/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4010560]

>Deconstructionism
>Intellectual terrorism
>Promotion of utter stupidity and uselessness in academia

This man is responsible for all those things!

What a stupid fucken prick.

"Language is subjective, give me money! Focus on semantics when doing literary criticism, give me money!"

What a fucken fraud. So many people faun over him like the gullible sheep they are, but I'm a critical thinker and I can smell his shit from miles away.

He's so fucken useless. Of course language is based on subjective principles, but that's not the point. When you spend all your time questioning things with no goal, only to "attack the structures and make them bleed", you're an intellectual terrorist who is not interested in advancing art, thinking, or anything useful.

I can anticipate you faggots response to this
>Define progress
>Define everything

Fuck off morons. There are doers, and there are good for nothing con men who trick people into giving them money through mysticism and gimmicks.

Derrida is a fraud, and he has fooled many of you. Some of you are probably stupid enough to defend him.

Go ahead, make me laugh.

[Anonymous No.4010564]

I hate him too but he's right.

[Anonymous No.4010574]

I want to be an intellectual terrorist too

[Anonymous No.4010588]

define fucken

[Anonymous No.4010592]

>>4010560
Well Utilitarian-wise he may not be good for the intellectual literary community, but that doesn't mean that a theory should be discounted just because he 'promotes utter stupidity'. It's like how almost no one would listen to Schoenberg's music but he's an important figure in music history anyway.

Of course I haven't read Derrida so I have nothing to say about his stuff.

[Anonymous No.4010590]

Retarded thread. His lack of pragmatic concern isn't the problem, it's the fact that he's just wrong.

[Anonymous No.4010599]

>>4010560
>I can anticipate you faggots response to this
Hang him from a low tree so it takes longer?

>>4010564
Back to Kierkegaard with you.

>>4010588
P in V.

>>4010590
The only manner to determine epistemological correctness is through pragmatic leaps. Given that Derrida isn't a "party" or "union" he's incapable of the same.

>>4010592
>Of course I haven't read Derrida so I have nothing to say about his stuff.
That didn't stop Derrida.

[Anonymous No.4010603]

>>4010592
Schoenberg was a pioneer.


Derrida's musical equivalent would be Skrillex—a pasty fraud wub-wubing for impressionable morons.

[Anonymous No.4010606]

>>4010560
Derrida is a deep and thoughtful and cultured reader.
When the France government wanted to take out philosophy from high school curricula he gave a speech to UNESCO called "The right to philosophy".

Meanwhile defenders of reason like yourself spend your time encouraging people not to read. Don't read derrida he is a fraud. Don't read philosophy it's useless. Don't do soft sciences they are not science.

And even worse you attack these people not because you have a program, or an interest, but because it's the fashionable thing to do. Because now repeating the mantra of the dishonest french is the way you build careers, is how you show that you are up to date, that you are well read.

Well if that's the status of reasonableness today I declare that I stay with Derrida.

[Anonymous No.4010605]

>>4010603
Skrillex is at least organically pleasing. There is nothing embodied in Derrida.

[Anonymous No.4010608]

>>4010590
>philosophy
>wrong

[Anonymous No.4010610]

>>4010605
>Skrillex is at least organically pleasing.

[Anonymous No.4010613]

>>4010606
>If you don't like Derrida you are an anti-intellectual fascist

Pls.

[Anonymous No.4010614]

>>4010606
What, precisely, is Derrida's programme? All power to the cunts? The abolition of proletarian identity and consciousness through an attack on the capacity of normal readers to think? Getting paid and snorting coke?

The way you build a career is obscuritanist bourgeois philosophy, and attacks on the working class

>>4010610
Your organism seems seriously retarded, do you live in a city without hate and industry?

[Anonymous No.4010618]

>>4010606
i agree but sub "reasonability" for "reasonableness" and add a comma after "well" and "today"

[Anonymous No.4010622]

>>4010606
>Don't read derrida he is a fraud. Don't read philosophy it's useless. Don't do soft sciences they are not science.

Don't eat poison it will kill you. Don't eat bread it is useless. Don't drink water it is a solvent.

Nice false comparatives.

[Anonymous No.4010628]

>>4010599

>The only manner to determine epistemological correctness is through pragmatic leaps.

waaw god job 9/10 god effor pragmatism 101 waaw whoo clapclap u get cookie u lik choc chip? i can get peenus butr insted

>>4010608

Huh? Be more clear.

[Anonymous No.4010629]

>>4010614
Well if you are a marxist you won't find derrida much interesting.
But if you are a marxist you won't find much of literary criticism useful no matter what its merit is.

[Anonymous No.4010637]

>>4010613
Strawman.

You can not like him, but you cannot accuse him of being an obscurantist when he is a defender of culture while the most prominent intellectuals today support views that are putting the humanities to death.

[Anonymous No.4010641]

>>4010622
I don't get the sense of this post.

[Anonymous No.4010647]

>>4010637

He is a staunch defender of philosophy. +10 points yaaaay whoooo alriiiight!
He is the king of obscurantism. -1000 points :(

[Anonymous No.4010649]

>>4010592
> It's like how almost no one would listen to Schoenberg's music
>not listening to Schoenberg's music
what the fuck?

[Anonymous No.4010650]

>>4010629
>But if you are a marxist you won't find much of literary criticism useful no matter what its merit is.
Let me introduce you to a chap called Lukacs

[Anonymous No.4010655]

Derrida stole all his ideas from Borges. Lacan stole all his ideas from Proust.

Nothing of value has come out of France since Valery.

If you REALLY wanna read Derrida just read Georges Bataille instead. Better writer, more edgy as well.

[Anonymous No.4010658]

>>4010641
The post I'm attacking used a comparative of the form:

>An evil thing is bad. A good thing is bad. A good thing is bad.

With the implication:

>All these three things must be good, because two good things were called bad incorrectly, therefore the first thing, which is bad, must be good instead!!!

It is a cheap rhetorical device.

[Anonymous No.4010666]

>>4010650
Yeah I love lukacs, I'm sad that his theory of the novel is deemed surpassed by people that are either too much into postmodernism or too much into ethical criticism.

But I said much, not all.

>>4010655
In reality derrida stole all his ideas from Blanchot, not borges.

[Anonymous No.4010667]

>>4010666
Try some Thesis 11 (the journal). The kids of the Lukacs School kept it going when they hit Australia.

[Anonymous No.4010668]

Terrorisme obscurantist.

Foucault was right. Giving people AIDS isn't as morally reprehensible as the dishonest trolling committed by Derrida.

[Anonymous No.4010670]

>>4010647
You still have to prove that he is the kind of obscurantism.
I find today's wave of utilitarian scientism the king of obscurantism. Plain clothed idiocy I call it.

[Anonymous No.4010675]

>>4010670
Attacking someone else doesn't defend your point.

Please stop relying on cheap rhetoric, like Derrida.

[Anonymous No.4010677]

>>4010666
Nice trips.

Nah it was all Borges. Everything from Pierre Menard, his writings on Kabbalah and Gnosticism, his readings of Kierkegaard.

Blanchot was an influence, I guess, but Borges was bigger. And then Derrida has the balls to say "oh yeah, I read Borges a while back but I haven't bothered to keep reading him."

Go eat your chips and drink your champagne some more.

[Anonymous No.4010692]

>>4010675
I can't defend derrida when no argument was given for his obscurantism.

At best op said that for derrida "language is subjective" which is false. Language is inter-subjective for derrida.

[Anonymous No.4010704]

>Parasitic scum of society
>Defends Derrida
>Not because they disagree with OP, but because it would require them to admit that they have blindly accepted what their "academic superiors" have taught them, and therefore admit that they are easily impressionable parrots that squawk what they are told to think

People suck.

[Anonymous No.4010707]

>>4010692
>inter-subjective
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to stop you there. That's blathering bullshit as any basic hermeneutics would indicate to you.

>>http://hydra.humanities.uci.edu/derrida/one.html
>Priere a desceller d'une ligne de vie

Explain this with an exegesis shorter than 500 words. You may begin now. ... Yes, that's why he's described as obscuritanist.

Zen, Tao, Kierkegaard all provide deep examples that are immediate. Derrida is a waffler wallowing in his own shit of language.

[Anonymous No.4010758]

>"Language is subjective, give me money! Focus on semantics when doing literary criticism, give me money!"
Your face when he is a jew.

[Anonymous No.4010771]

>>4010677
>nice trips

nice dubs

[Anonymous No.4010793]

>>4010707
It's a poem. If you try to read it as an essay you are doing it wrong

[Anonymous No.4010800]

>>4010793
>Poems can't be argumentative

And did those feet in ancient time.
Walk upon Englands mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On Englands pleasant pastures seen!

And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among these dark Satanic Mills?

Bring me my Bow of burning gold;
Bring me my Arrows of desire:
Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my Chariot of fire!

I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand:
Till we have built Jerusalem,
In Englands green & pleasant Land

[Anonymous No.4010824]

>>4010655

>nothing of value has come out of France since Valery
Correction: Nothing of value has come out of France since Descartes. Rousseau was a hack.

[Anonymous No.4010829]

>>4010824
Roux

[Anonymous No.4010837]

>>4010800
>And was Jerusalem builded here,
>Among these dark Satanic Mills?
No, it was not. Not by a long shot. Not even close. No.

[Anonymous No.4010841]

>>4010829

Which Roux?

[Anonymous No.4010847]

>>4010670

>Plain clothed idiocy I call it
>Plain clothed
So...It's NOT obscurantism then? I am so confused. Maybe it's because YOU'RE an obscurantist, poisoned by Derrida.

[Anonymous No.4010849]

>>4010841
Jacques.

>>4010837
You should know the difference between instantiation and immanence by now. If nothing else: Spithead, Nore, Peterloo.

[Anonymous No.4010883]

>>4010849

Okay, fair enough. But this Roux is a rather minor figure, so still nothing of GREAT value has come out of France since Descartes.

[Anonymous No.4010906]

>>4010824

>Rousseau was a hack

He was also Swiss.

Also, you're forgetting Pierre Bayle.

[Anonymous No.4011067]

Seriously, fuck postmodernism. Its the modern epicureanism. Is there any better indication of a society in decline and decadence.than the oblverly pretentious "artistic" movement known as post structuralism?

[Anonymous No.4011076]

>>4011067
Shut up. I don't even care about post structuralism, but neckbeard idiots like you who are constantly trying to show that the emperor has no clothes almost never put the actual work in and read the books you criticize. "implying I could make sense of it." They're academic texts written for an academic readership who have studied particular precedent thinkers. Obviously some Wikipedia scholar isn't going to understand anything, especially one with confirmation bias written all over his fucking eyeballs.

[Anonymous No.4011093]

>>4010560
He was just a jew doing what jews do. They always wanted to destroy western culture, and that's what he did.

[Anonymous No.4011110]

>>4010649
I can't say that I have explored Schoenberg in depth. Could you recommend some of his work that you consider enjoyable to listen to?

[Anonymous No.4011136]

>>4011110
I recommend 'Vulgus in Discordia', as recommended by Yitzek Schlomberg in his book 'Dissonant Dialectics', and Rosa Luxembourg in her essay 'Marx's Musical Legacy: Toward a Freudio-Hegelian Discourse on Promoting Terrible Music and Destroying the Classical Western Tradition'.

[Anonymous No.4011486]

>>4010800
>No abstract.
>Citation needed.
>No methodology paragraph.
>No clearly stated and refutable argument.
>No methodological naturalism.

Clearly a work of french obscurantism.

[Anonymous No.4011490]

>>4010847
>Obscurantism (French: obscurantisme, from the Latin obscurans, "darkening") is the practice of deliberately preventing the facts or the full details of some matter from becoming known. There are two common historical and intellectual denotations to Obscurantism: (1) deliberately restricting knowledge—opposition to the spread of knowledge, a policy of withholding knowledge from the public; and, (2) deliberate obscurity—an abstruse style (as in literature and art) characterized by deliberate vagueness.

As you can see my discussion was pointing out how the "defenders of reason" are obscurantists in the sense of (1).

But I guess that the overwhelming use that is made of (2) prevented you from knowing (1).

[Anonymous No.4011491]

>>4011486
ha ha ha, you Yank instrumentalists are just as fucked as French obfuscators.

[Anonymous No.4011561]

>>4010560
>I'm a critical thinker
>philosophy is useless
>fucken

[Anonymous No.4011569]

I haven't read Derrida but if I had to judge him based on the quality of hate for him, I'd assume he was the greatest philosopher of all time.

[Anonymous No.4011578]

>academia

In the presence of actually intelligent and educated people, being called an "academic" is an insult.

[Anonymous No.4011580]

>>4011578
>In the presence of actually intelligent and educated people, being called an "academic" is an insult.

Enjoy being able to scrape together 2 weeks a year to do research, oh all the libraries are closed when you've got leave.

[Anonymous No.4011678]

>>4010560
>࿓ Intellectual terrorist who was not interested in advancing art, thinking, or anything useful ࿔

I want this written on my tombstone, or at least for someone to call me an intellectual terrorist with real anger or fear in their eyes at some point in a debate.

[Anonymous No.4011690]

I like him because he pisses off cunts like OP

[Anonymous No.4011694]

>>4011490

But that still isn't right, because if it's simply plain clothed IDIOCY, it's not an intentional restriction of knowledge. But you're right, I was forgetting the first definition.

[Anonymous No.4011697]

>>4010610
Degustibus non est disputandum.

>>4010606
I'd say the right to freedom from philosophy is better than his crap.

>>4011580
>implying that western academia isn't in free fall
Did you know that after the war, you got a job just like that on a senior high school diploma? Nowadays it's horror story after horror story from the universities. There might be an elite that stick to the old ways, but they are a dying breed as the tides of progressive crap is rising. Back in the days, everyone at the university was part of an elite.

[Anonymous No.4011703]

You see, many people do not understand Derrida. They think he is all about using a bunch of pretentious philosophical concepts that mean nothing. That's not what he's doing. His deconstruction is basically a "bullshit detector". OP, I bet you do not even understand deconstruction, the most basic of Derrida's concepts. So please show me that you know what deconstruction is if you want to not come off as a complete idiot. It's your last chance.

[Anonymous No.4011714]

>>4011697
Anti-intellectialism and aesthetic subjectivism go hand in hand as always

[Anonymous No.4011742]

who deconstructs the deconstructionists?

[Anonymous No.4011746]

>>4010707
Derrida loved Kierkegaard, and if you don't see the connection between Zen and Derrida then you really haven't read his works. In a lecture about religion, Derrida mentioned at one point

>Buddhists have walked up to me and said, "Your deconstruction, it is easy for us to understand...for we have been teaching it for centuries!"

Now, please. Those of you who have not read Derrida, who do not understand Derrida, please stop embarrassing yourselves. This is like a class full of kindergartners acting like they understand quantum physics. Just. Stop. You're looking as dumb as Chomsky.

[Anonymous No.4011755]

>>4010574
I'd sign up, but I'm scared of drones.

[Anonymous No.4011761]

>>4011742
The text. It's the text that deconstructs, not the reading subject.

[Anonymous No.4011771]

>>4011761
so then deconstructionists are texts and not people?

[Anonymous No.4011772]

>>4011761
But you can deconstruct the reader/text dialectic too.

[Anonymous No.4011773]

>>4011746
I can't imagine most people here would mind looking as 'dumb' as Chomsky

[Anonymous No.4011776]

>>4011773
I'm referring to Chomsky's critique of post-structuralists, which is essentially:

>He uses big words and I don't understand it, therefore...its BAD!

[Anonymous No.4011814]

>>4011772
It's not me it's an event. You don't deconstruct. Deconstruction happens.
The fact that you are using my previous text against me it's deconstructin happening.

In brief deconstruction is the force the texts exercise undermining out projects. We want to say something but they betray us. But exactly because they betray us they push others to product more texts.

For eg. You read a text by Kant and you think "wait a sec Kant, your conclusions don't follow. You have ignored this possibility. Let me write now another text that addresses this problems!"

And maybe you thought Kant was wrong because you didn't read him probably (like Nietzsche didn't read Kant properly) but your misreading was creative and opened up previously unexpressed possibilities in the text.
In this way you see you are my implying meaning, you are disseminating it.

[Anonymous No.4011858]

>>4010560
I really can't tell whether you're being ironic (and therefore poststructurally true to poststructuralism while deriding poststructuralism)

Or you're being serious

Which might even be the same thing

[Anonymous No.4011875]

>>4011742
No one. His followers are all dogmatic sheep who have not said a critical word against him or dared to "misread" him. Even though all is misreading.

[Anonymous No.4011878]

>>4011746
Deconstruction and Zen have only the most superficial connection. I hate it when people start spouting that Derrida "was so eastern, man, he was a buddhist, man!"

Heidegger was the one with the real connection to the east.

Derrida is Jewish Gnosticism.

[Anonymous No.4011884]

Has the Nazi non-Nazi binary been deconstructed yet?

How about the Holocaust non-Holocaust binary?

Paul de Man was a Nazi who never bothered to apologize because "the subject is a fiction lol." Thanks to deconstruction there is no real connection between a Nazi war criminal and the man who immigrants to Argentina to hide from war crimes prosecution.

Derrida was hoisted by his own petard.

[Anonymous No.4011908]

>>4011884
Deconstruction does not eliminate binary oppositions nor says anything about personal responsibility.

I don't where you actually get that from besides some undergrad understanding of it.

[Anonymous No.4011913]

Derrida's works can essentially be boiled down to "thumbupmybuttism".

Academics love this, because most of them were born thumbing their butts.

[Anonymous No.4011925]

>>4011913

Wow that's a startling critique, very enlightening. Doesn't surprise me though. Anything by Derrida, or anything responding to Derrida, is bound to be unproductive. He is a vortex of sheer stupidity and vagueness, sucking into himself the thoughts that are around him, so that even the greatest of minds cannot escape his iron gravitational pull.

[Anonymous No.4011928]

How long will it be until suckin dick becomes an acceptable form of literary criticism?

We already have already brainwashed people into believing and defending that shit in a can is on the same plain as Caravaggio. These very same people, I'm sure, can be made to believe that blowjobs are on an equal plain with literary criticism.

I can envision it now: "Blowjobs is an expression that predates language, therefore it is a more viable method of inspection. It's not easy you know, you have to stroke the shaft, ignore your gag reflex, and swallow all the cum. All those things have more meaning in them than subjective chicken scratchings ever had. You're just an anti-intellectual nazi who hasn't been brainwashed by the awful literature arguing as to why blowjobs are the best form of philosophy. My prof said my blowjobs are fantastic, and he gave me 95% on the test. I would have never gotten that had I thought on my own and wrote my own interpretation. Therefore suckin dick is just as viable as literary criticism, anyone who says otherwise is a fascist."

Ladies and gentleman, this is what we are coming to.

[Anonymous No.4011939]

So, basically, OP's argument for Derrida's charlatanism are multiple ad-hominems. Woah, Derrida refuted!

Thanks for reminding me that I'm on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.4011952]

>>4011939
lol I guess you didn't read OP.

Derrida is a charalatan because he can be pretty much be boiled down to "muh subjective semantics, is the most important thing".

That's been done to death millions of times before him.

[Anonymous No.4011954]

>>4011908
Not the one you were replying to, but doesn't Derrida propose some kind of personal responsibility to justice in his lecture Force of Law? For example, read this quotation "Each case is other, each decision is different and requires an absolutely unique interpretation, which no existing, coded rule can or ought to guarantee absolutely. At least, if the rule guarantees it in no uncertain terms, so that the judge is a calculating machine, which happens, and we will not say that he is just, free and responsible." I interpret it as an appeal to responsibility to justice, not only to legality and one can only assume responsibility if justice is not conflated with law(s).

[Anonymous No.4011956]

>>4011939
It's not just lit.
It's everyone now freaking out against anyone who is not paying lip-service to technological progress and middle-class populism (the cult of the average joe).

[Anonymous No.4011961]

>>4011928
those cans are being sold for £100,000

>In The Knights, Aristophanes portrays the ultimate state of decay when, just as the Dalai Lama’s excrement is revered, the rabble ends by adoring, or adoringly contemplating, its reflection in the first and best of the trash . . .

>the ultimate state of decay

[Anonymous No.4011970]

>>4011954
Yes. Derrida point here and elsewhere is that in real ethical dilemmas it always boils down to personal responsibility, because in real ethical dilemmas we have no rule by which to decide.
For Derrida ethics is beyond the deontology vs utilitarianism discourse, because those for him are ways to avoid responsibility ways of saying "hey it's not my fault I was only acting for the greater good" or like Eichman "I was only doing my duty".

Taking inspiration from Kierkegaard the ethical act is the one where you say I take the responsibility for this.

[Anonymous No.4011974]

>>4011952
Thanks for proving my point.

Whenever it comes to refuting or arguing against something, this is /lit/ in a nutshell: Ad-hominem(s) + random pseudo-proposition(s) that posses no logical consequence whatsoever

As entertaining the /b/esque attitude of /lit/ as of late is, I'm starting to wonder why I still come here.

[Anonymous No.4011976]

>>4011961
You do know that Manzoni made those cans basically to say what you are saying now?

[Anonymous No.4011978]

>>4011976
that doesn't excuse it

that's like murdering somebody to show how immoral you are

[Anonymous No.4011981]

>>4011970
no, you can't possibly correct.
you're trying to explain Derrida's thoughts in simple language, and if Derrida's thoughts could be explained in simple language then he would be using simple language himself, wouldn't he? So you can't possibly be correct.

[Anonymous No.4011984]

>>4011908
You're unaware of the Paul de Man scandal?

It's more or less responsible for the waning in popularity of deconstruction in north american academia.

[Anonymous No.4011986]

>>4011970
>Taking inspiration from Kierkegaard the ethical act is the one where you say I take the responsibility for this

I thought Kierkegaard's view of ethic was a Platonist view, with it being about orienting yourself to the 'Good'. "Personal responsibility" is not a term that's used in Kierkegaard's work I don't think, not without the qualifier, "before God", or "in the face of God".

[Anonymous No.4011991]

I really don't know if there is any help that can be given here.
I don't think Derrida can be dismissed as the sort of flagrant and unsalvageable charlatan that, say, Lacan or Zizek might be dismissed as. But something kind of "stinks" about him, above and beyond the publicity photos in which his quiff of rich white hair is vying with his shirt collar, like a cross between Herbert von Karajan and Elvis Presley.
Eminence on the Parisian philosophical scene is basically just a matter of finding some original and inimitable "take" on things, which then becomes one's "trademark". And the more utterly counter-intuitive an idea is - short of being just batshit crazy - the more sure one can be of its being "original".
Derrida built his career on the utterly counter-intutive idea that we are grasping some sort of truth if we reverse common sense and the evidence of our senses and accept that "writing precedes and grounds speech". He labours throughout "Of Grammatology" to suggest different ways in which such an obvious untruth is somehow true.
As in all his later books, I thought all his huge effort ended up producing about 10 per cent convincedness - and 90 per cent incredulity - in the intelligent reader. The basic idea that he takes from Saussure - that the 'being' of semantic entity lies "outside" it, or is "deferred" from it - is a sound and a profound one, and Saussure is generally an author who MUST be read. But to build a vast philosophy of 'being as differance" on this truth is to put so much weight on it that it turns into a lie.
Read Saussure to understand Of Grammatology. But then don't bother reading Of Grammatology.

[Anonymous No.4011996]

>>4011981
If this was true then there would be no need for commentators. But commentators are needed no matter how complex or simple a text is. We write comments on both Hume and Heidegger.
Comments are not just pataphrases of the text but also orientate the attention, they tell you to what to pay attention to understand a certain point exposed together with many others.
Other times they tell you want is gonna be the outcome of a long process in the author's thought saving you from losing your way.

The question of justice for Derrida for example is a work in progress in his later career and he often changes his mind and has difficulty with it and proposes tentative theories. The precedent comment was a patchwork of multiple texts and that's why it is more clear than Derrida himself on the matter.

[Anonymous No.4011999]

>>4011986
I don't see that as being contradictory, both Derrida (following Levinas) and Kierkegaard try to go beyond subjectivity by constantly being oriented by the face of God or in Derrida's case by the Other. That at least is how I understand it, please correct me if I am being silly.

[Anonymous No.4012002]

>>4011984
I do know it. I just think it is silly. Like people suddenly stopping to read Heidegger because in the 80s they discover his past.

Pure idiocy. On the same level of those who made a scandal when revelations came out on DFW life.

It's petiti bourgeois gossip mindendness that obsesses over biographies rather than content. A remainder of Puritan ethics, Scarlett letter style.

[Anonymous No.4012005]

>>4011999
>both Derrida (following Levinas) and Kierkegaard try to go beyond subjectivity by constantly being oriented by the face of God or in Derrida's case by the Other.

that's incorrect however, as Kierkegaard never tried to "beyond subjectivity" in this sense, at least in The Sickness Unto Death where he uses the term "in the face of God" he outright states that the existence of God is not to be considered an exterior, objective reality as though he were a kind of policeman, but as something that "poetentiates" one's subjectivity. I don't think Kierkegaard ever tried to "go beyond subjectivity", but then again, Kierkegaard had a much different definition of subjectivity than, "you can't say that's true, it's all subjective :)" For Kierkegaard subjectivity was truth, so the idea that one would attack something for being true "subjectively" or for not being "objective" would be absurd.

[Anonymous No.4012006]

>>4011999
You are correct.

>>4011986
What puts those thinkers together is the fact that you can't justify for Kierkegaard the ethical act. Like Abraham in fear and trembling when ethics calls you go and you do it and you are silent, because it has no explicable reasons. No algorithm that you can say you followed.

[Anonymous No.4012009]

>>4012006
>What puts those thinkers together is the fact that you can't justify for Kierkegaard the ethical act. Like Abraham in fear and trembling when ethics calls you go and you do it and you are silent, because it has no explicable reasons. No algorithm that you can say you followed.

That's wrong. Kierkegaard says that you can justify the ethical act, in fact the ethical is the justifiable itself - to act ethically is to act in a way that is justifiable (by ethics, by reference to the Good).
It's faith that is unjustifiable, and faith is unethical (or non-ethical or "beyond ethics").

Kierkegaard never discounted ethics and I think had a great respect for ethics as elaborated by Plato/Socrates. It's just that he thought that there was a religious sphere that went beyond the ethical sphere.

[Anonymous No.4012010]

>>4011956
>(the cult of the average joe)

Bitch pls, I'm a renaissance man. Get on my level.

Pic related, it's the renaissance bitch I should be fucking the brains out of.

[Anonymous No.4012027]

>>4012009
You are misreading me.

The ethical for Kierkegaard is the level of the community, the public sphere where justifications are made, the Hegelian state. There is possible to give reasons.

The moral, the acting according to faith, cannot be justified. It is beyond deductive reasoning.

That us what Derrida takes: that morality is beyond deductive reasoning.

Unfortunately you are equivocating many of the terms because Kierkegaard use if the terms are in a way unorthodox.

For example when the previous poster talks of going beyond subjectivity the reference is the idea if modernity (Kant) of the self-legislating subject. Both Kierkegaard and Derrida disagree on the fact that the subject can legislate himself.

[Anonymous No.4012045]

>>4012027
>The moral, the acting according to faith, cannot be justified. It is beyond deductive reasoning.

This is not what Kierkegaard would call "the moral" though. That's the entire point that Kierkegaard makes, that there is no way to tell if what you are doing (under faith) is moral or immoral, and that it would be impossible to explain your actions to somebody else in moral terms i.e. the subject can't legislate for himself, not in the case of faith.

But he doesn't deny that the subject can't legislate for himself in the moral/ethical sense, and he doesn't say that morality is beyond deductive reasoning.

[Anonymous No.4012055]

>>4012045
You just keep reading my use of moral in the strict definition that ethical gets in Kierkegaard and nit see what I'm telling you.

So here I'll put it like this: see how Kierkegaard deals with divine call? That's how Derrida deals with morality. It's a call from the other/justice to come that you can respond to, but not reason it out.

[Anonymous No.4012061]

>>4012055
yes, that's fair enough. But it would be an injustice to equate the two thinker's thoughts on ethics. Just because Kierkegaard's view on faith bares some superficial similarity to Derrida's view on ethics does not mean that Kierkegaard and Derrida had similar view on ethics (in fact, it suggest the opposite).

[Anonymous No.4012062]

>>4012045
You are not saying anything new here;
>that there is no way to tell if what you are doing (under faith) is moral or immoral
compare >The moral, the acting according to faith, cannot be justified
That is exactly what the poster above you is trying to put forward. Derrida's notion of decision in the moment of the undecidable is basically the same, what is new is that faith is not the priviliged domain of religion anymore, it is what underlies intersubjectivity, if I'm allowed to use this word here.

[Anonymous No.4012064]

>>4012027
>>4012045
>>4012055
Wow you guys are wastes of space, wasting your time on obsolete modes of thinking and ideas.

It's like a doctor studying renaissance medicine as a way to treat people nowadays.

Read the selfish gene if you want purpose in your life (spoiler alert--it's to pass on your DNA).

I'll let you go back to never contributing anything to society and being utterly forgotten 2 years after your deaths.

Fucken losers.

[Anonymous No.4012067]

>>4012061
Derrida studies carefully fear and trembling. He has written a study on it called Donner la mort

[Anonymous No.4012068]

>>4012062
I honestly think that this view would have been repellent to Kierkegaard. Faith and religious is meant to be something that goes beyond ethics, it's not something that is supposed to replace it entirely.

[Anonymous No.4012069]

>>4012064
>Read the selfish gene if you want purpose in your life (spoiler alert--it's to pass on your DNA).

It's like I'm 14 all over again. Thanks for the laugh, bub.

[Anonymous No.4012075]

>>4012064
It can't be the purpose of life since I can decide whether I accept it or not. For example I decided to never have children because my life has other purposes. So now as you see biology will not help me decide what is my purpose.

The problem with people like you is that you really lack imagination.

[Anonymous No.4012085]

>>4012068
for example, according to this synopsis of this book
>>4012067
>Donner la mort

>For Derrida, justice is outside or beyond the law, as it were, for law is a construct, and undeconstructible justice is necessarily not contained by the constructs of the law. True justice is not “calculable,” not a matter of economics or an algorithm: “Law is not justice. Law is the element of calculation, and it is just that there be law, but justice is incalculable, it requires us to calculate with the incalculable; and aporetic experiences are the experiences, as improbable as they are necessary, of justice, that is to say of moments in which the decision between just and unjust is never insured by rule…

I don't think justice would be outside or beyond the law according to Kierkegaard. I think Kierkegaard, like Plato, would be likely to put the law and justice on the same level, or at any rate you would be able to calculate justice and you would be able to see clearly when a law was unjust.

[Anonymous No.4012094]

>>4012069
>>4012075
lol losers.

Have fun arguing about psuedo-theology and the sour grapes syndrome of deciding "not to breed".

LOL

[Anonymous No.4012099]

>>4012094
Virgin detected.

[Anonymous No.4012100]

>>4012094
>>>/b/ :)

[Anonymous No.4012108]

>>4012085
>It is precisely through this “calculating with the incalculable,” Derrida writes, that we approach justice; our decisions and experiences, by grappling with the incalculable or aporetic, become something excessive that might be beyond deconstruction. Recalling Kierkegaard’s treatment of Abraham and the Knight of Faith in Fear and Trembling, Derrida writes that the experience of “impossibility,” of undecidability, provides the moment for belief, a moment of utter tension when there are both the room and the call for something as immeasurable as justice…

the whole reason why Abraham has these feelings in the first place is because he has the conception of God, is because he has God to answer to. I think what Derrida says takes this conception of God, this experience "before God" that Abraham has, far too lightly. Derrida interprets this as a kind of reflection that Abraham has, something that occurs to him in reflection, "this might be something that I have to do, it might be just, but I have no reason to believe it is just and am therefore in aporia and must take a leap of faith". No, Abraham experiences this demand as a potential calling from God, and he has to either accept that this is from God and breach the ethical, or he has to lose his faith in God. What Derrida does is remove that ethical layer that Abraham has to breach in order to reach God. Abraham is entirely aware that murdering your son is unethical, it's "beyond doubt".