[ 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: 25 KB, 314x450, Jacques-Derrida.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14957753 No.14957753 [Reply] [Original]

>he wrote nothing original
>what he wrote was meaningless

You can only pick one. Or whoever heard of meaninglessness that is not original?

>> No.14957789

>>14957753
He copied Heidegger's meaningless drivel on the temporality of Being and the destruction of metaphysical narratives by transposing a vaguely pseudo-semiotic front over it and mixing it up with references to actual philosophy

>> No.14957846

>>14957753
You can copy something meaningless, OP.
Also one could argue the point that a repetition is by definition meaningless, as it adds nothing new to the discourse.

>> No.14957917

>>14957789
>He copied Heidegger's meaningless drivel on the temporality of Being

You mean he wrote about it? Am I copying you by quoting your post?

>> No.14957925

>>14957846
The distinction then is not that what Derrida writes is meaningless, as is claimed, but who he copies is meaningless.

>> No.14957932

>>14957753
>You can only pick one.
Nope, you can pick both, brainlet. Enroll in an entry-level logic class.

>> No.14957973

>>14957932
>if you say something it becomes true

>> No.14958026

>>14957973
>unoriginal meaninglessness is a contradiction
Wew

>> No.14958047

>>14958026
You can do it friend. Just think a bit harder!

>> No.14958293

>>14957753

Derrida = Irritating nonsense + hidden Jewish mysticism. Kinda like Wittgenstein, actually.

>> No.14958619

>>14957925
Not necessarily. If I now copy Plato‘s works - which I think we can agree on are not meaningless - my copy will be meaningless. It serves no purpose as tje original is there, available, can not be outdone by me and my „authority“ adds nothing to it.
Thus what I wrote is both a copy and meaningless.

>> No.14958629

You either understand and love Derrida, or you don’t understand it and your gonna seethe. We already had this thread and it was unnecessarily archived.

>> No.14959583

>>14958619
This is moving outside of the scope of the initial problem. Derrida is meaningless because he allegedly hides the fact that he is 'saying nothing' behind an obscure and contrived language - and by 'saying nothing' I mean his philosophy is not governed by a unified ideal meaning, truth, etc. He is manipulative because maybe he uses philosophy against itself, toward an unintended goal.

In this way he is not simply 'copying' the philosophical language that came before him in order to twist it, because it does not 'resemble' any philosophy at all - it is meaningless upon inspection, and one can be secure with this evidence that this misuse of philosophy and lack of philosophical form These words are without the source of philosophy, and thus must be aimed against philosophy - something that philosophy could not ever do.

If you were to copy Plato, however, your copy would carry the meaning of the original in its form. This is not similar to the way Derrida allegedly operates, that mimics the operation of the sign - that the representation is arbitrary (i.e. not similar) and thus derivative and without origin. But ironically, if he were this creative he becomes truly original, by using the operation of arbitrary signification against philosophy, from outside of itself, he is able to escape the original metaphysical teleology that has already decided and accounted for everything. But that would be meaningful, as meaning can only come from originality.

And if you believe that is why Derrida is meaningless and unoriginal, you're a Derridean.

>> No.14959656

>>14958629
No one understands Derrida. He wrote literal nonsense. That's why no one can explain what he was trying to say.

>> No.14959670

>>14959583
>And if you believe that is why Derrida is meaningless and unoriginal, you're a Derridean.
And if you believe that a pile of dogshit is meaningless and unoriginal, you're a Dogshittian. Whoah, deep.

>> No.14959682

I can't imagine what it's like to not be able to read Derrida. Whenever I try, I find myself imagining that kindly retard who works as a greeter at my local Wal-Mart. But at least he's aware that intellectual pursuits are not for him

>> No.14959756

>>14959670
Check my dubs you fucking faggot

>> No.14959823

>>14959682
based apophenic schizo

>> No.14959827

>>14959682
If that retard wrote a book it would probably be more insightful than Derrida

>> No.14959834

Derrida is based anon

>> No.14959870

>>14959682
The unfortunate truth about the world is that some people are inferior to others. Einstein was wrong -- there are certain things you cannot explain to children and stupid individuals. And this goes both ways. Talking to someone who cannot read Derrida about Derrida would be like trying to explain to that retard how to take a derivative. Ultimately it would be both painful and fruitless for both you and him

>> No.14959884

>>14959870
Derrida is that retard, you embarrassing pseud.

>> No.14959900

>>14959884
Go back, you public school pleb

>> No.14959923

>>14959682
kek'd because this is basically what it's like. cannot tell you how many undergrads I've TA'd who bluff their way through Intro with half-assed "problematizations" of Descartes and Hume that are really just bad summaries of their ideas. but when we get to Plato's Pharmacy the worst of them lash out in anger because they can't understand it (more like they can't find a Reddit post that satisfactorily explains it to them) and the more self-aware ones panic and actually start doing the reading right. too bad they're still fucking stupid though

>> No.14959944

>>14959900
>public school
How'd you know I was an Old Etonian?

>> No.14959951

>>14959923
You've never studied philosophy in your life.

>> No.14959978

>>14959900
But uhh anon, public school is like a prison!

>> No.14959986

>>14959900
Derrida is basically Time Cube for homosexuals. Proclaiming that you "understand" him is the ultimate self-own.

>> No.14959997

>>14959951
so how is college during corona season? I bet you're cooking up a great paper about the existence of secondary qualities. just remember -- wikipedia is not an admissible source!

>> No.14960000

>>14959997
I'm probably twice your age, kiddo.

>> No.14960006
File: 3.33 MB, 2000x3000, Jose_Mourinho_-_Inter_Mailand_(2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14960006

>>14957753
He's a genius

>> No.14960008
File: 287 KB, 1787x1019, youarehere.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14960008

>>14960000
I would have hoped a 48 year old man would be up to something else. Also checked

>> No.14960025

>>14960008
You're too young to realize that wasting your youth here is infinitely more pathetic than anything I could possibly do in my advanced years.

>> No.14960029

>>14960025
this is what we millennials call a "cope"

>> No.14960050

>>14960029
You millennials have a neologism for everything but an understanding of nothing.

>> No.14960066

>>14960050
interesting. expand

>> No.14960073

>>14957789
Cope
>>14957846
Cope
>>14958293
Cope
>>14959656
Cope
>>14959670
Cope
>>14959827
Cope
>>14959884
Cope
>>14959986
Cope

>> No.14960085

would any anons recommend this book? please only reply to me if you've read it

>> No.14960096
File: 36 KB, 311x475, som.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14960096

>>14960085

>> No.14960105

>>14960073
Seething.

>> No.14960121

Literally just another weird French Marxist type that happens to be Jewish as well.

What a treat.

>> No.14960129

>>14960121
derrida wasn't really a marxist

>> No.14960187
File: 46 KB, 339x398, Schopenhauer.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14960187

Originality and clarity

You'll find that either one of these criteria is easy to satisfy, but meeting both is quite difficult

>> No.14960196
File: 102 KB, 618x634, 14788441.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14960196

>the greek word pharmakon is like our word drug
>it can be good or bad
>language is slippery man
>written language is also slippery man
>there are no absolutes, just negations man

>> No.14960211

>>14960129
Hard to be an "-ist" of any kind when what you say is completely free of content.

>> No.14960253

>>14960211
Then why did you say he was a Marxist? Or are you someone else? What have you read by Derrida?

>> No.14960277

>>14960253
>Then why did you say he was a Marxist?
I didn't. Marx had something to say and wrote clearly and rigorously. Derrida was just playing around with words.

>> No.14960287

>>14960253
What have you read by Derrida?

>> No.14960294

>>14960277
>>14960287

>> No.14960529
File: 30 KB, 259x400, 9781780992266[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14960529

>>14960096
I've read it & am currently writing about it for a graduate course I'm in. He's got a really fun style that keep you interested. His prose is actually really charming. If you have specific questions about the content or what you're interested in, I could answer them possibly.

Also, pic related is a great book that builds on Derrida's idea of "hauntology". It's an excellent collection of essays that cover things from Burial and Kanye West to The Shining and Inception. A very fun yet compelling read.

>> No.14960580

>>14957753
>whoever heard of meaninglessness that is not original?
Society in general fits this description.

>> No.14960585

>>14960121
>>14960129
>...we need finally to break with the simplism of these slogans. What is certain is that I am not a Marxist, as someone said a long time ago, let us recall, in a witticism reported by Engels. Must we still cite Marx as an authority in order to say ?I am not a Marxist"? What is the distinguishing trait of a Marxist statement? And who can still say "I am a Marxist"?
That's from page 110 of the Routledge edition of "Specters of Marx". Derrida can't be considered a Marxist from an angle; he was definitely a 'leftist' and that leads to conflation with Marxism due to small-minded folks.

>> No.14960675

>>14960196
That ain't Derrida man, philosophical notions are slippery

>> No.14960681

>>14960277
I've never seen Derrida 'play around with words' in the dozen books I've read of his. Which in particular are you thinking of?

>> No.14960685

>>14957753
Reading Baudrillard and need to vent about how fucking infuriating this pseud charlatan's prose is. Kill all french niggers.

>> No.14960705

>>14960681
I'm trying to put a positive spin on it, because what he says is literal nonsense. But it's not enjoyable nonsense like Lewis Carroll. It's dull vapid nonsense.

>> No.14960708

>>14960685
Baudrillard is awful because he is a Marxist, and if he (and you) read Derrida he (and you) would see just how much Marxism owes to the metaphysics of presence as Derrida describes. Not even Sokal could find fault with Derrida. He completely owns all other French philosophy.

>> No.14960710

>>14960708
Fuck off, pseud.

>> No.14960717

>>14960705
Nah it's not nonsense as I can make sense of it. Maybe it's the philosopher he is writing about who is nonsense, as he only ever relies on their own argumentation. Which philosophers are giving you trouble?

>> No.14960718

>>14960710
Filtered

>> No.14960721

>>14960710
You're the pseud trying to speak on topics with which you are not familiar, i.e. Derrida. I don't even know why you're in this thread. You want to be a charity case where people can explain Derrida to you in a way you'll understand?

>> No.14960739

>>14960196

Translation:

The Chosen People are absolutes incarnated because why not.

>> No.14960743

>>14958619
>Plato‘s works - which I think we can agree on are not meaningless
the state of 2020 rationalists

>> No.14960746

>>14960717
>Nah it's not nonsense as I can make sense of it.
A lot of pseuds say that, but when asked to explain one of Derrida's ideas without resorting to vague ill-defined jargon, the best they can do is recite platitudes.

>> No.14960753

>>14960746
Yes and a lot of people just say Derrida is meaningless and leave it to the people who have read him to do the heavy-lifting in the conversation. Then you can turn around later and say 'nope it's still nonsense'.

Are we those people?

>> No.14960755

>>14960721
Unintentionally ironic post of the day.

>> No.14960758

>>14960755
Whatever you need to hear, my man.

>> No.14960761

>>14960753
>heavy-lifting
There's no "heavy lifting" in Derrida. It's not deep or complicated or subtle. It's just plain nonsense.

>> No.14960764

how come every time derrida is mentioned some fag replies to everyone in the thread calling them pseuds? what is the endgame?

>> No.14960767

>>14960753
this guy will string you along indefinitely. be advised: he has not read derrida

>> No.14960768

>>14960761
>There's no "heavy lifting" in Derrida
In Derrida? That's not what I said. I see the trouble - you aren't very good at reading.

>> No.14960776

>>14960768
If you were planning to do "heavy lifting" on subjects other than the content of Derrida's writings, then save it. It has no relevance to this conversation.

>> No.14960779

>>14960776
This post is nonsense.

>> No.14960781

>>14960767
It's pretty simple, brainlet. Explain one of Derrida's supposed "contributions" to philosophy in plain English. No one has taken up this simple challenge -- for obvious reasons.

>> No.14960785

>>14960779
>no, u
Impressive.

>> No.14960793

>>14960785
Please explain what you mean in plain English otherwise this is just nonsense.

>> No.14960794

hahahaha all of you are pseuds coping and seething hahahaha anything you say is irrelevant hahahahaha just keep flinging shit so I can fling it back hahahaha

>> No.14960795

>>14960781

They are huge actually: feminism, lgbt, normalizing Jewish racism. Also, bullying serious thinking into silence.

>> No.14960798

>>14960781
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/derrida/

Pick something from here that you find confusing and I will help explain it.

>> No.14960799

>>14960795
Those are certainly "contributions" of a sort, but not to philosophy.

>> No.14960808
File: 94 KB, 900x1200, CFD6678B-BAAA-4900-AAB7-74AEDA9B29A2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14960808

>> No.14960810

>>14960798
I did this in a thread the other day. I explained what a trace is. He (or someone similar) replied: this is nonsense. He is trolling you, dude. It should be clear he hasn't read Derrida, because then he would at least mention deconstruction or something

>> No.14960812

>>14960798
Start here:
> Beside critique, Derridean deconstruction consists in an attempt to re-conceive the difference that divides self-consciousnes (the difference of the “of” in consciousness of oneself).

>> No.14960817

>>14960799

Of course not. He ripped off Heidegger quite severely. Not that this guy was a serious thinker either. In general you could say that Derrida's contribution is null.

>> No.14960826

>>14960812

Translation: the Chosen people are different from goys because the Torah says so. Also, the Chosen people will always wander (difference / differance = "errance" = to wander) because the Jew has no land. So the Jews will always differentiate themselves from the rest while living among other peoples. Why? Because they are racists.

>> No.14960860

>>14960810
>I explained what a trace is. He (or someone similar) replied: this is nonsense.
Why is it wrong to call it nonsense? Here's what the SEP says in 'defining' the trace:

>First, experience as the experience of the present is never a simple experience of something present over and against me, right before my eyes as in an intuition; there is always another agency there. Repeatability contains what has passed away and is no longer present and what is about to come and is not yet present. The present therefore is always complicated by non-presence. Derrida calls this minimal repeatability found in every experience “the trace.” Indeed, the trace is a kind of proto-linguisticality (Derrida also calls it “arche-writing”), since language in its most minimal determination consists in repeatable forms.

Now, anyone can "follow" this at a superficial level. The problem comes when you really think hard about what exactly he is asserting, and the grounds for the assertions. You soon realize that the passage means a whole lot less than what you may have assumed. That's why the exercise of explaining it in plain English is so useful. It forces you to try to resolve all the vaguenesses and ambiguities in a coherent way, and all to often leads you to realize it just can't be done.

>> No.14960880

> "Blindness to the supplement is the law. We must begin wherever we are and the thought of the trace, which cannot take the scent into account, has already taught of the trace, which cannot not take the scent into account, has already taught us that it was impossible to justify a point of departure absolutely, Wherever we are: in a text where we already believe ourselves to be.”

Translation: our Jewish, Yahwe-given law is superior to us, the Chosen People. We can only contemplate it because we can't understand it. The trace is the Jewish race: it (t)races where our diaspora has been. The text is the Torah and like the law, it's beyond criticism.

It's mystical mambo-jumbo, basically.

>> No.14960903

>>14960812
First this later line is a good start:
>The basic argumentation always attempts to show that no one is able to separate irreplaceable singularity and machine-like repeatability (or “iterability,” as Derrida frequently says) into two substances that stand outside of one another; nor is anyone able to reduce one to the other so that we would have one pure substance (with attributes or modifications).

Traditional philosophy would say self-consciousness is based around an experiencing subject, and that experience is experienced in the present. The 'present' is one idea presupposed in philosophy to be based on the 'now', as in Aristotle's conception of time as a series of 'nows'.

The 'now' would be that point of singularity, as no now can co-exist with another now. Everything outside of that point of singularity falls into that which is machine-like, soulless, etc.

>If we reflect on experience in general, what we cannot deny is that experience is conditioned by time. Every experience, necessarily, takes place in the present. In the present experience, there is the kernel or point of the now. What is happening right now is a kind of event, different from every other now I have ever experienced. Yet, also in the present, I remember the recent past and I anticipate what is about to happen. The memory and the anticipation consist in repeatability. Because what I experience now can be immediately recalled, it is repeatable and that repeatability therefore motivates me to anticipate the same thing happening again. Therefore, what is happening right now is also not different from every other now I have ever experienced. At the same time, the present experience is an event and it is not an event because it is repeatable.

So the basis of 'self-consciousness' of the subject is complicated when the idea of the 'now' is found to contradict itself.

Derrida's contribution is showing that this presupposition of 'presence' is common to all traditional philosophy, but when its systems are laid bare it ends up complicating itself when it tries to describe its own function. The contribution is that philosophy tends to describe itself, and if it is instead to describe truth it cannot be complicated by itself. Derrida 'brings to light' so to speak the areas of philosophy that cannot just be presuppositions but need to be understood and structured by philosophy.

For a bit of jargon, the trace:

>This basic argument contains four important implications. First, experience as the experience of the present is never a simple experience of something present over and against me, right before my eyes as in an intuition; there is always another agency there. Repeatability contains what has passed away and is no longer present and what is about to come and is not yet present. The present therefore is always complicated by non-presence. Derrida calls this minimal repeatability found in every experience “the trace.”

>> No.14960913

>>14960860
Just be aware that this isn't Derrida you are citing, but an encyclopedia entry on him. It shouldn't be considered a substitute.

>You soon realize that the passage means a whole lot less than what you may have assumed.

This isn't true, and this shouldn't be confused with 'jargon'. You do have to be familiar with philosophical concepts, and it does pay to make sense of it as you go along. There is really no simple way of saying these things when you have to use the same word (like 'presence') over and over again.

>> No.14961017

>>14960903
>If we reflect on experience in general, what we cannot deny is that experience is conditioned by time. Every experience, necessarily, takes place in the present. In the present experience, there is the kernel or point of the now. What is happening right now is a kind of event, different from every other now I have ever experienced. Yet, also in the present, I remember the recent past and I anticipate what is about to happen. The memory and the anticipation consist in repeatability. Because what I experience now can be immediately recalled, it is repeatable and that repeatability therefore motivates me to anticipate the same thing happening again. Therefore, what is happening right now is also not different from every other now I have ever experienced. At the same time, the present experience is an event and it is not an event because it is repeatable.
This is just playing semantics. A single moment is a unique event in the since that it only occurs once, and it is repeatable in the quite different sense that you can recall it in your mamory after it happens. Threre is no contradiction.

>> No.14961042

>>14960913
This. And I totally disagree with this >>14960903 interpretation of what he writes

>> No.14961043

>>14961017
>This is just playing semantics.
As is the entire history of philosophy. The point he's making is that past and the future are the condition for the now, not the other way around.

>> No.14961153

>>14961043
>As is the entire history of philosophy
This is demonstrably false, although I can imagine why a Derrida reader may feel that way.
>The point he's making is that past and the future are the condition for the now, not the other way around.
Then he failed to make that point, because the argument doesn't show any contradiction, it just uses the term repetition in two differect senses, as I explained. Just because a particular moment is repeatable in the sense that it can be recalled into memory it doesn't mean that it cannot also be singular or unique in the sense that it actually only happens once, it only seems contradictory if you commit a fallacy of equivocation.

>> No.14961315

>>14961017
You're missing the point. The contradiction is that the 'singular moment' can't be singular if it is determined by elements outside of it. The 'different sense' you mention is traditionally determined as a lesser sense.

>> No.14961344

>>14961315
>The contradiction is that the 'singular moment' can't be singular if it is determined by elements outside of it.
What is that supposed to mean

>> No.14961347

>>14961344

That Jahwe speaks only to the (Jewish, obviously) Prophets.