/lit/ - Literature

Fugly, probably never touched or breastfed.

Fascinating figure. Notoriously hard to get a grasp of, though.

I went on a date with a girl once who mentioned Derrida without any reason whatsoever to do so.

There wasn't a second date.

I might take slack from this, but he's actually not that difficult.

You're probably better off studying Borges in depth but Derrida does some cool stuff that is not Borges. His later period that deals more with negative theology is pretty radical and interesting.

After awhile of reading him you might just get to the point where you tell yourself "okay, this is all good but how about we stop playing around and do some work." Derrida knows how to deconstruct but a lot of his followers just dick around pointlessly.

>>2264375
I swear that's copypasta.

Polite sage because I know nothing about Derrida.

>>2264383

>After awhile of reading him you might just get to the point where you tell yourself "okay, this is all good but how about we stop playing around and do some work."

Is there a single piece of work that will do me in? Is he someone I shouldn't dedicate anymore time to than a Wikipedia reading?

>>2264401
He's nothing like your mom.

Derrida is a faggot

Most of his shit has 0 implications

All of his shit is unfounded


Pretentious people love him


Study something worthwhile

>>2264412

even if you were right this is, like, the exact opposite of what makes a good post

>>2264401
Definitely worth studying a bit. In terms of the humanities/philosophy, nothing has really occurred since Derrida (an exagerration, there's lots of other worthwhile guys, but as a big trend...).

I would really suggest you start with secondary readong. Check out anything by Caputo. Borges' The Library of Babel and Pierre Menard, author of the Quixote make a nice introduction to deconstruction.

I've only read some edited anthologies of his stuff. There's one that I really like but the name eludes me now...it's a later piece of his that consists of this imagined dialogue, but it's really more about negative theology and naive belief.

>>2264383
>>2264431
At least Borges is fun and interesting to read. Derrida is dry as a bone.

But at least he's not Baudillard or Foucault.

>>2264438

fuck yourself, kid, foucault is fucking scintillating

sage

>>2264440
>foucault is fucking scintillating
You're shitting me, right? My grip with Foucault is that he's everywhere on liberal arts. It's like the fucking messiah.

"Biopolitics" this and that is like the goddamn plague.

>>2264440
+1 for Foucault.

Him and Deleuze were the only two of that lot I could properly stomach (though Baudrillard's stuff is mercifully short and relatively entertaining).

>>2264438
yeah, I'd agree. But I fucking love Borges. It wouldn't hurt to just study Borges instead of Derrida. Borges WILL make you a better reader and writer and his stories are short but you can read them infinitely and still get something new.

I'd really like to find out what they spoke of when they met up.

>>2264452

no shitting whatsoever... birth of the clinic is brutal, but history of sexuality and discipline and punish and especially his lectures were genuinely fun reads

for real, check out his collection of lectures titled abnormal for some incredibly fascinating shit about masturbation and cannibalism and whatnot

>>2264458

>Borges

I'll give him a read, but I'm more interested in someone like Wittgenstein.

This is why I was slightly weary about reading Derrida, as from what I've seen so far it didn't look like anything besides masturbation.

> Hating on Derrida and Foucault

Grow the fuck up and read like the educated 21st century readers you are/can easily become.

>>2264475
>Derrida and Foucault
The plague of liberal arts. Especially Foucault.

What the fuck? Did ideas just stopped with him or something? Why the fucking fixation?

>>2264466
borges = decent fiction
baudrillard - absolute hack
derrida - good, ignore idiots
foucault - decent
wittgenstein - dont bother, save him for later

ill be here all week folks

>>2264483
>borges = god-tier fiction
Fixed that. clarification: I'm a Spanish native

>baudrillard - absolute hack
At least we agree on something.

>>2264487
tbh i was off-put when i read something else by him - poetry, maybe. or that writing book. anyways, it had some weird ultra-christianity bend to it. of course, i have also read his short stories

>>2264495
> borges
> ultra-christian
> not reading Borges with a great deal of irony

: /

>>2264483

>wittgenstein - dont bother, save him for later

I've been studying him for the past week, and he is by far my favorite philosopher I've been exposed to.

I've always been drawn to semantics though, curious why you say 'save him for later'.

Totally forgot, OP.

This makes a great introduction.

>>2264501
Probably because when you're done reading Wittgenstein you're done with philosophy.

Gotta love that crazy, pseudo-suicidal homo.

>>2264483
>>2264501
>implying borges isn't one of the best writers of the 20th century
I haven't read anything BY Wittgenstein yet, but I recently read a fantastic fictional biography about him called The World as I found it that I cannot recommend highly enough, and as a result of reading it, I'm hoping to try and tackle Wittgenstein this winter

>>2264506
>pseudo-suicidal homo

lol

>>2264518

>I haven't read anything BY Wittgenstein yet,

Its been by far the most enlightening week of studying I've had in my life, and in combination with studying system complexity with some drugs to boot I feel like I'm touching the borders of my mind.

no.

OP's yes-no answer binary is really a false dialectic which deconstructs itself.

>>2264699

pretty convincing post you've got here sport

>>2264708
That poster has more sway than Bieber.

>>2264708
She really thinks the fact that it's coming from her own mouth (metaphorical mouth, I know she's typing with her fingers you turd) makes it somehow more convincing than if it were coming from someone else, lol