Reminder that Germans, not the French, invented post-modernism.

[Anonymous No.9012162]

Heidegger expressed interest in meeting Derrida personally after Braun sent him some of his work. There was discussion of a meeting in 1972, but this failed to take place. Heidegger's interest in Derrida is said by Braun to have been considerable (as is evident in two letters, of September 29, 1967 and May 16, 1972, from Heidegger to Braun). In Derrida's view, deconstruction is a tradition inherited via Heidegger (the French term "déconstruction" is a term coined to translate Heidegger's use of the words "Destruktion"—literally "destruction"—and "Abbau"—more literally "de-building").

Heidegger = Derrida

[Anonymous No.9012169]

>>9012162
No.

A willful misinterpretation of Heidegger = Derrida

[Anonymous No.9012172]

>The term postmodern was first used around the 1880s. John Watkins Chapman suggested "a Postmodern style of painting" as a way to depart from French Impressionism.[6] J. M. Thompson, in his 1914 article in The Hibbert Journal (a quarterly philosophical review), used it to describe changes in attitudes and beliefs in the critique of religion: "The raison d'etre of Post-Modernism is to escape from the double-mindedness of Modernism by being thorough in its criticism by extending it to religion as well as theology, to Catholic feeling as well as to Catholic tradition."[7] In 1921 and 1925, postmodernism had been used to describe new forms of art and music. In 1942 H. R. Hays described it as a new literary form. However, as a general theory for a historical movement it was first used in 1939 by Arnold J. Toynbee: "Our own Post-Modern Age has been inaugurated by the general war of 1914–1918".[8]

It wasn't either of them!

The postmodern plague is the work of the eternal Anglo!

[Anonymous No.9012205]

>>9012169
No, I'd say it's a dogmatic interpretation of Heidegger and I can't find substantial "differance" between the two. And Heidegger gave no shits about contemporary philosophers, so the fact that he liked Derrida, even to the point of wanting to meet him, speaks volumes. Heidegger saw that Derrida was doing the same thing.

[Anonymous No.9013221]

bump

[Anonymous No.9013284]

>>9012162
This is common knowledge, yet /lit/ will flip its wig and scream bloody murder.

[Anonymous No.9013328]

no fuck you, Martin "brennen ze juden" Ditchdigger was a proud nationalsocialist, pro-white and pro-male

if the little derrida visited his cabin, talking his jewspeak, he would get flung right into heidegger's fucking oven and experience actual destruktion

[Anonymous No.9013334]

Postmodernism is actually (((Jewish)))

[Anonymous No.9013341]

Nietzsche was clearly post-modern. More-so than a lot of so-called post-modernists (filthy Franks!)

[Anonymous No.9013345]

>>9013341
Nietzsche wasn't modern or postmodern, he's more in line with romanticism

[Anonymous No.9013357]

>>9013345
>he's more in line with romanticism
His post-modernism is, at most, somewhat romantic. You're also forgetting that he predicted post-modernism.

[Anonymous No.9013370]

>>9013328
not sure why but this post really made me chuckle

[Anonymous No.9013372]

>>9013334
Funny thing is that if /pol/ had read Adorno's angry rants against jazz without knowing who had written it, they'd absolutely love it.

[Anonymous No.9013486]

>Heidegger = Derrida
no shit, sherlock

[Anonymous No.9013491]

>>9012162
>Heidegger = Derrida
well no

How are you taking the time to search some things about this, and in the same time writing things like that?

[Anonymous No.9013521]

>>9013328
0/10

[Anonymous No.9013524]

>>9013491
Find me a substantial difference between the two.

Everything in Derrida is already in Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.9013543]

>>9013491
didn't take any time actually. Was it Lucien Braun btw ?
read "Heidegger en France" by Dominique Janicaud and come back later

[Anonymous No.9013594]

Who'd've thought.

[Anonymous No.9013651]

>>9013334
postmodernism = critical theory/frankfurt school
yeah try again

[Anonymous No.9013714]

>>9013524
The focus on language and the semiotic aspect specially.

[Anonymous No.9013727]

>>9013714
Heidegger doesn't focus on language? Heidegger doesn't already have a critique of Levi-Strauss?

You're not even trying.

[Anonymous No.9014539]

wat

[Anonymous No.9014549]

>>9013594
>tfw you made one of the very first "Germans, Destroyers of Europe" threads on /his/

I'm so proud of how far this meme has come.

[Anonymous No.9014557]

>>9012162
Reminder that reducing philosophy to the birthplace of its authors is like the least productive use of mental processing time possible.

[Anonymous No.9014589]

>>9013524
You're making a claim, assume it. I don't have to prove the contrary.

I already saw you there trying to force this dumb idea at multiple times. Repeating yourself doesn't make it a truth. Being from one's inheritance doesn't make you the same person as the said one, or we would all only be reading Plato.

Last, your way of talking about philosophy is horrendous. I hope this is just bait, and you're reading otherwise. If you can't get any subtlety in your reading and can't do better than dealing with philosophy as a "who has the biggest" game, you'd do much better sticking to TV "debates"

[Anonymous No.9015931]

>>9014589
not an argument nor a denial

youve got nothing, buddy

[Anonymous No.9015936]

>>9014589
Discuss the argument, not the poster.

[Anonymous No.9015943]

>>9013524
>Heidegger = Language is the House of Being
>Derrida = Semantics doesn't real, everything is power games

lmao

[Anonymous No.9016004]

>>9015931
thx for the shitpost

[Anonymous No.9016012]

>>9015936
Discuss which one? "He's from one's inheritance, so he's the same", or "they are the same prove me wrong"?
There's hardly anything to discuss here.

[Anonymous No.9016171]

>>9015943
So you're saying Derrida's Nietzschean influences are not present in Heidegger?

[Anonymous No.9016173]

>>9016012
I'm saying they are EXACTLY the same, so much that it invalidates their entire philosophies, because it proves there sometimes is no DIFFERANCE.

They understood each other perfectly.

[Anonymous No.9016174]

>>9015943
How is "Language is the house of Being" any different from "There is nothing outside the text."

???

[Anonymous No.9016185]

>>9016173
Yeah yeah, I get you're saying that.
The problem is you don't back it up.

I'm worried you might seriously be thinking what you're writing, and not only baiting

[Anonymous No.9016232]

>>9013345
Read "On Truth and Lies in an Extramoral Sense" and try to argue it couldn't work as an introduction to the postmodern framework. Many of the big thinkers in the movement also published papers or books on Nietzsche. In particular, Heidegger and Deleuze were both quite prolific in their work as Nietzsche scholars.

[Anonymous No.9016263]

>>9016174
"There is nothing outside the text" is just a statement on the impossibility of separating a text from its context when critiquing it. It's not meant to mean that everything a linguistic construct.

[Anonymous No.9016334]

>>9016263
> It's not meant to mean that everything a linguistic construct.

It absolutely is meant to mean that everything is a linguistic construct. You're confusing Barthes with Derrida.

>>9016185
Just dismissive replies that avoid addressing the argument.

[Anonymous No.9016514]

>>9016334
I'll try to seriously respond to you because I've got a feeling you might not be trolling (and if you were trolling, then bravo)

What you've got there is only statement. Stating something is not the same thing than arguing on it.
You're stating : "Heidegger = Derrida, it invalidates their philosophy because there is no differance".
This is an improvement, your original statement was only "Heidegger = Derrida because they liked each-other works".
Anyway, this is a statement, which needs an argumentation.
You've got to back it up, producing texts, comparing writings, engaging authors with their thinkings, unfolding a long run of "if, consequently, but", etc. And first of all, you'd have to read them.

You do none of this. You just state : "both of them are the same, so both are wrong, because if they were right there would be differance" (btw misusing the concept of differance). That's not even the beginning of a circular reasoning : you'd still have to show how the concept of differance is common to both and how it dismisses their entire argumentation, good luck with that. And then it would at least begin to look like a circular reasoning.


You lack reading on the subject : differance doesn't mean what you think it means, and it's a derridean concept, not an heideggerian one, despite all inheritances you could find. It also shows on your reply to the other person about "there's nothing outside the text". I can smell wikipedia paste from miles away. Do yourself a favour and engage with this authors, even for criticizing them later. For the moment you just try to avoid reading them.

[Anonymous No.9016545]

>>9013345
Nietzsche, in one of his earliest works, basically laid out the intellectual foundations of postmodernism. His work after that point was directed towards figuring out what to do after postmodernism. It's not to say he was successful in figuring that out, but he was about 100 years ahead of his time in terms of what he was working on.

[Anonymous No.9016596]

>>9014549
Good work Anon, proud of you

[Anonymous No.9016834]

>>9016514
You've said nothing about the argument only: "This is a 4chan post, not a phd thesis, how come???" Heavily padded ad hominem.

Everything in Derrida is already in Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.9016852]

>>9016545
> His work after that point was directed towards figuring out what to do after postmodernism.

This guy gets it. Which is why Heidegger is such and interesting and strong interpretation of Nietzsche. Heidegger thought he could critique Nietzsche as the last metaphysician but still Heidegger knew there was a lot of figuring out what to do after this. Which is why Heidegger says stuff like "We're working towards thinking" or whatever.

[Anonymous No.9016921]

>>9016834
What argument, mate?
>"Heidegger = Derrida, it invalidates their philosophy because there is no differance"
?
Because that's not an argument, this is a (stupid) statement.
You've got a point though : thinking you're refuting Heidegger and Derrida, or showing they are the same with a 4chan post is seriously retarded.

Next episode : "Everything in Foucault is already in Nietzsche, prove me wrong" !

Please stop posting