[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 471 KB, 800x1127, 534253452.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13992624 No.13992624 [Reply] [Original]

I love when hacks get fucking destroyed.

>In 1992 some academics at Cambridge University, mostly not from the philosophy faculty, proposed that Derrida be awarded an honorary doctorate. This was opposed by, among others, the university's Professor of Philosophy David Mellor. Eighteen other philosophers from US, Austrian, Australian, French, Polish, Italian, German, Dutch, Swiss, Spanish, and UK institutions, including Barry Smith, Willard Van Orman Quine, David Armstrong, Ruth Barcan Marcus, and René Thom, then sent a letter to Cambridge claiming that Derrida's work "does not meet accepted standards of clarity and rigour" and describing Derrida's philosophy as being composed of "tricks and gimmicks similar to those of the Dadaists."

>> No.13992628

>>13992624
nerd

>> No.13992639

>Derrida famously claimed that the only way to make sense of 'the world' is to abandon Cartesian rationalism. One might think, then, that this statement is meaningless or irrelevant, if it says nothing about what a 'world' is. The question however, is whether the world has any meaning in and of itself. While it is true that in a world that can be conceived in terms of concepts, and which is not 'contagious', such concepts can serve as 'concepts of reference' – to say that everything *squelch* s in a world that is an instance of that concept – that does not follow. It would be more accurate to claim that there is an 'epistemological 'world' of concepts, but that this 'world' cannot be the world that is in a concept.
>The epistemology of things in the world (in particular, its being epistemically contingent) is not an epistemological world, but a concept of a metaphysically contingent world (in terms of that concept); a concept that exists outside any kind of empirical world. Thus, since the concept of the transcendental is non-objective, it is also non-experimental, yet is not a description of the empirically contingent, but of the transcendental. Now, *squelch* the world-phenomenon of the world-concept can be described as "the world-phenomenon" or "the phenomenon which can be investigated by means of the concepts of the transcendental," but "the world" in the ordinary sense does not refer to the transcendental world in the naturalistic sense. On the contrary, it refers to the conceptual world of the transcendental and, therefore, to the concept of the world on which it is supposed to depend. It can therefore be understood as both "phenomenal" and "experimental."
>Thus, the "phenomenal" world, which is the world retarded by the transcendental principle, is the phenomenal world of the real-external world (the transcendental world), and the phenomenal world of the real-external world—in other words the world that has the "phenomenal quality"—is the phenomenal world of the world that transcends the transcendental world. The phenomenal world, to its greatest extent, is the actual world of the phenomenal world, which is why it is necessary to speak of "phenomenality," or "phenomenalness," or *squelch* "phenomenal nature." That is, the phenomenal world, which is the real-external world, is the reality that transcends the phenomenal world. The phenomenal world, by contrast, is the world retarded by the transcendental principle that is the only real world that can be experienced by the human mind. The world of the phenomenal world, as a phenomenal world, is the reality of the transcendental world, and that, in turn, is the phenomenal world.

>> No.13992643

>>13992624
Gimme a sec

>> No.13993868

Destroyed? by analytic nerds? Yeah, good one

>> No.13993879

>>13992624
You literally can't get BTFO by literal whos. Based Derrida remains untouched.

>> No.13993916

Derrida is cute.

>> No.13994819

>>13992624

I Derridon't give a shit about your post OP

>> No.13994904

>>13992624
Derrida was 30x the philosopher Quine was

>> No.13994911

>>13992624
Funny to see René Thom in here. He was mostly a mathematician, though he also dabbled in philosophy, he was very far in expertise from Derrida.

>> No.13995285

>>13992624
>describing Derrida's philosophy as being composed of "tricks and gimmicks similar to those of the Dadaists."
based of derrida

>> No.13995698

>>13995285
The funny thing is Quine’s indeterminacy of translation and his conclusion that we experience reality mediated by language regardless of our attempts to use science to reach states of objectivity are virtually identical to Derrida’s philosophy.

>> No.13995986

>>13995698
This is why Quine said Derrida lacked clarity. If both their work is identical, Quine's can be understood instantly. Whereas with Derrida, most people can't even come to a conclusion about what deconstruction actually is.

>> No.13996018

>>13995986
And yet a random anon on 4chan had no problem understanding that Derrida and Quine offer fundamentally the same insight.
This sounds more like a small academic chapel war than a genuine controversy about academic clarity.

>> No.13996029

>>13996018
You don't give yourself enough credit, Anon. You can actually see how futile all this philoso-infighting is when they both have the same thesis, only with differing methods of expression. I can't wait until the analytic and continental distinctions are completely dropped for good.

>> No.13996036

>>13996029
>I can't wait until the analytic and continental distinctions are completely dropped for good.
I want to be as optimistic as you are, but I doubt the distinction is going away anytime soon. People are starting to understand they're mostly sociological distinctions, not philosophical ones, but the distinctions remain.

>> No.13996091

>>13996036
There won’t be distinctions once He returns. From thence forth all will be an attempt at a conversation with his work

>> No.13996327

>>13996018
Yeah, Derrida and Quine are basically the same thing. It makes the beef between them weird.

>> No.13996352

>>13992639
This is even worse than what I had already read of him.
Also retroactively btfo by Husserl.

>> No.13997172

>>13996036
It won't be before analytics stop obstinately refusing to read continental philosophers, holding on to silly caricatures that it's just irrational obscurantist word games (the same would go for the other camp as well, but they seem a bit less childish)

>> No.13997219

>nooooooooo you're not allowed to show your love and understanding of the art of writing in your philosophy

>> No.13997230
File: 46 KB, 400x419, 1543414784583.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13997230

>>13997219
>Derrida
>understanding of the art of writing
Nigga what.

>> No.13997254

>>13997230
Something confusing you, retard? Not surprising.

>> No.13997265

>>13992624
just sounds like they were seething honestly, and I don't particularly like Derrida

>> No.13997429

>>13992624
>"tricks and gimmicks similar to those of the Dadaists."

oh yeah why would academia say that wow i cant believe it

>> No.13997433

>>13996352
How

>> No.13997739

Didn't Derrida basically ride Foucault and Lacan's coattails for his entire academic career

>> No.13997764

>>13997739
No, Derrida was critical of Lacan and Foucault, so much so that he and Foucault basically never spoke to each other again. But not to the extent that he's only known for said criticism.

>> No.13997779

>>13997764
Criticizing more important academics to get attention is just another form of coattailriding.

>> No.13997805

>the seething Derridrones itt

>> No.13997815

>>13997779
But that's not how Derrida made a name for himself, anon

>> No.13997826

>>13997815
In the morning sow thy seed, and in the evening withhold not thine hand: for thou knowest not whether shall prosper, either this or that, or whether they both shall be alike good.

>> No.13997837

>>13997815
obviously he made it thanks to his (((connections)))

>> No.13998123

>>13997837
(((Tel Quel)))

>> No.13998180

>>13992624
What your describing is a very particular analytic faction raging at continental thought that frankly I doubt they understood. Quine was an edge lord who wanted philosophy to be a slave to science.

>> No.13999508

>>13996091
Yeah well at least 14 years left before that bruh

>> No.13999728

>>13998180
>Quine was an edge lord who wanted philosophy to be a slave to science.
That's exactly what Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Kant, Husserl, Wittgenstein, and Carnap wanted it to be too.

>> No.13999877

>>13999728
What the fuck are you talking about? Wittgenstein is on record as saying that his whole late project was against various sorts of scientific reductionism. Husserl wanted to show what wasn't captured by science, Kant critiqued reason. "to make room for faith" and Leibniz and everyone before him were before the development of modern science.
IMBECILE.