[ 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: 242 KB, 500x480, Derrida's free range sign farm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5053057 No.5053057 [Reply] [Original]

>Mfw reading On Grammatology

Derrida is stealing practically verbatim from Lacan (and through him Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Kojeve+Hegel), Freud, and Heidegger. All his "innovations" are things that people have thought decades before! He's basically appropriating the ideas of Mallarmé, Lacan, Saussur+Pierce, and Heidegger. How does he get away with this???

Also he pretends not to be a phenomenologist or an ontologist but then he blatantly uses phenomenological reductions and hierarchies of ontological precedence while calling them "psychological." Replace the semiotic terminology with ontological ones and he reads like a pretentious jerk with a poor understanding of Heidegger. What gives? Why is this guy such a hack? Why does no one call him out on it?


Oh yeah also what's with his edgy excuse >muh language is inadequate to express precisely what I mean hence any criticism of my work is merely a poor interpretation

>> No.5053073

>>5053057
Basically, his style belies his methodology.

>> No.5053352

bump

>> No.5053423

>>5053057
1/10: you made me reply.

>> No.5053462

Here is John Searle:

>http://www.scribd.com/doc/29238861/Reiterating-the-Differences-A-Reply-to-Derrida-by-John-R-Searle

And here is Derrida's response to Searle:

>http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/burt/inc.pdf

Derrida is more interested in the movement of concepts and language generally than he is in supposed representations of ultimate reality that language allows us to generate. He will often recapitulate the premises of the works he is "deconstructing"--lending the appearance that he is in fact arguing from those premises--for the purpose of exposing where those premises run aground of themselves.

Derrida studied Husserl very closely at university, so it is not surprising that his writing is inflected with phenomenological nomenclature. I think he's sympathetic to the project, but he has not taken it for his own.

I felt similarly to you about Derrida until I actually sat down with his work and started a conversation with him. He is interminably frustrating, but that is precisely the point.

>> No.5053464

>>5053423
0/10: you vaguely know that Derrida is a "good theorist" and "important" but you don't know enough to refute me

>> No.5053491

>>5053464
-10/10: you're unequivocally an idiot.
Why would I waste my time refuting copy-pasta.

>> No.5053512

>>5053462
It makes no difference when the supposed aims of those premises are subsequently attained by Derrida using different terminology.
He's doing more than just rehearsing Heidegger's destruction. Or Lacan's seminar on the purloined letter.

>> No.5053533

>>5053512

I'm having difficulty parsing your response.