/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7456408]

Whats the best way I can learn about structuralism and post-structuralism? I want to follow where the Continental philosophy went after Existenitalism as I feel I have a pretty good grasp on that field.

I'm aware its not going to be a simple explanation, but is there a good place to start? Some kind of introductory book? Shit even a video can help.

[Anonymous No.7456441]

Yo homie slice.

It depends on what area interests you the most.

Do you want a phenomenology take after existentialism? This leads to issues regarding ontology and the like.

Do you want a linguistic take prior to or after existentialism? This is specifically regarding continental issues of language, which will lead to postmodernism, etc.

If you want the former, I would probably start with Heidegger.

If you want the latter, I would begin with Saussure's Introduction to General Linguistics.

[Anonymous No.7456466]

>>7456441
They honestly both interest me but I might go with Saussure first. If I was to read Heidegger, what would I read?

[Anonymous No.7456472]

>>7456466

Depends on what you like. If you want the more existential orientation, I would begin with Being and Time in effort to understanding his theory of language that arises there. And thus, contradistinguish it with his later works like Letter on Humanism. One is an earlier work, the one he is most known for, and the other is a later work where he renounces his allegiance to his prior conceptions of ontology, phenomenology, etc.

Either way, to understand some of the shit going on in structuralism, post-structuralism, and postmodernism, you need a basic understanding in phenomenology imo. Especially if you are going to read authors like Derrida.

[Anonymous No.7456475]

>>7456408

Derrida's 'Sign, Play and Structure in the Discourse of the Human Sciences' is a good intro to post-structuralism.

>>7456466

I think Graham Harman's 'Tool-Being' is a good into to Heidegger. Of course, you could just jump straight into Being and Time.

Ignore the people that say 'lmao you have to learn Attic Greek, Latin and German and read the entirety of Western philosophy to understand Heidegger :^)'

[Anonymous No.7456489]

>>7456408
>>7456441
>>7456475
>Ignore the people that say 'lmao you have to learn Attic Greek, Latin and German and read the entirety of Western philosophy to understand Heidegger :^)'

Don't listen to this OP. You need to know Aristotle's Metaphysics to get what Heidegger is reacting to. Aristotle's Organon, Descartes and Kant help, but really you need to at the very very least read Aristotle's Metaphysics.

I mean why would you read a book that spends all of its time talking about Aristotle's ideas on beings when you havent read Aristotle's book about beings.

That is retarded.

[Anonymous No.7456495]

>>7456475
yes I never really took "start with the greeks" too literally. Although I did read some Plato first in a college course. As for this info, thanks guys I'm gonna have to add some stuff for my winter break reading list.

This is just a general question, as someone studying economics in university, does any of this play into the field at all? Is there such thing as "post-structuralist economics?"

[Anonymous No.7456497]

>>7456489

You should learn how to read. I didn't say he shouldn't read Aristotle. If he wants to read Aristotle that is up to him. I just said he shouldn't be trolled by /lit/ shitposters that try to be more patrician than everybody else by claiming you have to read everything before you can read anything.

Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.7456498]

>>7456489
see
>>7456495

[Anonymous No.7456502]

>>7456495

Yeah. You can go the Marxian route and start reading authors past Marx, e.g. Bataille and the Accursed Share.

[Anonymous No.7456504]

>>7456498
I just saw it. I should probably read Aristotle regardless

[Anonymous No.7456505]

>>7456495

Bataille's 'On General Economy' is interesting, and in Foucault's magnum opus 'The Order of Things' there is a discussion of economics.

>>7456502

Yep, seconding Bataille although I personally find him batshit crazy.

[Anonymous No.7456508]

>>7456502
I could go there since I'm already familiar with a good amount of Marx

[Anonymous No.7456509]

>>7456497
>I didn't say he shouldn't read Aristotle.

I know you didnt, but look how OP took what you said

>yes I never really took "start with the greeks" too literally.

OP would go off to read Being and Time without ever touching Aristotle, and be vindicated by what you said.

Sure he doesnt need to read the entire canon, but you were vague when you should have been specific.

[Anonymous No.7456517]

>>7456408
I've been enjoying this. Dense, relatively unbiased overview of major post-modern thinkers

[Anonymous No.7456524]

>>7456509
>OP would go off to read Being and Time without ever touching Aristotle

How catastrophic. But then if it's impermissible to read Heidegger without reading Aristotle, how can you allow OP to read Aristotle without reading Parmenides or Gorgias or Heracleitus or...?

Sorry, I don't have any patience for pearl-clutching. Heidegger is perfectly comprehensible (depending on the reader's level of basic literacy) without prior study. I already mentioned Harman's excellent work on Heidegger, which would serve as a very good introduction. If he followed your logic he would be slavishly compelled to teach himself ancient Greek and start not with Aristotle but the fragments of Heracleitus and literature on other Pre-Socratics, working his way up to Heidegger by the time he was in his late 60s.

Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.7456528]

>>7456524
thats the same argument my professor made