/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3030988]

what r ur thoughts on derrida?

[Anonymous No.3030995]

i derridon't give a fuck

[Anonymous No.3030994]

hes kinda gay u know..

[Anonymous No.3031008]

>posts picture of Martin Heidegger using the filename "derrida" and asks what /lit/ thinks about Derrida

Gentlemen, whip out your dicks and let the circle jerk begin.

[Anonymous No.3031020]

Rorty got him right.

Derrida is a troll/prankster who cleverly stuck it to academia and logocentricism by actually not saying a whole lot. His method is clever and self-conscious, but for anyone to take him seriously, or worse, to be a follower of Derrida (I'm looking at you, de Man) is a total retard.

This unfortunately makes most English departments in north america, completely retarded.

[Anonymous No.3031023]

i regret i didnt read him when i thought french shit was relevant. now that i realized it is a bunch of crap i guess i'll read it some time in the future like a novel to pass time.

[Anonymous No.3031027]

like all french "intellectuals", he's a charlatan.

[Anonymous No.3031033]

I enjoyed Spectres of Marx

[Anonymous No.3031038]

>>3031020
>>3031023
>>3031027
le analytic face.jpg

[Anonymous No.3031048]

He must be an awesome troll because he's got so many ITT mad as fuck.

[Anonymous No.3031064]

>>3031048
He wasn't a troll. It really is 2deep4them

>"I can't understand shit, I'll call him a charlatan"

[Anonymous No.3031077]

I'm only curious if everyone ignores OP's picture on purpose or because they're too busy spouting shit other people said.

[Anonymous No.3031080]

>>3031077
"there is nothing outside the text"

[Anonymous No.3031092]

>>3031020

A bunch privileged dull-minded anti-intellectuals spouting on subjects they don't understand / comprehend. What else is new?

This is what happens when teenagers have access to the internet. Shouldn't you busy idolizing / wanking off to your father's "lifetime accomplishments?"

[Anonymous No.3031117]

Very similar to Buddhism. But then again since the kantian revolution, things have been becoming very buddhist like, not as a whole, but piece by piece. I bet if a unified philosophy came about, it would be very buddhist like.

[Frenchfag No.3031119]

>>3031027
> like all french "intellectuals", he's a charlatan.

Yes. No. Factually yes, but for example I like Deleuze. Deleuze aesthetism and his chaoids as tools letting you force chaos into becoming a chaosmos on le plan of immanence. It's bs but it's like poetry, it's a cool, artsy philosophy.

But most of the time, yes. French philosophers tend to hide their logic under layers of bs.

Lacan for example... I wonder how you guys translate that into english language, when even in french it sometimes doesn't make any sense:
"It (the erectile organ) is equivalent to the square root of minus one of the signification produced above, of the enjoyment
that it restores by the coefficient of its statement to the function of the lack of signifier."

Even today, lots of them throw scientific words in their work, in order to look 2deep4pleeb.

Could someone care to explain to me why Derrida is apparently still loved in the US?

[Anonymous No.3031122]

>>3031117
i've been thinking that.

but it is completely impossible for a unified thing to come out of this mess. so we are just fucked.

[Anonymous No.3031357]

>>3031119

French theory, post-structuralism, and postmodern philosophy are all very much prominent, respected, and legitimized in their own theories and concepts. Logic has absolutely nothing to do with understanding or grasping the ideas being addressed. You're trying to interpolate your dry, tasteless bourgeois analytical notion of philosophy into a highly dense, abstract ideological framework. Fuck back to Bertrand Russell, prick.

[Anonymous No.3031414]

I heard from some posts on /lit/ that he's an obscurantist, fraud, charlatan pseudo-intellectual that overthinks trivial matters and writes impenetrably, so I'm going to go with that.

I can always trust 4chan for reviews with integrity.

[Anonymous No.3031417]

>>3031119
>derrida
>loved in the us

[Anonymous No.3031431]

>>3031357
>Suggesting analyticals are bourgeois
>Worshipping at the whore teat of the bourgeois recapitulation of 1968 as the enslavement of the working class

mvq

[Anonymous No.3031441]

>>3031431

Name-dropping intellectuals you don't understand ftw

[Anonymous No.3031444]

>>3031357
>>3031357
Wrong. They are "respected" by idiots like you who want to believe they are deeper and more intelligent than analytic philosophers.
Ubfortunately for your ego, French philosophers are nothing more than a bunch of pompous asshats who hide what little insight they have in masses of irrelevant crap and will never contribute anything useful to the world.

[Anonymous No.3031448]

>>3031444

Speaks for itself really

[Anonymous No.3031450]

>>3031117
>materialistic buddhism

lol no, nihilist scum

[Anonymous No.3031468]

My favorite is 1980s Derrida. You know, the one with the white, Rod Stewart-y, petit flat-top hairdo.

[Anonymous No.3031474]

Oh /lit/, you did it again... Derrida's work is built on confusing value and signification in Saussure's conception of the sign, just sayin.

[Anonymous No.3031507]

>>3031441
It helps if you extend your sentence such that the object of your sentence is obvious for any other reader.

[Frenchfag No.3031633]

>>3031417
>derrida
>loved in the us

AotherAnon claimed that Derrida
> unfortunately makes most English departments in north america, completely retarded.

So I would like to know how and why Derrida is relevant and important in the US in 2012 (according to Anons... I honestly don't know shit about litterary studies in the US)

>>3031431
>>3031507

Pic related.

"It goes without saying that we can not only fix a work or integrate various fragments of works outdated in a new, but change the meaning of these fragments and fake in any way that we deem good what fools insist on calling quotes" (Gandalf)

[Anonymous No.3031671]

>>3031633
Good, you were saying what I thought you were saying.

Did you miss the second line of green text? Because it appears you did. What Debord developed as systems and discourses of liberation from proletarian knowledge, organic knowledge, Deride-r developed as systems and discourses of bondage by enclosing proletarian knowledge, out side of the class.

Post-modernism is 1968 turned upon its head.

[Anonymous No.3031687]

>>3031444

>Cannot into Irrationalism

If anything Post modernism and is built around the Nietzschean idea that you can devalue and deconstruct any form logical or moral system.
I don't understand whi analytics are so insecure about this
Wittgenstein said the same thing about metaphysics. French post modernists just stick in their critique of political, social and scientiffic values that permiate the academia.

[Anonymous No.3032548]

>>3031444
>philosophers in general
>contribute anything useful to the world.

Choose one.

[Anonymous No.3033559]

I think he uses language to showcase ideas.

[Anonymous No.3033608]

>>3032548
>Logic and the philosophy of logic
>philosophy of science
>philosophy of math
>philosophy of law
>political philosophy
>ethics
>bio-ethics

[Anonymous No.3033622]

>>3033608
>Bio-ethics? Huh what's that?
>wikipedia
>mfw

Why does this have to be a separate sphere from "regular" ethics?

Oh brb guys I'm going to go write my seminal study on gender-ethics. Spoiler: rape culture.

[Anonymous No.3033628]

>>3031080
10/10

[Anonymous No.3035102]

>>3033622
Bio-ethics is separate from regular ethics because it is an applied philosophy.

Sheesh, do you know nothing about disciplinarity and the philosophy of social science? Go read Feyerabend.

[Anonymous No.3035132]

>>3032548
Philosophers do what the everyman does, only more intelligently.

Pleb on, serfs.

[Anonymous No.3035176]

>>3030988
It only really happens to me if I eat a lot of spicy food.

[Anonymous No.3035229]

Reading his differance speech is one of the worst things i've had to do for undergrad.

[Anonymous No.3035559]

Limitless interpretation and the immanence of human epistemological conjecture can find their Dialectic root in Hegel, and Derrida is simply continuing in this ultra-relativistic tradition, picking away at the dead colossus that is the enterprise of Metaphysics.
Derrida and the postmodernists are simply the literary participants in an intellectuo-ideological shift as important as any the human race has ever faced.
Inquiry was the first, beginning in Philosophy across the world.
Theology was second, providing ontological solace in exchange for dogma and unfounded reconciliation.
Science was third, allowing us to believe we've gained a (in reality bastardized and crippled) knowledge of the world. The lattermost revolution has been the most effective, technologically and humanistically speaking.

[Anonymous No.3035564]

The fourth, however, was the death of Metaphysics, and the birth of limitless interpretation -- of immanence -- of a world entirely absent of Ego and its interpretations. A Berkelian universe is as nonsensical as a Humean one, to the postmodernists. The pursuit of anything outside Egoistic interpretation isn't right or wrong -- it is simply folly.
The derivative that killed metaphysics was approached simultaneously from many different points. Empirical science gave us Relativity and Quantum Theory, both highly potent rejections of the Cartesio-Baconian and neo-Cartesian Metaphysical edifice. It is from these truths that we realize science has reached its limit.
In mathematics and philosophy, we found all paradox, linguistic, codified, semantic and mathematical, to be unavoidable. The Fregean paradigm shift that started metaphysics down its final path changed the focus of philosophy to language, semantics and logic -- enterprises found by the positivists, by Russell/Whitehead and, later, by Quine and Putnam, to be essentially untouchable without appealing to some sort of Coherentist compromise of a framework.
Lastly, the death of metaphysics was heralded by the likes of Derrida and Baudrillard, intellectuals who simply confirmed the death of the metaphysical colossus. These men understood that everything is not only limitlessly interpretable, but that simulation of Ego and analysis therein are the only valid forms of knowledge and experience. The document made with communicative intent is rendered meaningless by Derrida, and the skyscraper of objective truth collapses upon itself.

The whole thing makes me really sad.

[Anonymous No.3035577]

>>3032548
lol you think philosophy is a field that is magically free of idiots and sheep?

xD

[Anonymous No.3035578]

>>3035564
>>3035564
And politics gave us the proletariat and its irrepressible Goku-like immanence and willingness to define truth through violence. Bourgeois science is dead. Proletarian epistemology has only begun to impose meanings.

[Anonymous No.3035581]

>>3035564
What do you mean by "a world entirely absent of Ego"? How are you defining Ego?

[Anonymous No.3035619]

>>3035578
This is absolutely true, but I don't view it as the victory you seem to view it as.
To me, the collapse of this enterprise is the most tragic event in human history.

>>3035581
Misspoke. I meant the world absent of Ego and its interpretation DIED, and the immanent world is one composed entirely of Ego and its epistemological-metaphysical apparatus.

[Anonymous No.3035624]

>>3035619
And what is that apparatus? I know very little of postmodern literature/critical theory.

[Anonymous No.3035627]

>>3035619
Do you have a class reason to see this as anything other than a triumph? Maybe it is sexual repression? Or just thorough indoctrination in bourgeois ideology, like Christianity.

I too have read Western canon, but I put my own material interest at the centre of my being.

I can't simulate the _real_ agony you feel, only a disappointment at a failed research project. But you seem to be agonised by it.

[Anonymous No.3035634]

[Anonymous No.3035708]

>>3035627
Yeah, I kind of pinned all my hopes on the research project.
I know, on an Apollonian level, that Proletarian/Egoistic metaphysics are just as *valid* as objective truth (the truth according to the Western bourgeois paradigm), but my historical entrenchment in and commitment to an external, objective metaphysical framework has forged a connection that's simply been severed by modern thought.
It's frightening for me on a very basic, visceral level.

[Anonymous No.3035758]

holy fuck, this thread is filled with a bunch of pretentious posts.

[Anonymous No.3035904]

>>3035708
The thing is, if bourgeois truth existed then I would simply conduct critique because the discovery of "true" may present a liberation for my class. In the discovery of the impossibility of the "true" I merely need to reflect what effort I would have spent in critique into tactics.

For someone who had placed epistemological hope on true critique existing it must be devastating. (None of this, of course, validates the cretinist anti-workerism of Leninism.)

Have you thought of trying to resurrect the possibility of truth through a leap-of-faith into hermeneutics? It lacks the solidity of Kant, but Kierkegaard is a better fulfilment than Derrida.