/lit/ - Literature

>im_okay_with_this.png

A challenger appears.

>>487212
lolololololololol

>>487203

Yeah, if you haven't read Borges. If you have, you suddenly realize Derrida just plagiarizes Borges and tries to cover it up with silly dictionary usage.

Yet another challenger appears.

>The grammatologist least of all can avoid questioning himself about the essence of his object in the form of a question of origin: “What is writing?” means “where and when does writing begin?” The responses generally come very quickly. They circulate within concepts that are seldom criticised and move within evidence which always seems self-evident. It is around these responses that a typology of and a perspective on the growth of writing are always organised. All works dealing with the history of writing are composed along the same lines: a philosophical and teleological classification exhausts the critical problems in a few pages; one passes next to an exposition of facts. We have a contrast between the theoretical fragility of the reconstructions and the historical, archaeological, ethnological, philosophical wealth of information.

OH GOD I HAVE SUCH A BONER RIGHT NOW

Nietzsche was technically still alive in the 20th century. And most of 20th century thought is derivative of his work.

Ergo, Nietzsche is the greatest and most exciting thinker of the 19th AND 20th centuries.

gasbag postmodernist faggot detected
fucking overrated piece of shit.

I like kitties.

BERTRANDRUSSELL.JPG

Derrida is a hack

Wittgenstein, Freud, Jung

fail

>>487259
As much as I respect Russell for his blatant douchbaggery, he is not the greatest and most exciting thinker of the 20th century.

all french philosophers and the frankfurt school from the 20th century are crooks

all communists
all lacanian (think that language is everything, thus using it to subvert logic and science to their needs)

all crap
derrida, foucault, althusser, deleuze, adorno

bye

>>487284
That just leaves us with the Americans. Fuck that noise.

Philosophy is a lie created by the liberal elite.

>>487306

Jews did philosophy?

>>487267
Freud may well be the most influential thinker, but he's not the greatest or most exciting.

The notion of a greatest philosopher is absurd.

>>487302

no...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School

they are only the neo marxists... not all germans are here
Wittgenstein and lots others were not from there

but seriously, 20th century philosophy is filled with communists and they say any crap to get what they want

I like to think of Philosophy as an artistic way of thinking.

Also from the little that i've read, Derrida's pretty cool.

>>487320
anyone who doesnt know about the frankfurt school is a tool or a part of the problem

Derrida had enough good ideas to fill about twenty pages. The rest of his stuff is just willful obfuscation. He's the poster-boy for the kind of retarded academese that makes humanities scholarship so earth-shatteringly frustrating to read.

well... continuing

frankfurt school and social democrats and french crap is the origins of what americans know as "liberals" and what europeans know as 'third way' (leftists that don't call themselves leftists)...
still they love to subvert logic
when someone say:
look, liberals are smarter than conservatives! it's in the IQ test!
it's great and they love it

when someone say... well, blacks are inferior, just check the IQ tests
it's terrible and pseudo science

that's pretty much how it goes with those people.
like that crook Claude Lévi-Strauss, he invented that indians making houses of shit are equally great as sending the man to the moon.

all of them loved the idea, called it cultural relativism

seriously... go fuck a horse

that why i love rorty
he knew that philosophy was all crap and hot air

>>487351
>like that crook Claude Lévi-Strauss, he invented that indians making houses of shit are equally great as sending the man to the moon.

You have zero clue what you're talking about.

>>487330
Actually he has a very good paper on the idea of the gift, and I think it's a little longer than 20 pages, but I'm not sure.

>>487356

apart his works with myths, that's pretty much it

because myths are logical, you know

great man

Why hasn't Heidegger been mentioned? You fucking suck /lit/.

>>487368
Your whole rant was strawman bullshit and had nothing to do with the actual ideas.

>>487384

prove it

>>487387
Doesn't need to be proved.

>>487351
i find it interesting that you care enough about getting things right to go on wiki and copypaste the guy's name.

>>487389

then you're no better than derrida and all the rest of the crooks

all saying, no proving
well, i'll wait, if you morons want to quote me wrong from the actual books from the authors i talked about, ok.
and, no... wikipedia is not acceptable

>>487394

it wasn't from wikipedia, it was from google
of course i copy paste the name
french people love to put 1 or 2 á é è ì
fuck this

also i copy pasta some germans and russian names. it's that a crime?
no it's common sense.

>>487399

I thought that the troll could use a nice afternoon snack.

1) Please define exactly what you mean by "crook." I would at least do that much before I start criticizing people for being "all saying and no proving."

2) What exactly do you want people to prove you wrong about? That the philosophers in question aren't leftists? That they aren't critical of Enlightenment rationalism? That they aren't the reason why Barack Obama is now supposedly poised to hand the United States over to the mummified corpse of Josef Stalin?

3) What is your opinion of the logical positivists?

Post-structuralism is nonsensical. I think the word obscurantism has been used to describe it.

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1995----02.htm

/thread

linguistic based philosophy is highly technical, and it deals with a huge and far reaching subject. i seriously question even "expert" opinions formed without an indepth reading of the other side's ideas. my policy is just to leave the continental stuff alone until i get worked up enough to tackle it, which is never.

>>487560
I find this very convincing, despite hearing more often than not that Chomsky's an asshole. This is the first essay of his that I've read--have I been duped, or do others here agree with what he says?

from my somewhat uninformed opinion, you shouldn't take the pomo 'attack on science' as literally that, a challenge to serious science. it's more of a cultural critique of a society that holds the scientific model, the positivism of it, to be the dominant way of thinking about problems that no science can penetrate. the political stuff, the ethics stuff, etc. that's as sanitized as i can get it.

>>487580

People bitch about Chomsky's political criticism, not his criticism of post-modern thought

Are you kidding me?

Derrida is an intellectually inadequate, pretentious prick.

His Post Modern movement is full of pretentious pricks who champion a movement that has no purpose or essence whatsover.

His shit is pure gibberish.

>>487324
Then you should read Deleuze, and obviously Nietzsche

>>487622

>His Post Modern movement

I don't like Derrida either, but you have no fucking clue what you're talking about bro

>>487313

Sure did.

explain deconstruction to someone as stupid as myself

>>487949
you never read him, pretense fags?
>>487218
what particular borges story are you thinking of? the one they quote in wikipedia?

it feels so good to bump reminding lit about it's failure

shit, is this thread still alive?

>>487429

1) a crook is someone that knows they're wrong, but tries to prove they're right by turning the reality for his purposes. (like lawyers)

2) are you stupid? he quoted a part, and said that made no sense of whatever. it's his job to explain and try to prove. and you jumped a little in logic there, i won't answer the rest.

>>487622

correct

>>487632

idiot
i bet he doesn't know that the definition of post modernism for fiction writing and philosophy is quite different.
derrida IS post modern... for whatever reason

>>487979

Would you please explain?

reported

>>488013

Wat?

He's okay, but I fucking hate French philosophers since they just HAVE to shit words. Focault is the real genius among the bunch, Baurillard (spelling?) is okay, the rest is low-tier.

>>487949
>>488012

>>488065

I meant for Anon to explain this,

>>487979

>>487949

Logic, by Western understanding is nothing more than Panopticon Rationalization. This heuristic form of logic tends to decline after a restructuring of post-Marxist Hegelian thought. These axioms do not obliterate any unique understanding of human nature, but seek to shift it's paradigm into a more continental view. Empiricism, especially logical positivism, fail in that it cannot provide absolute proofs or proven evidence of its logical thought process.

>>487324

An artistic way of thinking for people too shit to become actual artists.

>>487949
I'm a little at loss when it comes to the american understanding of deconstructivism, plus I've never read Derrida. As far as I know, cultural studies are an America-only phenomenon, but this most likely parody seems to link the two. Can someone explain ?

>>488127
I know you're only pretending, but still ...

>>490054
>deconstructivism
>cultural studies are an America-only phenomenon,