derrida

[Anonymous No.21673701]

where do i start with this guy? seems like a nice dude, cutie even

[Cluster B !GY4CZZOlWY No.21673777]

>>21673701
To understand the French intelligentsia you need to watch 50h of child porn and pledge your allegiance to Stalin

[Anonymous No.21673794]

>>21673701
Eat Crisps. Read Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.21673801]

https://grattoncourses.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/letter_to_a_japanese.pdf

[Anonymous No.21673812]

>>21673701
Read Heidegger first, Derrida is his continuation
On Spirit is good bridge
Margins of Philosophy is great, its his most approachable book
Positions
Of Gramatology
Politics of Friendship
Archive fever
Gift of Death
All great books desu, pick up any of them after Margins, I personally didnt like Writing and Difference much

[Anonymous No.21673835]

>>21673701
Saussure and Heidegger
Deleuze's essay "What is structuralism?" is a good intro.
"Structure sign and play" is a good first essay

[Anonymous No.21673843]

>>21673701
Pick a random letter from your name that start one of his books.
Open by chance somewhere in the middle of the book and start reading till the end of that chapter.
You’ll know where to go from there.

[Anonymous No.21673881]

>I always have a kind of anxiety

Is he being sincere? Why would anyone listen to a philosopher that wasn't at peace with themselves and the world? What good is his philosophy if he couldn't do that?

[Anonymous No.21673996]

>>21673881
>Is he being sincere? Why would anyone listen to a philosopher that wasn't at peace with themselves and the world? What good is his philosophy if he couldn't do that?
I find this such an alien understanding of philosophy and, just, thinking in general. I don't know how I'd communicate with someone who holds your position. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't know how to approach it.

[Anonymous No.21674113]

>>21673701
Only thing ive read by him is "Differance", which made me never want to read him again.
Even if some of his ideas are interesting, he presents them in the most pretentious obnoxious way possible. He came across as a smug fart sniffer.

[Anonymous No.21674118]

>>21673996
I thought it was weird myself. You're dealing with someone who assumes the end, therefore negates the entire purpose of philosophy. That's why its confusing. We've learned to assume nothing.

[Anonymous No.21674213]

>>21673794
>Read Heidegger.
Going to have to pass

[Anonymous No.21674261]

>>21674213
You didn't pass the crisps fattie.

[Anonymous No.21674265]

>>21673843
this is deconstruction taken to another level.
>>21673701
might sound weird, but there was a debate between Rorty and Culler on Derrida about whether or not Derrida was (transcendental) philosopher. These two people are both very well versed in Derrida but also have very different take on what Derrida's work actually is all about. Also, since Derrida is all about interpretation, reading interpretations of Derrida is super interesting, and a bit unlike reading interpretations of say, Kant or Aristotle. This debate helped me to get clearer on things I could not wrap my head around at all. Understanding the ambiguities of Derrida's work is crucial for understanding Derrida.

Others have already said to start with Heidegger. Saussure is also important, or just general structuralist theory. Husserl was also important for Derrida.
and >>21673843 might unironically be a good advice.

I think that recommendations about where to start should be very different, depending on whether you care more about the philosophical tradition or more about literary theory. If you primarily interested in literary theory, I don't see any need to study Aristotle in order to study Heidegger in order to study Derrida.
But regardless whether you are more interested in literary theory or the history of philosophy, I repeat my recommendation of reading the exchange between Culler and Rorty, as Culler is a literary theorist and Rorty some sort of anti-philosopher.

[Anonymous No.21674280]

>>21674113

anon had to read a print-out of differance in his sophomore intro to lit crit and changed majors.

in seriousness: yeah, of course he's a bit smug. he's a fucking philosopher. they're all like that. basically every fucking worthwhile paper you'll ever read is going to come off "smug," especially if you approach them all with the attitude of "lets figure out if this guy is smart or not" or "lets figure out whether i agree or not."

derrida's differance is extremely valuable. its a gateway into eastern philosophy of no-self, mu, etc. he managed to encapsulate some of the most intangible ideas in the history of philosophy and reintroduce them into western discourse.

not saying you have to like it... but someone who discounts one of the most influential and endorsed philosophers of the last century on account of being "smug" after reading ONE paper is probably not the type of person who should be offering their opinion on /lit/

[Anonymous No.21674311]

>>21674280
No, I will not read any more of him on account of his style which I find off putting.
I did not say I entirely discount the substance of his ideas, just the manner in which he presents them.
You are wrong that all philosophers write this way. I recently read through "Outlines of Skepticism" by Sextus Empiricus and then read St. Augustine's "Critique of Skepticism".
Both delivered their ideas in clear simple language, while still maintaining intellectual rigor. Discourse on the Method is also written in an incredibly plain matter of fact style. Derrida wrote in this pretentious obscurantist style because he was a wanker. That is all.

[Anonymous No.21674367]

>>21674311

>anything written in language above my reading level is obscurantist

ah, a classic. surprised you didn't say "pretentious" instead, thats the usual go-to. here's a tip, dont critique something from your projection of what you think the author is trying to accomplish -- the author didnt write it to impress you -- critique it based on the actual ideas expressed. derrida didnt sit around thinking "hmm how can i make my ideas more obscure to frustrate suburban college kids in 40 years" stop projecting your own weird gay shit onto a text and just read the text.

>Both delivered their ideas in clear simple language

you just namedropped two people who weren't even originally writing in English. their languages were literally not as complex or specific... not to mention all of the greeks are intentionally translated at like a 9th grade reading level because thats their average audience. besides, its an apples to oranges thing.

[Anonymous No.21674501]

>>21674367
> the author didnt write it to impress you -- critique it based on the actual ideas expressed.
Yes he did write to impress me, and he has failed in that mission.
My post wasn't intended to critique his ideas because I have no interest in exploring his ideas further than I already have because it's clear he is a fart sniffing pseud.
>you just namedropped two people who weren't even originally writing in English. their languages were literally not as complex or specific... not to mention all of the greeks are intentionally translated at like a 9th grade reading level because thats their average audience
The average audience of an Ancient Greek philosopher, a medieval theologian, and the founder of modern philosopher are 9th graders? Wow you really are a retard.
Keep coping, it's clear I've struck a nerve.

[Anonymous No.21674515]

>>21674501
>The average audience of an Ancient Greek philosopher, a medieval theologian, and the founder of modern philospher are 9th graders?

unironically, yes. as if this board weren't evidence enough.

i can't believe you typed that sentence and pressed "post" without a shred of self-awareness. pure comedy, in real time. the internet was man's greatest gift to god.

[Anonymous No.21674561]

>>21673777
Stop projecting.

[Anonymous No.21674566]

>>21674515
Summarize a single key idea from any of the thinkers I listed.
I've actually read Derrida, that is how I've formed the determination to never read him again. Have you read any of the thinkers I listed? I assume you have if you have such a low opinion of their writing and intended audience.
It's clear I've struck a nerve because all I wrote was that I disliked his style, and so wouldn't be reading more of him. Nowhere in my posts did I suggest I was critiquing the (lack of) substance of his ideas.