/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10049872]

Can someone tell me the perfect bibliographical path to understand Derrida?
I don't know any previous philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10049880]

>I don't know any previous philosophy.

You're his intended audience, then.

[Anonymous No.10049884]

>>10049880
this.

[Anonymous No.10049886]

>>10049872

The Greeks -> Hegel and Kant -> Freud -> Nietzsche -> Marx/Engels -> Kojeve -> Then study everything on Semiotics

[Anonymous No.10049890]

>>10049880
I don't know if I should laugh or not.

[Anonymous No.10050309]

>>10049872
That's camus

[Anonymous No.10050340]

>>10050309
I just wanted to post a random faggot reading something.

[Anonymous No.10050701]

>>10049872
derrida was an intellectual midget. give a look at his "einstenian constant" bullshit, that's all you need to know

[Anonymous No.10050769]

>>10049872
I once turned my nose up at Derrida. But I, like many, lived under the so-called “neo”-Classical* run (metrics of “post” were time-present) of the para-Mussolinian (there-present) complex, with hierarchical positivity, through-negatable but not invertibly-so; Lingering vestigial physicality itself, with recursive moments of physicality, juxtaposed about and over qualitative spectral localities (non-homological with it or associated “itness”) subsummatisized the pre-being, achieving (Derrida’s) consensus of the Orthonormalitology of “us-being” - with “exactly” (as intercausally pseudo-defined) that “nature” or “nature of being” Foucault pseudo-converged on, with an alternating doubly-not summation of “moments of the moment-transfers' transfers”, into that of “Our-Self”, as opposed to plain nurture of “Self-I” or bargain of the “Me-Me-Me”, neither of which “induce” the yearn-essence subsummatization of pure encompassing degree (thus time-prescence). But what is subsummatization, if not the cardinal form of time-prescence-transfer?

[Anonymous No.10050777]

>>10050769

Holy fuck I laughed

(I love these kinds of word games, but didn't Chomsky call all these dudes charlatans?)

[Anonymous No.10050790]

>>10050777
Post-modernists have a good theoretical point about the inability of structuralist binaries to fully capture reality. But they haven't offered a coherent alternative. They run into the problem of having to say something true or fase while rejecting the notion of true/false binary that comes from structuralism.

[Anonymous No.10051015]

Nietzsche, Heidegger, Saussure, Barthes, Jakobson, Levi-Strauss. If you wanna be handheld watch from the beginning of Yale's Intro to Literary Theory lecture series on youtube.

[Anonymous No.10051026]

>>10050790
>rejecting the notion of true/false binary that comes from structuralism
false

[Anonymous No.10051041]

I applaud the mocking of Derrida and postmodernism itt.

[Anonymous No.10051043]

>>10051026
That's just your interpretation. I don't conform to those binaries.

[Anonymous No.10051049]

>>10051043
I know it's fun being a catty charlatan shitposter but that really has nothing to do with what Derrida was saying about binaries.

[Anonymous No.10051106]

>>10051049
Derrida didn't really say anything that was parse-able. And when it is parse-able, it's banal.

>The positive and the classical sciences of writing are obliged to repress this sort of question. Up to a certain point, such repression is even necessary to the progress of positive investigation. Beside the fact that it would still be held within a philosophising logic, the ontophenomenological question of essence, that is to say of the origin of writing, could, by itself, only paralyse or sterilise the typological or historical research of facts.