/lit/ - Literature

Hey OP, I have a question. Why don't you define your terms? Not everyone has read Derrida.

>>3218388

I can explain what it's not, if you'd like.

>>3218388
you have no frame of reference here. you're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie...

>>3218392
Nope, positive statements only. We don't play "Prove me wrong" with post-structuralists cunts.

My limited understanding of deconstruction is that the transcendent signifier is posited as the legitimator and arch-referent of the empty signifiers constituting language etc. It is precisely because it does not exist that the play of language is absolute and that the negative contains meaning rather than re-affirming its presence in this transcendent signifier. Hence I do not believe in the transcendent signifier, nor do I believe that "positive statements" are as ideologically innocent as they seem.

>>3218436
So you're playing straw man games with 19th century theories of linguistics.

Please go. This is epistemological nihilism for undergraduates who took linguistics instead of theology in second. And as with epistemological nihilism it is just as trite and has been readily and repeatedly transcended by older disciplines than bourgeois French critique.

>>3218459
20th century, actually; and a such a pat, cliche version of Derrida trotted out here to convince me that all you were doing in "second" - whatever that is - was skimming wikipedia. Epistemological nihilism sort of doesn't work as a generic label for a critique that emphasises the meaning IN the negative ('Hegelianism without Reserve'). But its okay - you're the guy who parrots the pat criticisms instead of actually reading the texts he criticises. Yawn, next.

Does it count if I suck cocks?

loaded question, OP. Not impressed

>>3218812
No post-modern rhetorical techniques are impressive. They are like the Pope and Emperor's captive theologians, each trying to attack the other over property forms. Except today it is which sociology will attempt to control the proletariat for bourgeois enjoyment.

>>3218864
That last sentence, she is beautiful.

>>3218803
MY IDEAL LIFE IS HAVING MY LIFE SCREWED UP BY HAVING AN IDEAL PICTURE OF MY LIFE.

how will this end?

>>3218933
He shaves himself dude, he shaves himself.

If the transcendental signifier existed why haven't we found it yet?

By induction through all the previous failed attempts to find it we conclude that it doesn't exist.

>>3218962
>by induction…we conclude
Oh my sides.

>>3218994
not only is he using induction, he's misusing it.

i bet he probably doesn't know how to tie his own shoes.

>>3218994

You are being insolvent and insular.

The transcendental signifier is Justice, you dumbasses.

That's it. Deconstruction is just another Kantian system with a Jewish Gnostic spin.

Very edgy stuff.

>>3220366
how is it kantian?

>>3218392
haha oh wow, good one anon


10/10, my sides fell off

>>3220366
This. Justice is the only thing you can't deconstruct.

Basically deconstruction is just the sophistry of jewish lawyers.

"Structure, Sign and Play" is a critique of "structurality." It's not just a critique of structuralism. It's a critique of the idea of anything that has a center, one which is at the same time an enabling causal principle.

In other words, I look at a structure and I say it has a center. What do I mean by a center? I mean a blanket term, a guiding concept, a transcendental signified, something that explains the nature of the structure and something also, as Derrida says, which allows for limited free play within the structure; but at the same time the structure has this kind of boundary nature. It may be amoeboid but it still has boundaries--right?--and so at the same time limits the free play within the structure.

That's like the New Critics saying that a text has structure. It has something that actually in the phenomenological tradition is called an "intentional structure."

Kant calls it "purposiveness"-- that is to say, the way in which the thing is organized according to some sort of guiding pattern.

>>3220459

But to speak of an intentional structure as a center is not at all the same thing as to speak of an intending person, author, being, or idea that brought it into existence, because that's extraneous.

That's something prior. That's genesis. That's a cause, right?

The intending author, in other words, is outside, whereas we can argue that the intentional structure is inside.

But that's a problem. How do you get from an intending author to an intentional structure and back?

A center is both a center and not a center, as Derrida maddeningly tells us. It is both that which organizes a structure and that which isn't really qualified to organize anything, because it's not in the structure; it's outside the structure, something that imposes itself from without like a cookie cutter on the structure, right?

This then is an introductory moment in Derrida's thinking about centers.

He talks about the history of metaphysics as a history of successive appeals to a center: that is to say, to some idea from which everything derives, some genesis or other that can be understood as responsible for everything that there is.

>>3220463

The list is very cunningly put together.

It's not necessarily chronological, but at the same time it gives you a sense of successive metaphysical philosophers thinking about first causes, origins, and about whatever it is that determines everything else.

I'll just take up the list toward the end:

"transcendentality, consciousness, or conscience, God, man, and so forth."

Notice that though the list isn't strictly chronological, man nevertheless does succeed God. In other words, he's thinking about the development of Western culture.

In the Middle Ages and to some extent in the Early Modern period, we live in a theocentric world. Insofar as he understands himself as man at all, man understands himself as a product of divine creativity, as something derived from God, as one entity among all other entities who participate and benefit from the divine presence.

But then of course, the rise of the Enlightenment is also the rise of anthropocentrism, and by the time the Enlightenment is in full cry you get everybody from Blake to Marx to Nietzsche saying not that God invented man, but that man invented God.

Man has become the transcendental signified.

Everything derives now in this historical moment from human consciousness, and all concepts of whatever kind can be understood in that light. But then of course he says, having said "man," he says "and so forth."

>>3220467

But then of course he says, having said "man," he says "and so forth."

In other words, something comes after man. Man is, in other words, an historical moment.

There are lots of people who have pointed out to us that before a certain period, there was no such thing as man, and in a variety of quite real senses, after a certain moment in the history of culture, there is also no such thing as man.

The argument Derrida is making about the emergence of his "event" is that a new transcendental signified has actually substituted itself for man.

In other words, the world is no longer anthropocentric; it's linguistic.

Obviously, the event that Derrida is talking about--the emergence, the rupture, an event which makes a difference--is the emergence of language.

>>3220470

Ok but the question is now : what comes after language ?
What is the transcendental signified that took over language ?

In other words language is the transcentral signified of last century, what is the new one if any ?

Nihilism ? Schzizophrenism ? Individualism ?

Answer that moron faggots.

>>3220470
you lost me at "emergence of language"

>>3220494

"The moment [of emergence--the event, in other words, about halfway down] was that in which language invaded the universal problematic [in other words, that moment in which language displaced the previous transcendental signified, which was man]; that in which, in the absence of a center or origin, everything became discourse--provided we can agree on this word-- that is to say, when everything became a system where the central signified, the original or transcendental signified, is never absolutely present outside a system of differences.

He's making a claim for language while erasing it.

In other words, he's painfully aware that language is just the new God, the new Man. Many critiques of deconstruction take the form of saying that deconstruction simply instrumentalizes language, gives it agency, and gives it consciousness as though it were God or man and then pretends that it isn't. This is a common response to deconstruction.

Derrida is aware of it in advance. He says in effect, "Look, I know we're running this risk in saying everything is language," or, if you will here, everything is discourse.

At the same time, we are saying something different, because hitherto we had this problem: in other words, we had the problem of something being part of a structure-- that is to say God is immanent in all things, human consciousness pervades everything that it encounters-- in other words, something which is part of a structure but which is at the same time outside of it.

God creates the world and then sort of, as Milton says himself, "uncircumscrib'd withdraws," right? God is not there. God is the Dieu caché: God is the hidden God who is absent from the world and is, in effect, also the structure of the world.

>>3220502

The same thing can be said of man. Man brings the sense of what the world is into being and then stands aside and somehow sort of takes it in through an aesthetic register or in some other remote way.

Language doesn't do that. Language is perpetually immersed in itself. Derrida is claiming that language is different in the sense that it makes no sense to talk about it as standing outside of what's going on.

>>3220505
>Language doesn't do that. Language is perpetually immersed in itself. Derrida is claiming that language is different in the sense that it makes no sense to talk about it as standing outside of what's going on.


Lacan says, "The unconscious is structured like a language."

That's perhaps the single expression that people take away from Lacan, and rightly so, because it is, again, foundational for what we need to understand if we're to get along with him: "the unconscious is structured like a language." Now what does this mean? He doesn't say,

"The unconscious is a language," by the way, and he doesn't say that he means the unconscious is structured exclusively like human language.

He means that the unconscious is structured like a semiotic system. In fact, he draws from Freud's Interpretation of Dreams the idea that the way the dream work works and the way everyday life, in Freud's sense of the psychopathology of everyday life, works is like a rebus--in other words, one of those puzzles in which you can find an underlying sentence if you figure out how to put together drawings, numbers, and syllables: in other words, a sequence of signs taken from different semiotic systems that can put themselves together into a meaning.

That's how Lacan understands the dream work and the movements of consciousness to unfold.

The unconscious then is structured like a language, which is not the same thing as to say it is a language.

Is it true that Derrida was a drug dealer? And that he got busted and had to get Foucault the AIDS spreader to bail him out?

>>3220512

Okay. Structured like a language. This means--and this is where there is this enormous gulf between Lacan and most other practitioners of psychoanalysis--the unconscious is not, in that case, to be understood as the seat of the instincts. It's not to be understood as something prior, in other words, to those forms of derivative articulation, those forms of articulation emerging through maturity that we're accustomed to call "language."

If the unconscious is structured like a language, then it--the id, es--the it itself is precisely the signifier, the signifier that emerges as language: not that it is foundational to language, because Lacan's point,


is not that language expresses thought. It's not at all that language expresses thought, but that language constitutes thought,


that language brings thought, consciousness, or a sense of things into being, and that this is articulated through language.

>>3220493
You seem like you've got a sense of what you're talking about.

Surmise what comes next....Take a guess...

>>3220519
Answer the question

>>3220536

Ok we have to come back to the self deconstruction of monotheism particularly christianity.

Judaism, Christiany and Islam departed from polytheism in the sense that they put away God, from immanent (here with us) to transcendent (impossible to reach)

But Christianity is different in the sense that :

1) God became immanent in the form of Christ : at one point the transcendental signified incarnated itself through Jesus.

2) Christianity takes with itself element of judaism (different from islam here) and then element of philosophy starting with St Augustinus.

The fact that christianity embedded itself with philosophy lead eventually to its self destruction.

Christianity split with categories of "three" : Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

Then split in catholicism, orthodoxy and protestantism.

Christianity let philosophy then science put to our views its own contradictions.

So Christianity self deconstructed itself.

And now here we are.

Postmodern are just the consequences of this.

The fact that a window was left opened, plus the social conditions we are now in allowed it to happen.

But what will come after Pomo, this is THE question and this question will have some links with the socio economical conditions are great great grand children will be living in.

>>3220563
According to Vico and Joyce, we'd be in a "Chaotic Age" and the next age would be a "Theocratic Age"

Just putting it out there...

>>3220563

Another issue lies with the "optic illusions" : optic illusion are just a sign that our visual system function correctly (cf Mike May or Sydney Bradford cases for an opposite opininion)

The same with langage.

The fact that we understand and use langage just means with are functional.

A person with dementia or schzizophrenia could not come with these ideas: their brain is broken.
(Stanford Sapolsky : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEnklxGAmak))

The thing is that life has arrived to this point (man) that is was able to self reflect its thinking.

(ernst poppel : in english : http://www.diffusion.ens.fr/index.php?res=conf&idconf=264))

>>3220612

We "program" our brain for a certain type of society.

We learn to read the grammar of the society we are leaving in using statitic (what is "normal", in the bell curve sense).

What will the computer impact for kid born with computers will engenders ?

Pomo guys are old fellow not born with this.

>>3220563
>Judaism, Christiany and Islam departed from polytheism in the sense that they put away God, from immanent (here with us) to transcendent (impossible to reach)

The Sufis would like a word with you.

>>3220563
monotheism probably preceded polytheism.

>>3220463
>How do you get from an intending author to an intentional structure and back?
READ MY ARTICLE IN TAR

>>3220470
>The argument Derrida is making about the emergence of his "event" is that a new transcendental signified has actually substituted itself for man.
Not demonstrated.

>>3220493
>In other words language is the transcentral signified of last century, what is the new one if any ?
Premises not demonstrated, reasoning cannot follow.

>>3220563
>But what will come after Pomo, this is THE question and this question will have some links with the socio economical conditions are great great grand children will be living in.

Nope, that's a question for Marxists; not sycophants of the French state.

>>3220632
>The Sufis would like a word with you.
I think Kierkegaard and the Orthodox mystic traditions would also like a serious word.

They're just lining up with brickbats wanting words.

It is like someone didn't take theology in second year. As I noted many posts above.

The Saussurean concept of the sign is so bullshit it hurts. You can safely ignore everyone who uses the word 'signifier' or 'signified', forever.

>>3220512
>Lacan says, "The unconscious is structured like a language."

This is also funny, because not even language is 'structured like a language' in the sense that Lacan means.

>>3220966
>READ MY ARTICLE IN TAR

Haahahahaha, fuck you so much ^^

>>3220383
Actually, this is what someone told me today as well. I think I don't like philosophy after all.

>>3220994
I challenge you to provide an alternative theory of reading—sufficient to read meaning from deceptive texts in a world without a demonstrable continuous intervention by God—that is superior to hermeneutics. In a thousand words.

>>3220994
Hey anonymous
have you ever
ever considered
Submitting to TAR

>>3220966

Where is this article ?
sauce pls.

>>3221299
>icle ?
>sauce pls.

http://theaprilreader.wordpress.com/archive/

Which month anon ?

>>3221450

bump on the month of the TAR article about Derrida or deconstruction.

Anyone know ?

Deconstruction is fucking useless

>>3221556

What about the TAR article on the implied author.
Anyone knows which month ?

You guys know a lot more about literary theory than I do.

>>3221625
>You guys know a lot more about academic shitposting than I do.

>>3221630
Is nietzsche the best academic shitposter of all time?

>>3221003
>I challenge you to provide an alternative theory of reading

Semitic rhetoric : Mary Douglas, Michel Cuypers,
Roland Meynet

http://yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300117622

http://www.ideo-cairo.org/spip.php?article80

http://www.retoricabiblicaesemitica.org/Articolo/Inglese_121019.pdf

>>3221715
The fact that so many books still name Nietzsche "the greatest or most significant or most influential" acadermic shitposter ever only tells you how far Nihilism still is from becoming serious shitposting. German idealist shitposters have long recognized that the greatest German idealist shitposters of all times are Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Hegel, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical shitposters rank the highly controversial Diogenes of Sinope over classical shitposters who were highly popular in the agoras around Europe. Nihilist shitposters are still blinded by commercial success: Nietsche sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore he must have been the greatest. German idealists grow up shitposting to a lot of German idealism of the past, classical shitposters grow up shitposting to a lot of classical shitposting of the past. Nihilist shitposters are often totally ignorant of the nihilism of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that Nietzsche did anything worth of being saved.

>>3221450
>http://theaprilreader.wordpress.com/archive/
>Which month anon ?

bump

>>3221776
While this is a worthy inquiry into alternative rhetorics, it doesn't appear to be a theory of reading as such, but rather a technique of reading texts. The key point would be that a hermeneutical reading of texts constructed with a Semitic rhetoric is possible, just as much as a hermeneutical reading of texts constructed with a Greek rhetoric is possible. Rhetorics and the comprehension of the structure of rhetorics is a tool deployed in and by theories of reading.

(Awesome find though, this makes me rethink the decoherence of Numbers and Deuteronomy and makes me want to reread them. Previously I've read them as non-narrative administrative documents.)

>>3221556
>>3221596
>>3221831

Latest issue (dec/2012) on reading. It answers specifically
>How do you get from an intending author to an intentional structure and back?

>>3221890
>Latest issue (dec/2012) on reading.

Thank you anon!

> I know I do when I use hermeneutics.

what does that mean? How do you "use hermeneutics"

Okay, so how do you use hermeneutics to uncover those things? Please try to be non-abstract (give an example).

I read your post. The contexts (and hypertexts) of your post are /lit/ on 4chan in 2012, in a Western culture in the context of a philosophy thread.

You are probably an adult male with some university eduction, on /lit/ probably with a degree or the likely success of a degree. I believe this from texts and contexts, all of which comes from within my own mind.

Between my mind and the text I apparently read on the screen I know that there is an unbridgeable epistemological gulf.

Between my mind and your text (even if I could _know_ your text as a sequence of symbols) the meaning of the symbols is unknowable to me.

I presume, leaping into the gulf, that "Okay, so how do you use hermeneutics to uncover those things? Please try to be non-abstract (give an example)." is content from social reality, was written in English by a person of the above kind.

But more than a surface reading, I leap into the reading that you're not particularly familiar with hermeneutics as an interpretive text reading method because of the way in which you phrased your question and your request for a concrete example.

And so on and so on with deeper readings.

You know your reading has failed when you fall into an unending pit of sheol.

All other techniques and methods of critique must be grounded in (to the extent possible) rigorous analysis of the origins and sources of the text.

But the final revelation of meaning from the text _will necessarily be an eisegetic leap of faith into your hope of what text contents are_.

Eisegesis is used to bridge the gap between the reader and an external reality exegetical reading. Nietzsche won't give you this.

>>3221927

But more than a surface reading, I leap into the reading that you're not particularly familiar with hermeneutics as an interpretive text reading method because of the way in which you phrased your question and your request for a concrete example.

And so on and so on with deeper readings.

You know your reading has failed when you fall into an unending pit of sheol.

All other techniques and methods of critique must be grounded in (to the extent possible) rigorous analysis of the origins and sources of the text.

But the final revelation of meaning from the text _will necessarily be an eisegetic leap of faith into your hope of what text contents are_.

Eisegesis is used to bridge the gap between the reader and an external reality exegetical reading. Nietzsche won't give you this.

>>3221927
>>3221929

I'm not quite getting your point of slab quoting a past discussion on hermeneutic methods of reading.

>>3221850

Yes I know that this is unfortunately not a reading theory but I think it is something to keeo in mind to analyse the surface of the text.

I bought the book some years ago, very interesting stuff.

She draws parallel between the detective novel, the Iliad and even Tristam Shandy !

An interview of her is on youtube. really really good stuff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeoYjMekgZY

>>3221949
>I'm not quite getting your point of slab quoting a past discussion on hermeneutic methods of reading.

I posted it because I did not understood why this was not quoted on TAR on top of the other thread.

>>3221957
okay, so you're posting it as an example, and asking why it wasn't part of the TAR article?

Largely because I felt the TAR article as such contained a good 1000 word summary

>>3221951

To Hermeneuticist ;

Mary Douglas interview :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeoYjMekgZY

From min 12

>>3221963
>Hermeneuticist

Ok no pb I didn't know that (limit 1000 words).
It's just that this concrete exemple was really good.

Anyway I think you'll like Kent Palmer posts on quora.

>>3221977

http://www.quora.com/Kent-Palmer

>>3221977
>http://www.quora.com/Kent-Palmer
Thanks, I'm looking at these now.

I think there's more value to giving a 1000 words, than to going into 1500 or 2000 and complicating it. Getting a theory of how you can read despite the epistemological gap across was most important. Besides—it was pretty obvious shit stirring to piss off the postructs. To tell them that their shit was refuted by 18th century theology.

Hermeneuticist,

Have you listened to the Yales lectures on the Bible ?

http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-145

>>3221994
No, I haven't. I'm not an undergraduate and my discipline isn't theology or religious archaeology, so my period of time for enjoying the bible is purely leisure time. I did take a suitable course in my undergraduate degree, then read most of the OT with the help of a respectable text-historicist catholic interpretive guide.

>>3221993
>To tell them that their shit was refuted by 18th century theology.

Feuerbach, Cassirer, Gadamer.

Althusser talks about Feuerbach in his State Apparatus book. When he discusses ideology which is quite interesting (pointing at the material conditions of ideology)

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm

You can CTRL+F the following titles, short interesting read for you I think.

"Thesis I. Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence."

followed by :

"Thesis II: Ideology has a material existence."

>>3222038

Are you a Phd or Postdoc then ?
Wrote your thesis on Paul Ricoeur by any chance :) ?

>>3218359
In all cultures, man has herrsch'd over woman.
This is a transcendental signifier, if I am not mistaken.

>>3222055
>In all cultures

Anon needs to read a bit of Rosa Luxemburg before affirming things he doesn't know.

>>3222048
Write up. Nope, no Ricoeur. I'm busy taking notes for future research. I just needed a strong enough methodology and theory to brow beat pomos from other disciplines.

>>3222039
Ah fuck, now I have to actually read Althusser rather than just reject his conclusions in my field.

>>3222062

Don't worry, it will be a short read (like 2 pages)

But the real man in Marxist theory is Pierre Macherey.

Others are Guillaume Sibertin-Blanc and Anne Sauvargnagnes, not bad at all but you'll need to be fluent in french if you want me to drop some links.

>>3222039
Wow. Gold does appear on /lit/ if you stare at it hard enough

>>3222074
I follow Thompson on the English Marxism debates on "High Theory." Mainly because I follow another bunch of theorists about concrete social change.

So no French.

>>3222084
>So no French.

Ok no pb..

Currently listening to 2 The Great Courses lectures :

TTC : Masterpieces of the Imaginative Mind: Literature's Most Fantastic Works : Professor Eric S. Rabkin

TTC : Art of Reading : Professor Timothy Spurgin

Good stuff inside.

About to read some Fredric Jameson.
Do you have some peculiar recommandation to make as far as Marxist theory is concerned ?

Which Thompson book would you recommand ?

Other writers otherwise ?

>>3222113
Thompson's article on Time, Work Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism: libcom.org/files/timeworkandindustrialcapitalism.pdf

For Thompson vs. Althusser, Thompson (1978) The Poverty of Theory.

I'd recommend looking at the Autonomists if you need theories of social change in capitalism.

>>3222181

Excellent thank you mate.
I have to say I was beginning to feel really tired of Zizek and David Harvey so I hope it's going to be a nice clear reading.

Otherwise for the 1960's Lucien Goldmann for a sociology of a novel and Lucien Sebag Structuralism and Marxism are really nice stuff.

For the anecdote, Lucien Sebag a student of Levi-Strauss was an analysand of Lacan and he fall in love with Lacan's daughter. She rejected him and he comminted suicide aged 30.

Considering the quality of his first book, this is a great loss.

>>3222181
Blah, The Poverty of Theory is so utterly dull and far off the mark. As much as I love every other E.P. Thompson book, I could not recommend it to anyone. I recommend the essays in Customs In Common.

>>3222202
>Lucien Goldmann

Yeah, the guy who bashed derrida in 1966 when he first presented his deconstruction!

pic related

>>3222242

>>3222252

in before

>>3222264

Derrida's answer

>>3222272

Derrida's anwser 2

>>3220971
>The argument Derrida is making about the emergence of his "event" is that a new transcendental signified has actually substituted itself for man.
>Not demonstrated.

in pic enclosed : "the moment in which (...) everything became discourse"

>>3221003
>>I challenge you to provide an alternative theory of reading
>>implying anyone needs theory for reading
>>implying theory is not crutches for the lame

>>3222892
This.

The best literary theories are the ones that stay in theory.

>>3221963
i bet you haven't studied nietzsche. one can "get" almost anything out of nietzsche that one wants. the act of reading as an act of creation, for example, a leap into meaning through will to power. literary theory is pointless.

>>3221993
your epistemological hang-ups are the reason you can't into nietzsche.

>>3222922
your hang ups about personal identity is the reason you can't into meaning.

>>3222894
Publish and be damned, cuntface.

>>3222300
the proletariat.

Again: not demonstrated. Crawl back up the anal cunt of the French State in the 1970s.

>>3222226
Enjoy your disconnection from class experience and history.

>>3222962
what the fuck?

>>3222967
>Crawl back up the anal cunt of the French State in the 1970s.

Can u pls developp your point here ?

>>3223388

bump

Just chiming in here to say that Saussure was wrong, and that Derrida is just a self-conscious butchering of an already wrong concept.

The thing is, Derrida has built his entire edifice on some pretty shaky ground. It only seems that deconstruction is a solid philosophical system/theory/whatever but it will be completely shattered in a matter of time.

>>3224041
Why does /lit/ hate derrida so much? deconstructionism obviously stupid as a general philosphy. its about understanding language and communication. using it in everyday instances is how people get stupid shit like "the fourth of july represents 400 years of jewish lies."

>>3224065
Probably because the majority of /lit/ posters know what a computer/internet is and it radically changes your perception of language and communication.

Deconstruction is for old dinosaurs clinging to their jobs.

>>3224072
If anything, the language adaptations of the internet reinforces the theories of deconstructionism by making its principles more obvious. i still dont understand the hate, unless your argument is that because its so obvious its no longer relevant, which is not only wrong but stupid.

>>3223388
>>Crawl back up the anal cunt of the French State in the 1970s.
>Can u pls developp your point here ?

Post-modernism equipped the French State with the sociological tools for the repression of spontaneous proletarian action in the factories and communities of France. It allowed the French parliamentary left, including the "communist" party, to recooperate proletarian experience and demands for society in the 1970s and the 1980s producing French "social" capitalism as a more viable way of maintaining capitalism in circumstances with a revolutionary first world proletariat than a direct neo-liberal attack and confrontation such as in Chile, NZ, Australia, UK or the United States of America.

Post-modernism makes sense of the "social" demands of the proletariat, such as "wages for housework" or "freedom of personal expression" and then instrumentalises the State and Market's capacity to turn these into weapons against the class. See Autonomism (and not that cunt Negri). Tronti might be useful on the idea of historical specificity of repression, or our tools of freedom becoming the State's tool's of oppression.

>>3224141
“Class is used in the service of sexism,” says Marx. Capitalist nationalism states that society, perhaps surprisingly, has significance, but only if the premise of materialist discourse is invalid; otherwise, academe is capable of intention. Thus, an abundance of deappropriations concerning not narrative, as capitalist nationalism suggests, but postnarrative may be discovered.

If one examines materialist discourse, one is faced with a choice: either accept neocultural theory or conclude that expression is a product of the masses, given that reality is interchangeable with sexuality. The characteristic theme of the works of Gaiman is a capitalist reality. Therefore, any number of discourses concerning materialist discourse exist.

>>3224158
I'll just hazard a guess at your role in the reproduction of capitalist value—your living being isn't reduced to the exertion of labour power on a regular basis.

Why do you accept Derrida's wrangling arguments based on re-defining language for his purposes yet defending them by resorting to the original definition prima facie OP?

>>3224141
i dnno how commies can see things totally in terms of class conflict and ignore the huge racial demographic changes going on.

Look at france, something like 30 or 40% of the young are non-white.

>>3220366
>>3220436

lol no
>justice
>not voilent reinstitution through arbitrariness
>justice as non-temporal metaphysical entity
>justice as untouched by differance
>flagrant question begging

but don't worry i am doing the same thing.

which is why we will never have a winner.

without agreeing on definitions we will never even have a proper debate, but those definitions will and must inherently presuppose the conclusions. in the end nothing but a tower of babel situation of clashing intuitions.
what do?

...im gonna go take a shower

>>3224239
>what do?

STOP THINKING
BURN THE BOOKS

>>3224230
The discussion was covering the issue of Post-modernism's service of the French State's interests. Post-modernism did so in class terms. If you want to advance a theory that the French State wishes or demands racial outcomes, and the post-modernism serves this, then you're going to need to substantiate your argument. Particularly the intentional one.

>>3224230
They, falsely, consider racism a matter of bourgeoise divide and conquer tactics and call for a united brotherhood of workers while ignoring that it is the worker class that is the most harmed by their post-68 ideological antics.
Often outright ignoring that Marx himself called for homogenous nationalism to help further the end goal of global communism at that.

>>3224274
{{cn}}

>>3224274
Where can I read more about this? Tronti and Autonomism?

>>3224435
http://libcom.org/tags/mario-tronti
http://libcom.org/library/storming-heaven-class-composition-struggle-italian-autonomist-marxism-stev
e-wright

>>3224483
Cool, thanks. Did they critique the french po-mos? That's really what I'm interested in...

>>3224141
>Post-modernism makes sense of the "social" demands of the proletariat, such as "wages for housework" or "freedom of personal expression" and then instrumentalises the State and Market's capacity to turn these into weapons against the class

That interesting and this is what the Frankfurt School was already talking about.

Marcuse was talking about how the ego was stcuk between the it and the superego, the superego being the discourse of the society which want you to conform.

However Marcuse was limited because he though that our desires would be able to fight the injunction of the superego.

The pb is that, as Deleuze and Guattari via Lacan and Marx put it is that our desire is itself a product of the society we are living in.

The desire is not personal, private. On the contrary it is public, mediated by language.

Because language is public (And Wittengenstein before Lacan should be credited for it), this language is living in our head.

We are the terminals of the language.

We are subjects in a public way, not subject in a private way.

>>3224627

As Bahtkin says :

"The ideological becoming of a human being, in this view is the process of selectively assimilating the words of others." -

Our degrees of freedom are limited to a cut in this public discourse to create something bespoke, but even these cuts are not really chosen in reality.

So language is really important here.

The official language is not better than a "creole".

It is advertise as "better" and "natural" by the dominant classes because this is the language they master.

In France, the normativity of the "french" language was imposed on all internal (countryside) and external (colony) areas in the 19th century thanks to the schools, the army, the newpapers.

But this french was only spoken initially by the parisian upper class.

Then, if the law, the administration, the religion, the school is made of this language, the only way is to follow it.

But the problem is that the upper classes will always master better that language compared to the other classes, because they were "born" with it.

Hence a minor language is only minor in a contingent way, because the circonstances and the political rapport (strengh basically, real then symbolic violenceà created it as minor.

>>3224628

Reason why I think that language took over man as transcendental signified.

Because, and Wittgenstein should never be forgotten in this turn, when you see how language constiture thoughs and how language is public, then it is clear that analysis are going to reveal the language as central.

Reason why Derrida talks about this turn to language as a trasncendental signified in the 1960's

Derrida is not Chomsky who thinks that language is just a "think in itself"

The political implications can be derived from his analysis.

A minor language is minor following a violent struggle between classes or colonized/colonisator.

So language should not be put aside here.

I THOUGHT THIS IS /LIT/
NOT /PHIL/

I'm tired of you cunts.

>>3224677

Show me where /phil/ is and I will go there.

>>3224703

It doesn't exist for a reason.
/lit/ itself is already pretentious enough.

Guyz, before you claim to be into philosophy, start writing, start gaining experience for yourself instead of learning 100% of your viewpoints from the book.

These theads are going in circles for a reason.

>>3224703
there is a philosophy board on 420, or you could go to the random board.

>>3224677
Doesn't philosophy have huge ties with literature?
Nietzsche loved the shit out of Dostoevsky and most philosophy comes in book form.

You can just hide the threads anyway, I haven't read enough philosophy for the thread to be understandable and I ignore them just fine.

>>3224764
he doesn't want to discuss actual literature, he just wants more space for his dragons

>>3224677
you must be new here

Somebody point me to the strongest critiques against Derrida

>>3224764
>Doesn't philosophy have huge ties with literature?

Palaeontology has massive ties with books too. It doesn't mean I'm going to start a thread saying "Hurr Stegosaurus vs T-Rex" 5 times a day, then whine that there is no palaeontology board.

>>3224757

Just been 5 min in the 420.
Terrible experience : full of ads, badly designed, stupid music automatically played.

And the content seems superboring compared to here in term of quality.

420 = Hell on earth.

I would never have thought, even in my worse nightmares that something like that existed.

>>3224731
>Guyz, before you claim to be into philosophy, start writing, start gaining experience for yourself instead of learning 100% of your viewpoints from the book.

+1

Guys, think twice about this advise, it is worth it.

>>3224757
>there is a philosophy board on 420, or you could go to the random board

random bord ?
Good luck for your thread to exist more than 5 min mate.

>>3224788
>Palaeontology has massive ties with books too. It doesn't mean I'm going to start a thread saying "Hurr Stegosaurus vs T-Rex" 5 times a day, then whine that there is no palaeontology board.

Palaeontology is the new transcendental signified

>>3224820
Don't you mean good luck with it lasting ten seconds without being flooded with trolls, porn, and "fag"? Hell, in the current situation (it's upside down and covered with Australian flags, and no one seems to care that you can easily reverse it), it'll just be spammed to death with ":flip180:"

>>3224677

>herp derp stop making me feel stupid

kill yourself

it's friday night and you're QQing about too much philosophy threads on 4chan

>>3224788

It does through hermaneutics, theories of truth, and the philosophy of history, yes.

>>3224800
I hope you are joking.

> full of ads,
You don't have an add block?

>badly designed,
Its the same coding as 4chan.

>stupid music automatically played.
Mute

>And the content seems superboring compared to here in term of quality.
is that a troll attempt? The quality is much better than here. everyone is friendlier, more intelligent, and less eager to shitpost. I just picked a random thread from the philosophy board, how is the 'quality' any worse than 4chan?

Seriously, who has critiqued Derrida other than Zizek?

>>3224841
We always tell you philosophy kids to fuck off and nihilist, existentialist and determinist somewhere else. You have been regurgitating the same threads since lit started.

>>3224838

Gosh what happened to /b ????

>>3224788
Five threads is really not a lot.

If I wanted to discuss The Stranger or Steppenwolf, I literally could not do it without having a philosophy thread. Those books aren't even known only to internet philosopher; they're incredibly popular.

Face it, /lit/ might as well be /phil/ and no amount of adorable Garrus and Wrex pictures can change that (although you're welcome to try).

Philosophy threads are the only decent threads on /lit/.

You really can't get ANY discussion about novels or short stories but you can get solid discussion in philosophy threads.

Not my fault you guys don't know philosophy.

>>3224840

dayum you're good at discussion aren't ya boy?

... No really. Your arrogance - or at least the arrogance in your post, I don't want to attack you personally with this - proves my point. Focusing too much on things you learn FROM OTHERS instead of things you learn BY YOURSELF can make you feel "better" than the people who aren't as "educated" as you claim to be.

>>3224844

Not same design as 4chan.
When I zoom, the image is not nicely redisigned.

Could not find in less than 5 min how to mute.

Size of the windows are really small when I zoom.

The form itself is not attractive at all to me so it does not push me to look for content.

>>3224849
>>3224849

searle

though his attacks boiled down to "im too fucking stupid to understand derrida is 9deep4me so it must be meaningless obfuscation and intentional trolling"

>>3224239
youre going too far. i can tell you whose intuitions are correct if you want

>>3224677
cry more faggot

btw, are any of you writing philosophy papers as we speak? i have to finish a 4000 word critique on korsgaaaards counterfactual internalism by tomorrow and it is not going well, mainly because im on 3 hours of sleep.

>>3224526
You'd want to read Negri then. I find critiquing idiots tiresome when the idiots have a deficient epistemology.

>>3224838
>you can easily reverse it
h-how?

>>3224857

I wish I knew.

Saw that shit and immediately left for the other boards.

>>3224863

pic related

>>3224890
Not my fault you guys don't know philosophy.

The problem is we DO understand philosophy, which is why it's so tedious having to wade through the same threads every time we come here. Are you new here? If not, then how haven't you noticed that the philosophy threads are set on repeat?

>>3224917

>The problem is we DO understand philosophy[...]

No. We have read about it alot, thus pretend to understand it.
That's why it's always a relief to see someone who actually knows what he's talking about, which happens rarely. Most of /lit/ are tryhards, always were.

>>3224908
>satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 12/08/12(Sat)21:00 No.3224908

> 12/08/12(Sat)21:00
> i have to finish a 4000 word critique

Suddenly I don't feel depressed anymore but I feel some strange shakes in my belly and a weird noise is coming out of my throat.

Thank you anon you made my day

>>3224908
Yeah, but in all honesty, Derrida was a total dick to Searle in those debates.

The thing is a continental will never admit defeat by an analytic.

I'm asking for continental critiques of Derrida. The only guys I know of are Zizek (kind of) and Foucault (kind of).

>>3224910

bump

>>3224909
> when the idiots have a deficient epistemology

Go on...I know you're referring to Derrida, but go on...

>>3224925
elelel
its by tomorrow midnight you dildo.
im 3/5 done.

>>3224940

Good luck douchebag.

>>3224910
>>>3224838
>>you can easily reverse it
>h-how?

bump

>>3224938
The rhyzomatic mesh of significations fails to speak to social-material reality; subjects are shattered beneath his enormous phallus. There's no speaking about a world that you cannot speak about.

>>3224910
Settings, Custom CSS, put
html > body {
transform:none !important;
-ms-transform:none !important;
-moz-transform-none !important;
-webkit-transform:none !important;
background-image:none !important;
}
then check the Custom CSS box and save

>>3224972
yeah me too i thought Deleuze was crap

>>3224950

thanks asshole

>>3224994

;)

>>3224977

Thanks

>>3224435
>Autonomism

Could some e/lit/e sum up what autonomism is and where to start to read some stuff on it ?

you guys are fucking gay for using words like "transcendental signifier." stick to analytic philosophy if you must read philosophy.

>>3218388
THERE IS NOTHING OUTSIDE OF THE TEXT GEEZ

>>3226430

>>3226430
>THERE IS NOTHING OUTSIDE OF THE TEXT GEEZ

Exercice :

1) Pls read text below
2) when is the turning point ?
3) Is there a change of vocabulary ?
4) Do you think there was something outside this text ?

>ninth grade
>there's a sweet, pretty girl who had lost her legs in an accident and uses a wheelchair
>has very few friends due to her condition
>she's a fantastic artist
>my friends and I decide to prank her for shits and giggles
>I pretend I want to be her friend and she warms up to me immediately
>we start to hang out outside of school
>she takes me to her home one day to watch a movie
>I ask her if she can show me her portfolio (she was in the advanced art program in our school and needed to create fifty or so amazing art pieces to pass).
>during the movie, I say I need to go to the restroom
>retrieve the big ass scissors from my pocket, go into her room, and cut the bottom half of all of her art pieces off and trash them
>leave
>the next day, she rolls up to me in the middle of class, on the verge of crying, and asks me what happened to her art
>I said "I made them look like you."
>all my friends laugh heartily
>she rolls over to her table and just stares at her hands in her lap for the rest of the day
>I'm 22 now and I beat myself up about it every day.

>>3226476
see
>>3226458

>>3226476
>retrieve the big ass scissors from my pocket

Reminds me of Alpha Dog with Justin Timberlake.

Some kind of turning point

>>3226535
>>retrieve the big ass scissors from my pocket

Yeah but the clues that leads to this turning point are :

>decide to prank her
>I pretend I want to be her friend

in contrast with
>there's a sweet, pretty girl
>she's a fantastic artist

To make the first person narrator looking evil.

>>3226476
>>the next day, her father comes and beats me up

>>3226476
I hope that there isn't anything outside of this text, because that was just horrible. Holy fuck man.

>>3226476
You deserve it, you fuck.
I hope you put all your effort into finding her and apologizing.

>>3226554
You dun goofed. I'ma gon call the cyber police.

>>3226584
>You deserve it, you fuck.
>I hope you put all your effort into finding her and apologizing.

Mate, do you realize you are insulting a first person narrator of a fiction text?

Are are you going to reach that kind of narrator ?

There is nothing ourside of the text : your reaction i your head is a text.

Your thoughs are text inside a context (what is "normal" behaviour in 2012 - western culture think about Dogville by Lars von Triers)

You cannot escape it, everything is text.

>>3226611
>I'm text
Not again!

>>3226584
>You deserve it, you fuck.
>I hope you put all your effort into finding her and apologizing.

I hope this was ironic/subtext. Otherwise I would be worried if I were you, because you can't read for shit.

Read from page 4 : http://theaprilreader.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/tar21-draft2.pdf

Nice illustration of Derrida here.

"There is nothing outside the text" means that the text has no fixed limits, not that you should eschew everything that is "outside" of the text qua written word

>>3226668

There is no a-textual origin of a text. The author’s plan of a book is a text. His realization of the same book is another text. Its summary is third text. A text kindles a text and there is no truth beyond the text that the text seeks to represent or explain. There is no reality other than textuality. The textuality is the free play of signifiers. There is no signified that is not itself a signifier.

http://wikieducator.org/Derrida

>>3226678
While this may be the case, it doesn't necessarily lead to unrestricted, anarchic "freeplay" in the sense of absolute parity of interpretation, nor does it impose limits on the hermeneutic domain of an individual text/artifact

It's very easy to read Derrida this way, but it's not the way he read himself nor the way he wanted to be read. Read the afterword to "Limited Inc" for a clarification of how the idea of "freeplay" (like most of his ideas) has been grossly misused

>>3226686

Ok thanks for the reference I'll have a look at it.

At the same time, I find fascinating this idea that everything is a text. Our reactions, our actions are triggered by text (inside our brain).

The idea that the signification takes place in time is also quite interesting.

I mean, in the text above, before the scissor scene you don't know what's going to happen.

The fact that we'll like or dislike the narrator is dependent on very specific details and this is what's fascinating.

Because even in our daily life we face that kind of change toward someone.

The political weapon of gossip works the same way.

Gossips are just "text" but they can be really violent in terms of bullying and destroying someone.

>>>>3224670

But I can Ignore the trancedental signifier, tear it down and leave nothing in its place. Like Lacan says "There is no Big Other". god does not exist, trancedental metaphysics are poetics and literature is the mirror of our Being in the world. Derrida necessarily returns to this position of scepticism in re evaluating language in the text. But there is no risk no great revolt against both metaphysics of self presence or the tyrany of the text. ( The Marxist criticism the above guy mentioned is in this regard valid, since if I deconstruct a text i must necesarily adopt a temporary position of dialectical critique).
I reject the fundumental problem Derrida poses and return my previous position. I accept that the lignual problem exists of teh trancedental signifier and I live with it. I destroy it and recreate it. It is not a an issue for how can I truly live with it if it both exists and does not exist. The true end of teleology that derrida wants lies in the Eternal Recurrence then.

>>3226700

The question is then : can deconstruction be use as a political shield against gossip ?

Can it helps protecting ourselves from the emotional impact triggered by it ?

Then we face the dilemna of emotional response vs intellectual response.

Can deconstruction be used to bridge those 2 things ?

>>3226704

What is the eternal reccurence then in this case? My return to me being missunderstood (Nietzsche is great in thsi example since he demonstrates this in Zarathustra).
Of me being both creative in language ( Poetic Metaphysics and the desire to understand the physical world through sence perception) and destructive (Nihilism). Deconstructionism is only the second part ans thus cannot trully live in the texts poetic trancedance (Which I would argue affects our libidinal desire to use and understand language) but is only negative. Thus a deconstructionist can never live the true Romantic experince of that encloses the experiences of the world in their entirety. ( That is the birth pangs of creation)

>>3226717

Hence Heiddegger turned into poetry in the end of his life, turning to the gnostic side cause the rational one did not work.

>eternal reccurence

Deleuze : difference et repetition

>>3218359
>The fact that we'll like or dislike the narrator is dependent on very specific details and this is what's fascinating.

Think about your last girlfriend.

What microscopic details in the way she thought triggered you to want to go further with her ?

What resonated inside you that made you want to keep going (apart from the size of her bra) ?

Chomsky is no doubt more right about language than Derrida.

Derrida does something like Freud (and Foucault) where he presents an idea that cannot be proven and if you try to prove it wrong, it's going to look like you're implicitly proving it right. Like any critique of Freud is just proof that you have daddy issues and are resenting...

Chomsky's model has more going for it even if its not totally been proven. It has influence beyond cultural studies and the movement to create gender neutral bathrooms.

>>3226972

Please read some more of continental philosophy before you engage in this discussion, in order to have some context of what we are talking about. wether the signifier/ signified actually exist as a relation in pure reality is irrelevant since we are using them as we communicate through language. Chomskys argument that we have an inherent knowledge of language offers little to this debate.

>>3226999
Nice trips.

I've got context enough to know that there's nothing in Sausurre to justify the post-structuralists.

>>3220966
>>>3220463
>>How do you get from an intending author to an intentional structure and back?
>READ MY ARTICLE IN TAR

I think the most accessible book that has changed the manner in which I read was If On a Winter's Night a Traveler by Italo Calvino. It's pretty entry-level (I don't mean this as a slight to the work), but the book deals so much with the question of reading and why we read as well as how literature is created in a fairly accessible manner.

Philosophy pls go

>>>/r/philosophy.

>>3227037

>"If On a Winter's Night a Traveler"
> pls go ??!!?

>>3227037

Dude, philosphy, psychology and literary theory are closely related.

If you missed that you are a 10-years-old faggot.

>>3227037

Without philosophy, /lit/ would be boring as Hell.
If you cannot meta/lit/ you'll never go deep enough.
Kill yourself douchebag

>>3227053
>>3227066
Get out.

>>3227072
This is not your room, and we are not your moms.

>>3227077
No, but you bore the rest of the board.

>I'm having an existential crisis
>Is there free will
>Why are you not a nihilist/relativist/solipsist/determinist/-ist?
>Does objective morality exist
>How can we KNOW that everything has a cause?
-10 times a day for the past two years.

>>3227088
Why are you here, posting in this thread?

Hide the thread and stop crying your ironic post-modern crocodile tears.

Seriously, you're a fucking baby.

>>3227088
>the rest of the board.

Just you in fact.

If you don't like these thread, you can just ignore them.

>>3227102
>If you don't like these thread, you can just ignore them.

Or you could start discussing literature on a literature board. Most of /lit/ groans when another existential crisis or free will thread gets posted. I know you new kids love it, it's all new and novel to you. But it's unfare to everyone else who wants to discuss literature to have to wade through and ignore endless waves of them.

Collectively, you never progress either. You stay stuck on the same ten basic philosophical ideas and can't actually handle any in depth discussion.

Go to >>>/r/philosophy.

>>3227117
>Collectively, you never progress either

No, looking at the archive, I can tell you the last 3 threads on Derrida went much further than what you think.

> can't actually handle any in depth discussion.

Pls then send me a link to an archive of what you call deep discussion on litterature, lie fu*ka waros* or give me some key word that will linkk me to deep conversation in an archive

>>3227117

We first have to ask "Monsieur" what are his opinon about it.

>>3227117
> actually crying this much

>>3227117
>Go to >>>/r/philosophy.

How did you lik to the archive? Testing:
>>>/lit/heidegger

>>3218997
I'm not sure why this is so "incorrect", as it were.

The history of metaphysics is proof, as it were (as it were, if you know what I mean), of the impossibility of metaphysics. If metaphysics was possible philosophy would have ended with Plato.

We find the ultimate ground, and then build up from there into the perfect system like the Tower of Babel and ascend to the heavens. Except WHOOPS NO ULTIMATE GROUND TO BE FOUND THE STRUCTURES ALL COLLAPSE FIRE IN THE THEATER.

So is there no transcendental signifier? Fucking obvious. Greatest thinkers in history have tried to find it, but they've all failed. There is no architect skillful enough to write the right blueprint for the Tower of Babel.

So called "philosophizing" nowadays is just playing among the ruins of the derelict edifice.

>>3227171
> hasn't heard of Taoism
> hasn't read the pre-socratics
> thinks that because some frogs say so it must be true

>>3227171
why reply to me if you don't know what i was talking about

>>3226476
I can't really be fucked conducting a full analysis, but the fact that this is unredacted art and the epode fails to be an epode (no second act in clapistan) means that the text refers to a real event—heartily is a word choice that should not appear in greentext. However, due to the essentially deceitful nature of the text and its reception environment it should be treated as piss in an ocean of piss.

>>3226678
>There is no signified that is not itself a signifier.
Kierkegaard wants a word with you about God in a world where God is dead. In the Holocaust of signs, only some Jews are abandoned by THE LORD. Others come back, harder and stronger. What is dead cannot die.

>>3226700
>I mean, in the text above, before the scissor scene you don't know what's going to happen.
You're fairly new to 4chan and copypasta and the specific genre of greentext, aren't you?

>>3226704
God damnit Nietzsche it is simpler just to believe in God even though there's no evidence.

>>3227117
>[literature must be fictive]

Fuck off cuntface.

>>3227432
Non fictions fine, cocksniff, as long as it's about books. Threads starting "Does free will exist?" don't belong here.

>>3227441
And your contribution belongs in >>>/q/

>>3227426

But we have killed the very idea of God in the first place. Why should we return to it? I never understood how I one could be a Kierkegaardian in this day and age and commit himself so unquestionably to christian values.
I would rather to embrac e the world in its entiriety as the drive towards pleasure or the will to power than to become a moralist of the higher order.
Nevertheless I have great respect for Kierkegaards authentic integrity of caracter.

>>3226424
>Could some e/lit/e sum up what autonomism is and where to start to read some stuff on it ?
Autonomism is a post-New Left kind of ultra-leftist Marxism that is grounded primarily in working class experience and the capacity of workers to radically transform the world.

Where other Marxisms seek out the structure of capitalism's power, Autonomism seeks out the structure of working class power.

>>3227450
>And your contribution belongs in >>>/q/

>>>/q/theofftopicphilosophykidshaveruinedthisboard

>>3227451
>I never understood how I one could be a Kierkegaardian in this day and age and commit himself so unquestionably to christian values.
Oh lordie, here's a clue, you can apply Kierkegaard's leap of faith to any structure of meaning that provides an ethics of action.

>>3227466

>>>/q/the_off-topic_philosophy_kids_have_ruined_this_board.

>>3227490
>the_off-topic_philosophy_kids_have_ruined_this_board.

>>>/lit/(user_was_banned_for_this_post)

>>3227451
> kierkegaard
> committed to christian values

lol r u retard bro?

Kierkegaard is closer to heresy than he is Christian values.

The goal is Love! The goal has always been Love, however derived, denatured or deconstructed we make it; and Sin, that contrivance made out of our fear, the fear we've 'missed the mark' of Love so dear; that's what makes us ache and swell towards each other, that's why we'll always take a chance of being hurt again; 'cause only when we're in the fire of this compelling ardour are our hardened wounds made more tender, and then, we're remade, re-wondered in that adoring splendour ...

In the phenomenology of Love coupled with the viscereality of constant-longing, what remains is our own courage to change the world from inside out withoutta' doubt ... it starts with wonder imbued in awe, unbound by the language of 'reason' nor by the fatal-skin we're in, uncluttered with the pitter-patter of patterns promulgated by all of our bad education nor spoiled by the cliche' of righteous-mediocrity! Fear tunnel-visions and converges toward where all the dead-ends meet -- while the swell-of-longing opens the whirl'd in a frisson of being, in a revelation of seeing reality as a perennial wind of wonder that blows with creative-destruction ...

>>3227451
>I never understood how I one could be a Kierkegaardian in this day and age and commit himself so unquestionably to christian values.
Oh lordie, here's a clue, you can apply Kierkegaard's leap of faith to any structure of meaning that provides an ethics of action. It doesn't matter if God is Dead because what is dead cannot die. At a certain point Kierkegaard and Nietzsche synchronise as a politics of becoming; but, Kierkegaard allows positive ethical projects.

>>3227547
We all
Return
No nothing
It all keeps tumbling down
tumbling down
tumbling do-own.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCLoNOYcVQU

(Yes, seriously regarding the project of meaning in literature—Shinji cannot into being a Knight of Faith)

>>3227454
>capacity of workers to radically transform the world.

Do they seriously belive it ?
I mean if you are working class you NEED the work to eat pay the rent and take care of the kids.
On top of that if you are lured by the society to buy into the myth of belonging to the middle class (ie individualism), bororwing money for a beautiful marriage a stupid Iphone or a nice car, how on earth are you going to be able to lead a revolution ?

Aren't the theorists behind Automatism not themselves part of the middle/upper class and their audience part of the same class ?

>>3227422

What do you mean bro/lit ?
Pls explain to me how it works.

>>3227139
>Pls then send me a link to an archive of what you call deep discussion on litterature, lie fu*ka waros* or give me some key word that will linkk me to deep conversation in an archive

bump

especially something that is a multiple hermeneutic applied reading of a book for instance.

>>3227845

bump

Doesn't poststructuralism reach its breaking point when you begin to assert that desire is socially constructed?

How then do we live if that's the case? Every time I read Deleuze & Co I feel like I've been completely obliterated.

Where do I go? I feel so empty when I read those guys.

Currently working on a paper with "Structure, Sign, and Play in the DIscourse of the Human Sciences"

I want to disagree with the text and Derrida in general that deconstruction is the best way for freeplay to occur within a structure but I'm having trouble articulating my argument. What are some good start off points? I liked the notion that "Justice" is the transcendental signifier which exists outside the structure of what any culture in any moment in time would consider a "justice system." Am I out of my element? Are we truly meant to acknowledge that whatever structure we reside in is potentially bullshit but that is okay so long as we acknowledge its bullshitness which, in turn, leads to revolution??

>>3229026

>How then do we live

Blindly, pragmatically. Obviously.

>>3229026

>How then do we live

Blindly, pragmatically. Obviously.

>>3229597

>Justice" is the transcendental signifier

No.

>Am I out of my element? Are we truly meant to acknowledge that whatever structure we reside in is potentially bullshit but that is okay so long as we acknowledge its bullshitness which, in turn, leads to revolution??

Yes, Yes.

>>3229605
So Derrida's stance, and therefore, deconstruction's, is that we reside in a structure with a "center" (Americanism, Eurocentrism, Capitalism, etc,) and decentering it could lead to a change in that structure? Doesn't this come down to bullcrap since it paves the way for "intellectual" revolution as opposed to "material" revolution in the sense that people consciously revolt through ideas rather than because of their physical/material well-being?

>>3218803
word

>>3229618
Would really like someone to correct/fix my assumption or confirm that I'm on the right path. This is my first paper on Derrida and would like to do well on it through the text as opposed to using wikipedia as a last resort.

Pleading bump

>>3229618

material and intellectual revolution aren't disparate- the one is informed by the other

>>3229686
What if we assume that a revolution is meant to start with the working, impoverished, "uneducated" class? Of course one would have to consciously know what is happening to them in order to revolt (which is where ideas connecting the dots would occur) but are they not more invested in material/income disparity as opposed to thinking through why it is they are revolting?

>>3229709

The fact is the disparity is linked inextricably to 'why it is they are revolting'

I know post modern philosophy assumes God doesn't exist, but if God existed, what would the effect be on deconstruction?

>>3229730

'What came before the question?'

Even God isn't immune to deconstruction

>>3229716
Yeah I guess it would be impossible to completely disconnect the action from the reasoning/idea behind it. You're the only one responding so thanks for your input. As mentioned above where a poster said Justice was the transcendental signifier, why is he wrong? Do we all not have a notion of 'Justice' that comes before our practice of justice? We all understand when we've been wronged so isn't Justice (not the actual justice system) universal and outside of time?

>>3229743

What about autists and sociopaths?

>>3229746
While this may sound cruel or at least heartless, don't autists and sociopaths have a "broken" brain, that is, their brain does not function correctly? Of course, who can really say how the brain is meant to function but is it not safe that their thoughts are irregular?

>>3229754
is it not safe to suggest*

my captcha is: inferior istsdpr, even the machien knows I'm sitting dangerously high and mighty by suggesting something like this

>>3229754

We know so little about cognition, it's impossible to say what a 'correct' mind would look like

>>3218359
>transcendental signifier

Do you mean God?

>>3230166
He means
>define "define"

>>3230173

And yet we can't.

if one examines social realism, one is faced with a choice: either accept Foucaultist power relations or conclude that culture is capable of deconstruction. However, Sartre suggests the use of social realism to modify and read society.Buxton[1] suggests that we have to choose between capitalist neocultural theory and the subtextual paradigm of consensus. It could be said that Derrida uses the term ‘Foucaultist power relations’ to denote not, in fact, discourse, but postdiscourse.The characteristic theme of the works of Smith is the economy, and eventually the rubicon, of dialectic sexual identity. In a sense, the subject is interpolated into a social realism that includes art as a totality.Many appropriations concerning the common ground between reality and class exist. Therefore, the main theme of Cameron’s[2] model of capitalist neocultural theory is the genre, and subsequent collapse, of submodernist sexuality.2. Smith and Foucaultist power relations
“Society is a legal fiction,” says Baudrillard; however, according to Hamburger[3] , it is not so much society that is a legal fiction, but rather the paradigm of society. Marx uses the term ‘capitalist neocultural theory’ to denote the role of the participant as poet. In a sense, the subject is contextualised into a social realism that includes truth as a reality.“Sexual identity is part of the meaninglessness of reality,” says Sartre. A number of desublimations concerning dialectic construction may be discovered. However, the subject is interpolated into a capitalist neocultural theory that includes truth as a whole.

>>3230174

Google can, apparently.

>>3230204
WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS MEAN?

>>3230206

Based on referents that are based on other referents

Lacan uses the term ‘Foucaultist power relations’ to denote not theory per se, but pretheory. It could be said that the characteristic theme of the works of Pynchon is a neocapitalist paradox.If patriarchialist deappropriation holds, we have to choose between social realism and pretextual narrative. Therefore, Sontag promotes the use of the semiotic paradigm of reality to attack capitalism.The subject is contextualised into a capitalist neocultural theory that includes language as a whole. It could be said that the example of neoconceptualist material theory intrinsic to Pynchon’s V emerges again in Vineland.Sargeant[4] implies that we have to choose between Foucaultist power relations and the dialectic paradigm of discourse. However, Derrida uses the term ‘social realism’ to denote the difference between class and sexual identity.3. Realities of economy“Reality is intrinsically meaningless,” says Bataille; however, according to Dahmus[5] , it is not so much reality that is intrinsically meaningless, but rather the defining characteristic, and subsequent futility, of reality. If capitalist neocultural theory holds, the works of Pynchon are empowering. Thus, an abundance of semioticisms concerning not narrative, but postnarrative exist.“Class is part of the economy of language,” says Bataille. The subject is interpolated into a social realism that includes art as a reality. However, in The Crying of Lot 49, Pynchon reiterates capitalist neocultural theory; in Mason & Dixon he denies the subtextual paradigm of consensus.

>>3230210

I know, I was just being a silly billy.

>>3230213

pomo generator detected

>>3230206
Google "google".

I tend to think of Derrida's transcendental signifier as showing word play and games that gets called academia isn't moved forward by definitions. Ultimately, even some of our most everyday words evade being given a decent semblance of meaning through a definition. If you look at Heidegger's issue with talking about Being (formulating a question of What it is to be? without referring to "be" ("is", "it")), you start to see the problems with relying on things like definitions.

>>3230221
>Google "google".

That is entirely possible.

>>3230226

And still you haven't arrived at a transcendent Google

>>3230226
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqxLmLUT-qc

>>3230221
Here's the thing. Philosophy spent all this time building from the ground up a great edifice that we could use to evaluate and describe objective reality. Philosophy still has value, and it is a neccesary check to make sure we are not losing the forest for the trees. However, deconstruction essentially took that edifice and said, ok, we can use the imprecision of language to tear this edifice apart. The problem is, without a building block and a structure that everyone can use, anyone can just pick up a piece and reshuffle and thus "deconstruct." It's not that it's meaningless, it just doesn't mean much, because whatever you say I can just pick up a different piece and rearrange. We have no way to get to the turth.

>>3230231

And yet I can still make sense of it.

>>3218388
The life of the transcendental signifier didn't begin and end with Derrida you know.

>>3230244

Pretty much. Pragmatism's all we have.

>>3230247

You think you can. But your 'sense' of it is enormously vague and relational

>>3230252

It serves my purposes, and the purposes of the millions of people that use it on a daily basis. I get your point that language is circular, or that it relies on certain axiomatic words that we have trouble completely defining, but that doesn't mean that our language isn't touching something real or that it doesn't describe reality, it's just a little imperfection.

>>3230253

That's why theory and praxis aren't the same thing

Can someone explain what deconstruction and transcendental signifier is to a retard?

>>3227821
>Do they seriously belive it ?

Yes

>I mean if you are working class you NEED the work to eat pay the rent and take care of the kids.

See Lukacs on in itself and for itself

>On top of that if you are lured by the society to buy into the myth of belonging to the middle class (ie individualism), bororwing money for a beautiful marriage a stupid Iphone or a nice car, how on earth are you going to be able to lead a revolution ?

Lead eh? These were discovered in the 1960s and 1970s to be just as imprisoning as gin. Watch "Can Dialectics Break Bricks?"

>Aren't the theorists behind Automatism not themselves part of the middle/upper class and their audience part of the same class ?

No, they're mostly, in my experience, Red Diaper babies from social democratic skilled worker backgrounds.

it does

deconstruction is dated 80s kitsch

>>3231115
it does what?

>>3224849
Seriously, who has critiqued Derrida other than Zizek?

I have, for example here:

>>3231109
>>3231119

>>3231217
Habermas, Searle. But every time Derrida just replied with "lol u didnt read my books lol u misinterpreted me"

Pretty clever, eh? Deconstruction cannot be critiqued.

>>3231197
it (transcendental signifier) does exist

it still exists in deconstruction....its called Justice.

How are we to counter the standard postmodern rejection of sexual difference as a “binary” opposition? One is tempted to draw a parallel to the postmodern rejection of the relevance of class antagonism: class antagonism should not, according to this view, be “essentialized” into the ultimate, hermeneutic point of reference to whose “expression” all other antagonisms can be reduced, for today we are witnessing the thriving of new, multiple political (class, ethnic, gay, ecological, feminist, religious) subjectivities, and the alliance between them is the outcome of the open, thoroughly contingent, hegemonic struggle. However, philosophers as different as Alain Badiou and Fredric Jameson have pointed out, regarding today’s multiculturalist celebration of the diversity of lifestyles, how this thriving of differences relies on an underlying One, that is, on the radical obliteration of Difference, of the antagonistic gap.

- S. Zizek

However, against the background of the properly Lacanian notion of the Real, it is easy to see why the so-called “postsecular”turn of deconstruction, which finds its ultimate expression in a certain kind of Derridean appropriation of Levinas, is totally incompatible with Lacan, although some of its proponents try to link the Levinasian Other to the Lacanian Thing.This post-secular thought fully concedes that modernist critique undermined the foundations of onto-theology, the notion of God as the supreme Entity, and so on. Its point is that the ultimate outcome of this deconstructive gesture is to clear the slate for a new, undeconstructable form of spirituality, for the relationship to an unconditional Otherness that precedes ontology. What if the fundamental experience of the human subject is not that of self-presence, of the force of dialectical mediation-appropriation of all Otherness, but of a primordial passivity, sentiency, of responding, of being infinitely indebted to and responsible for the call of an Otherness that never acquires positive features but always remains withdrawn, the trace of its own absence?

>>3231228
>philosophers as different as Alain Badiou and Fredric Jameson

Wow, really? A Maoist and a Marxist agree with a Leninist that class struggle is really important? AMAZING, THANK YOU ZIZEK.

>>3231236
You seem to like essentialising thinkers through eisegesis into your own pathetic categories as if you're cramming dog food into you cunt.

>>3231236
see
>>3231237
[x] Martin Heidegger - Being and Told

>>3231236
Okay, so what? Zizek has a solid critique of po-mo "difference"

>>3231237
>>3231240

These are good posts, I appreciate them. However, this still does not mean that Zizek is being particularly convincing in his selection of thinkers. Such a shitty argument.

>>3231241
>Zizek has a solid critique of po-mo "difference"

If that is the case, why don't you post that instead of his appeal to authority? Oh wait, it's probably something completely mundane that is relatively obvious: Capitalism doesn't care what you think about your gender, capitalism doesn't care whether you embrace all races and colours, capitalism doesn't care how vegan you are and whether you do yoga and drink fair-trade coffee. What an amazing insight.

>>3231223
how can that be true? isn't Justice subjected to cultures? care to explain some more? i would like there to be a transcendental signifier

>>3231228

>What if the fundamental experience of the human subject is not that of self-presence, of the force of dialectical mediation-appropriation of all Otherness, but of a primordial passivity, sentiency, of responding, of being infinitely indebted to and responsible for the call of an Otherness that never acquires positive features but always remains withdrawn, the trace of its own absence?

Zizek is excelent here.This is what I was trying to drive at in my Nietzsche post. People do not undertand how liberating the statement "There is no Big Other". The Freudian pre-suppositions swept away and the metaphysics of self-presence destroyed we come to the conclusion that God "must" be dead. There is no master/trancedental signifier which regulates our language and when we gaze it we only find surprised the obviousness of its absence. ( Ideal master signifiers in theories the come to rest :God, the Father I knew, the State and so on)

>>3231286
Lacan is such a load of crap. I fail to see why I should 'believe' that the subconscious is structured like a language and the Mirror Phase and all that jazz. Why not believe that God made Adam and Eve? They are equally arbitrary and devoid of argumentation or evidence.

>>3231272
>how can that be true?

protip: it isn't, Derrida is a moron.

>>3231334
so then justice ISN'T the transcendental signifier?

>>3231260
See the above quote from some other loser on 4chan:
>However[…] regarding today’s multiculturalist celebration of the diversity of lifestyles, how this thriving of differences relies on an underlying One, that is, on the radical obliteration of Difference, of the antagonistic gap. - S. Zizek

The proletariat is the universalisation of subjectivity due to its collective position as the subject other of capital. The plurality and diversity of proletarian struggles is worthy of celebration. However, to mistake the struggle for working class sexual freedom, for example, for the identity politics of nomenklatura and professional-managerial liberal feminism is to make a popular front with our enemies.

>>3231286
>There is no master/trancedental signifier which regulates our language and when we gaze it we only find surprised the obviousness of its absence. ( Ideal master signifiers in theories the come to rest :God, the Father I knew, the State and so on)

The absence of presence is the real presence. I am astounded at how poorly /lit/ has dealt with theology and how it applies to defeating post-structuralism's shite.

God is nowhere, as PK Dick remarked, God is now here. God is not doubly absent, but merely absent. God's death is fucking important because it marks God as truly absent.

The master signifier is the absence of a master signifier and that is itself universal. Do you need us to get out the big book of Dialectics and Koans?