/lit/ - Literature

>>3561243
> Language can be deconstructed because every word is a metaphor. got it. move on.

You're talking about differance, not deconstruction, and you've still got it wrong. Differance is essentially a critique of Saussure. There is not one line between a signifier and signified, but an INFINITE web of lines going from signifier to INFINITE signifieds.

I've explained deconstruction to you all in a thread here before, and yet none of you seem to have remembered it at all. Deconstruction is not meaningless babble; it is a tool to GET RID OF meaningless babble from the field of philosophy.

Did Derrida support Freud? Did he support Nietzsche?

NO HE DID NOT. You were supposed to deconstruct his "positive presentations" of their philosophies. Derrida is anti-Freud, anti-Nietzsche; he has spoke with sincere hatred for just a bout every philosopher, except for perhaps Heidegger and Kierkegaard, since their philosophies are "from the ground up."

Derrida is a force DESTROYING bullshit; not prolonging it.

You got something you want to say to me? Please explain what problem you have with Mr. Derrida.

>>3475198
>the objective events they described

Objective events will never, ever be able to be described. We only have maps, we are maps, and we cannot live without maps. When you see with your eyes, that is a map that your brain is creating. You do not see ANYTHING at all in the sense and meaning of the word "see". We are all liars when we say "the sunset looks beautiful". The simulation of the sun that we are capable of creating is what is beautiful. The grass you "see" is a creation as are the words you "write". You have "written" that I am biased due to social conditioning, but the term social conditioning itself is just another set of words, another sunset.

>>3475198
How am I biased? I realize that I am biased in reading Derrida, and that you have not read him if that's what you mean.

>>3475190
Deconstruction is something that all of us are doing constantly. You have done it before, but never given a word to it, never had knowledge that term could describe your action as "deconstruction". You will deconstruct this post whether you want to or not.

>>3475180

Finally,

>there can be no deconstructed 'identity', only structural similarity, between the language and the empirical fact.

But wait...I thought you said something about confusing the map for territory....???? A contradiction is here. You accuse me of confusing maps for territory, and then you profess maps to BE the "truth".

>>3475175
Well, this is no deconstruction but you seem to be familiar with Différance.

>We haven't read Derrida; Derrida has read us:

This is true. Derrida loved the notion of a ghost, in fact, and that is what he has become. Not a philosopher, but a specter that haunts us just like Marx does.

>>3475180
>confusing the map for the territory

You see, maps are creations just like texts. But does that mean that they have no meaning? Not at all. They are here for us to play with. You seemed to have misinterpreted some of my playfulness as me attempting to say some kind of transcendental signified, which is something a Derridian absolutely never does.

>I am able to view your actions outside the linguistic musings you are stuck in to gain a far more accurate, unbiased, and ultimately superior deconstruction of your actions.

That sounds great! I'm very happy for you.

>>3475161
Well, if you are the same guy I was replying to, you certainly are a hypocrite.

>the ability to have an impartial view of collective standards and morality.

You certainly don't have that, immediately making a judgment on my name!

>>3475156
You desire to be deconstructed. This is the central text. The subtext is the fact that you don't want to be deconstructed at all. It is a mere game to you, you simply wish to stick your hand out into the rain and feel drip off of you. When both of these texts are diffused, what is left? Curiosity. Curiosity kills the cat.

>>3475152
>There is no projection of self. There is the analysis of behaviour patterns and how it relates to the collective.

You couldn't have made an easier statement to deconstruct. Consider the "no projection of self" vs "analysis of behavior" deconstruction in the very words you posted. I hope you will gain some self-awareness from this exercise. You do know how to deconstruct, right? I'll do it for you if you can't deconstruct your own words due to some notion of "loving yourself" or something like that, feeling that you cannot dissect your own words.

>>3475147
Overtly, you have said that "nobody cares" and yet you made it quite clear that you do care by responding to my post. I am always ready to accept all forms of affection.

>>3475135
Also, take a chance to deconstruct my name: Am I really the only guy to have read Derrida on /lit/? Overtly my name suggests that I am the only person who has read it, in the duality there is the more obvious "truth": Of course other people have read Derrida.

But neither one of these are true. I am not trying to mark myself as someone who is literally "the only guy on /lit/ who has read Derrida" because at the time I made the name, I was of course aware that other people have read it. What am I doing? Free play.

>>3475135
You must be new here. Let me deconstruct your desire for me to die:

Openly, you are saying that you want me to die. That is the central text that you have created, The inverse, the pair in the duality, is your true desire of love, wishing for me to live a long and happy life. Your words of hatred are actually self-addressed. I feel nothing when I post with this trip. Nothing at all. The hatred you express is self-hate; you project yourself into my position, and say "I would hate myself if I did something like that". I am not you, and you know that. So in truth, you just told me that you love me. I love you too.

>>3475118
You got it.

>>3473528

(CONTINUED)

But there is nothing wrong with reading philosophy for fun, as one LISTENS to the SOUND of music for fun, you like to LISTEN to the SOUND of philosophy for its "ideas". You are a hedonist, just like the rest of us, but your hedonism has been disguised by a massive, massive tower of words. When a group of ants swarms up, it looks like menacing, black cloud of evil, something incomprehensible. Take your favorite philosopher, and look at the little ants. You've got ants in your pants.

>>3473500
Sorry, but you have missed the point of my metaphors, especially the toy one. I'll at least explain that one to you:

Words are constructions. Just as a spider makes a web, bees make a hive, and men make a home, words are just something built up. They are a bunch of little pieces that can be rearranged. You seem to be disillusioned that something called "an idea" exists. There are plans for the future, altering the future: altering a physical piece of the world, changing some atoms around. That's it. You can only change physical construction or the construction of words, and its all freeplay. An ape who grunts in new ways is no better than other apes. The other apes will stare, and say "Why, it SOUNDS like he is saying something significant!" And that is your reaction to philosophy. You read the idea; the SOUND of it, the concept, sounds great! But you don't make the next step and attempt to bring this concept to fruition in reality.

>>3473439
>Capitalism
>not an equally soulless system as Communism

Just kidding. Either one is good. They are both just ways of playing with trading.

>>3473438
>Derrida the Pimp !!uRgT+t+LIRT

Whoops, wrong tripcode there, that's me.

>>3473414
>>3473297

Both of you, deconstruct selfishness and altruism and tell me what the results are.

>>3473382
Jon Ronson is the guy I think you must be referring to. If Ronson actually read the DSM, he would notice that catatonia is a REQUIRED symptom of psychosis. I don't know how many CEO's lay in their office rigid like a statue, or on the opposite side of the spectrum, waving their limbs around endlessly until they collapse from exhaustion. Psychology is a field with problems, and these problems are slowly being improved--but made worse by these horrid pop science writers.

>>3473351
Derrida is anti-philosophy, philosophy being an inflation of language, a massive balloon ready to pop at any moment. He is against the idea that there is a transcendental signified---in case you haven't read much philosophy, a transcendental signified is something such considered to be a "great truth", such as there being a proper definition of "being", such as there being a proper definition of "reason", etc. The main point Derrida wants you to understand is this: THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT CANNOT AND NEVER WILL BE LAID OUT AND CAPTURED IN WORDS. You can play with words, as a child plays with a pile of toys, but one pile of toys is no better than any other. But Derrida is not Nihilistic---toys are fun. That's what most of Derrida's work is, after all. Just some fun.

>>3473357
Psychology is an incredibly pseudo-scientific field. There are people who are manipulative, people who can read emotions, and people who are violent--the three are not necessarily related at all.

>>3473344
I'm guessing you think that successful people are psychotic due to that one book some hack wrote about CEO's being psychopaths or whatever? Step back and realize that the term "psychopath" is just a name for a set of symptoms. "Psychopathy" is a problem when someone becomes violent because of it, but none of the non-violent "symptoms" are bad at all. Those are just qualities encouraged in capitalist society.

>>3473338
What have you gained from philosophy? I have read countless works and gained nothing, just a bunch of displays of giant towers of cards, massive word games. That's all philosophy is: a giant structure with great architecture. And architecture can be marvelous. But enter the great Tower of Philosophy, and you will find it empty.

Appreciation of nature over struggles for power.