/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5916353]

How do I start reading Derrida? What's his best work?

[Anonymous No.5916428]

Don't.

His basic idea is that even when I point at something, it's still a form of language. In other words, everything is a million different "language game" or "discourses" or "contexts" crashing and rubbing against each other, all with their own truths. In other words, he claims, there is no reality to compare any claim to. Everything is relative. (Though he would also argue this claim is false as it claims the relativity as an absolute.) The rest of his works is just him picking apart texts by switching context randomly. This even includes noting that "communism" means, say, turtle in Italian, and then going on about turtles to prove some point about left politics.

If you HAVE to read something by him, the go-to book is De la grammatologie which made his crazy career possible. I hope you know your relevant philosophers and thinkers beforehand.

More importantly, I refer you to http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/chomsky-on-postmodernism.html

[Anonymous No.5916435]

>>5916428
well, I guess someone had to get the argument going

[Anonymous No.5916443]

>>5916428
>derrida.png

[Anonymous No.5916453]

>>5916443

[Anonymous No.5916487]

>>5916428
Don't listen to these party-killing assholes and go read up the whole history of philosophy to know what Derrida was reacting to, then go read Of Grammatology. It's a rip roaring fun read. Better than any fiction out there.

[TR Grunt Louis No.5916493]

>>5916428
Sounds like unfalsifiable nonsense. OP should just read Wittgenstein.

[Anonymous No.5916502]

>>5916428
>>5916435
>>5916443
>>5916453
>>5916493

Good work guys, it's not like anyone actually wanted to talk about Derrida right?

[Anonymous No.5916505]

>>5916493
>Implying Wittgenstein didn't also engage in unfalsifiable nonsense
>Witty only refused to talk about it

[Anonymous No.5916511]

>>5916505
>>Implying Wittgenstein didn't also engage in unfalsifiable nonsense
This the most retarded post I've read all day.

[M No.5916546]

Lee Braver does an excellent introductory crash-course on the history of Continental anti-realism starting with Kant and works his way up to Derrida. It's not an extremely easy book to read, but it's not terribly difficult, and and accessible for someone who's interested in post-modernism.

Also, I urge for you not to listen to people who claim he's a 'relativist" - because anti-realism isn't a relativistic claim. It is true however that he'll deny an objective, external world - but there's very good reasons for all this.

You'll need to know the history of what he does all this, and the book I suggested you will give you a good start.

[Anonymous No.5917837]

>>5916546
>It is true however that he'll deny an objective, external world - but there's very good reasons for all this.
This is when you should of start realizing to leave your keyboard.

[Anonymous No.5917854]

>>5916511
Nothing Wittgenstein ever said was falsifiable. It wasn't nonsense, either. Demanding falsifiability when talking about language and meaning is pretty fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.5917875]

>>5917837
Not that guy, but even Einstein admitted he couldn't prove the moon was still there when he stopped looking at it.

[Anonymous No.5917881]

>>5916505
For fuck's sake, you've never read anything written by Wittgenstein. Try reading On Certainty and perhaps your simpleton mind won't make you write this kind of shit.

[Anonymous No.5917918]

>>5917875
But there's absolutely no reason to think it disappears when we don't look at it. Doubt ceases to make sense if you say this kind of shit.

[ilovemybuilding !trap0OylHY No.5917957]

OP, if you really don't want to do the full route of formalism->structuralism->post structuralism then I'd recommend you to at least read some easier post structuralists. Barthes is probably the most accessible of the bunch, I've heard good things of Deleuze. Derrida is needlessly complicated for someone who's just checking it out.

[Anonymous No.5917958]

>>5917875
You don't need to drop big names. This is philosophy 101. Theoretically, speaking you can't, but you would only doubt moon's existence for the sake of argument. If you go beyond that point, then you need some time off.

[Anonymous No.5917967]

>>5917918
>>5917958
>why seriously doubt something you cannot prove
Which I will counter with, why cocksurely assert something you cannot prove?

[Anonymous No.5918084]

>>5917854
See: the difference between senseless and nonsense in the Tractatus. (Pic related, from KT Fann's work).

If you are speaking of the PI, without making reference to Remarks on Frazier's Golden Bough, then you should reevaluate your reading of Wittgenstein.

[Anonymous No.5918093]

>>5918084
>>5917854
Same guy: didn't mean to respond to you, but the other guy. You are mostly correct.

[Anonymous No.5918106]

>>5918084
Let's talk about examples here, under what circumstances could the assertion that the limits of my language are the limits of my world be falsified? Falsificationism really only applies when you're making empirical predictions, it isn't some sort of litmus test for any and all possible statements.

[Anonymous No.5918109]

>>5918093
Oh well, never mind then.

[Anonymous No.5918184]

The Gift of Death is fucking brilliant, it stems from the eulogy he gave when his friend and fellow philosopher Levinas died. It's about the ethical responsibility that the death of the other evokes in the individual, amongst other things.

[Anonymous No.5918219]

>ITT people argue about Wittgenstein and Derrida's language work instead of focusing on their more useful and generally better work on ethics

[Anonymous No.5918238]

>>5918219
>wittgenstein on ethics
Lolwut?
>derrida on ethics
I'm expecting some nonsense about how to arrange your bookshelf, but please enlighten me.

[Anonymous No.5918771]

>>5918238
>wittgenstein on ethics
Lolwut?

'Ethics' is perhaps to the wrong word for it, but its mostly stuff which has parallels with Foucault's work on 'writing the self' and Parrhesia.

Here's an excerpt from an article on the subject:

>"When we attempt to “go beyond” the facts and pass judgment upon them,
we enter into a discourse in which it is impossible to speak as an impersonal
authority—for we have left the realm of facts about which one could be an
authority. Hence, we can only speak for ourselves. But in speaking for ourselves,
in committing ourselves to moral standards and ideals, we incur the
responsibility of living up to those standards and ideals. Because the act of
judgment brings with it this onus of responsibility, there is more to ethical
judgment than the mere expression of (considered) opinion in the following
sense: we inherit from our own act of judgment the responsibility for showing
what could possibly motivate this (nonsensical) manner of speaking, and
it is reasonable to think that one who fails to recognize and accept this burden
of responsibility has no business making ethical judgments. That we
can only speak for ourselves in ethics—that ethics, as Wittgenstein put it,
“can be no science”, and even that absolute judgments are, strictly speaking,
nonsense—none of this, properly understood, implies anything that should
lead us to denigrate ethical judgment. Nor should any of this leave us with
the thought that there are no standards in ethical discourse. What all of this
does show, if Wittgenstein is right, is that ethics is an autonomous category
of thought which cannot be assimilated or reduced to other areas of human
inquiry. Thus, we might well think of Wittgenstein’s attempt in the “Lecture
on ethics” to show its distinctiveness (that is, its autonomy from other modes
of discourse) as his way of showing ethical thought the respect it is due."

I'll cover Derrida in another post

[Anonymous No.5918840]

>>5916353
>How do I start reading Derrida?
don't bother. i once took a class on derrida on shakespeare in college. the whole class was about the professor's personal memories of being invited to derrida's bday parties at neuf chateau or whatever the fuck it was

derrida a shit

[Anonymous No.5918892]

>>5917918
>But there's absolutely no reason to think it disappears when we don't look at it.
Niether is there reason to believe it continues to exist when we do stop looking at it.

[Anonymous No.5918904]

>>5916428
Thanks, this helps a lot.

[Anonymous No.5918984]

>>5918084
this is a discussion about Derrida, fanboi.
Are you autistic?

[Anonymous No.5918991]

>>5916353
>What's his best work?
Dying.

[M No.5918992]

>>5917837
Uh, he also denies an "internal world".

So, it's completely acceptable to me.

[Anonymous No.5918996]

>>5918840
>derrida a shit
"I've had a bad teacher in college
"so Derrida a shit

[Anonymous No.5919003]

>>5916428
the linguistic turn is actually an anglo disease.
derrida was a minor author in france, but as a philosopher of language, he was adopted by the Anglos, and made his career there.

I agree that reducing everything to speech acts is ridiculous, but you can't blame Derrida for this. Blame Austin and Jacobson.

[Anonymous No.5919024]

>>5916353
Read Danielewski's House of Leaves as an introduction. I wouldn't call it a phenomenal novel, but it presents a lot of Derrida's ideas in easier ways (not that it's possible to make them accessible to everyone).

[Anonymous No.5919073]

>>5918991
>>5918840
>>5918238
>>5918084
>>5916511
>>5916493

[Anonymous No.5919075]

>>5918840
>derrida a shit

It's a new meme.

[Anonymous No.5919080]

>>5918840
What the heck? Your story doesn't make any sense at all, why would you even write something like this? How can that conclusion be derived from that experience? Just what the fuck is wrong with you?

[Anonymous No.5919100]

>>5916353
start by reading the wikipedia article (or a history of philosophy).
like others said, he's really a scholar, drawing upon Heidegger's Destruktion and the whole history of philosophy, so you might want to start with the Greeks.

Then, I suggest picking a short article, like this one :
http://www.anderspaulin.com/index.php?/text/before-the-law-derrida-excerpt/
(Kafka being a pre-requisite here)
it will give you an idea of how Derrida analyses/deconstructs a text.

[Anonymous No.5919160]

I wouldn't know which book is best but "The truth in painting" is a good introduction to his writing (especially if you're not reading him in french).

[Anonymous No.5919165]

>>5919100
>http://www.anderspaulin.com/index.php?/text/before-the-law-derrida-excerpt/

How is this a thing? Most of his commentary barely adds anything to the text and when he says in the ending "To be precise", it just stays obscure. It feels like I am only supposed to read this, to feel entrapped in the text.Which I find oddly pleasing

[Anonymous No.5919322]

>post-structuralist linguistics
just don't, read Saussure instead

[Anonymous No.5919347]

The Derrida vs Wittgenstein debate is both overplayed and old.

Quite a lot of their ideas overlap, especially the language games, which surprisingly Analystic philosophy has moved away from.

[Anonymous No.5919380]

>>5919165

Derrida and literary theory is optional, in that you applying one philosophical method on another field.

Derrida is a philosopher, all of his claims are about philosophy.

[Anonymous No.5921643]

Of Grammatology---->Writing and Difference---->Limited Inc.

For his deconstructionism.

Anyone know of a good way of getting into his explicitly ethical works?

[Anonymous No.5921648]

>>5916353
The best thing to do is not to read Derrida.

[Anonymous No.5921974]

>>5918771
where's the other post, asshole? is this some poststructural joke??

[Anonymous No.5922097]

>>5917967
Well, you cocksucking trap. What if I shove my cock down your throat so hard that you gag on it. Can you proof my cock's existence after I pulled out and let you lay there on the floor in your own thrown up shivering? Nope, but anyways, it makes you a gay submissive whore.

[Anonymous No.5922175]

>>5921974
lol

[Anonymous No.5922196]

>>5922097
Having not encountered your cock thus far, I have absolutely no reason to believe it even exists.

[Anonymous No.5922239]

/lit/, if I'm interested in philosophy of language/ philosophy in general discussing language who should I read that came before the linguistic turn/20th century if I want to prepare for the 20th century philosphers? Besides the Greeks, Hume, and Kant.

[Anonymous No.5922322]

>>5922239
Don't bother with them, the 20th century philosophers, like Wittgenstein and Chomsky, were clear enough.

[Anonymous No.5922329]

>>5922322
>Chomsky
>Philosopher

Is this a meme?

[Anonymous No.5922331]

>>5922329
xDDD

[Anonymous No.5922336]

>>5922331
Seriously though, he's a professor of linguistics and a political activist/commentator, hardly a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.5922339]

>>5922239

Saussure

[Anonymous No.5922348]

>>5922336
He wrecked that charlatan Lacan and his lap dog Zizek pretty well, though they are hardly to be considered philosophers.

[Anonymous No.5922358]

>>5922348
We all know psychoanalysis is abject retardism, but it doesn't make Chomsky a philosopher for pointing out the obvious. It might make him above average in intelligence, but certainly not a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.5922367]

>>5922358
Avram Noam Chomsky (/ˈnoʊm ˈtʃɒmski/; born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist, philosopher,[21][22] cognitive scientist, logician,[23][24][25] political commentator and anarcho-syndicalist activist. Sometimes described as the "father of modern linguistics",[26][27] Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy.[21] He has spent most of his career at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he is currently Professor Emeritus, and has authored over 100 books. He has been described as a prominent cultural figure, and was voted the "world's top public intellectual" in a 2005 poll.[28]

[Anonymous No.5922374]

>>5922367
If you think standing on the shoulders of giants and writing about how much you agree with the ones before you,makes you a philosopher, then fine, that's your definition, but it isn't mine.

[Anonymous No.5922377]

>>5922374
>philosopher
fJˈlɒsəfə/
noun
noun: philosopher; plural noun: philosophers

a person engaged or learned in philosophy, especially as an academic discipline.

[Anonymous No.5922379]

>>5922358
>>5922336
idk, I'd put Chomsky in the same camp as, say, Foucault or maybe Baudrillard -- though certainly not in quality -- and they're considered philosophers. But if you don't consider them as well... then I at least commend you for being consistent.

[Anonymous No.5922384]

>>5922377
>I agree with everything Bertrand Russell wrote, therefore I am a philosopher

[Anonymous No.5922388]

>>5922384
I'm not a logical positivist.

[Anonymous No.5922406]

>>5922388
I never said you did either. But the point I'm trying to make is that if you've made zero actual contributions to philosophy as a discipline, you cannot really claim to be a philosopher.

I know Chomsky has had a major influence on linguistics, but I sincerely doubt his asskissing towards Kropotkin and Proudhon has done anything valuable.

[Anonymous No.5922430]

>>5922406
>I never said you did either.
You said I agree with everything Bertrand Russell said. He was a logical positivist.
>you've made zero actual contributions to philosophy as a discipline, you cannot really claim to be a philosopher.
I'm not claiming to be.
>but I sincerely doubt his asskissing towards Kropotkin and Proudhon has done anything valuable.
No socialist thought is really valuable.

[Anonymous No.5922441]

>>5922430
Once again, I didn't say that you were. We are talking about Noam fucking Chomsky. Pay attention.

His wiki page said he was a "major figure" in analytic philosophy, which is ridiculous, because the only thing I've read from him on the subject is an admiration for Bertrand Russell and Karl Popper, but nothing new added to the subject.

[Anonymous No.5922447]

>>5922441
Who's Noam Fucking Chomsky? His name is Avram.

[Anonymous No.5922459]

>>5922447
xDDDDD le epik trole :^)

[Anonymous No.5922535]

>>5922196
Np, go ask your dad. He's ready to step in for sure.

[Anonymous No.5923054]

>>5916428
>le smart science comic

philostupids got served xDD