>tfw always rashing on postmodernism on 4chan
>tfw reading Derrida and Deleuze on the dl because their ideas are fascinating even if they are a bit woo woo
>people that dont read opposing viewpoints
If you only read things you agree with, you're a retard.
Good on you anon.
>>354003
>tfw about to start baby's first look into Derrida in class
>>354003
4chan is post-modern in the method it derides post-modernism. Post-modernism is the state of things, so even when you are making fun of it you are still in post-modernism.
I don't think Derrida had anything fascinating to say that wasn't already understood by someone else and the rest of his stuff is useless jabber. I suppose it might be interesting to someone who has no prior interaction with philosophy.
Really don't think he deserves the same breath as the others. Feel free to prove me wrong.
Derrida never said he was serious. He was playful and outright humorous in many of his works. So you can't hold him accountable for any of his batshit Yale followers who hold his word as law.
Deleuze (and Guattari) actually fought back against the psychobabble bullshit of L. Ron Lacan and the Church of Psychoanalysis so they deserve at least props in that sense.
both those figures are actually okay. Its Lacan, Foucault, Butler, Kristeva, Irigaray, Lyotard, Baudrillard, Virilio, Zizek, Althusser, Laclau, and Agamben that all deserve actual bashing.
>>356133
>putting Foucault alongside Baudrillard and Lacan
Is this bait? You can't defend Deleuze and in the same breath condemn Foucault
>>356115
I'm still new to this shit, but Derrida understood reality as being fundamentally fragmented. Like there is no primordial unity from which the universe was birthed, but an "always-already" moment that is always fleeting, in flux, never resting.
You'd be surprised how well this jibes with mysticism. What they're doing is not so much throwing metaphysics wholesale in the trash bin but describing exactly to what extent this reality is estranged from the Divine. I read it like "Sure, there may or may not be a Supreme Principle, but either way, we should be honest about how difficult it is to arrive at absolute truth in a reality that intrinsically resists absolutes". If there is a God, it is because he emanated reality this way as a test or spiritual battleground. If there isn't, welp lmao
I admit I'm reading my own views into this but I believe most philosophies can be reconciled to each other.
>>356115
>jabber
i think the phrase jibber-jabber best describes his body of work, but it's only a minor quibble.
>>354003
>tfw same thing happens to you with Soumission
>tfw always murdering Nazarenes across Judea
>tfw reading Πέτρος of Bethsaida's epistles on the dl because their ideas are fascinating even if they are a bit woo woo
>>354003
>>tfw reading Derrida and Deleuze on the dl because their ideas are fascinating even if they are a bit woo woo
But this is great. You shouldn't limit yourself to reading just what you agree with, that's downright intellectual dishonestly.
I found utilitarianisms downright silly so I've read up a lot on Singer and other contemporary utilitarian so I can understand where they're coming from.
The worst that can happen is that you get more fuel for your stance against them. The best that can happen is that you now truly see.
>>356167
Foucault's historical and anthropological scholarship is an ABSOLUTE fucking nightmare. Deleuze is doing speculative and highly abstract work, whereas Foucault is misciting some 17th century french tract and going off on a false tangent for 400 pages
>>357767
I sincerely hope you see the ridiculousness of criticizing Foucault's history while praising the speculative and abstracted work of someone else.
>>356696
Reading Derrida as a syncretist is painful. I've tried. Read him on his own terms first.
>>357767
Discipline and Punish is a fantastic book, and it isn't at all difficult to understand, let alone a "nightmare".
>>355922
>is
>>356115
>>354003
I read an article series some years ago where continental philosophers was read and understood as by people in the analytic tradition.
I can't for my life remember the name of the papers but one of the essays included a look on Focault as a epistemological coherentist and found it very interesting and refreshing.
>>358426
Well Derrida got shat on by cats and ate chips everyday in his beautiful mansion.
Foucault is more coherent when you read him as a historian of ideas instead of a historian.
>>356115
>I don't think Derrida had anything fascinating to say that wasn't already understood by someone else
Welcome to everything ever.
>>357746
>humanities majors think they can play with the STEM boys
nah lads, until you kick out the trash of modern day humanities such as feminism, LGBTBBQ, african click clack and etc you won't be taken seriously.
>>358602
Ebin meme, friend.
But I enjoy spending time reading things that make realize new concepts or understand old ones or question or learn or anything I can't do by myself in a drunken, stoned stooper.
Derrida and the rest of that lot are about as insightful as myself while talking into a mirror. If they even bother to try to explain their half-baked ideas, all that comes out is dried, stale banalites
>the french
you read them because they DGAF
derrida is more wank than deleuze though ay.
deleuze = immanence
derrida = transcendence
