>read "For Dummies" online encyclopaedia article on Derrida
>the author tries to be just as obtuse as Derrida
To understand Derrida, we must "iterate" the reified spectral analysis of the "Doodly-Doodly-Diddly, Diddly-Bop, Diddly-Bop." Fzz wzz bbzbzbzz bz zz nzn zkjnkfnkafkljsdf akjsdf nasjfkn asdnkljdafakjsd deconstruction something something fuck you
Sounds like Derrida would have marvelous fun over at [s4s]
>In an essay from 1998, “Typewriter Ribbon,” Derrida investigates the relation of confession to archives. But, before he starts the investigation (which will concern primarily Rousseau), he says, “Let us put in place the premises of our question.” He says, “Will this be possible for us? Will we one day be able to, and in a single gesture, to join the thinking of the event to the thinking of the machine? Will we be able to think, what is called thinking, at one and the same time, both what is happening (we call that an event) and the calculable programming of an automatic repetition (we call that a machine).
THIS IS THE FIRST SENTENCE
JUST FUCKING EXPLAIN IT USING YOUR INSIDE VOICE
YOU'RE NOT IN A PARISIAN CAFE AND NO ONE WILL EVER FUCK YOU
JUST SAY AN ACTUAL THING
>>7797790
>In an essay from 1998, “Typewriter Ribbon,” Derrida investigates the relation of confession to archives.
no this is
>>7797790
Vonnegut is spinning in his grave.
"post-modern" (a solecism) and leftist philosophers in general have a habit of intentionally misleading and confusing readers with "technical language", making up words and meanings arbitrarily. This begins in Hegel and his disciples but is more starkly and recently found in the works of Sartre, Foucault, Lacan etc. Obfuscating their writing as to appear profound and interesting when their writings were both shallow and tedious. Sartre was a pervert, he dressed Heidegger's words in slutty clothes and sold them like whores to moronic students, aspiring African dictators, and future Islamic terrorists. They peddle nonsense to idiots, and so use nonsensical language to justify their nonsense. They study nonsense degrees at universities to legitimize their nonsense in a grand ponzi scheme of academia. The only way their ramblings are legitimate is if enough people are conscripted, to then study the nonsense of these *cough* great thinkers *cough*. This firstly empties the pockets and minds of students, and then fills the minds with arrogance, they treat these "thinkers" as rock-stars. Foucault, Chomsky, and Zizek, are just names to drop. A few of their books on your bookshelf so you can take a picture of it and post it online. To affirm that you are indeed ONE OF US! You are a sworn in believer, welcome to the flock brother!
TO any angry cult members who will rush to defend their sophist idols: do not bother to reply to me; I will not reply to you.
>>7797927
okay dokay friendo
What a bunch of fools. What are you a doing on a literature board, apart from shit posting about things you didn't even read?
>>7797927
>TO any angry cult members who will rush to defend their sophist idols
Why are there so many of them? Whenever I say something to the effect of your post, they always come crawling out of the woodwork claiming I'm too stupid for their postmodern idols. Why?
>>7797790
Schopenhauer would literally physically murder this dude
>>7798004
Because they have a degree and you don't! you **are** too stupid!
>>7797790
>i have no intellectual patience whatsoever
>better post this thread about derrida!
In rush the people with nothing to say other than
>Heh, you don't get it? I totally get it ;)
Congrats on proving OP right. You haven't even read Derrida and you still have the kneejerk reaction to use him to boost your status.
>>7798133
That's not how you "prove" something, dear moron
thanks for the laughs family.
posting in the daily derrida hate thread
>>7798024
>i consider myself an intellectual giant
>so I pretend and lie to myself that I understand what Derrida wrote there.
>despite the fact that would go against the very basic tenet (which is a pointless, vacuous truism btw) of what Derrida expouses.
>to maintain this pose, I have to demean anyone who is intellectually honest
>>7797790
>Will we one day be able to, and in a single gesture, to join the thinking of the event to the thinking of the machine?
This is just plain bad syntax. The word 'to' is duplicated, and the word 'and' should not be there at all. Get rid of that nonsense, shift the clauses around, and it's cleaned up quite a bit:
>Will we one day be able to join the thinking of the event to the thinking of the machine in a single gesture?
If you do this with every sentence you can derive coherency. Why Derrida (or the translator, or the person summarizing) would write like that is beyond me.
>>7800052
>Will we be able to think, what is called thinking, at one and the same time, both what is happening (we call that an event) and the calculable programming of an automatic repetition (we call that a machine).
Tried to fix up this sentence too for posterity:
>Will we able able to simultaneously think (hence 'thinking') of what is happening (hence an 'event') and the calculable programming of an automatic repetition (hence a 'machine')?
I'm not sure precisely what he means by 'calculable programming of an automatic repetition' but I'd assume that is explained in the essay
>>7800073
Messed up there, should read 'be able' instead of 'able able'
>>7798010
So would Nabokov.
>>7800073
seems like he talk about analytic by the word choice of "calculable" where in the first he speaks on how we simply operate in action, hence "happening".
>>7797885
>caring about vonnegut
Back to /reddit/ with you
