/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11823066]

Who is going to take up his mantle? 21st century philosophy is already looking weak compared to last century

[Anonymous No.11823075]

Why couldn't Heidegger simply be?

[Anonymous No.11823076]

Me. I'm working on an epistemology that proves without uncertainty the superiority of the white race.

[Anonymous No.11823079]

>>11823075
He failed the being and it canceled him out, it was necessary

[Anonymous No.11823082]

>>11823076
Care to share a bit? Sounds good

[Anonymous No.11823086]

>>11823082
No it has to be complete for it to mean anything

[Anonymous No.11823088]

>>11823086
I will keep my eye out

[Anonymous No.11823126]

>>11823066
No one, Derrida already did that.
The question is who will follow through Derrida's work

[Anonymous No.11823139]

>>11823126
>derrida
please don't

[Anonymous No.11823140]

>>11823126
>follow through Derrida's work

Thats like eating shit and expecting anything but shit to come out the other end

[Anonymous No.11823150]

>>11823140
Based

[Anonymous No.11823167]

>>11823076
Let me stop you there.

[Anonymous No.11823170]

>>11823066
Because deconstructionism leads to fascism and no academic wants to fuck his career going there.

[Anonymous No.11823181]

>>11823139
>>11823140
>>11823150
>>>/r/JordanPeterson
Derrida's entire work is a continuation of Heidegger's

[Anonymous No.11823182]

>>11823181
Like what ends up in my toilet is a continuation of a hamburger

[Anonymous No.11823206]

>>11823181
Is that the reddit you post to? Fuck off with your normie shit

[Anonymous No.11823213]

>>11823066
Where Heidegger went wrong was in trying to write mechanised poetry for a field battalion of idiots. This was an impossible catastrophe of form as it betrayed the idea itself into an eternal undoing as instrument. In short, he enframed his metaphysical troops within the certainty of their own pointless deaths, wandering into a field of battle as if it were a nice stroll along the Sunday path. Figures and tallies of beings charging headlong into their doom, cut off at the knees by a squad of men entrenched among a grove of ash trees a mile off. Oh how long the list of names that the turning dogs of Actaeon might become.

[Anonymous No.11823224]

>>11823206
>normie
That's the reddit you should go back to
>>11823182
Except Heidegger himself had interest in Derrida's work and exchanged letters with him, most of Derrida's terminology (including Deconstruction) came from Heidegger.
Do you have actual arguments other than petty adhoms? if not you need to go back to whatever subreddit you crawled from

[Anonymous No.11823233]

>>11823224
Regardless, Derrida's work served only as a reconfiguration of Heideggers work. A bogus castration to comfort Leftists that they needn't actually read the man themselves.
The very fact Derridians are so open to herald the man's legacy just shows how little regard they have to its actual implications. A real son hates his father. Derrida with a snide grin was only too happy to embrace him.

[Anonymous No.11823238]

>>11823233
This

[Anonymous No.11823243]

>>11823233
>>11823238
There is nothing inherently leftist about Derrida's work, the man himself was at best a social democrat.
And again you aren't giving any actual arguments, nothing but slander with no substance, you might as well start linking Peterson lectures and save yourself the trouble of posting

[Anonymous No.11823245]

>>11823243
Get some reading comprehension

[Anonymous No.11823246]

>>11823243
>There is nothing inherently leftist about Derrida's work, the man himself was at best a social democrat.

Here comes another Communist who thinks anyone not praying to Stalin is not Left wing

[Anonymous No.11823260]

>>11823246
I'm not left-wing, and no there is nothing leftist about "deconstruction", in fact I might even argue it is actually very fascism affirming as a concept.
Derrida was always criticized for not being part of the French communist party, which was the 3rd largest party in France at the time and most French intellectual figures were part of it, he may have been left-wing to a certain degree, but that is not reflected in his work, in fact to suggest someone who's entire work revolved around a criticism of binary oppositions was doing it to push a "leftist" agenda shows how little you understand of philosophy and structuralism in general.
>>11823245
get some arguments.

[Anonymous No.11823296]

>>11823260
These people haven't actually *read* Derrida (much like Peterson) or anything about him. He gets caricatured because the Anglo folks who like Derrida are insufferable """Leftist""" academics, but that's not a meaningful critique of him.

To build on from what you said, "deconstruction" is not only not Marxist or Left, it is in fact a complete rejection of the structural historical materialism and class analysis mumbo jumbo that underpins Leftist thought. Derrida obscures a bit by wrapping a lot of his rhetoric to mimic the post-war French Left's way of speaking, but that is as a matter of performance than of substance,

[Anonymous No.11823308]

>>11823260
>>11823296
Literally just building a strawman between each other. And doubling down on "Not Communist = Not Left Wing"

[Anonymous No.11823322]

>>11823308
>"Not Communist = Not Left Wing"
i mean the whole left/right paradigm is just bickering over terminology. Class-based politics derived from Marx and the Socialist Internationals is what I'm calling Left. If you want the term to also include other ideologies, sure, I can add them to the term Left and I will accordingly change my previous statement to "not only not Marxist or class-based politics derived from the Socialist Internationals" instead. Now you can claim correctness over whatever definition of left-wing you wanted. Ultimately, arguing over flawed definitions is pretty dumb.

[Anonymous No.11823333]

>>11823322
I prefer to think of the spectrum as White vs Anti-White

[Anonymous No.11823344]

>>11823076
Name of the book or your name

[Anonymous No.11823356]

>>11823224
I'm not from that reddit you fucking mong I'm the guy who made the image in the OP

[Anonymous No.11823554]

>>11823213
go on...

[Anonymous No.11823555]

>>11823260
He was calling Derrideans (as in the followers of Derrida) too liberal and pussyfooted to actually engage Heidegger, and so they do it through Derrida.

[Anonymous No.11823561]

>>11823260
Being a neo-liberal isn't left-wing, we know. It's still annoying as fuck and postures as left-wing. And you're simply proving him right by saying "he wasn't praying to Stalin therefore not left-wing."

Let me be clear: Derrida is a neo-liberal aporia. Doubt everything and be afraid to make statements in case they might be deconstructed. Strip Heidegger of any Germanic romanticism. What is there remaining? A complete inability to resist techno-capitalism.

[Anonymous No.11823571]

>>11823554
Why would I need to?
Or is this Heidegger's ghost?

[Anonymous No.11823577]

>>11823555
There is no such thing as a self proclaimed Derrideans who has not engaged with Heidegger, that is like calling yourself a Lacanian without having read Freud

[Anonymous No.11823585]

>>11823577
Not him but see the debate around Farias.

> In France, philosopher Jacques Derrida said Farias's work was "sometimes so rough one wonders if the investigator [has read] Heidegger [for] more than an hour"

But I guess Derrida never had the chance of reading the Black Notebooks.

[Anonymous No.11823588]

Who is going to take up the philosophy king's mantle? not land he sucks

[Anonymous No.11823618]

>>11823588
>dude let's retroactively defeat fascism with a biomarxist prepost-ironic cosmology lmao
Liberal 'philosophers'.

[Anonymous No.11823629]

>>11823561
this is just spurious is–ought concerns. Deconstruction is fundamentally about the language at hand in a text/rhetoric. It is about language as it is and as it is used, not about what the world or economy or society or morality ought to be

[Anonymous No.11823650]

>>11823629
> not about what the world or economy or society or morality ought to be

Exactly proving my point. Heidegger's philosophy is more engaged politically and generally more anti-tech.

[Anonymous No.11823653]

>>11823585
Heidegger was an unrepentant Nazi even before his Black Notebooks were published, he always shilled for his Nazism involvement when interviewed about it, saying he "saw in the historic moment the possibility for an "awakening" (Aufbruch) which might help to find a "new national and social approach" to the problem of Germany's future."
You do realize academic philosophers don't just dismiss each other's work based on their political standing right? if that were the case Heidegger wouldn't be as relevant as he is today considering how Nazism is universally condemned by every politically dominant strand of the left and the right

[Anonymous No.11823724]

>>11823653
> Heidegger was an unrepentant Nazi even before his Black Notebooks were published,

Yes, I imagine he was, seeing as how he died before they were published.

B that's not what I'm saying. Derrida dismissed wholesale any connection between Heidegger's philosophy and Nazism. It's part of Derrida trying to get people not to engage seriously with Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.11823760]

>>11823653
>You do realize academic philosophers don't just dismiss each other's work based on their political standing right?

They most certainly do. The problem though is when someone was so unquestionably revolutionary it doesn't matter how much you dislike what his views were

[Anonymous No.11823899]

>>11823760
>unquestionably revolutionary
>a continental philosopher
I'm not that anon but I think both Heidegger and Derrida and any postmodern faggot should be dismissed from academia as a whole, nothing worth of value in terms of philosophy has come from 20th century continental Europe, meanwhile analytic philosophy is actually useful and employed in various scientific fields yet this board refuses to acknowledge it out of sheer contrarianism.

[Anonymous No.11823909]

Why is it when Peterson mentions Derrida he dismisses him as an obscurantist "trickster", but Heidegger gets a free pass?
Has he ever tried to read Being and Time?

[Anonymous No.11823915]

>>11823909
>into existence by action
damn that's some butlerian shit

[Anonymous No.11823946]

>>11823066
>The question of whether we should toss the damned jews into an oven is not a question of race, but a question of them all having these reptilian racial traits, uniformly, and without exception, even the children, and clearly we have to do a preemptive strike on us or they'll take over everything and strip us of our humanity. PS: It's a religion and not a race homie, same with Islam. PPS: It's also a culture. PPPS: Can we pls just kill them already thanks, I'm going to say this in the most polite and erudite way possible, pls debate me jews on whether you should be allowed to live, that is the civil thing to do after all

Damn that Heidegger really was a thinker

[Anonymous No.11823968]

>>11823079
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.11824021]

>>11823909
>he ever tried to read Being
I believe he has, you can tell when he uses it to explain consciousness properties of perception. Peterson uses Heidegger's understanding of mood to explain how perception perceives.

[Anonymous No.11824425]

>>11823909
because Peterson is a literal Nazi

[Anonymous No.11824488]

>>11823140
How do you know it's shit? It's even out yet.

[Anonymous No.11824507]

>>11824425
Peterson is constantly shitting on Nazis

[Anonymous No.11824526]

>>11823066
Heidegger is the only one who can save us from the techno-deterministic cult of AI.

This has nothing to do with jews. Pity that the NPC:s of /pol/ has to shoehorn jews into everything.
>damn, Heidegger wrote about pouring tea and blinkers/indicators, I'm gonna feel really nazi the next time I pour tea or use a blinker

[Anonymous No.11825169]

>>11823076
Heidegger already did this

[Anonymous No.11825449]

>>11824526
>>11824526
>This has nothing to do with jews. Pity that the NPC:s of /pol/ has to shoehorn jews into everything.

Well, Heidegger did kind of shoehorn Jews into his philosophy when you read his Black Notebooks.

[Anonymous No.11825469]

>>11824526
Jews are a metaphysical archtype that the Khazars have made idealistically manifest

[Anonymous No.11825480]

>>11823909

>Heidegger tried to distinguish between reality, as conceived objectively, and the totality of human experience.

Uhh what? No, that's not Heidegger's project. Peterson is clearly still stuck in the object-subject dichotomy and hasn't grasped Heidegger at all.

[Anonymous No.11825594]

>>11825480
It's not a bad reading. He's trying to explain Heidegger simply and it's hard to do that without sounding like youre in the object/subject dichotomy.

[Anonymous No.11825632]

>>11824526
>Heidegger is the only one who can save us from the techno-deterministic cult of AI.
I thought only a god could do that

[Anonymous No.11825772]

>>11823629
>Deconstruction is fundamentally about the language
Heideggerian deconstruction goes way beyond language.

[Anonymous No.11825988]

>>11823213
You're a mongoloid. Never write another word.

[Anonymous No.11826033]

>>11825988
>less than not an argument
Haha. Good try.
Are you upset that I was able to say more in a single turn of phrase than Heidegger in ten million words?

[Anonymous No.11826066]

>>11825594
Yes but it's impossible to "explain Heidegger simply" without essentially violating how and what he tried to think. His way of speaking was not just a pedagogical or stylistic affectation. There is a reason he said "making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy." But there are so many monkeys who are so afraid of "missing out" that they refuse to simply leave it be as it is. The fear of "missing out" which motivates most attempts at translation, whether between languages or in the simplification of philosophical thinking, in rendering itself familiar, misses out on the very thing fears to miss. But better to avoid translation altogether of any sort, unless in moments of true coincidence, or else become equal to thing itself.

[Anonymous No.11826095]

>Who is going to take up his mantle?
stiegler my nieglers

[Anonymous No.11826151]

>>11826095
Don't kid yourself. Stiegler is another meme. Same with Sloterdijk. Same with Harman. Same with Land.

Philosophers will continue to have nothing to say until there's a big shift in culture.

[Anonymous No.11826164]

>>11823213
That is going to be a yikes for me

[Anonymous No.11826194]

>>11826164
Do you understand what was said? And to prove that, lay out the argument.

[Anonymous No.11826198]

>>11826194
The "yikes" is for your shitty metaphorical speech. Use clear, concise language if you want to be taken seriously. Your post verges on actual nonsense.

[Anonymous No.11826236]

>>11826198
>use the language of non-being if you want us to replicate your being into an idol of momentary liberalism
>make sure your metaphor isn't a metaphor, brainlets like me can't understand
lol
This is what you get when people 'Start with the Greeks' by reading someone who didn't understand the Greeks.

[Anonymous No.11826257]

>>11826151
i respectfully disagree. sloterdijk is no meme and of those five he's the least meme.

land is more fun to talk about but he's next in line. there's a power gap after that and then stiegler and harman.

>Philosophers will continue to have nothing to say until there's a big shift in culture.

i agree with this ofc. but sometimes philosophers are a few years ahead of the game on those shifts and i'd say in the cases of two of those four guys they are way ahead.

[Anonymous No.11826264]

>>11826257
>five
seeing as i clearly struggle to be able to count to four you can take my opinion with a grain of salt.

[Anonymous No.11826270]

>>11826236
I'm an analytic. We avoid metaphors.

[Anonymous No.11826282]

>>11826270
So you think you can win by assuming everyone will fight on your territory.
You already lost.
doubledmeaning.jpg
password: notforanalyshits

[Anonymous No.11826322]

>>11826282
kek "my" territory. It isn't mine. It isn't anyone's. I'm requesting that you not fumble over your own grasp of English and meaning. I have no doubt there is a picture in your head and I have no doubt you see it clearly. However, you lack the insight to realize that much of it's detail is unsayable. Of course you can try to say it and maybe someone will be able to use it to get into the same headspace as you. But that is all you are doing. Representing a mental state in relation to actual thoughts, thoughts that *could* maybe be said clearly (and therefor meaningfully). Instead you opt for poetic sophistry.

[Anonymous No.11826336]

>>11826151
Harman is one of those especially banal philosophers whose whole thought consists in isolating a fragment of another greater thinkers thought and rendering it pointless and insipid. This is true also of all those deep ecologists who claim to be "influenced" by Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.11826340]

>>11826322
continentals eternally btfo'd

[Anonymous No.11826343]

>>11826322
You're a fucking retard, Harris.
KYS.

[Anonymous No.11826365]

>>11826322
>fucking hollow earth of thought

[Anonymous No.11826382]

>>11826365
>>11826343
seething yet incapable of replying with more than image macros

[Anonymous No.11826388]

>>11826343
>>11826365

[Anonymous No.11826398]

>>11826382
Yes, I'm seething at the impossible stupidity of a redditor.
Seriously, was that shit pasta? And are you one of the capital is sentient faggots trying to shitpost that line into truth?

[Anonymous No.11826404]

>>11826398

[Anonymous No.11826416]

>>11826404
You got that rebuttal yet? Or a quote from your own writing?
Offer it up and see how you'd still lose on your own territory.

[Anonymous No.11826429]

>>11826416
I'm not the one that said you were seething dumb ass. That was another anon.

[Anonymous No.11826439]

>>11826429
Impressive.
So you're larping as a ghost of a ghost in the shell.
Thanks for proving my point.

[Anonymous No.11826444]

>>11824507
that's what a Nazi would do

[Anonymous No.11826461]

>>11823909

[Anonymous No.11826467]

>>11826444
>if you defend yourself from being called something it implies guilt
>Jordan 'depend on yourself wash your dick dont have pride in your race, Jews are smarter than us' Peterson is a Nazi
well alright then, we can live in this reality i guess

[Anonymous No.11826482]

>>11826439
You
never
stated
an actual
point

[Anonymous No.11826500]

>>11823076
It's a tautology really. White is defined as the superior. Whoever is not superior is not white. It's probably some schizo, subjectivist shit where once you become inferior your skin darkens progressively in the eyes of the world until you are no longer white and your history has changed in it's objective form to where you are not the descendant of slaves. I imagine blacks can become white through an inverse process.

[Anonymous No.11826505]

>>11823946
this should be pasta

[Anonymous No.11826506]

>>11826500
you are now* the descendant of slaves

[Anonymous No.11826593]

>>11826482
>0.1-D thinker

[Anonymous No.11826690]

You do realize this is fairly early in the century right? Zizek might be the only good philosophical figure current but it took quite a while for things to pick up steam in the 20th century

[Anonymous No.11826761]

>>11826690
>it took quite a while for things to pick up steam in the 20th century
Not really. There was a pretty constant continuation of the philosophical movements of the 19th century in the early 20th century. Can't really compare it to the dearth of philosophical movements we have now.

[Anonymous No.11826828]

>>11826761
Most of the philosophical opinions emerged in times of hardship (war,depression) so we just need thing to go horribly wrong before we question humanity and it’s place in the world again

[Anonymous No.11828409]

>>11825594
>it's not a bad reading
the absolute state of /lit/

[Anonymous No.11828548]

>>11828409
Peterson posters are foreign invaders here

[Anonymous No.11829757]

Bump