/lit/ - Literature

great

yea whatever. the guy was just really fat in high school

>>4262232
Actually he was very good looking when he was young. There is one photo of him from his ENS years.

"Hey, look at the fatty!" - JP Sartre

>>4262230
One day people will stop obsessing over this trivial stuff and recognize that Derrida was one of the greatest philosophical minds of the past century.

>>4262236
he was friends with a nazi

"For a while I didn't have enough "to me", so I went out of my way to craft a negative trait, a non-entity that I could only tell people about. That's the real mental illness at play here, the one I don't realize has been driving every decision, every stupid decision I have ever made."

- /lit//tumblr crossies LMAO

Derrida was interesting as a skeptic and a mystic, but he was a real prick on a basic level. Have you ever seen those interviews of him on YouTube? He spends most of the videos moaning and making snide comments. It seems like pleasantness and patience would be a basic takeaway from philosophy, but Derrida's thinking clearly thrashed himself on an inner-personal level.

>>4262242
and you post on a board full of neo-nazis.

>>4262242
Who cares?
Even there, people criticize Paul de Man's personality and not his ideas.

Frege was an anti-semite, Celine was too. Terrible people but does not say anything about their work.

It's kinda idiotic this ideological blood test that all authors are made go through by petty ideological idiots.

>>4262248
Why would you think that pleasantness and patience would be a basic takeaway from philosophy?

This sort of thinking drives me crazy, also because it's so easy how behind it lies the middle-class myth of "respectability", the desire for the other to be first of all "nice" and non-threatening before of value.

What follows from it is this whole american thing of giving one star reviews on amazon saying "the characters weren't nice."

Again all this is just stupid.

Also: Derrida is neither a skeptic nor a mystic. Do your homework.

>>4262236
"One must always do justice to justice." - Jacques Derrida

Says the philosopher who practically robbed a state university, demanding an outrageously high salary for his celebrity status, in exchange for giving one lecture a week in his native french (he refused to lecture in english) which was absolutely of no use to anyone in America and not even have to do any marking for the course.

The guy was a sleaze ball, just like his buddy Paul de Man (who didn't even have a B.A yet somehow managed to weasel his way into academia). Interestingly, Paul de Man would spent hours staring at himself in the mirror.

tl;dr they both were narcissist fucks who dazzled academia with their bullshit

>>4262256
Dude...why the fuck were so many intelligent people anti-semites? What was going on back then that so many people hated Jews? (srs, not trolling).

>>4262277
Again so what?
You expect somehow for philosophical ideas to make you a better person when it's not like this. There is no reason why being a good philosopher will make you more of a good person than being a good scientist.

Reading literature will not make you moral, thinking philosophy will not make you moral.

So who gives a fuck?

And also the whole paul de man not having a BA is just silly. You can see the bitterness of the hack who does not judge the value of a paper by what it says but by the school its author went to grad school.

Colleges don't require for professors to have a BA and in fact often they give honorary degrees or employee people for their achievements.

But even more idiotic are the ones that went "he abandoned his wife children, how can his theories be good?"

>>4262290
Same thing that has gone on for two thousand years and is still going on.

>>4262256
>Even there, people criticize Paul de Man's personality and not his ideas.
unless there's some import from their anti-semetic beliefs into their ideas. seems generally defensive and naive on your part to assume that there's not

>>4262276
>This sort of thinking drives me crazy
that's nice

>>4262277
UC Irvine tried to sue his family because Derrida had initially agreed to donate some of his personal manuscripts to the university, but because a public funded university couldn't cough up the big dollars and continually raise his salary, Derrida through a hissy fit and decided not to donate anything.

Bad news for UC Irvine, who had invested over $500, 000 to try to catalogue Derrida's manuscripts.

Others argue that it wasn't because UC Irvine had trouble raising his salary but because the school refused to stop their investigation into a Russian studies professor [Dragan Kujundzic] accused of sexually harassing a female grad student.

Yes, Derrida, justice cannot be deconstructed.

>>4262300
>But even more idiotic are the ones that went "he abandoned his wife children, how can his theories be good?"

The self is a literary fiction, or so Paul de Man claims. It's kind of repulsive to know that a guy who spent all his time spouting that the continuity of the self is an illusion turned out to have a past of being a Nazi and abandoning his wife and children.

And people accuse Heidegger of intellectual failings and somehow Paul de Man and Jacky Dee are beyond reproach.

>>4262290
Well it's a tough question. Mostly because anti-semitism in france and germany has different origins and reasons.

In Germany (prussia and austria-hungary) it arises mostly from the artificial national unity enacted by Bismarck and by the fact that they never had a bourgeois revolution that led to liberalism, hence the antisemite was the figure that the lower-middle class used to blame the troubles of national unity and their political impotence (often fighting for upward mobility in the empire's bureaucracy with westernized jews).

In France the problem was that the nation came out of a series of continuous defeats after napoleon and multiple internal revolutions, all the meanwhile having difficulty to adapt to the forced industrialization from being a primarily agricultural country (the transformation of Paris architecture from basically a medieval town to the great boulevards is generally considered the example of this force modernization)

>>4262276

Orly?

First, yes, Derrida was a skeptic, that's pretty much the idea behind deconstruction: linguistic skepticism. And I'm not criticizing him for it, in fact I find his work fascinating.

A philosopher doesn't get snarky and upset over trifling matters.

I don't even know what you're on about with your criticism of the middle-class and amazon.com. These sound like pretty meaningless generalities to me.

>>4262300
I don't get it either. Some people just thrive off of that gossipy TMZ shit, I guess. Makes them feel like they know something. I'll admit that certain biographical details are interesting, but people overestimate how bound they are to the actual ideas of the writer.

>>4262290
Anti-semitism is a disease of the mind, it is degeneracy, pure and simple.

>>4262306
Well if people didn't realize that Paul de Man is an antisemite till after his death when a grad student found articles he had written in his 20s it means that there is not much of an import.

Yeah of course post-facto you can construct any speech as antisemitic. But the fact that before no one had an idea it clearly means that there was no much import and this is all paranoia.

>>4262313
Why is it repulsive? And also one does not judge theories on gut feeling.

>>4262300

>You expect somehow for philosophical ideas to make you a better person when it's not like this. There is no reason why being a good philosopher will make you more of a good person (...) Reading literature will not make you moral, thinking philosophy will not make you moral.

You seem to be forgetting the wisdom part of philosophy... reading philosophy is supposed to make us wiser, to give us a sounder judgment in practical and theoretical matters. Yes, reading literature and philosophy will make a reader wiser and more moral, though depending on the material.

>But even more idiotic are the ones that went "he abandoned his wife children, how can his theories be good?"

This is actually legitimate. For example, Foucault was a gluttonous sado-masochist. I'm not interested in the ideas of such a man.

>>4262325
lol @ that hg wells quote. "you guys should spend a little time on stormfront and see how your behavior bothers us."

>>4262337

Why is it repulsive to abandon my wife and children? Hmm. How about the fact that I entered a contract with my wife? That I brought a child into the world who deserves to be nourished?

Seriously, don't let your theorizing justify cruelty.

>>4262347
Well, it is/was rumoured that Foucault deliberately gave people AIDS. He was so enraged by the fact that he got AIDS that he decided he would "take as many people with him."

>>4262306
>seems generally defensive and naive on your part to assume that there's not

Not really. I'd only suspect that kind of "import" if I had cause to from what I've read in the writings themselves. It's absurd to assume something is there when you see no trace of it.

>>4262347
>For example, Foucault was a gluttonous sado-masochist.
>>4262364
>it is/was rumoured that Foucault deliberately gave people AIDS.

citation needed.

>>4262322
No deconstruction is not a skepticism. Deconstruction is a textual event, that is the text undermining the intention of the author and secondarily it shows how the binary oppositions are connected.

Culler in his On Deconstruction shows very well how derrida neither simply subverts the opposition (like nietzsche) nor he tries to eliminate it (like the later heidegger).

The point of deconstruction is textual freedom, that is freeing the text from limitations permitting the unbounded perpetration of signifiers. Derrida talks that the task of literature (and philosophy is part of literature for him) is to say everything.

That is Derrida concern is almost Kantian because his preoccupation is that we are making the text an instrument and not an end in itself.

Besides that, my comments that followed are due to a tendency in the american accademia of judging people's work by their character. There is a sort of gossipy streak going on that leads to constant discussion of the person instead of the work.

The basis for this tendency is two fold:

1) The habit developed in the 70s of judging people's work based on their political allegiances.

2) The whole ethical criticism. That is the attempt of justifying the humanities by saying that they makes better moral people. Martha Nussbaum is one of the principle advocates of this.

>>4262325
Jews have a victims complex and a superiority complex at the same time. Have you ever read some of their bullshit? God send us tribulation and makes us suffer because we are the chosen people is what every Jews are taught to think. And when they finally make it up top, they only help other Jews instead of helping other downtrodden people. And every chance they get they bring up the holocaust to get their way. You don't see a Cambodian bringing up the Khmer Rouge, or a Vietnamese bringing up Agent Orange in a conversation.

>>4262363
>How about the fact that I entered a contract with my wife?
Maybe she was abusive.

>That I brought a child into the world who deserves to be nourished?
I'd agree that this is cruel, but we don't know the circumstances and this kind of discussion is just going to lead to Daily Mail-level speculation and far away from the ideas of the writer.

>>4262389
They sound like they're pretty good at what they do. How do I join?

>>4262363
No, the question is why does it matter what his theory is? Why do you judge a theory on the action s of the author?

Augustine abandoned his wife and children too but I don't see anyone complaining that the confessions is a shitty book.

Watson is racist, does that say anything on DNA theory?
Once the theory is out is everyone's theory, you have to accept it for its own merits not for the one of his creators.

If you don't accept this than it follows that if I, who I never abbandoned my children nor am an antisemite, repeat the theory that the continuity of the self is a fiction that would be another theory than the one de Man stated.

In brief: if you don't accept the theory from de Man because he is an asshole, accept it from me because I'm not an asshole.

>>4262385

Well said. But is there something wrong with the idea of humanities making better, moral people? Why is it the object of so much criticism? Is it because it implies hegemony?

>>4262395
You have to convert and marry bonafide, pedigreed Jew. You can't simply wear a Yammakah one day and say your Jewish. Oh and you need to get a circumcision. Doesn't matter how old you are since that's one of the way they can tell, how shrivel and lifeless your penis is.

>>4262408
>Oh and you need to get a circumcision.
I'm American, so obviously this is already taken care of. Where do I meet Jewish qts?

>>4262406
Because it's not the goal of literature and philosophy to make better people.

Philosophy has to come up with good explanations. Literature is an art and it's concern, as with every art, is beauty not making moral citizens.

When you mistake the end of an activity you also criticize it or praise for the wrong reasons.

A book can help you stabilizing a shaking table by putting under the leg of a table.

But if you start thinking that such is its goal than you will start criticizing books based on how thick they are and not on what their content is.

>>4262413
Alright, look a couple of Guys wearing Yammakah. Bonus points if they have scraggy beards. Watch where they go and if they are talking to a group of girls, chances are those girls are Jewish since is a well known fact that Jews only talk to other Jews. Now here's the hard part, you have to wait until the Jewish guys depart since they will cock block the shit out of you and if not make the girls feel like shit for talking to someone of a different race. When you see the qt alone then you approach. I call this maneuver, isolate and attack.

>>4262230
>I finally let it go.

I finally let go and embraced the duck-face.

>>4262290
this >>4262319 is a serious answer, but personally I think that teaching your kids victimization from day one doesn´t really help them.
I think anti-semitism, or any other form of racism, is a big mistake that turn also the supposed smart people in the biggest fools out there, so I actually feel dumb thinking like that, but a part of jew culture doesn´t seem very healthy to me. Every culture has its bad sides, but theirs is particularly good in attracting the hate of the others. Aren´t they the only ones that have always "bragged"about their misfortunes? I mean, in the old age life wasn´t easy and I guess many populations experienced bad moments, but people used to talk about the time when they were the ones making the others suffer, when they were the winners, but jews seemed to prefer to make the others feel pity for them, instead of awe or fear, so instead of bragging about their successes they preferred to recount how much have they suffered. It´s seem normal to me to piss the other populations off when you act this way. Then people will start to be racist with you, and you will have a new reason to victimize yourself: it´s a loop. And when you think the rest of the world hate you, of course you are going to act a little selfish.
So /lit/ tell me pls if any of this makes sense, I can´t talk about it in real life cause when I tried people just started even more scary rants against the jews, as if a jew was inherently a bad person.

>>4262389
*tips stahlhelm*

but in seriousness, do you really not see how ridiculous you sound?

>"the Jews" have a victim complex therefore they are not victims and I am really the victim!

and do you think the Viet Cong were just fighting for the fun of it? get a grip

>>4262389
>they only help other Jews instead of helping other downtrodden people.
This is contradicted with the fact that jews in contemporary times have always been much more progressive than the general population and have generally been active in most progresive movements such as the civil rights movement.
Although lately some jews have gotten a little scary thanks to the intellectual gravitational pull exerted by Israel's slow descent into madness.

>>4262525
If you seriosly think that the only ones who brag about their misfortunes or that jews don't brag about their accomplishment as much as they can you clearly live a very sheltered life.
For example US southerners constantly whine about those mean northerners attacking their sick little slaver utopia, african americans constantly brag about all the hardships they have entured, we latin americans proudly recount all the horrible things done to us first by the spanish and then by the gringos, the irish used to constantly mention the hardships they had suffered, shi'ite muslim history is a full-blown martirology, etc, etc.
On the flip side, when confronted about it, zionist jews are quick to brag about how they made the desert blooom, how Israel is the only modern democracy in the middle-east, yadda yadda yadda, and they'll probably the huge amount of jews among nobel winners.
>but people used to talk about the time when they were the ones making the others suffer
This may have been the case, but in modern western discourse, bragging about these times is seen as in bad taste and is usually done by creepy ultra-nationalists or racists.
> I think that teaching your kids victimization from day one doesn´t really help them.
Those that do that are usually just Israeli Jews. In america, for example, jews are usually fully integrated into mainstream society and this culture of victimization isn't usually present.
Can you be honest with me and tell me if what you are saying about jews is from your own personal experience interacting with them, or does it come from reading online articles, or blogs, or books, about their culture?

>>4263006
Anti-Zionist Jews can be pretty cool, tho.

>>4262383
His interest in sado-masochism is pretty well-documented, I thought, though it's too late in the evening for me to care enough to go look up sources.

(Side note: I always found it funny given this fact that he followed up Discipline and Punish with A History of Sexuality.)

As for the AIDS, the most I've read was him apparently thinking it was some sort of bullshit scare being propagated to oppress gay people or something. Though to be honest this (like the intentionally spreading AIDS thing) kinda seems suspicious to me. (As in, it smells of slander though I can't be sure.)

>>4262300
If reading philosophy doesn't make you moral just fucking die already. Seriously? After reading thousands of years of some of the greatest ideas often promoting morality and greater purpose how can you not become a better person. The people who do this shit are the real patricians

>>4262325
>>4262290

The hate for Jews comes from their unwilling ways to assimilate. They hold to tight to their tradition and culture and community. They divide themselves and act almost as a insider group. It is sort of like the way in which wealthy communities benefit are wonderful and helpful, but only to other wealthy people.

Just look at the way the Israelis act. They are intelligent and ambitious, but their behavior is ironic because they are often cannot practice what they preach. The survivors of the holocaust would likely be are probably are appalled at the way Israel treats its neighbors and the Palestinians. .

>>4263006

>>4263403
>better person
>implying absolute values
>implying improvement is not a buzzword
>implying change can be given a value
>implying pop morality is the final goal of existence
>implying that becoming a better person in a reference frame doesnt make you a bad person in other
>"but muh transcultural model of conducts, muh secular jesus, muh secular buda, muh marcus aurelius"
>implying that the only thing I need to prove that they are not universal models of conduct is just to deny their value to me
>thousands of years of great ideas but you are unaware of the spirit of this century

"muh horizon expanding" "muh path to myself"
you sound like an advertisement for a shit tier university
philosophy is not about comfy feelings and making people ethical heroes, for that you have religion

>>4263416
>The hate for Jews comes from their unwilling ways to assimilate. They hold to tight to their tradition and culture and community. They divide themselves and act almost as a insider group.

So they act like any other ethnic group?

>>4263443
So Malcolm X admits Jews were the most active whites in the civil rights struggle, confirming my point.

>>4263458
Yeah except that they are allowed to do it and no one is allowed to complain. If another culture does it they are racists, bigots, etc, etc.

>>4263445
So what is philosophy for than? Nothing? Feels? Come on man. Don't be so dull. After reading philosophy people have been driven to do great things. One of the greatest tragedies is that we don't teach philosophy in standard education,

>>4263471
Did you not miss the point in what he says? I'm not even that guy who posted the jpeg.

>>4263416
>implying Palestinians are suffering a holocaust

give me a fucking break

>>4263475
So for the Israelis to be wrong the Palestinians would have to suffer equally the damages of the holocaust?


>The crimes committed against me were worse than the ones against you

Come on now. No crimes are acceptable. The issue I am addressing here is principal. Isreal is claimed to be the "only democracy in the middle east" yet they hardly act like a rational democratic nation at all. I would think they would be a good example for the region showing the good that democracy can do for all peoples.

>>4263416
The atrocities of Israel (which are very real and should be opposed) are insignificant compared to the atrocities of each of the United States, France, the UK, Germany, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Belgium, Russia, China, and Japan.
Using the behaviour of Israel to try to make a point about the evilness of jews is absurd. Almost all Nation States are brutal and oppresive, especially in their early years.

>>4263488
And I don't defend any of those nations, but Israel just happens to be a place where a lot of people who were greatly persecuted exist. Of all peoples they should know the horrors of the actions they commit. My point is that I would expect better from Israel than all of those other nations

>>4263503
>Of all peoples they should know the horrors of the actions they commit. My point is that I would expect better from Israel than all of those other nations
Funnily enough, some of the better anti-Zionist critics I can think of are Jewish.

>>4262408

>>4262347
Your loss.

>>4263509
It's not about individual Jew or Israelis.My complaint is about their nation as a whole and that their people are unwilling to help others. You see a lot of examples of this in New York city where the Jewish communities are very defensive and take a lot of action for the insider community, but they do nothing for anyone else.

I'm not a poltard by all means so don't think I have all these crazy conspiracies lined up fro you. I just generally think of all groups of people to practice what they preach it would be them. The don't even complain about the west and their actions in the middle east and they side with the Saudis Against nations like Iran and Syria. They are just another groups of westerners elitists transplanted somewhere who think that the end justifies the means.

>>4262290
Just look at Derrida himself. The Jews have no interest in doing well at things, they just rip and tear the efforts of Whites apart.

>>4263503
I expect better of Israel not because its people are descended from victims of persecution (survivors of persecution can turn out to be very vicious people) but because they are CONSTANTLY GOING ON AND ON AND ON about how they are the only liberal democracy in the middle east and how much they care about human rights and they're just defending themselves, while expecting western governments to support them unquestionably in their little escapades destabilizing the middle east.
If they want to be treated as the ally and liberal democracy they claim to be, they should probably knock off the ethnic cleansing, the preemptive wars, and the human rights abuses they are always covering up.
>>4263509
Yeah, but some of them (usually not the smartest ones) come off to me as sometimes having an unreasing burning hatred of everything Israeli, latching on every little detail that they can find to prove the unending evil of Israel that I think weakens their point.

>>4262290
I think it's the product of an ignorant version of nationalism that assumes that the nation is whole, perfect, and contains no real contradictions or splits until some foreign agency comes along. The reasoning goes: the nation is one entity, then it starts having internal conflict, the internal conflict cannot be internal and inherent to the nation, therefore an outsider inside is doing it, who? The Jews.
However, I also believe it's partly true. Jews often have loyalty towards their nation over their host nations. Many Jews are their host nationality second and Jews first. This is worsened by anti-Semitism, and arguably created by it, but it doesn't stop it being true. :O But many full natives are just as predatory/cynical or as interested in destroying the nation.

>>4262230
Eat your fucking chips and drink your fucking bubbly in your magnificent fucking home.

I dunno, he was a Jew in Algeria and then an Algerian in France. Maybe some people never rise above getting the shit end of the stick earlier in life.

>>4263474
His first point Malcolm makes against the Jews is that they're involved in the civil rights struggle to take heat off of them and onto blacks. This is obviously unsubstantiated paranoid thinking. The bit about northern jews being segregationists I don't know about so I will take Malcolm at his words and concede that to him.
The third point about jews being the first to escape from blacks in jew-dominated neighborhoods is just tautological, and in white non-jew dominated neighborhoods the first to escape would obviously be non-jews, and they did it with just as much or more hurry than the jews.
My larger point that Jews have always been more involved in progressive causes than non-jewish whites is simply a historical fact, although right now I'm too lazy to dredge up the pertinent literature, so if you don't want to believe me, it's understandable. I think Ta Nehisi Coates has a few articles about it and Nroman Podhoretz wrote a book. You could start there if you're interested

>>4262347
>This is actually legitimate. For example, Foucault was a gluttonous sado-masochist. I'm not interested in the ideas of such a man.
is this a general judgement or just because his ideas are related with the self and control?

>>4262389
>And when they finally make it up top, they only help others [like themselves] instead of helping other downtrodden people
That's a very common trait in people in general, the only difference is that you have a previous religious belief to link it to. In practice there are jews on top that help other people and jews that don't, just like it happens with any other ethnicity

>>4262418
>and it's concern, as with every art, is beauty
you seem to be a bit behind in the artworld. not saying that beauty is no longer a concern of art, just that it is now far more diverse in its concerns

>>4263472
> they are allowed to do it
Almost every other ethnicity does this too. Black and Hispanics also "keep things in the family" but they´re poor so nobody gives a shit. WASPS do it too but nobody complains because they have been steadily losing the grip they had on everything and people forgot they exist. Mormons also do it but they disguise themselves as average-joe ordinary americans.
Of all the rich groups that do this I find it hard to hate the jews when they at least are quite progressive, hence the saying "Jews earn like Episcopalians, and vote like Puerto Ricans."
There are much more dangerous groups out there that are more deserving of your hate.
> no one is allowed to complain.
This is what resentful racists always say when they're caught, yet Louis Farrakhan and Dvid Duke still have quite healthy careers despite heir antisemitism.

>>4263607
>Your hate
>This is what racists say

Those projections. Just because I dislike them doesn't mean I hate them. I find their insider culture just as distasteful as anyone elses insider culture. Being progressive doesn't count for shit either. You essentially wind up stereotyping them as crusaders of progressive behavior when in reality it is just as few of them with a lot of influence. On top of that it could be argued that especially in Hollywood their progressive attitudes are negated by their blatant propagated consumerism, abuse of media, etc

Again. I don't hate them, but they are certainly on my list of cultures that often have toxic and slimy attitudes towards outsiders..

>>4263592
That shit isn't art.

>>4263664
> it is just as few of them with a lot of influence.
Not true. Look up the voting patterns of different ethnic groups in the US, its not just a minority of jews. They are more progressive, i think, than any other ethnic group. Maybe I shouldn't have used hate, I apologize. But if you dislike a group of people, have the decency of disliking them based on facts and not on stereotypes.
Maybe you've been unfortunate in meeting those crazy ultra-orthodox guys(I don't remember right now their specific name). Some of them are truly disgusting.

>>4263698
I don't dislike them all don't get me wrong. 2 of my best bros are Jewish and they aren't actually really nice guys. It's mostly the older folks.

>>4263704
Are* really nice guys

>>4263704
>>4263708
Pffft.

>>4263698
>ultra-orthodox guys(I don't remember right now their specific name)

Hasidic?

>>4263716
No its like different subsets of hasids, I think. Some hasids are good kinds of crazy, these guys I'm talking about are like the scary kinds of crazy.

>>4263592
I'm not behind, I just don't agree with those who want to put those other concerns first.

Politics, self-expression, pedagogy, telling us what it means to be human, entertainment, etc... are all fine concerns but they are contingent to the necessary central aesthetic core.

Also one should not confuse beauty with prettiness, elegance, niceness. George Grosz painting are beautiful in their being grottesque.

>>4263765
Haredim

>>4263006
> wow jews civil rights they help da black man

"Jews will not comprehend what the symbolic predicament and literal plight of Palestinans in Israel means to blacks.... Blacks often perceive the Jewish defense of the state of Israel as a second instance of naked group interest, and, again, an abandonment of substantive moral deliberation."

Philosopher and activist Cornel West asserts that there was no golden age in which "blacks and Jews were free of tension and friction". West says that this period of Black-Jewish cooperation is often downplayed by Blacks and romanticized by Jews: "It is downplayed by Blacks because they focus on the astonishingly rapid entry of most Jews into the middle and upper middle classes during this brief period - an entry that has spawned ... resentment from a quickly growing black impoverished class. Jews, on the other hand, tend to romanticize this period because their present status as upper middle dogs and some top dogs in American society unsettles their historic self-image as progressives with a compassion for the underdog.

>>4263580
Weren't jews heavily involved in the african slave trade?

Or have jews cleared themselves of any wrongdoing on those charges?

>>4264106
>Cornell West

>>4262277
>state university
>state

well, there's your problem. if this dead beat had to compete in the free market he wouldn't be such an asshole.

The way secular Jewry asserts its identity is by being oppositional. This is what white nationalists don't understand - Secular Jewish identity is actually extremely fragile precisely because, to be blunt, secular Jews are when you divorce assessment from any prejudice, wealthy white people.

That's why Jews are so hostile to non-Jews, and when you read people like Sonntag and Ignatiev there's so much hatred towards ordinary white americans/europeans. They fear assimilation because they aren't actually that different, so their way of setting up a barrier to assimilation is basically through simply hostility to non-Jews.

I think I first realized I disliked Jews when I realized that they weren't actually content with being seen and considered to be just another Euro-ethnic group like say, Germans or Slavs or Greeks. They really do believe they're a special, "chosen" people and this is a pathology that extends to secular Jews as well as religious ones - In fact it's more destructive amongst secular Jews since the Tikkun Olan mentality manifests itself not through religious observance but through batshit insane messiah-complex theories and ideologies like Communism. Freudian psychoanalysis is a less intensive example.

The best History of the Jewish people incidentally was written by a Jew: Cecil Roth. He's great at taking apart the orthodox narrative of Jewish history of "Jews as perennial victims".

Jews have been both victim and oppressor (look at their position relative to Christians in the Ottoman Empire and Iberian Emirate). In short, they're just like anyone else. This is what the Jew will never be able to accept. His narcissism demands he be considered special, despite his assertive atheism. .

>>4263698
Jews are more "progressive" than non-Jews vis a viz lands that they don't consider to be their homeland.

Hopefully I don't have to illustrate Jewish hypocrisy on this matter, for example their fervent opposition to white racial preservationists' opposition to interracial dating and marriage compounded with the fact numerous American-Jewish groups have funded and created campaigns for the express purpose of reducing intermarriage rates with non-Jews and promoting a more assertive, exclusive Jewish identity.

Really, Jews have no right to complain about White Nationalists, they're exactly the same.

>>4264852
>I think I first realized I disliked Jews when I realized that they weren't actually content with being seen and considered to be just another Euro-ethnic group like say, Germans or Slavs or Greeks.

The only Jews I know identify themselves as white.

>>4264862
They identify as white when it's convenient, their interests are exclusively Jewish and actually detrimental to the interests of the vast majority of White Americans and Europeans.

It is not in the interests of White Americans that America support Israel so fervently. It is not in the interests of White Americans that Jewish Americans support America's permissive immigration policies that will render them a minority in their own country either. This is while Israel engages in instant deportation policies with minority groups it considers to be internal threats.

>>4264879
>b-but the holocaust.
Did you know that there are 17 of those museum in the United States. I think it is important to have museums, but 17 seems like over kill. Pol had actually gotten me interested in why people actually dislike them aside from the holocaust deniers and it turns out that they are in fact rather unlikable and what I deem to be a sort of mini America.

>>4262290
Being an unwelcome foreign entity that practice ethnic nepotism in most of the nations they frequented whose interests were generally aligned against the host people. Like most alien groups.

>>4262525
idf soldier here, yeah it makes sense.

irs not healthy to base your identity on what others have done to you. identity should come from what YOU have to done, or from other positive attributes.

>>4263416
"the survivors of the holocaust..."

yeah no

"instant deportation policies"

lol no (i wish)

>>4263393
spare us your gossip, actually read the guy, or go back to ayn rand.

>>4265082
Eh you get the camps for Sudan "infiltrators".
Funny thing is Israeli Jews are the least like the stuff ITT simply because most of them are cementing a traditional national identity.
Although Tel Aviv's leftist hipsters tend to be more aligned with their ameri-french counterparts.

>>4263472
>One of the greatest tragedies is that we don't teach philosophy in standard education,
where are you from? USA? UK?
I've always wanted to ask the question.
I'm from France, and philosophy is compulsory in the last year of high school.
Is it an exception?
So in your country, most people never studied philosophy?
Or, for example, is Plato (at least) taught by the English teacher?

>>4265082
Are you kidding? The vast majority of African "refugees" have already or are on their way to deportation.

Would that we Europeans were able to do the same. But a certain ethnoreligious group seems intent on creating a moral equivalence between your "holocaust" and having a functional immigration policy.

>>4263093
man I know I don´t know shit about this subject, that´s why I wrote those things and asked if they make any sense. My Engish is shit so yeah maybe I could have made myself more clear.
>This may have been the case, but in modern western discourse, bragging about these times is seen as in bad taste and is usually done by creepy ultra-nationalists or racists.
I was talking exclusively about the past, when I´m sure many population experienced oppression, but it seems to me that the jews were more concentrated than anyone else on recounting the bad moments in their history, like if they were the only good guys, so good that anyone took advantage of them. But humans are generally selfish, so if you aren´t oppressing someone that´s only cause you are the one being oppressed, that´s why I think it´s dishonest to insist on your misfortunes.
>Those that do that are usually just Israeli Jews. In america, for example, jews are usually fully integrated into mainstream society and this culture of victimization isn't usually present.
I have some jew friends and many of the, victimize themselves whenever they have the chance, but I´m from Italy, and this could explain a lot, no one is really integrated here. But anyway I didn´t mean to say that jews are bad, I hope this is clear, I just meant that overvictimizing yourself makes it easier for the others to hate you, not that it make judaism the worst culture ever,
>Can you be honest with me and tell me if what you are saying about jews is from your own personal experience interacting with them, or does it come from reading online articles, or blogs, or books, about their culture?
It comes from personal experiences mostly. I think I have never read an entire book about judaism, that´s why I´m trying to make clear these are just my impressions and in no way judgements.

>>4263093
Do you "Latinos" really think you're Amerinds or something?

lol....

Which leads me to this:

>their sick little slaver utopia

Most Amerind societies were much more brutal to their conquered subjects and slaves than the US South was.

>>4265149
At least we're finally seeing a backlash now.

>>4265143
The U.S.A. . Philosophy was not even an option where I had gone to school in New York City. Even in college the class is not mandatory for 9/10 majors. Exatly as you said. Philosophy is not taught to students. Perhaps a handful of high schools offer the course, but from all of the people I have come across philosophy is something they are very newly introduced to in college and sometimes not even then. I took a philosophy course and frankly most of the people in the class I had been in hated it hated it. They had repeatedly regarded it as nonsense, boring, not useful or a waste of time. American students are alarmingly uninterested in topics like History and Philosophy.

>>4265188
Teaching Philosophy in the way it is in France is what led to bullshitters like Derrida & Co in the first place.

>>4264839
not knowing he's talking about the 3d most quoted scholar in humanities, worldwide.

derrida was a narcissistic cunt who only let sexy black and white headshots of himself be taken because he was so insecure

>>4265175
>>4265149

I find it interesting that the European exeptionalism of "tolerance" has been completely destroyed with psychos like Golden Dawn and mad cunts like LePen. Norrow minded fortress Europe mentality and more miserly economics of austerity is what European intellectuals have to look forward in discussing today.
Well Derida was wrong about many things, but the arbitrary metaphysics of logocentrism still continue to this day every irrational bourgois cunt that thinks he is a small personal god.

>>4265190
>>4265222
haven't read a line of Derrida

>>4265188
thanks for the information.
>They had repeatedly regarded [philosophy] as nonsense, boring, not useful or a waste of time.
well, actually you get the same reactions here in high school.
maybe because most people are stupid.
or maybe philosophy teachers should find a way to get the students more involved, by choosing topics directly related with their lives. idk.

>>4265240
>that good feel when you don't even know what awaits

>>4262364
Yes he gave people aids so lets not read a Well argued theory of how power relations pervades every aspect of the everyday lives of me and my loved ones.

People like you falling for ad hom propaganda are the lowest of people, vulgar populism.

>>4265240
You're absolutely right.

captcha: and derreda

someone please explain to me what is deconstruction. im a pretty huge pleb, and i really dont understand. googling and reading did not help me. anyone?

>>4265296
>someone please explain to me what is deconstruction.

its not possible

>>4265188
Because America doesn't have a (white or black or Hispanic) history or tradition and are funnily enough spearheading the western reactionary right wing, it's like closet homo homophobes.

>>4265296
You try to see a thing as is, peeling away all cultural and personal meanings of the thing or idea.

>>4265280

More depression era austerity economics? More political bullshitting and bailouts? more scapegoating? More bourgeois petty mentality of trying to save your little allowances? European politics are dead, no matter how much you want a new Hitler, my little reactionary friend.

>>4265296
You know how some philosophers added to culture, understanding and were cherished for their insights?
Deconstruction is those who saw those great works and thought "I can't do that" and started working at ideas to discredit them instead.

>>4265309
can you provide me an example?
(thanks for the answer btw)

>>4265317
No. You don't know what words mean, it's not a game, get reading your pleb is showing.

>>4265316
hahaha, you can't even think of anything outside your little narrow frame of EU discourse.
The new nationalist euro-level party being formed is interested in returning Sovereign power from the EU to the individual nation states. Austerity, bailouts and all that EU imposed shit isn't even close to being on their agenda, they don't want a EU capable of doing either.
And as far as I can tell the few marxistfags with a bit of backbone left in them and not completely marred by new left anti-ideas consider some of the nationalist parties to be mainly backed by proles and lumpenproles. (big surprise there, that's partly why the ruling parties hate them so much)

>>4265296
Don't listen to the other guys who actually know nothing. But considering the shitty state of the university worldwide I'm not surprised that it only produces dunces (who funnily enough are shameless in calling others frauds).

Deconstruction comes as a revision of one of Heidegger's projects: the destruction of metaphysics. Heidegger, basically, seeing the limits of metaphysics in treating Being (after a historical analysis of the concept and its relationship to time and presence) decided to propose a destruction of this edifice that had been created in 2000 years of western thought.

He soon realized that his same language was imbued with those same concepts and prejudices and abandoned the project (and in fact never finished being and time).

Derrida, starting from his studies in phenomenology, opted for another strategy.

Instead of breaking the language that tries to crystallize being as presence, why don't we instead analyze the places where language escapes the control of the author pointing out the contrary: that is that being is also absence.

And that is deconstruction: it is the capturing of the moment when the text subverts itself against the author, showing that it is not just an instrument to transmit meaning.

If you have any questions please ask and I'll answer.

>>4265342
For those of you who prefer plain English to obscurantist twaddle?
Too bad. Deconstructionists are incapable of the former.

>>4265350
I don't get this anglophone obsession with plain english. All language is plain when you understand the context.

There is nothing obscurantist in Derrida, it's only that you haven't studied German idealism and phenomenology and thus you don't understand what is talking about.

And before you quote Foucault just a reminder that he also said that Lacan is not an obscurantist.

Davidson is not easier than Derrida. Hume is not easier to understand than Kant. You just have understand the lexicon and the cultural reference.

>>4265342
provide an exaple

>>4265240
But your European Bourgeoisie are largely liberal, and the problems attendant to mass immigration could have been avoided simply by making residency and naturalization procedures much stricter with much shallower annual quotas.

Of course, the real intent of leftists was to create exactly the sort of dysfunction that could have been avoided, the economic arguments for migration are ultimately spurious and secondary.

>tolerance

Europe is much more tolerant than say, East Asia, where there wouldn't be even the slightest discussion about accepting uneducated goatfuckers from the foothills of the Punjab into their midst to begin with.

>>4265302
>and are funnily enough spearheading the western reactionary right wing

No they aren't. Outside of a couple of irrelevant Scandinavian states America is the most liberal state on Earth and what has given liberal ideology most of its action theater and energy over the past 60 years.

It's like asking a fish what water is like, I don't think you realize just how liberal the West is because you've been immersed in it from birth.

>>4265366
American liberalism is a particularly twisted form at that.

>>4265372
Look, forget about your semantic distinctions and no true scotsman shit.

Liberalism is two things: 1) The belief in equality as a moral good 2) The belief in expanding an individual's agency as a moral good.

This is the modern "left/right" split. Both are still liberal. Both are totalitarian. Both want to drop bombs on other people for spurious reasons (just look at the vitriol your average American libfaggot feels for Russia these days) and both are weakening their country and ignoring the long game.

>>4265360
Of deconstruction?

Well Plato claims that writing is a poison (pharmakon) in order to argue that the spoken word is better than the written. He wants to do that because once you write down you lose control on language. If I'm speaking you can ask me "what do you mean?" if I'm dead and you are trying to figure out what I meant, well you are gonna have a tough time to get to my intention.

And this is a big problem in Plato scholarship for a series of reasons. It's hard to know what he really believes for a series of reason:

1) We only have his writings and they were basically done for propaganda purposes. Many claim that along his exoteric teachings (written to find students) there were esoteric ones only communicated orally and secretly.

So for example we don't know how seriously to take the Parmenides. Does Plato really believe that? Or is it just a satirical piece to show how absurd were the ideas of Parmenides?

2) His works are play. And as play they are rhetorical. An opinion may be scorned or given value depending on who speaks it. When Socrates in the symposium says that he received his theory from Diotima, a woman, is he flagging that he is only half serious or is he making a statement on the capability of women to achieve truth?

So this is a big problem. And plato wanted absolute control on his teachings to the point that his real teachings in the academia were transmitted only orally.

So Derrida, trying to show how despite his efforts language got out of control for plato, he points out that pharmakon means also medicine (not unlikely how drugs mean both medicine and recreational drugs) and how this puts an ambiguity in his text.
Does plato means that writing is a poison for the mind or that it is a medicine for the mind? We don't know, verily the only way to decide is by reading and studying Plato more.

Naturally this is only a quick and simple example.

>>4265323
I'm gonna pull this out of my ass; so here goes nothing.

Bin Laden was a huge critic of western liberalism his cultural understanding makes his position (reinstatement of the khalifate as a world system) a superior proposition compared to the (in his eyes degenerate) inferior western liberal democracy. To deconstruct this is to see that his proposition of the khalifate actually needs (feeds) on the existence of western liberal democracy to have any meaning (something to define itself against) so when you deconstruct there's no objective (culturally percieved) hierarchy between the two positions only differance and this differance is not to be surpassed or abolished, but is the real object worthy of inquiry according to Derrida.

>Inb4 muh objectivity

>>4265379
>1) The belief in equality as a moral good
Egalitarianism dogma is certainly not part of liberalism so I find your statement entirely too vague.
>2) The belief in expanding an individual's agency as a moral good.
That's the Libertarian stance. Most classical liberals saw it in a more pragmatic sense. You won't find many of them chanting for the disposal of borders.

>>4265379
>1) The belief in equality as a moral good
Egalitarianism dogma is certainly not part of liberalism so I find your statement entirely too vague.
>2) The belief in expanding an individual's agency as a moral good.
That's the Libertarian stance. Most classical liberals saw it in a more pragmatic sense. You won't find many of them chanting for the disposal of borders.
>This is the modern "left/right" split.
The modern left/right split is far more narrow than that and mostly relates to what form global liberalism should take, welfare statist or not.
>Both are totalitarian. Both want to drop bombs on other people for spurious reasons
Wilsonian American ideas and pig disgusting at that.
That's the fundamental difference between real Liberals and American ones really.
The notion that values have to be "defended" by foreign wars rather than being transcendental, beyond both destroyed and fought.
>and both are weakening their country and ignoring the long game.
Certainly, they aren't intrested in having countries anymore after all. There's nothing to truly gather around when the rest of the nation are essentially alien to your culture and people.

>>4265240
it would be cool if Le Pen, Michaloliakos, Grillo & co were the main responsibles of the current HURR DURR mentality. They are openly xenophobic, yeah, and they think like apes, but the not even subtle nationalism of more influential politicians is enough for the suicide of Europe, they call themselves moderate but they lie without restraint in such a dangerous situation, just to die with a little more money in the bank.
Nobody can admit his responsibilities, it´s embarrassing. And how the fuck is acceptable to pretend to have a thing called European Union, without eurobonds? Why the fuck are people so dense? But maybe in this case it is just selfishness, masked as stupidity
Too much people are too dense tough, and when the prejudice toward politics are mistaken with politics itself we meet people like this >>4265332
I mean: look at him! The sovereign power of... the European Union? LOL seriously? And if nationalism (austerity) make us drown, why shouldn´t we resort to even more nationalism, if germany did it, why couldn´t we do the same? Sounds like a good plan oder???

>>4265405
>Egalitarianism dogma is certainly not part of liberalism so I find your statement entirely too vague.

Egalitarianism and liberalism are more than bedfellows, one is a constituent of the other.

>The modern left/right split is far more narrow than that and mostly relates to what form global liberalism should take, welfare statist or not.

What I describe is already extremely narrow.

The inability of the modern western mind to conceive of a worldview that doesn't prioritize the individual above all else and equality as the holiest of holies underscores this. Westerners lack even the language to articulate opposition to liberalism, since all of our political vernacular is tied up in language inherently flattering to it (progressivism, rights, freedom etc).

>That's the fundamental difference between real Liberals and American ones really.

What? There are plenty of internationalist leftards elsewhere. Internationalism was a Trotskyist concept. Note that Trotsky is kind of made into this foil figure to Stalin by modern Historians, even though had he taken over the SU he would probably have been a lot more brutal and destructive.

>Certainly, they aren't intrested in having countries anymore after all. There's nothing to truly gather around when the rest of the nation are essentially alien to your culture and people.

Agreed with this.

I'm guessing you're a classical liberal.

Try to read reactionary thought to understand why the radical right has an issue with classical liberalism and why we believe it was always going to lead inexorably to the kind of fucked up nonsense you see today.

>>4265446
I'm not familiar enough with GD to know who is who, but there are some smart people behind the scenes who managed their ascent to "state within a state" (the environmental branch, welfare branch, the uniforms, going around helping people in dangerous, immigrant filled areas etc, it's all proactive, street politics).

>>4265455
what's your proposed solution then?

>>4265461
Revert to the Greek cosmopolis, Rome or become Egyptians again! they were such wise back then.

>>4265455
You're clearly right on liberals for discussing globalist liberalism/neoliberalism/new left stuff. I was working from the classical Liberal views. Trotskyist revisionism mostly seems like an Antifa thuggery thing here.
>he inability of the modern western mind to conceive of a worldview that doesn't prioritize the individual above all else and equality as the holiest of holies underscores this.
It's not really hard to find those in my experience, easier outside the cosmopolitan areas.
On the language issue i'll take your word for it. I'm not anglo and to us "rights" isn't really on our minds. It's more "what is right is right" sensibility notions.
>I'm guessing you're a classical liberal.
I'm actually a nationalist with some classical liberal and some social corporatist views both being traditional to my country but sadly no longer well-represented.
Of the modern classical liberals the only one i've had any particular liking for is Powell.

>>4265488
>I was working from the classical Liberal views.
i.e. I was arguing from the assumption that you meant classical liberalism when you said liberalism.

>>4262389
Ethnic jew here. I view the history of my ancestors pretty simply, we've always been successful and often partook in usury. It's pretty much all either backlash for what we've done or envy for what we are.

>>4265488
I have sympathy for corporatism too. In both the way Gentile proposed it under fascism and the way it seems to be practiced in East Asia. You need to be prepared to crack down hard on both greedy managerial staff and union bullshittery under a corporatist system though, and I'm not sure the West has the balls to do it.

>Antifa thuggery thing

It is here too. The reconstitution of Trotsky's legacy into some kind of nice little peacenik to Stalin's brutishness is disgusting. Trotsky would have been worse than Stalin, anyone who has read anything about the two men knows that.

My main point is that the West is dominated by liberal thought to a degree that most Westerners don't even see liberal thought as something ideological anymore. They just see it as something that any right-thinking person would believe in by default.

>>4265461
Policy-wise or governmentally? For the latter I'm fond of the West's actual traditional modes of Government: Aristocratic Republics and Mediated Monarchies. For both, probably some kind of limited franchise which excludes people with no real future stake in the welfare of the country (childless people, reprobates etc)

>>4265497
That's an oversimplification. Slavic anti-semitism for example can be attributed in part to the Jewish role in the Ottoman slave trade.

>>4265510
>They just see it as something that any right-thinking person would believe in by default.

That's called being pragmatic and not an immature fantasy driven retard.

>>4265510
We never needed to get quite as fascist as the Italians. Compromise was our by-word until liberalist internationalism took root in the late 60s, and while it did get rid of some ideological deadwood in the unions it also paved the way to our current anti-national establishment.
The rise of nationalist parties have started swinging against that a bit and their primary anti-immigration agenda seems a sound way of regaining some of that social cohesiveness the liberals have done their very best to harm in recent years.

>>4265529
Even if we forget about political, ethical and metaphysical philosophy for a moment, a "pragmatic" system would be something like Singapore or China.

Certainly not Western liberal democracies. There's nothing "pragmatic" about ranking top or near top of the refugee claim acceptance rankings. Pragmatism would be to blow the boats out the water and send them to the bottom of the Med.

I find it frankly amazing you're even posturing at liberalism being a pragmatic ideology in the first place. Even an honest lib will admit just how much of his belief is driven by sheer emotion, that's why it's such a powerful ideology. It runs on two things that go with the grain of Western Civ: Reciprocal Altruism and Universalism.

>>4265552
And how is your Asian romance or nationalism not based on your whimsical fancies?

>>4265546
No, I'd certainly adopt a mediated approach. I preferred the old Kaiserreich to Hitler for example, even though aspects of NS are so damned seductive.

We need to defeat the left on an emotional level. Mainstream conservatism tried to fight it by conceding that it had "fairness" on its side but claiming what it set out to do was impractical. The problem with that outlook was that it gave up the ethical side of the argument to liberals and in turn meant conservatives lost their emotional energy (or what little they had, I don't really like conservatism).

You have to fight it at an emotional level to win people over. Even if it's just pointing out how goddamn ugly it is as an ideology. Leftist architecture, leftist art (from socialist realism to conceptualism) and so on are just repulsive.

This is because leftism is an aesthetically bankrupt movement, since it denies objective concepts of beauty.

Right wing architecture and art by contrast is beautiful, since it acknowledges the difference and hierarchy inherent in things and aims to use those to its advantage.

>>4265510
I should have been clear I meant policy-wise. 95% of what the reactionary blogosphere produces are negative critiques.

In the interests of full disclosure, I'm asking you as a classical liberal and not a prospective convert.

>>4265565
Singapore's a fiercely pragmatic state. It has mandatory execution for drug traffickers above a certain quantity, it comes down hard on petty crime, it de-unionizes publicly owned industry so that it doesn't become inefficient whilst guaranteeing unionized workers their own government built flats. It melds public ownership with private ownership through its sovereign wealth fund (Temasek Holdings) and so on.

Not sure what's romantic or whimsical about this, it's just fact. Singapore works well and it has been pissing off libs for decades now.

>>4265573
>Right wing architecture and art by contrast is beautiful, since it acknowledges the difference and hierarchy inherent in things and aims to use those to its advantage.

That's subjective judgement, you are not very clever are you?

>>4265574
>95% of what the reactionary blogosphere produces are negative critiques.

It's more or less accepted amongst reactionaries that we stand for things like monarchy, aristocratic republicanism etc. There's little debate about this but if you want good illustrations of the sorts of systems we implicitly believe are the best you can read Polybius or Aristotle.

>>4265582
I mean like a ten point program. If the reactionaries suddenly found themselves in power, what would they set about doing in the first year?

>>4265512
>jewish role in the ottoman slave trade
I've read a couple of books on the Ottoman Empire but I haven't heard that. Care to expand?

>>4265578
You don't know what pragmatic means, you seem to think it means "a stance I agree with" it's pure emotion you are pure emotion, your dream is more pathetic than a communist utopia. It's as cringeworthy as a middle-class simpleton who thinks he is "classy"

>>4265579
My interpretation of it may be subjective but beauty itself isn't.

You're just a contrarian gnat at this point.

>you are not very clever are you?

Because I don't accept the whole official narrative about conceptual art?

Why does liberals posture at pluralism and then demand complete acquiescence to their worldview, in many cases under threat of predator drones?

>>4265600
>My interpretation of it may be subjective but beauty itself isn't.

Citation needed

>>4265591
You're approaching it from a leftist viewpoint. Radical rightists don't believe in the history as progress narrative so the concept of "10 point plans" is kind of irrelevant.

To be sure, there's a lot we could legally, making naturalization harder, lowering the quotas for settlement, making refugee status near-impossible to get like it is in Japan etc, but these go without saying, they don't really require le autist list.

>>4265595
>dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.

It seems fairly practical to summarily shoot drug dealers if your goal is to minimize hard drug use.

It seems fairly impractical to create a culture that glorifies them and a criminal justice system that makes incarceration the only recourse a judge has by contrast.

>pure emotion

Totally unlike the movement against white rule in South Africa, or the near-religious cult status that surrounds MLK and Mandela eh?

>>4265342
not him
but thanks for that quality post.
among all the one-liners, "Derrida is a cunt", "a bullshitter", etc.

>>4265573
Our nationalism was never quite as overt or as radical as the NS and fascist types. It was a "for our people, right or wrong" view espoused by both sides of the governmental aisle, one of which was Social Corporatists and one of which were Classic Liberals, and it didn't hurt that we were isolationist as well.
I'll be content if they manage to curb the immigration as much as possible and keep challenging the reigning parties on issues of ethnicity, nationality and their insanity.

>>4265605
Neuron 2001;32:537-551

>>4265629
Yeah, similarly I don't think I'd characterize myself as "extreme" but if that's the description they're going to apply to everyone who wants to limit net inflow to demographically insignificant numbers, then so be it, that's the line in the sand I'm happy to accept, and I think most white people agree with us rather than them.

>>4265618
>It seems fairly practical to summarily shoot drug dealers if your goal is to minimize hard drug use.

That is a theoretical approach, it's just simple and simple solutions are for the simpleminded, it's a complex world, again your tu qouque does not change your emotional preferences why are you so insecure you need to hide your delicate feels behind "objectivity"? I want to understand people like you, you almost always seem to come of as all form and no substance? You seem to think that the only thing wrong with the world is that people disagree.

>>4265660
>it's just simple and simple solutions are for the simpleminded, it's a complex world

I think you're purposefully overcomplicating things as "criminologists" on the left often do.

Singapore's results speak for themselves. Even developing nations like China can manage their drug problem better than America and Europe can.

Perhaps we should have another roundtable discussion about how we need to put more money into education and building more "yourh centers" to counterract the problem though?

How about a 1 to 1 iPad scheme at your local school? That's sure to help!

>>4265670
How about you regulate drug producers like you regulate big pharma, tobacco and alchohol and let people decide for themselves if they want drugs? Your boring moralist approach is just bad taste, letting people die over something as innocent as drugs is just moronic.

>>4265682
>How about you regulate drug producers like you regulate big pharma, tobacco and alchohol and let people decide for themselves if they want drugs?

How about no?

Plenty of heroin addicts thought it was a good idea to initially start shooting up heroin. People need rules. Further to the point, people don't exist as completely atomized units, and one person's bad decisions invariably impact another, whether it's by making the neighborhood in which he lives a more unpleasant place to live, making others subsidize his direct negative externalities and so on.

>boring

lol, is this really what you've been reduced to?

Go join a SlutWalk or something.

>innocent as drugs

Believe it or not libfag, hard drugs ruin lives, regardless of how "pure" the substance involved is. Stupid Breaking Bad watching idiots. Every trafficker hanged in Sing is a thousand people saved from addiction. You may think it's a joke but the extent of opium addiction in China was so great in the 19th century it almost crippled the Qing state entirely.

>>4265682
>Why don't you treat doing meth the same way you do having a pint at the bar every other Friday night?
why?

>>4265692
Why don't you do drugs if you can't control yourself and need someone to make your decisions for you? Are you afraid of the law? :D

>>4265696
I'm not sure what your first question is meant to mean, it comes across as garbled.

>Are you afraid of the law?

No, that's the point. Nobody in western societies is afraid of the law.

>>4265695
If you want to, that's why.

>>4265700
>No, that's the point. Nobody in western societies is afraid of the law.

Why don't you do drugs then? If that's the problem?

>>4265705
I do not normally use drugs as I am not a degenerate.

>>4265709
>>4265709
So it isn't the law that's the problem, since degenerates like you steer clear anyways.

You can actually administer the choice without a gun to your head, even though you believe in monarchies and leviathans in this day and age.

>>4265726
>So it isn't the law that's the problem, since degenerates like you steer clear anyways.

No, the problem is that sans fear of the law, degenerates such as yourself can't control yourselves.

Fear does actually motivate people and act as a deterrent, believe it or not.

>leviathans

Everyone believes in leviathans because nobody actually believes in real pluralism since its completely unworkable. Especially in multiracial states (ever notice how the administration of multiracial states increasingly resembles that of a dysfunctional imperial administration?)

>>4265701
That really isn't an answer to the question, are you sure you meant to quote me? Why should doing meth be treated the same way as having a pint at the bar every other Friday night?

>>4265728
I don't do drugs not even medicine if I can manage without, I just don't have a problem with it. You need to hone your prejudice.

I don't believe in leviathans, I believe in systems and I also in as knowledge increases so does complexity and that complexity gets ordered trough it's subordination within said system. It's like an organism that keeps expanding and adapting, you however believe in stagnation and order as static that's degenerate and stupid.

>>4265756
I had you pegged as someone with at least your typical /lit/ liberal sophistry skills.

Unfortunately I was wrong, you quite literally just prattle away about absolutely nothing of consequence or relevance.

Good night.

>>4265744
Yes I meant to quote you, it's your choice, you yourself, however, shouldn't treat it the same? Do you think it's the same?

>>4265764
Sorry I rekt you :(

>>4265768
No, I'm asking why the government should treat them the same. Look at the context.
>How about you regulate drug producers like you regulate
>regulate
Government regulates these kinds of things. Read carefully next time.

>>4265782
Because its stuff people put into their body, it should be controlled that you are getting what you bargained for. Imagine if Coca cola was poisonous in a immediate deadly way, but sold at your local supermarket as a refreshing beverage?

>>4265791
Are you trying to imply that would be a bad thing or a good thing? Because if you replace Coca-Cola with meth, you get something very similar to what I was discussing.
>what if the government regulated meth the same way they regulate alcohol and cigarettes?
>Why would you treat a highly dangerous and addictive substance the same as a substantially less dangerous and addictive substance?
>Because you put in your body, could you imagine if it was dangerous?
Yes, I can, because meth is dangerous. I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. You're thinking I'm advocating LESS regulation of meth, I think.

they arent getting kicked out anytime soon (read: ever)

>>4265280
>>4265175
Soral > le Pen

>>4266300
you better be a based druzebro

>>4262290

>>4262230

>teenage girl problem

That sure doesn't make me want to read his work.

>>4262242
Wasn't he Jewish?

>>4262290
>Incidentally, the whole problem of the Jews exists only in nation states, for here their energy and higher intelligence, their accumulated capital of spirit and will, gathered from generation to generation through a long schooling in suffering, must become so preponderant as to arouse mass envy and hatred. - Human, All Too Human

>“That the Jews, if they wanted it--or if they were forced into it, which seems to be what the anti-Semites want--could even now have preponderance, indeed quite literally mastery over Europe, that is certain; that they are not working and planning for that is equally certain” - Beyond Good and Evil

It's simply jelously

>>4265380
I won't try to paraphrase it because the paper I have here ('Postmodernism, Derrida and Différance: A critique' by Brendan Sweetman) writes it quite clearly, but there are a number of critical problems facing deconstruction - the most valid for deconstruction as a tradition I think has to be the following in pic related: deconstruction confuses metaphysics with aesthetics. Even if you you deconstruct the idea of a table's existence, or deconstruct the patriarchy, that does not make it true in reality that the table doesn't exist or that patriarchy doesn't exist, it just makes it an aesthetically viable reading. The ultimate post-structuralist position would be to say that through this method, language can be related to all meanings, not that the contradictory meaning is the correct one.

>>4267281
>misspelling
Couldn't you just link the document?

>>4267285
Too pleb to Google? Here you go.
http://www.pdcnet.org/collection/show?id=ipq_1999_0039_0001_0005_0018&file_type=pdf

>>4267272

No it is not that simple. You are wrong and some Nietzsche quotes don't prove anything.

>>4267296
It's the origin of the various conspiracies involving Jews: hatred, envy, and suspicion of their success. Statistics showing the disproportionate amount of Jews in high positions are used in nearly every anti Semitic screed. Somehow Jews winning half of all international chess championships and a quarter of all Nobel prizes in the sciences is evidence of sinister nepotism

>>4265360
I found this :
http://www.oderuebersetzen.eu/kafka/Derrida_Before_The_Law.pdf
It's an analysis by Derrida of the parable "Before the Law" by Kafka. Before the Law is a part of The Trial.

40 pages.

>>4267309
I do find it fascinating how you try to oversimplify the problem and boil it down to "They want to be chess champions and nobel prize winners too!".

How utterly pathetic.

>>4267554
the thread was supposed to be about Derrida.
please get your pro/antisemitic discussion the fuck somewhere else.

>>4268219
Derrida is a Jew. Fuck off.

>>4265362

>"Liberal",

I'm guessing you are American in using such a buzzword since in European politics this word has lost any kind of meaningfullness. And the problems of immigration don't stem from a unified leftists policy making (leftist aren't even in power in most of Europe) but of economic neccesity, the fact that these people find jobs means that the capiatlists mode of production need their cheap labour.

>>4265446

This anon gets it, the problem runs deeper.

>>4265240
>the European exeptionalism of "tolerance"

You mean the european exeptionalism of not having an unifying identity (in a more general sense of an european identity, something that bring people together), and thus letting everyone in because why not?

>every irrational bourgois cunt that thinks he is a small personal god.

Like... you?

>>4268224
Derrida being a Jew isn't relevant to a discussion about his work. How about you fuck off to /pol/ where you belong?

>>4268359
>I'm guessing you are American in using such a buzzword since in European politics this word has lost any kind of meaningfullness.
Actually the American term is fairly apt to European politics now.
They're not Leftist, except for certain socioliberal issues, but they are Neoliberal which is very closely aligned with American mainstream Liberalism.
>And the problems of immigration [..] but of economic neccesity, the fact that these people find jobs means that the capiatlists mode of production need their cheap labour.
While some of it is regarding cheap labour most of it is about undermining the homogeneity of European nation states to weaken the support of welfare and unions. (and if one is to believe Peter Sutherland integrate the nations easier into the EU)
That's why some of them take in tons of asylum seekers who aren't even employable in the cheap labour sense as well.

>>4263488
United States, France, the UK, Germany, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Belgium, Russia, China, and Japan are insignificant compared to the atrocities of jewish dominated communist countries.

>>4267281
The problems with that passage are multiple.

1) Derrida in numerous points in his career distanced himself from the deconstruction school. Deconstruction is not a method but is an event in the text. That means, you don't apply it, it's always there. Even my text deconstructs, the difference is that I'm here to tell you "no you are reading me wrong". Derrida would agree that deconstructing patriarchy does not make patriarchy disappear.

2)The article forgets that Plato's writings are actually aesthetic dialogues. They are plays, there is no explicit literary meaning. Even the soul divided in three is a metaphor. Also Plato does not talk in his dialogues and his character bring forward multiple contradictory ideas (sometimes even the same character) how should we believe what plato means with a literal meaning?

3) Derrida does no want to limit the text but actually open the text to as many multiple interpretation you can. He does not believe that you can get back at the intention of the author or an interpretation that is fundamental (like the marxists and the psychoanalytic readings do). His problem is not how can we decide what the correct interpretation is, but how can we make it so that the richness of the text expresses itself in multiple interpretations.

Naturally you can turn Derrida in me and tell me that I should not try to interpret his intentions, and that is true, mine is only a reading among many. It's true, and in fact the following point that derrida brings forward at the end of his career is the question of ethics. That is how can you make a choice when there is no rule to make a choice.

>>4265592
>The main slave market was Caffa where one could always find tens of thousands of captives from Poland, Lithuania and Muscovy. Here they were loaded onto ships and transported to Constantinople, Anatolia and to other regions of Europe, Asia and Africa. On the shores of the Black Sea and Mediterranean one could often find female slaves who sung their master's children to sleep with Russian or Polish lullabies. All over the Crimea the only servants were captives. Polish and Lithuanian captives sold for more in the market than Russians because of the latter's tendency to run away. Displaying their living wares by the dozen, in lines tied together at the neck by ropes, the vendors cried out that these are the freshest and most simple-minded captives and certainly from Royal Poland and not from Muscovy. According to Michalon Litvin, the captives arrived in Crimea in such numbers that once a Jewish money-changer, sitting at the only gate at Perekop that led to the Crimea and seeing the endless columns of captives being led there from Poland, Lithuania and Muscovy, asked Michalon if there were still people in those countries, or were they now completely empty.

Vasily Klyuchevsky, A History of Russia

But jewish role in the slave trade goes before that, to the times of the radhanites in the Xth century, to beyond, the times of the Atlantic slave trade (pic related).

It is always amusing how they try to instigate white guilt for slavery, when they were the main traders themselves. And unlike whites, they never moved towards abolitionism.

>>4265512
Don't forget the role they had as agents to absentee landlords.

>In this way, the Jewish arendator became the master of life and death over the population of entire districts, and having nothing but a short-term and purely financial interest in the relationship, was faced with the irresistible temptation to pare his temporary subjects to the bone. On the noble estates he tended to put his relatives and co-religionists in charge of the flour-mill, the brewery, and in particular of the lord’s taverns where by custom the peasants were obliged to drink. On the church estates, he became the collector of all ecclesiastical dues, standing by the church door for his payment from tithe-payers, baptized infants, newly-weds, and mourners. On the [royal] estates..., he became in effect the Crown Agent, farming out the tolls, taxes, and courts, and adorning his oppressions with all the dignity of royal authority.

Norman Davies, God's Playground

>>4262248
I don't think he sounded like he was moaning or making snide comments. Sounds like you're just undermined by this intellectual genius and feel the need to insult him.

Derrida also loved Kierkegaard. How can you hate anyone who is a fan of Big K?

>>4268469
i'm not that dude but you're retarded

it's not "jealousy" alone, and it's probably a bit racist to imply "jews" as a race are smarter.

I'm a jew btw

>>4267554
You're completely clueless. Anyone who has studied anti-Semitism will tell you that suspicion is the driving force of that particular form of bigotry. A suspicion that many collectively inferior groups feel towards people they perceive as ruling over them. It's why the poor often despise the rich.

>>4268766
>it's not "jealousy" alone, and it's probably a bit racist to imply "jews" as a race are smarter.

I never implied that they were inherently smarter, but the fact that they perform better than any other ethnic group on nearly every academic assessment is undeniable.

>>4269658
>I never implied that they were inherently smarter, but the fact that they perform better than any other ethnic group on nearly every academic assessment is undeniable.

Citation needed. Arab Christians perform better than Jews in Israel.

>>4267309
Why are all the smart Jews culturally German?

>>4269763
There have been entire books written on the subject. It does seem to be a phenomena found only in Ashkenazi Jews, though. They only make up about half of the Jews in Israel, but most of the Jews in the US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence

>>4269658
>Anyone who has studied anti-Semitism will tell you that

Do non-Jews study anti-Semitism?

>>4269771
> Christian Arabs are considered to be the most educated community in Israel and they have attained more bachelor's degrees and academic degrees than Jewish, Muslims and Druze per capita. Christian Arabs also have the highest rates of success in the matriculation examinations, both in comparison to the Muslims and the Druze and in comparison to all students in the Jewish education system.

>>4269658
It's a bigotry that has roots in facts and thousands of years of history. Derrida being a Jew is highly relevant, given that it's a habit of Jews to corrupt and decay things. Modern art, anyone?

>>4269779
>One observational basis for inferring that Ashkenazi Jews have high intelligence is that Ashkenazi Jews rank smartest in world in terms of IQ, with a median of 117, they rank 20% (or 10 points) higher than the global average. Their prevalence in intellectually demanding fields are also disproportionate. While Ashkenazi Jews make up only about 2% of the U.S. population, 27% of United States Nobel prize winners in the 20th century, a quarter of Fields Medal winners, 25% of ACM Turing Award winners, 6 out of the 19 world chess champions, and a quarter of Westinghouse Science Talent Search winners

>According to a study performed by Cambridge University, called "From Chance to Choice: Genetic and Justice," Ashkenazi Jews represent 30% of faculty at elite colleges, 21% of Ivy League students, 25% of the Turing Award winners, 23% of the wealthiest Americans, and 38% of the Oscar-winning film directors. Since 1950, 29% of the Oslo awards have gone to Ashkenazi Jews.

> According to Forbes magazine and multiple other sources, despite being a minority, Jews make up more than 20% percent of the 400 Richest Americans, while some claim that the number is even higher. Overall, Jews make up 10% of the world's total number of billionaires.

Like I said, it's a phenomena found in Ashkenazi Jews. Mizrahi and Saphardic Jews bring down Israel's average.

>>4269780
>Now I understand another cause for anti-Semitism; many primitive peoples must receive their first intimation of the toxic quality of thought from Jews. They know only the fortifying idea of religion; they see in Jews the effect of the tormenting and disintegrating ideas of skepticism. - Rebecca West

You're right, but for the wrong reasons. Jews are radicals. They disturb the millennial order. They transgress the arbitrary rules imposed by tradition. This is why many of the most simultaneously renowned, detested and misunderstood intellectual dissenters have been Jewish: Freud, Marx, Einstein, Spinoza, Chagall, Derrida

>>4262276
Many thinkers have proposed that pursuit of truth and engagement in philosophy should cultivate wisdom and virtues.

Being sociable and patient are virtues, and it isn't wise to be troubled by things you can't change, such as looks.

I'm not criticizing his work, just saying in OP he sounds like a fuckwit.

>>4269787
How many of these genius Ashkenazi were born and raised in German culture and thinking in the German language?

>>4269811
Not a lot, considering that most of these statistics come from American Jews whose ancestors immigrated mostly from Eastern Europe

>>4269809
>his is why many of the most simultaneously renowned, detested and misunderstood intellectual dissenters have been Jewish: Freud, Marx, Einstein, Spinoza, Chagall, Derrida
> Freud
Nietzsche + Platonic tripartite soul
> Marx
Engels
> Einstein
Was proved wrong by Godel.
> Derrida
Took all his ideas from Heidegger and Borges.

>>4269815
Isn't Yiddish closer to German than Hebrew?

>>4269816
How did Godel proved wrong Einstein?

>>4269817
Many Slavic and Aramaic roots as well. Still wouldn't explain those statistics. They outperform ethnic Germans in accordance to their population

>>4269810
Yeah he does sound like a fuckwit.
But I was just replying concerned because the tendency is now judging the work from the behaviors.

He is not a saint? He must suck like a philosopher.

>>4269816
What are you trying to say? All intellectuals and artists build off of previously set foundations. How does Engels disprove my notion that Marx was a feared iconoclast? Where did Godel prove Einstein wrong?

>>4269811
many of their ancestors, almost none of them as individuals

>>4269816
>Was proved wrong by Godel.
lol people's interpretations of the incompleteness theorem are just always so funny

>>4269824
He didn't, that guy is just an idiot.

>>4269824
Do you not know anything about the content of the thinkers you brag about?

Come on, man, everyone knows Einstein and Godel were good friends and Godel pointed out some serious problems in Einstein's General Relativity.

>>4269830
It just goes to show that Jews aren't geniuses because they possess the Ashkenazi trait. Their genius doesn't have anything to do with them being Jewish or having the Ashkenazi gene. There's a whole lot of non-Jewish factors at work that are convieniently ignored.

>>4269848
>>4269851
>>4269852
Damn, you're samefagging hard. It's not the incompleteness theorem. See the Godel metric and general relativity.

>>4269856
>Come on, man, everyone knows Einstein and Godel were good friends and Godel pointed out some serious problems in Einstein's General Relativity.
lol proved wrong lol

lol

lol u

>It just goes to show that Jews aren't geniuses because they possess the Ashkenazi trait. Their genius doesn't have anything to do with them being Jewish or having the Ashkenazi gene. There's a whole lot of non-Jewish factors at work that are convieniently ignored.

lol

>>4269856
>See the Godel metric and general relativity.
Godel came up with a solution to the Einstein equations which most likely does not correspond with our universe. Where did he prove Einstein wrong?

>>4269856
Einstein was right about gravity being the result of a curved spacetime, but Godel got the exact equation right. How is Einstein's contribution any less important?

>>4269863
>>4269865
lol. I swear this isn't a samefag

>>4269856
>It just goes to show that Jews aren't geniuses because they possess the Ashkenazi trait. Their genius doesn't have anything to do with them being Jewish or having the Ashkenazi gene. There's a whole lot of non-Jewish factors at work that are convieniently ignored.

Genius isn't exclusive to any particular nationality or ethnic group. The question is whether geniuses are more common among Ashkenazi Jews than they are among other groups (per capita), not whether genuis is only found within Ashkanazis. I think the statistics show that the answer is clearly yes

>>4265342
>>4265380
>And that is deconstruction: it is the capturing of the moment when the text subverts itself against the author

Doesn't this presuppose that you can know the intention of the author? How can you subvert what the authors saying if you don't even know what that is?

What value does this deconstructive approach bring? In the Plato example, someone who knew the original greek could have told you the same thing as Derrida (Pharmakon could be understood to refer to poison and medicine) without applying deconstruction.

And pointing out that words have multiple meanings, some which the author didn't intend to use seems trivial. If this is all deconstruction is I'm inclined to agree with the popular thought that Derrida was a bullshitter.

>>4268688
>the difference is that I'm here to tell you "no you are reading me wrong"
That's what the transcendental signifier is right? In other words, individuals select the signifiers that are closer to them (those closely related to their context), including those that are within their perception of intention in certain cases, or other intentions that overrule it. These signifiers always exist, we just rule out the 'non-logical' interpretations because we select those familiar to us. In that sense I think although all these contradicting signifiers are already present, but there is a certain 'method' as such in the behavior of individuals writing about deconstruction as a phenomena.

The rest of your points I can't think of good arguments against, but I do want to be clarified. #deconstructionclass on Rizon is where me and a few other faggots talk about deconstruction or practice its "method". Perhaps you would care to join us?

>>4270145
>Doesn't this presuppose that you can know the intention of the author?

The way I interpret that is about the dominant interpretation in the social context. E.g. Whether something is a 'deconstruction' or not is relative to a dominant perceived meaning.
Derridabro pls correct me if I'm severely misunderstanding all of this.

>>4270235
uguubee fuck off

>>4270145
Well some time the author states what his intention is. Other times you argue against other interpretation who claim to be the only one.

For example biographical explanation of literary works. Lately I was talking to this girl (who is doing a phd in one of the us top universities) and she was insisting that the meaning of Farewell to Arms is only autobiographical. Why? Because she read the letters of Hemingway where he states that in farewell to arms he wants to express his experience of war.
And she insisted that this is it and there is nothing else behind that work and that my attempts to see Hemingway expressing a cosmological pessimism was unfounded.

The value that a deconstructive approach brings is an increased openness and an increase complexity of the readings. It stops people from saying that the only adequate reading is the biographical/characterological/historicist/marxist/psychoanalytic/formalist, all claims that have been done before and that Derrida is right in saying that their claim of being the only reading was unfounded.

Also I want it to be clear that Deconstruction is not a technique of doing literary analysis, but it is a metaphysical concept. Deconstruction is an event that happens in the tradition of philosophy and which effect has to do with the discussion in hermeneutics on how we inherit and understand the terms of the philosophical tradition (again Heidegger here).

That is why Derrida's work is not just creative misreading of other authors, but a discussion on metaphysics picking up from where Nietzsche Gadamer, Levinas and Heidegger left off.

>>4270235
I agree on you definition o the transcendental signifier. But I think that part of my presence as a speaker, capable of delimiting the meaning of my communication, stands in the fact that I can perform speech acts as long as I'm present.

I can cause effects because if you don't understand it as I mean it, I'm going to repeat it again, and again, and again until you don't respond as I want to.

Derrida believes that signification is not just a play forms, but has a force behind it (an effectuality) that produces the signification (i.e. language changes the way we speak, act, think and live).

Force and Signfication (in Difference and Repetition) and his discussion with Searle on speech acts is where these points are treated.

I'll join you, thank you for the invitation!

>>4271790
Hmm, I'm not sure if I get it. So speech acts limit point to a fixed meaning, but they 'delimit' communication at the same time? By repeating your message over an over again until I respond how you want me to, isn't that limiting it?
And that limiting can be caused by the context of the reader too, via the process I described in >>4270235, right? And does this imply that speech cannot be a text that deconstructs itself?

Thanks for the recs, I'll read them when I get a chance.

>>4271776
>The value that a deconstructive approach brings is an increased openness and an increase complexity of the readings. It stops people from saying that the only adequate reading is the biographical/characterological/historicist/marxist/psychoanalytic/formalist, all claims that have been done before and that Derrida is right in saying that their claim of being the only reading was unfounded.

The problem with this is that no one needs Derrida for this. If you need Derrida to tell you that none of these readings have the authority to establish absolute truth, you are 100% fucked because you need some intellectual figure of authority to tell you that in faux-meaningful, muddled terms.

>>4272331
Derrida just mapped out the theory of it, i.e. a theoretical apparatus, developing on the terms of the discourse that were established during structuralism. They're only faux-meaningful muddled terms if you don't put the effort into reading it. Don't take it out on us if you're lazy.

>>4272333
>theoretical apparatus

But it's bullshit. That's the whole problem. The idea of différance is based upon a reading of Saussure's conception of the sign that completely ignores the referential function of language. This can be seen most clearly in the example of the dictionary, where one word is explained through a bunch of other words, and so on. Of course, this deferral is only endless if you idiotically pretend that language is a self-enclosed system that is not anchored in extra- and pre-lingual experience. The whole concept of 'value' as created differentially by one sign's negative relation to all the other signs has been (mis)apprehended as a metaphysical claim that is completely, grotesquely implausible and irrational. Sorry.

I cannot believe that this thread went nearly 250 posts on two distinct and notoriously heated subjects without devolving into a complete shitposting parade.

What the fuck happened?

>>4272355
>without a shiposting parade

You clearly missed the /pol/ jew debate that took up more than half of the thread.

>>4272348
I agree that metaphysically, Derrida's ideas deserve quite a bit of criticism - certainly the assumptions that deferral is endless doesn't make sense metaphysically because language isn't a close system and is controlled by multiple other variables that can be analysed psychologically/sociologically/linguistically. Metaphysically then that doesn't hold.

However, it doesn't mean that it's an aesthetically engaging way of reading - sort of akin to a complex word association game. Whether the theory deserves as much credit and metaphysically belief as it gets you can disagree with, but that doesn't mean that deconstruction is aesthetically bullshit.

>>4265143
Most students in American schools are not exposed to philosophy at all. The closest thing to a philosophical text that I had to read was the Stranger. Most of the books assigned in school are 20th century American novels.

Even in college, most of the lower division philosophy classes just talk about things like the brain in a vat hypothesis which bores most people to tears and is completely inconsequential in their lives.

>>4265283
It's sort of like "Hitler killed millions of Jews, so I'm not going to read his book, except to learn what not to do."

Why would you take advice from degenerates?

>>4272361
>aesthetically bullshit

Well, I never said it was, although I personally have my doubts about what theory adds to aesthetics in general. One of the things that pisses me off would be the claim that 'no, this is not a different way of reading, the text deconstructs itself!'. You can probably justify it by jerking yourself off to Heidegger long enough that your idea of what a 'text' is allows it to 'do' things, but that does not mean that you have a valid and interesting claim here. Because here is the deal: 90% of the 'contribution' of Derrida, Foucault, etc., is based on creating very idiosyncratic ways of thinking that are not clearly defined (no, fuck you, they are really not) in which you use words in a way that is drastically different from how they are otherwise used. In your own use of the term, you can now make statements about them that seem radically new and insightful, but this effect is produced simply by talking about a different concept that you denote with the same letters. Derrida's 'text' is clearly not what a normal person refers to as a 'text', the same goes for Foucault's 'power'.

There is no radical new insight into the 'nature of the text' or 'the nature of power' here, there is simply a different (and often not actually new) way of conceptualizing these terms, and they are usually phrased in such a way as to allow endless discussion about what they actually mean, enabling people to write endless papers on it.

>>4265283
>argued theory

AHAHAHAHAHAHahahaha

>>4265728
why do we care if degenerates overdose on drugs? I certainly don't.

>>4272366
Here in Australia they've just begun to introduce Philosophy into the upper years of high school, but it isn't a widely taught course.

>>4272373
Without jerking off to Heidegger, the idea that the text deconstructs itself I think is to do with that all the signifiers you're drawing relations between are already contained inside the text, it's just that people (due to their contexts, the power of the author, etc.) ignore alternative readings that could be made. Obviously it requires a reader to point out the alternate readings, so the text doesn't actually deconstruct itself in that regard. It's more like an 'unbiased reading' I think.

I'll agree that Derrida and Foucault are terrible writers though. Whether they've provided radical insight or just academic circlejerking is somewhat debatable, I agree, but I think the framework that Derrida provided is a valuable one, nonetheless, similar to how Freud's psychoanalytic theories were psychologically wrong, yet the ideas about studying the unconscious drives of people are still ingrained in psychology today. Likewise, today we think of text as being read from a variety of perspectives dependent on the context of the reader, without it necessarily having one 'fixed' meaning, and we also have perspective on how our regular system of 'close reading' can be used against us, to contradict the text. The relating of signifiers is an aesthetic process to formulate meaning, not a metaphysical one - whether personally you find it aesthetically enjoyable is obviously subjective, but it's an aesthetic process nonetheless.

>>4272382
Not the guy you're responding to but

>Likewise, today we think of text as being read from a variety of perspectives dependent on the context of the reader, without it necessarily having one 'fixed' meaning

Was this really a framework provided by Derrida? Has there been no-one else who proposed this idea?

Why do you talk about Focault and Derrida being terrible writers, and yet>>4272333 here you say their words are only muddled if the reader is lazy.

>>4272331
No one needs it now thanks also to Derrida.
If you read back Derrida he argues against, some now forgotten, lit theorist.
Don't forget that Derrida's work starts in the 60s and that we have a cultural gap of 50 years.

At the time there were all type of readings that claimed to be the ONLY readings. And unfortunately the tendency of going back to historicist/biographical readings as the only type of reading is coming back because is seen more "rigorous."

Also again, I don't think his terms are faux-meaningful or muddled.

>>4272414
see >>4272478 addresses a lot of your questions.

>>4272348
What you don't get is that you are playing again into what Derrida and Heidegger are criticizing. I.e. the crystallization of being as presence.

Of course you can use an extra linguistic data as reference to ascertain meaning. If we are both present we can do a series of pragmatical gestures, and if we have a somewhat shared grammar, we can assures that we are understanding each other. Understanding happens.

But what if the presence is gone? What if you are trying to understand an author who is dead an whose language maybe no one speaks anymore?

Where is the reference, the extra-textual to understand what Aristotle means for tuche?

Or even in Kant, where is the reference to understand what Trascendental means in his work?

As Derrida replies to Searle, you are doing the mistake of many analytic philosophers of being too concern with what you consider the normal.

You are responding to Derrida that language works as if all communication happens in the optimal condition of two friends talking at the dining table.

So no I don't think it's all bullshit I think it's serious stuff.

really, /lit/? derrida? stop being a bunch of dumb bitches.

>>4272373
But this is not true.

First of all you think that they using words in a way that you don't use, but that is simply because of your cultural background.

Back then using text/power as autonomous agents wasn't a new move or something that was surprisingly new:

1) The whole idea had eminent precedents: the geistes of hegel, history in marxism, esprit in bergson, the will in schopenhauer and nietzsche. All philosophers everyone was familiar with.

2) It has an anti-humanist connotation, a tendency that was widespread back then, of trying to understand action, or even subjectivity, without the attributes of the person. The machines of Deleuze and the state apparatus of Althusser an example of this.

Also it's not true that they are not saying anything new. For example when Foucault came with his theory of power the Marxists were pissed. They were pissed because they always thought of power as a centralized force. It is you, the people, and the power (the big brother). Foucault does instead insert a theory of diffused relations of an economy of power that really has no precedents before him. Who before him theorized so thoroughly and with so much success micro-theories of power?

And the success was so big that foucault even inspired big change in how we do history, like for example the development of micro-history.

Again it's not true that they are using words in a way to seem surprising or appear deep. This is a common claim that analytic philosophers make (the deepity of dennett) especially when they are not knowledgeable of the background in which these philosophers were working.

I believe there is quite a lot of chauvinism going on in the attack that these figures are receiving, an enmity against non-english speaking philosophers that is made not to correct ideas that are bad but to stop people from reading them, for no other purpose than to affirm one's hegemony on though.

Speaking of hegemony, lately I have seen some conferences going around with titles like "is naturalism the only reasonable metaphysical stance?"

>>4272496
it would be nice to see you argue

Also if you doubt that there is any chauvinism involved in the derrida hating look at the different reaction derrida's death and danto's (an american) death received in the press.

>>4272515
i do what i want.

>>4265692

>Plenty of heroin addicts thought it was a good idea to initially start shooting up heroin.
>People need rules.

Welp

>>4272486
>You are responding to Derrida that language works as if all communication happens in the optimal condition of two friends talking at the dining table.

I don't think that, nor did I actually imply that. I don't think it's possibly to determine 'what exactly' Kant meant. I don't even think it's a particularly worthwhile endeavour. However, I reject the entire idea of 'presence' as somewhat simplistic. Every instance of processing a word is based on my personal experiences with language and the world, in a culture that has developed over time. Of course it's not possible to reach some sort of neutral understanding of anything, to be an objective observer. That's not an idea that is new in Derrida, though.

>>4272513
>geistes

I didn't call out the other anon on his fucked up English, because he has to try if he wants to participate here, but please limit yourself to languages you actually know.

>>4272513
>theory of diffused relations

Stirner, and probably a few dozen people I haven't read. Also, your description of the Marxist conception of power vs. Foucault's only highlights my claim that these are not two different views of one phenomenon but two distinct concepts that are denoted by the same term. It's not 'We always thought this thing X we call power was Y, but actually X is Z' but it is 'We always thought this thing X we call power was Y, but now Foucault tells us power is actually W'. It may have its merits, but it's not actually a description of Y.

>>4272513
>Again it's not true that they are using words in a way to seem surprising or appear deep. This is a common claim that analytic philosophers make (the deepity of dennett) especially when they are not knowledgeable of the background in which these philosophers were working.
>I believe there is quite a lot of chauvinism going on in the attack that these figures are receiving, an enmity against non-english speaking philosophers that is made not to correct ideas that are bad but to stop people from reading them, for no other purpose than to affirm one's hegemony on though.

You'll be glad to hear that I am neither a native speaker of English, nor do I advocate analytical philosophy. In fact, I have previously refered to analytical philosophy as the plastic joke vomit of thought. I still think you sound like a whiny bitch, though.

>>4272557
Not him, but what are your arguments against analytic philosophy?

>>4265384
Thank you for this

>>4272553
It's early in the morning and I'm typing on the train: Geist.

>>4272557
Then who are your references? If you don't have the cult of clarity of analytic philosophy and you have a good background in the philosophical tradition I don't see how you can be offended by Derrida. Heck even Habermas and Gadamer (b4 being dead) were cool with him despite their disagreements.

>>4272553

Yeah, sorry. I was mostly angry at your post because it seemed to evade what I was trying to say. None of the philosophical concepts you mention have anything to do with what I pointed out really. They are examples of philosophical systems being built around an unhealthy fixation of a single concept, but that's about it.

>>4272740
>Then who are your references?

>implying

I reject the academic paradigm in which I have to pretend to be some great thinker's retainer.

>>4272740
> Habermas
> cool with Derrida

Habermas made a bunch of really apt criticism of Derrida and Derrida as usual responded with the "lol u haven't actually read my work, you don't get it, dumbass"

Until one day they met at a party and decided to put aside their differences to try to strengthen European policy against American hegemony.

Too bad Derrida supported the war in Afghanistan.

Derrida was clever but not genius.

There's no sense in reading his work or being a "Derridean" when there's late Wittgenstein.

Seriously, Wittgenstein puts to rest all of Derrida's claims.