> Derrida takes up a teaching post at an American state college (UC Irvine)
> the aura of a big celebrity philosopher should help a lesser known school
> Derrida demands a huge salary
> insists on lecturing only in French (as if any Americans would understand)
> offers UC Irvine library collections the opportunity to document and scan his own personal manuscripts
> this would be a huge boost for the university
> UC Irvine invests a bunch of money to get these manuscripts and sets up the technology at Derrida's home
> Russian studies colleague of Derrida's gets investigated by UC Irvine for the alleged sexual harassment of a 25 year old student
> "HOW. DARE. YOU" - Derrida
> Derrida tells them to drop the case immediately, OR ELSE
> UC Irvine doesn't, allegations of sexual harassment by a professor is serious stuff
> Derrida tells UC Irvine to fuck right off, it can't have access to his manuscripts anymore
> UC Irvine just spent a lot of money thinking it would have a great addition to their library collection
> NOPE
> Derrida dies shortly after
> UC Irvine wasted a ton of money on a professor giving two lectures a week in french to American students
> UC Irvine tries to sue Derrida's estate for the manuscripts that they were once promised
> UC Irvine gets cucked
"Justice cannot be deconstructed." - Jacques Derrida, thief, rape apologist, charlatan philosopher
>>7791577
>Russian studies colleague of Derrida's gets investigated by UC Irvine for the alleged sexual harassment of a 25 year old student
Why would a professor need to harass? unless they are hideous, all things equal, derrida wouldn't be friends with someone hideous. Profs have to spend effort turning horny sluts down who want the easy A. Without a pic, clearly something else was going on.
> be Paul de Man
> make a career repeating Derrida (who only repeated Heidegger)
> "The self is a literary fiction."
> doesn't even have a Masters or a PHD, just weaseled his way into academic teaching posts
> writes a bunch of obscure bullshit that amounts to "Well, it's pretty hard to define 'define'"
> turns out he wrote pro-Nazi, anti-semitic newspaper articles during the war
> "Send 'em all to fucking Madagascar."
> turns around and is big buddies with a known Jew, Jacques Derrida
> ends up being huge influential among the gullible and easily influenced English departments
> DUDE, ALLEGORY LMAO
> set up the Hermes publishing house just so he could steal money from it
> "By that time de Man had emptied out almost 90 percent of the funds invested in the company. The investors included his father, and de Man’s old nurse, the woman who had cared for him as a child while his depressed mother neglected him and who now lost her life-savings."
> people find out he had a wife and kids he abandoned in south america for the glamourous life of a Post-Modern Professor of the Humanities
> he beat his kids too
> all sorts of anecdotes emerge about he was a self-absorbed lunatic with no discernible talent
> years later English departments and the Humanities in general have not recovered from the cancerous taint of post-structural philosophy
Deconstruction? Not even once.
>>7791591
Listen and believe, you shit lord.
> According to multiple sources, Derrida wanted UCI to halt its investigation of a Russian studies professor, Dragan Kujundzic, who was accused of sexually harassing a 25-year-old female doctoral student. So he tried to use his archives as leverage to derail the case, they said.
> The 2004 sexual harassment lawsuit contends that Kujundzic, who taught a popular class on vampires and signed his e-mails with a colon to symbolize Dracula bite marks, used his position as the student’s advisor to manipulate her into a series of sexual encounters. …
> … The student said she felt coerced to engage in sex or risk having her academic career ruined. UCI’s probe of the affair sided with neither party. Investigator Gwen Thompson concluded the relationship was consensual but said Kujundzic violated a university policy that barred professors from dating students they supervised.
> Kujundzic argued that he wasn’t the student’s advisor, an assertion UCI rejected. In mid-2004, university officials began weighing penalties for the Serbian-born professor.
Charlatans of a shit-feather flock together.
>>7791596
He's not bad lookin. So the slut fell for the vampire line and after a series of sexual encounters (thousands, hundreds, relationship?) but on the last one she felt regret rape. I bet she at least went in wanting more marks and the vampire D and Derrida knew of the relationship.
I remember being taught in primary school that blackmail can be reused infinite amount of times, so don't do it once, go to the police. So she is dumb and probably deserved her poor marks. I would pride myself on being able to fuck my college students and remain impartial.
>>7791614
>He's not bad lookin
>>7791614
Deconstruction says words have no fixed meaning, therefore no does not always mean no.
I get it now.
Deconstruction is a great tool for rape apologists.
>can't attack deconstruction with arguments
>that would require reading the authors in question and having a good grip on the history of philosophy and it's problems
>I'll just dig up some dirt and engage in a series of ad hominem attacks and denunciations
good job
>>7791620
It's a bad shot. He's not good looking but not exactly bad. Women won't give him extra marks for looks but they will still fuck.
>>7791639
>>7791642
Samefag desperately trying to defend Derrida. I wonder why?
It's a dumb repetition of Heidegger's critique of metaphysics. The problem is Heidegger's critique of metaphysics doesn't really give us anything except for useless poeticizing, that might be comfy if you live in the German hills, but is detrimental to anyone who doesn't have a little cabin they go to.
But out of Heidegger we get radical post-modern skepticism, feminist epistemologies, all because of Heidegger's misguided emphasis on language.
So we have career academics who can get around publishing obscurantist works of philosophy which completely ignore the real world (ie. Ethics). You get this idea that the self is an illusion, so how can you really be responsible for anything? That's a linguistic construct you're re-inscribing because you're too damn metaphysical!
The end result is that these people make a lot of money saying fuck all. But it works because it's easy to write about and easy for others to write about. You'll never have to worry about "Publish or Perish" because Deconstruction allows you to endlessly repeat the same thing: "The meaning of all texts is Deconstruction."
It's a fucking pyramid scheme.
>>7791642
> Women won't give him extra marks for looks but they will still fuck.
His ex-wife literally said he had a micro-penis.
http://www.tmz.com/2011/08/10/camille-grammer-kelsey-grammer-small-penis-video-real-housewives-of-beverly-hills/
> "Send 'em all to fucking Madagascar."
> Kujundzic, who taught a popular class on vampires and signed his e-mails with a colon to symbolize Dracula bite marks
> His ex-wife literally said he had a micro-penis.
> this thread
I'm in tears, this is the best thread I've read in a long time, thanks /lit/!
>>7791806
The micropenis comment is for the actor frasier, but who trusts a woman on sex? let alone a housewife about her celebrity ex-husband's sexual prowess.
Can't Deride The Derrida
>>7791660
>desperately trying to defend Derrida
Just deconstructing the poor case for rape. The slag fell for the vampire meme, she signed her emails with "I vant to suck your blood-sausage."
>>7791726
> repeating what you hear
You can't hide the truth. Did I completely crush your entire world view? You're realizing Deconstruction isn't a "useful tool" but just crappy Nazi-booism, stuff that not even the Nazis themselves cared for? (They thought Heidegger was an obscurantist pussy)
>>7791806
> > "Send 'em all to fucking Madagascar."
That's actually what Paul de Man wrote. Do you even read?
>>7791632
Pretty sure that's the opposite of what deconstruction says.
Derrida was very insistent that texts did have a meaning. It just often wasn't the meaning the authors intended.
>>7791726
>Read a fucking book once in your life, instead of repeating what you once hear on an image board like a moron.
It's you who doesn't read.
Let me prove how much of a dumb ass you are, with a false sense of superiority.
When Derrida claims that the only thing which cannot be deconstructed is "Justice" he is merely repeating Heidegger's citation of Heraclitus. Heidegger argues that the first document of western civilization is Heraclitus' fragment saying "things exist, and then they don't exist, this is the price they pay for their injustice."
It's the pre-Socratic mindset that Heidegger tried to retrieve and believed the Nazis could bring about, but it's also fundamentally anti-Judeo-Christian. Which is fine if you're a Nazi seeking to purge Germany of it's semitic influences.
So Derrida isn't saying anything different at all from Heidegger. It's just another "It's all flux." So where is the universal ethic provided by Judaism and Christianity? Nowhere. That's just a metaphyiscal deification of a false idol, according to both of them.
You mad? Derrida is a hack. Accept it.
>>7791837
> did have a meaning
You're ignorance is showing. Texts do not have one meaning. You cannot contain meaning in language, retard. Language is a constant flux of meaning that is never at one place.
Deconstruction tries to point out how there's "too much meaning" which is the same as saying there is no one meaning.
Derrida isn't Barthes.
Read more.
That' not me senpai. The other guy wrote about Kelsey Gramer or whatever he's called.
I'm just saying that you have to take the claims of deconstruction at least a bit seriously if you want to criticize it argumentatively. Why don't you show us an argument of Derrida and then criticize it? Or show us argumentatively that there is no argument in Derrida. Instead you resort to the lowest of the low of name-calling, you cite second-hand, washed down, doxa about deconstruction- "self is an illusuon", "there is no responsibility", "Derrida is just Heiddeger". And accusing someone as Derrida as being a Nazi, I just can't...
Is this all you can do-throw unfounded accusations and to try to slander someone's name?
Not Heraclitus, but Anaximander. Heidegger has a essay called "The Fragment of Anaximander". This just shows your complete ignorance of philosophy.
>>7791866
read
>>7791848
>>7791849
>>7791660
Plenty of arguments right there. You haven't studied Heraclitus or Heidegger? You think because I'm not writing a 40 page essay that I'm name-calling?
"There is nothing outside the text" goes right in line with the self, necessarily, being a fiction, upheld only by language which desperately tries to fix meaning onto to some THING but ultimately cannot. If there's no fundamental self, who's to say a Nazi SS concentration camp guard is the same as the ex-Nazi Argentinian farmer who fled Europe after WWII?
Paul de Man is perfect evidence of that. Derrida's biggest protege, and close friend. Turned out he lead completely different past lives that shock a lot of people, but why act surprised? It's all there in Derrida/Heidegger.
It's proves there's something seriously lacking, and we all know it, when you make claims like "There is nothing outside the text."
It's you who hasn't engaged with Deconstruction. You have a vague, sophomore idea of what it's about and that's enough for you.
>>7791876
Moron. We don't have anything written by Heraclitus, only secondary sources from other writers quoting him.
But you haven't read Heidegger, because if you did, you'd know that he claims that he can distill down from the citation, what Heraclitus actually wrote and what was added on by other writers.
But you don't read or have any clue what you're talking about. Keep desperately googling to prove me wrong.
>>7791889
Read de Man's essay on Jews in Present-Day Literature.
Do you think you'll like it?
>>7791896
Do you think you're supposed to like and agree with everything you read? No wonder you're light on history. Never read that or anything to do with people, for your own safety, anon.
>>7791849
>>Derrida isn't Barthes.
what do you mean by this?
>>7791891
Here you go senpai:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0xb4crOvCgTbHAwdzEzcjQwUms/edit
>>7791848
>Heidegger argues that the first document of western civilization is Heraclitus' fragment saying "things exist, and then they don't exist, this is the price they pay for their injustice."
"It is considered the oldest fragment of Western thinking".
>desparate googling
hahahahahahahahahaha, you are a complete ignorant fool
heidegger lives in potentiality. the Dasein is literally the potential that we can imagine and we should express these potentiality.
this is ridiculous, since h. takes seriously any fantasy our mind produce..
heidegger thinks that a dasein is all the potentialities of ''one person'' and that
**cognition, understanding is subordinated to existence
**the understanding projects the possibles. what understanding projects constitutes the class of all possibilities of the dasein
**we can think of the possibilities because we have them
**we exist more in terms of our possibilities, than in our realities
**Heidegger thinks that there is a tight link between thinking and being.
Something i found out recently :
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A9titions_fran%C3%A7aises_et_majorit%C3%A9_sexuelle
Between 1977 and 1979, French parliament was voting a law to penalize sexual intercourse with 14 yo and younger.
Many intellectuals made it loud and clear they weren't happy about such changes in the law and published an open letter in Le Monde, followed by a petition. Among the people signing were :
- Jean Paul Sartre
- Simone de Beauvoir
- Gilles Deleuze
- Jacques Derrida
- Jack Lang
- Bernard Kouchner
- André Glucksmann
Picture me surprised SENPAI
>>7791882
a text is not necessarily a fiction just because it is unstable
>>7791614
>I remember being taught in primary school that blackmail can be reused infinite amount of times, so don't do it once, go to the police.
>but the police should do nothing, 'cause she's dumb
>>7791916
Well two (2) of those words are French so we would need someone who speaks both English and French natively to get a trustworthy interpretation, and even then it would only be valid for that persons socialogogogisticogrphal standpoint, any interpretation of which itself can only be valid from a certain social position and etc into divinity.
>>7791920
Holy shit bro, you need to get on Sartre's and Beauvoir's letters to each other about lolis. Beauvoir's novel about their gf is some psycho shit too.
>>7791920
Of course, the consent is just a legal coding of what liberals and libertarians call choice. so far, nobody know what ''to choose'' means, when we choose and we do not choose. Consent is the emptiest concept from the enlightenment.
>>7791919
Heidegger is arguably a radical Lutheranism. Which is interesting, considering Luther hated Jews, and it's pretty much German Christianity. So in the Nazi climate of the 30s/40s, you could see why Heidegger would prefer Luther to Catholicism.
>>7791916
Barthes still thinks there's A meaning present in texts, even if it sorta changes through cultures. Derrida is much more radical. The attempt to even pin down meaning pushes that meaning away. You can ever get at it, ever.
Barthes will argue that the meaning in a Balzac novella isn't what Balzac intended. A good deconstructionist will tell you, sure, but there's a seemingly infinite possibility of meanings that you can pull out, because there is never a 100% connection between words and truth/meaning.
>>7791918
>>7791891
What I wrote in the prevoious post shows that you can't differentiate between Heraclitus and Anaximander. This is philosophy 101, first year philosophy. I mean cmon, and you claim that you have read Heiddeger, but you can't differentiate what he said about Anaximander and what about Heraclitus. You're a total HACK.
>>7791922
Everything is fiction except the statement "Justice cannot be deconstructed."
If you think that that itself is a fiction and self-contradictory (and not in a clever way), then your problem is with Heraclitus-Heidegger-Derrida, not with me.
>>7791935
You're arguing with Heidegger here, not with me.
Heidegger believes he can distill the difference, he can unconceal Truth and Being, and that the Nazis can do it too.
>>7791935
Heidegger thinks Anaximander is already too metaphysical, although just barely.
For Heidegger, the history of the west is the progressive concealment of Being. It was unconcealed with Heraclitus and Homer, and the pre-Socratics in general, but Heraclitus remains THE philosopher for Heidegger. He is the source, not Anaximander. Anaximander came along and started to conceal a bit.
>>7791940
You are a HACK. A total and utter HACK. I'm done posting.
>>7791948
Care to engage with deconstruction instead of resorting to ad hominems?
You're as bad as /pol/ shouting "JIDF!"
>>7791947
Yes I know all that, no need to lecture me on Heidi and the Presocratics.
I was just saying that the oldest fragment is by Anaximander not Heraclitus, The poster up above claimed that it was from Heraclitus. It's not from Heraclitus but Anaximander.
“In distinction from mastering beings, the thinking of thinkers is the thinking of being.” Heidegger believes that early Greek thinking is not yet metaphysics. Presocratic thinkers ask the question concerning the being of beings, but in such a way that being itself is laid open. They experience the being of beings as the presencing (Anwesen) of what is present (Anwesende). Being as presencing means enduring in unconcealment, disclosing. Throughout his later works Heidegger uses several words in order rightly to convey this Greek experience. What-is, what is present, the unconcealed, is “what appears from out of itself, in appearing shows itself , and in this self-showing manifests.” It is the “emerging arising, the unfolding that lingers.” He describes this experience with the Greek words phusis (emerging dominance) and alêtheia (unconcealment). He attempts to show that the early Greeks did not “objectify” beings (they did not try to reduce them to an object for the thinking subject), but they let them be as they were, as self-showing rising into unconcealment. They experienced the phenomenality of what is present, its radiant self-showing. The departure of Western philosophical tradition from concern with what is present in presencing, from this unique experience that astonished the Greeks, has had profound theoretical and practical consequences.
According to Heidegger, the experience of what is present in presencing signifies the true, unmediated experience of “the things themselves” (die Sache selbst). We may recall that the call to “the things themselves” was included in the Husserlian program of phenomenology. By means of phenomenological description Husserl attempted to arrive at pure phenomena and to describe beings just as they were given independently of any presuppositions. For Heidegger, this attempt has, however, a serious drawback. Like the tradition of modern philosophy preceding him, Husserl stood at the ground of subjectivity. The transcendental subjectivity or consciousness was for him “the sole absolute being.” It was the presupposition that had not been accounted for in his program which aimed to be presuppositionless. Consequently, in Heidegger’s view, the Husserlian attempt to arrive at pure, unmediated phenomena fails. Husserl’s phenomenology departs from the original phenomenality of beings and represents them in terms of the thinking subject as their presupposed ground. By contrast, Heidegger argues, for the Presocratics, beings are grounded in being as presencing. Being, however, is not a ground. To the early Greeks, being, unlimited in its dis-closure, appears as an abyss, the source of thought and wonder. Being calls everything into question, casts the human being out of any habitual ground, and opens before him the mystery of existence.
>>7791957
The departure of western philosophical tradition from what is present in presencing results in metaphysics. Heidegger believes that today’s metaphysics, in the form of technology and the calculative thinking related to it, has become so pervasive that there is no realm of life that is not subject to its dominance. It imposes its technological-scientific-industrial character on human beings, making it the sole criterion of the human sojourn on earth. As it ultimately degenerates into ideologies and worldviews, metaphysics provides an answer to the question of the being of beings for contemporary men and women, but skillfully removes from their lives the problem of their own existence. Moreover, because its sway over contemporary human beings is so powerful, metaphysics cannot be simply cast aside or rejected. Any direct attempt to do so will only strengthen its hold. Metaphysics cannot be rejected, canceled or denied, but it can be overcome by demonstrating its nihilism. In Heidegger’s use of the term, “nihilism” has a very specific meaning. It refers to the forgetfulness of being. What remains unquestioned and forgotten in metaphysics is Being; hence, it is nihilistic.
>>7791953
There are no fragments "from" Heraclitus. We have nothing of what he wrote, only secondary sources.
Heidegger thinks it's actually from Heraclitus and he has his entire conception of the progression of western history based around that.
I think you're actually asking how Heidegger can argue that Being has the same quality outside his own historical epoch. I don't think he can do this according to his own philosophy.
Philosophers and writers are some of the shittiest most hypocritical people around
>>7791967
>There are no fragments "from" Heraclitus. We have nothing of what he wrote, only secondary sources.
I know this.
>Heidegger thinks it's actually from Heraclitus and he has his entire conception of the progression of western history based around that.
No. The FRAGMENT of Anaximander is from Anaximander. Also secondary source. The FRAGMENTS of Heraclitus are also from a secondary source.
there is nothing wrong with positivism
>>7791979
Take it up with Martin Highnigger, not with me.
Gadamer has already argued convincingly that the history of the west isn't the progressive concealment of Being.
>>7791995
karl popper and the second half of the twentieth century says otherwise
(hint: there are no more logical positivists)
>>7791951
>as bad as
>implying this isn't literally /pol/ pretending to understand philosophy: the thread
>>7792034
Is Levinas a /pol/tard to you? He tried to bring Platonism back and claimed Heidegger and Derrida amounted to Paganism. Dude was a literal Jewish theologian on top of being a philosopher.
You're embarrassing yourself.
Step up, nigga. You've probably never even heard of Rashi.
>>7791924
>socialogogogisticogrphal
wat
>>7792034
Are you on drugs?
bumping for people who actually read
>>7791660
>tmz
>shames other men for the size of their penis
You have to be a female, no male is this dumb.
>read all of this
>first thought that goes through my head is that if I get tenure and befriend a jew, I can be a literally insane retard and still fuck young sexy grad students and get away with it
:
>>7792989
> that if I get tenure
Paul de Man only had a Bachelor's. There's hope still.
>>7792979
Misogyny is fucking gross.
>>7793001
>Not doing what I want is like, totally grody :S I totes won't have sex with you now, gag me with a spoon
- Woman attempting argumentum ad baculum by using the only worth she ever had (her vagina) as a cudgel, 2016
>>7791920
Damn, I was born on the wrong side of the alps.
>>7793001
Not as much as women.
>>7791995
it has bad side effects for humanity
>>7791577
wtf i wish i had been there for those lectures
>>7793001
But you hookup with the people that are the most misogynistic? I never got laid before i became more misogynistic.
>>7791926
They were both pieces of shit, seriously she would be considered an aggresive sexual predator in todays academic environment
>>7793037
The only reason women bitch about fuckboys is to dissociate themselves from being attracted to mysoginists
ITT mad roastie confuses /lit/ for tumblr.
Get the fuck out, whore.
>>7793058
>
she was considered one then
>>7791577
what a nauseating history of events
post-structuralism is a cancer
Scumbag Derrida, eats chips in a massive house, laughs all the way to the bank.
