>17735027
Explanation is right here and everyone's ignoring it.

>>17735072
Have you tried reading the other sentences around the sentence? It's not the center of the paragraph.
Sorry for not explaining it in this reply nigger!

>>17735077
The explanation is not an explanation.

>>17735069
The center can't vary. Free play is "naturally" allowed in a system, but the center itself cannot change. That said, it seems I was a tad off, and a better explanation is >>17735027 as far as I can tell, and thinking of it in terms of différance and Derrida's linguistic ideas makes it make more sense imo.

Aaaaaaaaaaaand this is why French philosophy is literally AIDS (see: Foucault)

>>17735027
>That is,
What does the sentence following this have to do with the sentence preceding it? The first sentence is saying that instead of absence or presence he finds an 'unstable movement between' the two. The second sentence doesn't use any of those terms, it is a new concept about self-referentiality of language which you are relating to another concept of 'condition of possibility' in a way I don't understand. What is the relation between these 3 things, the movement between absence/presence, the condition of possibility/impossibility, and the signifier of signifier

>>17734718
While Greeks are not as pale as Nordic, it would be completely in character for Aristotle to say someone is "too white" as he thought the Greek had the perfect color, not too pale and not too dark.

Imagine getting three paragraphs in to a Derrida essay and becoming so frustrated and intimidated you refuse to read on to the very next paragraph, where he explains the whole point of the essay (and indeed his whole philosophical project) with exceptional clarity.

>>17735180
post the paragraph

>>17735104
>What does the sentence following this have to do with the sentence preceding it?
Everything. No new concepts are introduced in the second sentence [Derrida is remarkably consistent, you can very safely analogise all of the the "masterwords" he employs throughout his works: centre, transcendental signified, presence etc.].
Unstable movement = language qua "writing" = signifier of signifier. This movement is unstable insofar as it is only ever a movement: in any chain of signifiers there is no final term (if language is indeed as Derrida describes it, i.e. as "writing"). Thus, if this movement were to be the transcendental condition of possibility of experience as such, it could not be transcendental in the traditional sense of the word (unconditional, necessary, universal etc.), but neither could it simply be described as the opposite of the latter. This is the paradoxical position it occupies.

>>17735180
That seems like a stylistic failure on his part then, doesn’t it?

>>17735189
NtAYRT
Here's the full lecture http://www2.csudh.edu/ccauthen/576f13/DrrdaSSP.pdf
Here's the paragraph in question
>If this is so, the whole history of the concept of structure, before the rupture I spoke of, must be thought of as a series of substitutions of center for center, as a linked chain of determinations of the center. Successively, and in a regulated fashion, the center receives different forms or names. The history of metaphysics, like the history of the West, is the history of these metaphors and metonymies. Its matrix—if you will pardon me for demonstrating so little and for being so elliptical in order to bring me more quickly to my principal theme—is the determination of being as presence in all the senses of this word. It would be possible to show that all the names related to fundamentals, to principles, or to the center have always designated the constant of a presence—eidos, arché, telos, energeia, ousia (essence, existence, substance, subject) aletheia, transcendentality, consciousness, or conscience, God, man, and so forth.
Enjoy, anon

>>17735202
Yes his high school teacher must be very disappointed.

>>17735196
is saying that the basic form of experience is this notion of never settling on any one point, but shifting from signifier to signifier, between presence and absence? And this basic form is what he is referring to by the 'centre', but this centre is then by definition not centred in one place, but always shifting?

>>17735226
You've removed a lot of the nuance, but yes, that's the gist. It's also imperative to remember that this "centre that is also not a centre" is a transcendentally deduced object, but one like no other for the reasons mentioned above. Derrida represents an epistemological innovation more than anything.

>>17734088
I hate closeted gay guys like you who make everything about aesthetics. It's even worse than identity politics and you try to prop up overly vain men as your leaders just because you can't be open about your sexuality.

>>17734217
This retard clearly has trouble reading anything more complex than Harry Potter

>>17735008
Yes, this is correct. Derrida is describing in convoluted language a commonplace. For example, the (Occitan) surname Marsillach appears relatively rare, until you realize it forms part of a vast spectrum of surnames that are all regional variations of the same underlying Roman cognomen: Marsilius, which in turn is related to Marius and ultimately Mars. So, in the case of Marsillach, you have Marsilly, Marciac, Mauriac, Marsillan, Marseille, Marcy, Marsy, on and on. Onomastic linguistic difference does not occur in a vacuum, as a rule, buy rather is dependent on another order of identitary simultaneity. Hence the circle is and is not the circle, hence the center and is not the center. Marsillach is and is not the center of its own rareness within a wider spectrum of second order simultaneity upon which it is dependent for the very rareness, uniqueness, centrality of its onomastic identity.

>>17734068

The problem with Derrida is that you have in the first place to accept de Saussure's semantic sign theory to get anywhere with him. This however precludes any metaphysical realism attempt, like those of recent ears in continental philosophy. Other than that he is definitely worth a read, and takes Heidegger's philosophy to definitely better and more productive grounds of analysis.

>>17735522
>you have in the first place to accept de Saussure's semantic sign theory to get anywhere with him
No you don't. He arrives at his position through a reading a Husserl and through various other means in his later works, independently of any consideration of Saussure.

>>17734433

>>17735261
Yes.

>nooooo not my heckin principle of non-contradictarino, not my heckin logic
Man, this is so fucking lame. When did this board become colonised by /r/science redditors?

>>17734433
here's a translation for 4chan brained pseuds.

"Philosophers and scientists say the logos is based. Based? Based on what?"

>>17734581
Obscurantist terrorism. A literal sophist doing sophistry from 500BC by unjustifiable wordplay, a play-pretend at knowing something.

>>17735662
filtered

>what are Plato's Cratylus, Theaetetus-Sophist, Phaedrus, and Parmenides
Did I win the Jeopardy?!

>>17735671
Derrida got proactively filtered by Plato since 360BC.
A sophist imitates the wise man much like bullshit imitates the true speech - has a comparable appearance but lacking substance.
The centre is not the centre, viola.

>>17734068
This is nothing close to what Derrida wrote about, the fuck?

>>17734176
Ironic given Derrida's program

>>17734217
He's no solution to anything but I'll quote Paul de Man on his most important concept, deconstruction:

>[i]t's possible, within text, to frame a question or undo assertions made in the text, by means of elements which are in the text, which frequently would be precisely structures that play off the rhetorical against grammatical elements.

This is what Derrida is doing in >>17734433. For those with an IQ above room temperature, as >>17734433 said, read "Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences." It's only 11 pages long.
>>17734321
This only applies for things, not for no-things, plus Aristotle was a bitch.

>>17734335
>>17734305
>>17734321
>>17734360
>>17734421
You're all missing the literary context + the influence of negative theology on his work + his themes of ambiguity and excesses of meaning.

>>17734433
>>17734525
Bingo.

>>17734695
This seems like a 'you' problem. I've met tons of people who 'understand' Derrida. I, myself, think he made important contributions to literary theory and, in his later years, animal studies. His writing on apophatic discourse is pretty good. My favorite anecdote is:

> Following his presentation of his paper "Différance" in 1968, Derrida was faced with an annoyed participant who said, "It [différance] is the source of everything and one cannot know it: it is the God of negative theology." Derrida's answer was, "It is and it is not."

His answer is just so perfect -- it relates to the contradictions of being and essence that crop up everywhere in mystical writing, in particular negative theology. Can you tell I'm a scholar of mysticism? I've mention it like 3 times this thread and I've only made one post. He's always been my favorite of the French post-structuralists along with Foucault.

>>17734775
>>17734753
This, but unironically. Read Plotinus. Mysticism again.

>>17734786
Read Plotinus again. He explains Plato. In fact just skip the wrestler faggot. Just read Plotinus.

>>17734829
>>17734877
Holy fuck, the law of non-contradiction is not a hard-and-fast rule of philosophy. Plenty of people break it for different reasons, even logicians, just Google "paraconsistent logics." Derrida is about rupturing meaning, not about securing an objective and unmediated truth.

>>17735027
Good post.

>>17735597
Good post.

Okay, I'm done arguing in good faith and/or letting myself get trolled for the day. Peace faggots.

math fag here, people don't take philosophy seriously because you guys take common words and give them different meanings, so to an outsider philosophical texts seem like corporatese or legalese
if you used a shitton of weird loanwords, there'd be a retard filter

>>17735679
Yes, you did. Now we are waiting for Plato 2.0 to wipe the floor with modern bullshit peddlers once more.

>>17735737
How else do you go about explaining things hitherto unexplained? Scientists do the same thing, you approach something new, you have to name it in a novel and arbitrary way. Why do you approach philosophy with the assumption that it should use every day simple language? Do you approach scientific textbooks with the same assumption?

>>17735782
>Why do you approach philosophy with the assumption that it should use every day simple language
that's exactly what i'm against
what i've seen in this thread was words like center, system etc, used in unfamiliar ways. when a retard sees that, his brain short circuits and he reeeees at philosophers, same reason why philosophy discussion on this board tends to have retard takes from time to time
meanwhile if a retard sees stuff like, idk lambert w function, he knows that it's math stuff and he shouldn't interfere
so if philosophy also had more non-common language terms, the discussion would be clearer

>>17735795
oh I get it, mb
> same reason why philosophy discussion on this board tends to have retard takes from time to time
spot on

>>17735704
>Plenty of people break it for different reasons, even logicians, just Google "paraconsistent logics."
Plenty of people also eat shit, it does not validate shit-eating in any way. There is no square circle as there is no way for something to both state and contradict itself. It is bullshit, or language abuse.

And just because one can abuse a microscope does not invalidate microbiology, pomos (sophists 2.0) abusing language and logic does not invalidate either.

>>17735795
>when a philosopher sees that somebody violates truth and logic, his brain short circuits and he reeeees at sophists
Fixed there, you bullshit peddler. Your kind was exposed by 360BC already.

>>17735824
>there is no way for something to both state and contradict itself
so when a girl says "nooo stop haha" you immediately stop right?

>>17735824
You're taking the law of non-contradiction as an axiom when it really is not that; paraconsistent logics are useful in mathematics and that's why they're used. Please read a book on symbolic logic

>>17735837
>implying /lit/ can talk to 3D whores

>>17735849
>paraconsistent logics are useful in mathematics
Mathematics on par with modern philosophere wankery, pie-in-the-sky nonsense derived from arbitrary axioms with arbitrary methods, correlating to fuck all.
Just because somebody proclaims himself a mathematician while producing verbal trash does not validate his activity or labour, much less warrants any public funds being allocated to his wankery. This is plain confidence game under disguise of a learned sage, aka SOPHISTRY. 360BC for fucks sake, 2380 years and people still fall for bullshit peddlers.

Nigga, your books belong in the pyre.

>>17735849
>Please read a book on
I aint ingesting your psyop, Froggie

>>17735899
Sophistry is based. So masculine and vital compared to "le epic reason and logic"

Any other philosopher, and you can eventually get an explanation. Not so with Derrida.

Nebulous, vague, and deliberately obscurantist. It's the equivalent of Q-posting.

>>17735913
>Any other philosopher, and you can eventually get an explanation. Not so with Derrida.
>noooooooooooooo why dont you treat me like im 10 y/o and explain everything in simple worderinos???? why do you assume I have read everything in philosophical tradition?????????????

>>17735913
[226a]
Stranger
Yes, and the sophist is nothing else, apparently, than the money-making class of the disputatious, argumentative, controversial, pugnacious, combative, acquisitive art, as our argument has now again stated.

Theaetetus
Certainly.

Stranger
Do you see the truth of the statement that this creature is many-sided and, as the saying is, not to be caught with one hand?

Theaetetus
Then we must catch him with both.

Stranger
Yes, we must, and must go at it with all our might,

>>17735899
>360BC for fucks sake, 2380 years and people still fall for bullshit peddlers.
you literally the inverse of "its the current year" niggers

>>17735918
>spent a decade of his life trying to untangle a Gordian knot of pseudophilosophy
>pushed down the gnawing suspicion that it was all horseshit
>desperately clings to it out of sunk-cost fallacy
>lashes out at anyone who immediately sees it for the baloney it is

Voila.

>>17735704
>> Following his presentation of his paper "Différance" in 1968, Derrida was faced with an annoyed participant who said, "It [différance] is the source of everything and one cannot know it: it is the God of negative theology." Derrida's answer was, "It is and it is not."
How the fuck this meme is different from witt?

>>17735918
Because a bullshit peddler has nothing to explain.

You can explain something only if you know something.
You can not explain something you don't know.
Sophists pretend to know something they don't.
Therefore they can't explain what they pretend to know.
They can explain their own method at feigning knowledge though, they understand it alright:
>dude like words have many meanings
>dude like fuck what the author meant
>dude like fuck logic and truth

Derrida is Gorgias repacked, simple as. The likes of them all are plain bullshit peddlers.
>These difficulties are further compounded by the fact that Gorgias's rhetoric is frequently elusive and confusing;[21] he makes many of his most important points using elaborate, but highly ambiguous, metaphors, similes, and puns.[22] Many of Gorgias's propositions are also thought to be sarcastic, playful, or satirical.[8] In his treatise On Rhetoric, Aristotle characterizes Gorgias's style of oratory as "pervasively ironic" and states that Gorgias recommended responding to seriousness with jests and to jests with seriousness.[8] Gorgias frequently blurs the lines between serious philosophical discourse and satire,[8] which makes it extremely difficult for scholars to tell when he is being serious and when he is merely joking.[16] Gorgias frequently contradicts his own statements and adopts inconsistent perspectives on different issues.[18] As a result of all these factors, Scott Porter Consigny calls him "perhaps the most elusive of the polytropic quarry hunted in Plato's Sophist

>>17735935
Derrida is the Steven Seagal of philosophy.

There is a group of diehard fans that insist it's all legit, while everyone else just sits around asking "Is this faggot serious?"

>>17735899
Mathematics on par with modern philosophere wankery, pie-in-the-sky nonsense derived from arbitrary axioms with arbitrary methods, correlating to fuck all.

That's literally all philosophy

>>17735603
thanks bro

>>17735960
He's one of the most cited and praised thinkers in human history. It's the haters that are Seagal.

>>17735960
Derrida is actually among the most lucid of his ilk. Who would you compare the alchemist Lacan or his sniffing disciple Zizek to? To imagine that people take that stuff seriously. I guess it must be a result of half of society going to university.

Derrida's fundamental insight (backed by technical explanation) is that there exists a human reality that is more fundamental, dynamic and vital than that which can be described by metaphysics. This reality can only be performed. He is based and everyone that passes the IQ check (few in this thread) should read him.

>>17735980
>alchemist Lacan
Uri Geller

>sniffing disciple Zizek
the homeless man behind my local Target that insists he's the real Uri Geller

>>17735976
Multiplying bullshit yields more bullshit. Quantity is not quality, messing them up is sophistry.
Also, picrelated. I see much Foucault and some Bourdieu, but aint no Derrida.

>>17735990
Derrida is a midwit flytrap for faggot striver poors.

>>17735899
>arbitrary axioms with arbitrary methods
yeah that's the point of maths
you assume something, like "i know that there isn't a square root of -1, but what if there were", then go from there, either find a contradiction or found a new branch of maths (in my example the latter happened)

>>17735960
I think Derrida mastered the technique of writing nuance shit so after reading it some faggots could consider themselves highly smart, in the le sekert club where they suck each other off without a trace of irony.
Derrida was based for making a name by selling vague bullshit to gullible sheltered retards.

>>17734068
Hamann realised this hundreds of years prior lmao

>>17734321
>>17734360
Principle of identity, idiots.

>>17735899
Oh no... he's a... "Traditionalist."

>>17734068
Funnily enough it has been known for quite some times. I for one am glad that we can put behind us the errors of Platonism and Aristotelianism.

>>17736197
>I for one am glad that we can put behind us the errors of Platonism and Aristotelianism.
Teach me thy ways, O wise one.

>>17736207
>read Heraclitus
>don't do the mistake Cratylus did and think he sees no "being" or "identity"
>realise that he's as much a poet than a philosopher
>read poetry
>realise that (good) poetry is adding to the world something that escapes all concepts
>realise that concepts freeze the perceived world in a deathless prison
>realise that concepts, though they can be useful, are ultimately lies
>step into the river
>be here and now forever

>>17736197
Based. The fall began with S*crates.

>>17735998
Except math axioms actually correlate strongly with our observable reality, hence most of math is actually useful and immediately applicable in describing and knowing said reality.
Well, some of them do. Same as in philosophy, you reach useful and viable conclusions from sound premises. If you start with bullshit, you end up with bullshit.

Just read on Chmess
>Daniel Dennett argues that “[m]any projects in contemporary philosophy are artifactual puzzles of no abiding significance.” In other words, much contemporary academic philosophy is a waste of time. In this chapter, we use mathematics, models, and metaphysics, to expand and clarify Dennett's chmess analogy. We further the argument that some contemporary academic philosophy loses its way and chases chmess‐like endeavors – arguing that philosophy is bloated by extraneous, esoteric, and bizarre philosophical projects that aren't detached from reality but only related to it tangentially. Chmess‐like games, like some contemporary academic philosophy, nick reality and then shoot off on their own trajectory, often down intellectual rabbit holes.

>>17736171
>frogposter
Why do the idiots have this need to mark themselves.

>>17736507
That's one of yours though.

>>17734068
Kneel, fuckboi.

>>17736654
Once you've read Derrida going back to read Plato is like looking at a kindergartener's finger painting. It's so embarrassingly simple.

>>17736820
Once you've read Plato, reading Derrida is like watching a lunatic shit all over a wall and spread it around while calling it art

>>17736654
Who’s this homosexual?

>>17735824
The very axiom of non-contradiction in fact already states and contradicts itself, or rather it can't be stated without producing a contradiction. If I say A = B, then A and B must be either a) different in some aspect not under consideration, or b) different at first and subsequently becoming identical, or c) appear different but turn out be identical. In all cases A =! B at some point or in some sense, and rightly so, because otherwise there would be not point in stating A = B as a tautology as it would immediately turn into A = A and further into the simplest assertion that there exists A.
And now, if you think this is merely pseudo-philosophical mumbo-jumbo, take any equality from mathematics and check it.

>>17736833
a very broad shouldered bear

>>17734068
yes

>>17735214
The French would be if they had any sense of shame.

>>17734217
just create your own meaning

>>17734321
ope

>>17736992
Yes.

>>17736934
I see word salad, but no critique. Did you forget to chop a frog in there?

A = B
B != C
Ergo, A != C is necessarily right, while A=C would be a contradiction.
So again, what's the problem there?

>>17737126
What is A and B? How can the something identical (and thus indistinguishable) but have two names/pointers/signifiers?

>>17735980
you know derrida started as a follower of lacan and went his own way right? Lacan wanted him to translate his psychoanalysis into metaphysics and was disgusted by the result
Neither him nor zizek are alchemists in any way but valuable critics of ideology where deconstruction is just positivist drivel with no account for negation
Derrida, deleuze, land etc are the real pseuds you're looking for

>>17737157
Let me put it in a common language you could understand.
A = OP sucks cocks
B = OP is a fag
OP is a fag != OP is an upstanding member of society
Ergo, sucking cocks does not make an upstanding member of society, but quite the reverse, since it would be equivalent to faggotry.

>>17737157
This is precisely why the Saussurean model of language is so limited, and why philosophical work dependent on it should be ignored.

requesting the free range farm of signifiers meme with Derrida as the farmer

>Derrida was born on July 15, 1930, in a summer home in El Biar (Algiers), Algeria,[2] into a Sephardic Jewish family
Ah, at last I understand why Derrida's philosophy is so deep and meaningful. People nowadays have so few things to feel proud of that they will resort doing such pathetic things as claiming they understand Derrida's fucking nonsense.

>>17738377

>>17739032
ive been laughing at this every time ive seen it in the past few days. something something

>>17739032
He doesn't actually believe there is nothing ultimately centering the signs does he? We would all be spouting gibberish if they weren't fundamentally conditioned by sense information we receive from the outside world and use to navigate it

>>17735603
wtf i understand derrida now

>>17739185
On the contrary, he believes centering is necessary and inescapable

>>17738996
so studying derrida is like speedrunning a 25 year old ps1 game?

>>17738996
Dude, just admit that you're too dumb to understand it. I don't even like his philosophy but I understand it just fine

>>17734353
The point is that there isn’t a center. And there is no switcheroo that you can pull. Either you agree or insist that there is a center. There is no “there is no ‘there is no center.’”

Derrida repackages Pyrrhonism for modern audiences, it's nothing new.

>muh law of noncontradiction nooo logicerinoo
join team hegel instead of french meme guys its much more convincing

>>17740519
you can't escape the law of non-contradiction, whatever philosophical system you use undoubtedly employs it in its reasoning

>>17740533
>you can't escape the law of non-contradiction
Derrida addresses this incessantly. Look up "double movement".

bump

It's easy to say Derrida is nonsense until you actually read him and you can read all the quotes and citations in the text yourself and see he is interpreting those writers well.

>>17740336
D-dude, 1 is not 1, try to be smart like me, hoho. You subhumans are the kind of people to work at McDonalds or some other shit job while calling people in STEM wagies, but do whatever helps you keep coping with being a total failure in other aspects of existence.

Philosophy is identity
How do u feel
What can u do
Tibetan Buddhists and India did this already

All of this shit exists to slow you down and to get u to swallow some other nerds verbal hypnosis semen

Know thyself
Expand
There's only a wheel. Steer it whatever way u want.
The rest is just a cope bc ur a pussy
The end

Handsome bastard. His sons look good too

>>17734718
no he said Derrida isn't white, are you dull?

>>17743635
Projection and cope