/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6146512]

How do I into Derrida?

[Anonymous No.6146513]

>>6146512
trust me, you don't need to

[Anonymous No.6146519]

Step 1: buy a crack pipe and crack
Step 2: smoke it
Step 3: experience the différence

[Anonymous No.6146520]

>>6146513
Why's that?

[Anonymous No.6146576]

>>6146512
read levi-strauss, sassure, Nietzsche, rousseau, heidegger, freud, husserl, marx, levinas...

[Anonymous No.6146584]

>>6146520
he just spouted bullshit. Check out Analytic philosophy instead. c'mon, don't be retarded son.

[Anonymous No.6146596]

>>6146584
le analytic master race

[Anonymous No.6146659]

>>6146596
damn straight, fuck off with your pseudophilosophy

[Anonymous No.6146778]

>>6146512
Here's an actual answer OP: have decent knowledge of the history of philosophy (if you know Nietzsche, Heidegger and Husserl that will help a good deal), understand the jist of Levi-Strauss and Structuralism (wikipedia will do), then read Derrida's essay "Structure, Sign & Play", then read the essay "Différance", then "Signature Event Context", then whatever you like really. And whatever secondary lit you can get your hands on.

[Anonymous No.6146822]

>>6146519
Hahaha

[Anonymous No.6146830]

>>6146584
Yep, and if you kept off a cliff, no one would notice

[Anonymous No.6146865]

>>6146659
I'm not taking places you moron. It's not fucking football

[Anonymous No.6147577]

>>6146584
>not realising that both have their merits and can be reconciled with one another
Anyone who firmly plants their foot on either side is retarded.

[Anonymous No.6147620]

>'That the signified is originarily and essentially (and not only for a finite and created spirit) trace, that it is always already in the position of the signifier, is the apparently innocent proposition within which the metaphysics of the logos, of presence and consciousness, must reflect upon writing as its death and its resource.'

Does anyone actually accept Derrida's account of language? I can see his points about the assumptions and blindspots of Western metaphysics, but I still end up thinking 'And so?' when I read him.

[Anonymous No.6147639]

>>6147620

That proper triggered me that did. I haven't read Derrida since I was at university, and now I'm going to have nightmares about logos and différance

[Anonymous No.6147674]

>>6147620
Yes and no. What he says is largely true, but he still succumbs to a primitive skepticism and cerebralism, ignoring or disregarding ordinary experience. He basically just goes on endlessly against essentialism, foundationalism, representation etc. He raised a lot of problems but gave very little solutions. This is why I think Wittgenstein was a step ahead of him; he raises this kind of skepticism and solves it in literally the space of a fre paragraphs (see the rule-following paradox).

I think once you understand Derrida's views of meaning and language he's then only useful as a fun writer when talking about ethics and religion etc.

[Anonymous No.6149050]

Hey so I know this isn't /tv/ but that board is fucking retarded. There are only two threads running about Postmodernism right now and I'd like to discuss Birdman.

Who here saw Birdman? What did you guys think of it? How pertinent do you think the Barthes and Borges references are to the film?

[Anonymous No.6149054]

>>6146576
Heidegger is the only thing worth reading on that list.

[Anonymous No.6149063]

>>6149054
Why are analytics so obsessed with shitting up continental threads?

[Anonymous No.6149072]

>>6149063
You know nothing of Truth anon.

[Anonymous No.6149076]

>>6149063
insecurity or just acting out at the dominance of continental philosophy on /lit/. They won't start their own threads for some reason though

[Anonymous No.6149098]

>>6149072
Frege invented philosophy :3
>>6149072
Av~B<=>B->A
:3 :3 :3

[Anonymous No.6149116]

>>6146865

?

[Anonymous No.6149223]

>>6146778
Good answer, anon