Is Derrida the final boss of philosophy? All this time later and I STILL have no idea what the fuck he's talking about
>The worst of that era were Deleuze & Guattari, and Derrida, but the former are just a weird experimental form of doing philosophy (that is mostly not worth it and isn't that original), and Derrida is just a known asshole who writes badly on purpose despite having very ordinary phenomenological ideas. Look up his "debate" with Gadamer, and look up what Foucault said to Searle about him, the man was a very good phenomenologist wrapped in a retarded fraud. Also look up the vampire incident at UC Irvine.>[...] So that's literally it. The dreaded "continental" philosophy is two or three Frenchmen who were known semi-frauds and assholes + American importations of this "style" in the '80s and '90s.
>>25271779Since language is the house of Being, according to Heidegger, nothing can be done outside of Language. Since language is inherently instable and no stable language can ever exist, stable meaning cannot either, meaning/truth is forever "deferred" and cannot ever be arrived at thus becoming what many call an aborted dialectic. Some people deny that it's an aborted dialectic, but it is, it's a never ending cycle. Superficially similar to Gadamer.Derrida along with Heidegger pretty much destroyed whatever remained of the beautiful Hegelian system, by showing that the inherent structure of the system was instable and unable to ground itself. Thus, Metaphysics, culminated with Hegel and ended with an endless loop showing that it is useless in the end because systems inherently contradict any truth they claim to show, and they are circular. So Heidegger moved on to the question of Being.Of course for derrida, the endless deferment or meaning is a feature, not a bug, a requirement for meaning at all.
>>25271859>>>25271863>>>>25271779>>>>25271863I think ethnoids should be quiet and fuck off.
>>25271859Whoever supposedly said this sounds like a filtered retard
>>25271859>the man was a very good phenomenologist wrapped in a retarded fraudI get the idea was to write badly on purpose to show the seams of language, but this is a very good description of Derrida.
>>25271859>American importations of this "style" in the '80s and '90s.Richard Rorty?
>>25271859who are you quoting? but actually
>>25271859>The dreaded "continental" philosophy is two or three Frenchmen who were known semi-frauds and assholesFoucault took constructivism too far, to a retarded degree, but his idea of the will to knowledge is great work. Baudrillard could make silly statements here and there, but hyperreality is also great work. Derrida didn't need to write like a retard and his main idea fits a small book, but deconstruction is a good elaboration on Heidegger's destruktion applied to language. Great work overall. Deleuze & Guattari are a waste of time though. They, specially Guattari, are Sartre in a post-structuralist framework in a desperate attempt to save radical freedom as a leftist political project. A cope for queer niggas who can't accept that throwness determinates our being.
>>25271779its like Wittgenstein but written from the perspective of someone mentally handicapped
>>25271949He's a notable American philosopher who engaged with his work, but mainly B-tier and lower literary theorists and other no-name humanities academics.
>>25271779He's a meme. A fad. We should really be talking about him in the pastense.
>>25271779>All this time later and I STILL have no idea what the fuck he's talking aboutAll he says is that if you look at language up close things stop making sense and meaning depends on text outside the text, aka context, but that text will also stop making sense if you look up close. A simple example, since someone mentioned Sartre and Heidegger."Existence precedes essence" by itself could mean the opposite of what Sartre meant. As a statement it could be intuitively understood as "being is determined by its material conditions". A perfectly valid interpretation. But what Sartre meant is instead "Being emerges from the subject capability of inventing itself". This second statement, ironically, could also have been conveyed through the opposite statement, as "Essence precedes existence", if we slightly changed the meaning of essence for being (which is perfectly inline with metaphysics), to make it mean something like "The distinctive being of people lies in their capability of making free choices, which shape the material conditions". Now, how do we know that he meant it one way and not the other? Because he explained himself the best he could and because then the secondary sources did the same. So there's that extra text. That text will also be, if looked up close, inexact, but you start triangulating. And why did Sartre chose to word it as "Existence precedes essence" instead of "Essence precedes existence"? Because he was a Marxist, who are fundamentally materialist, so needed to make it fit within that tradition. So more text that must be interpreted to make sense of just one simple statement.I don't know if this made any sense. Hope it did. But basically Derrida made explicit how meaningless language actually is when taken at face value. There's a lot we must ignore to make sense of even simple statements, but when you become aware of that you start noticing that those simple statements are filled with little holes and contradictions and what may have seemed like knowledge coming from an authoritative source is wrapped in things we take for granted and there's an ideological component to it.
>>25271779>no idea what the fuck he's talking abouthis op was to run cover for troons
>>25271779The idea of inscription and description ought to define the field of a science. But can that be determined by scholars outside of all historico-metaphysical predeterminations
>>25271863>Derrida along with Heidegger pretty much destroyed whatever remained of the beautiful Hegelian system, by showing that the inherent structure of the system was instable and unable to ground itself. Thus, Metaphysics, culminated with Hegel and ended with an endless loop showing that it is useless in the end because systems inherently contradict any truth they claim to show, and they are circular.When I first read the Phenomenology this is exactly what I thought the end was about, and this is what Zizek says it really means or ought to have meant if Hegel had just seen a bit further. Especially when he effectively glosses the I=I, in the chapter on religion, as a dialectic of good and evil prefigured by Christ. But the dialectic turns out to be a retarded blob in Hegel’s bumbling hands.
>>25273611It's a depressing and nihilistic end to philosophy, despite how Derrida tried to frame it as a feature rather than a bug.I hope someone comes along in my lifetime and saves us.We are now condemned to researching and arguing about Kant and Hegel for centuries to come because dumbass young graduates find jobs more attractive than philosophy, and thus won't move beyond this paradigm.
>>25271859>literally gay man’s gossipWow! Utterly refuted!
None of you have read Origin of Geometry or Speech & Phenomena and it shows. You’re all regurgitating anglophone bastardizations. None of you have a clue what’s even at stake.
>>25273933Enlighten us
>>25273933A Derrida fan vagueposting? No, the fuck, it cannot be?!
>>25273987>>25273992Derrida is not only talking about language in this naive sense of stated and written discourses. He’s speaking in a very literal, direct, and personal sense about your experience of embodiment, thereness as Dasein in Heidegger, etc, as deferred significative experiences.
>>25273995That's what I understand under "Language is the house of Being" from Heidegger
>>25273995Your own very contact with yourself, in moments of recollection, prayer, or even just the errant twitch of a finger: all of these are soi-disant (self-distant, far away, gapped by an absolute vault of metaphoricity), leaving (You), the I who speaks each of them, marooned “in here,” in your finite context window, doomed to indicate without ever fully expressing, even to yourself. The textuality and metaphoricity not merely of the philosophical idea, but of (You) and your Living Presence. People try to mollify themselves by dumbing down this side of Derrida to a sort of autistic Sartrean existentialism, but I’ve always found the implication of my very sight of this world as a kind of indicative reading profoundly hollowing and unsettling.
>>25273999There are many points where Derrida follows Heidegger and explicates his at times irritatingly evasive formulations, but there are also presences and gurantees from tradition that Heidegger clings to, particularly surrounding the themes of death and responsibility. Though this only comes out in Derrida’s later work. The phenomenological core is strict explication of Husserl and Heidegger
Babble: the thread
>tfw a genius mindrapes midwits happens every day b
>>25274013kek, based, this thread has a surprising amount of anons who actually have read and do understand Derrida, but it's always funny how triggered midwits are
I don’t think he’s that hard to read as others paint it, I read his biography and his lectures on Husserl, Heidegger, and descriptions on Hegel, so I could get a grasp on where he was coming from. The rest of his works weren’t a trouble after that.
I wish I was a rich kid, just being able to think about dassein and dassun and damdam :/
>>25274026Yeah Derrida is actually a very entertaining and even comedic writer. But the anglophone establishment did so much to damage his reputation that it’s hard to convince people it’s worth the (admittedly considerable) trouble to understand what he’s really grinding at, which trouble consists mainly in reading from his sources.
>>25274044I am an anglophile in literature but most anglo philosophers are troglodytes. It’s hard to talk about because if you haven’t seen it for yourself you’d think I was exaggerating.
>>25274064I believe it. The vitriol their leading lights expressed for this moment in intellectual history speaks for itself. It’s ironic that the “plain English truth seekers” and “analytics” who forebear rhetoric, use the most ridiculous sophist’s antics - I’m thinking especially of the Sokal-Bricmont affair - to dismiss intellectual output their own choices prevents them from understanding.
>>25271875>>25274008It's funny how easily you can spot the insecure /pol/cel tourist
fuark you just reminded me I have to read derrida too, idk how smart people do it, how they chew through so much philosophy (i know science people mostly ignore it and get it through osmosis) i wont be able to finish enough b4...i wont say
>>25271973>They, specially Guattari, are Sartre in a post-structuralist framework in a desperate attempt to save radical freedom as a leftist political project. A cope for queer niggas who can't accept that throwness determinates our being.fuark my confirmation bias finds this statement too tantalizing
Seems like a good guy to read as a Wittgenstein follower. Similar sounding ideas, although I bet Witt expressed them in different ways. Really love how Witt talks about how the concept pain basically cant exist without language. I was thinking about that when I was cramping, and how when i try to identify the pain and interact with it (massage my sides) it essentially just becomes a sensation to tolerate when I cant do anything with it.
>>25274708Where to start with Witt?
>>25274720PI. Read a lecture or something on Tractatus, but its honestly not very fruitful imo, PI is an evolution and largely abandonment of his former thought.
>>25274702>how they chew through so much philosophyStraussian techniques: skip introductions, read the very middle of the book first, skim more than peruse, close read significant passages, possess savoir-faire to dismiss 90% of the text as exoterica.
>>25275175gawdlike
