![derrida-2002-06-g[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/UxNap5j.jpg "derrida-2002-06-g[1].jpg")
Do people who study philosophy on rigorous academic level actually read this guy? Or is he more popular with dilettantes
>>8007401
REAL men read analytics and are politically conservative. It's based in logic and rationality
Only effeminate Bernouts read continental cuckery. They aren't real men. It's based in muh feels and muh oppreshun
>>8007401
I'm pretty sure continental philosophers have to read him, analytical are too busy playing scientist to
>>8007401
>Do people who study philosophy on rigorous academic level actually read this guy?
No, they do not.
>Or is he more popular with dilettantes
Correct.
>>8007428
Analytics always hate what they can't understand
>>8007436
>implying people like Lacan didn't literally write gibberish
>>8007436
No one can "understand" Derrida. He wrote utter gibberish.
It's useful reads. I do find the continentals problematic but more for their being situated in a european tradition (colonialism et. al.) than for anything wholesale wrong with their ideas.
>>8007424
Most of my analytic professors are lefties
>>8007401
Yes.
The problem I find is people who often cite his work on deconstruction are basically bullshitting their way through something they think they should know but don't. Shit's pretty complicated tbf. I don't think a more rigorous way of talking would help either, since the thing that takes a similar bullshitting position in analytic schools is second order logic.
The guy p much developed a way where you can find certain kinds of ideology in your own thought, and that is an amazing achievement.
>>8007541
>since the thing that takes a similar bullshitting position in analytic schools is second order logic
Wow, you are utterly retarded.
>>8007541
This.
>>8007551
Why's that?
>inb4 muh second order logic
>>8007541
You seem to actually understand the guy, so could you try to illuminate what his actual accomplishments were? I agree that people who cite him tend to be bullshit artists of the highest order, but Derrida seems to have a coherence that his typical followers do not.
There's a strange phenomenon that you will first start to understand in grad school (if it doesn't eat your brain too(. The phenomenon is that everyone in grad school is a pissant fucking retard functionary who is cordoning off a tiny little area, with a tiny little favourite philosopher guy to apply to that area, for the rest of their pissant careers that no one will ever give a fuck about, if they even have a career at all. But boy are there lots of them, seeming really important in the heat of the moment!!
For every real thinker who actually appreciates and makes use of a Derrida or Foucault, there are ten thousand "Foucauldian" and "Derridean" scholars who devote their life to him and form little cliques and journals around him, dominate an entire department here or there, making them seem like the entire scholarly universe in that field. Usually for about a decade or a generation at most.
They're all pissants. Derrida's heyday is well and over, and he'll be forgotten as quickly as he became fashionable. He's not entirely a fraud - only mostly - but make no mistake that 90% of his fame is for being the celebrity obscurantist of the Parisian circlejerk du jour in his time. Same with Lacan. Partly the same even with Foucault, though Foucault is a lot better and will have a lot more staying power.
When you picture Derrida, don't picture him high up on some linear ladder of philosophical complexity or prestige. Picture him as one of many, many scholars in a huge constellation. Once you get a good enough general picture of that constellation, you'll instantly know who the flashes in the pan are.
Another great phenomenon as an addendum: 98% of the grad students (read: future jobber whogivesashit professors) who base their careers on guys like Derrida, as in the first phenomenon, don't actually read Derrida. "Derrida" is a received tradition that you master by submersion in it. It's much more a subculture than an actual philosophical system. It's surprisingly easy to pick up all the jargon and the basic Cliff's Notes mechanics that you need to do "Derridean" work entirely by osmosis.
>>8007401
this nigga couldn't give you a straight answer to save his life, I bet he was the kinda person that didn't know what to order at a cafe
>>8007614
This is a really interesting point, and I can see where you're coming from. I think I agree that most people in grade school just pick a philosopher or a school or a period and make it their schtick, and it's pretty obnoxious.
I think where I disagree with you is when you say "90% of his fame is for being the celebrity . . . of the Parisian circlejerk du jour." I mean, we can say the same thing about Emerson, but he's been consistently studied for over 100 years. Nobody writes ~without~ their circlejerk; some writers just happen to pick up traction outside of it. And maybe some of that traction is the adaptability of that writer's ideas in other people's lives. So a trace of Derrida gets incorporated into discourse - whether you like it or not - and so what?
Plus, he can be funny. Not least of all because people get bent out of shape about him.
>>8007424
>What is emotivism
>>8007401
academic philosophers do not read derrida, period
other academics do in more bullshit fields like sociology
>>8007568
One of his achievements at a fairly basic level is in how we define a text or oeuvre. So iirc there were just before he became big on the scene movements like new criticism that said if a text is good or something like that it can stand on its own feet without a need for reference to other texts or historical facts or other things outside the text. Others argued that the author's shopping list was potentially vital information that should be attached to an oeuvre or something to that effect.
Derrida gets past this by placing importance on the readers own personal relationship or interpretation of a text. So an oeuvre has no hard set in stone boundary. You also don't have to worry about some dumbass author's state of mind or view. They wrote the text because they weren't going to be present ultimately so forget them.
The text itself now you can think of as this meaningless on its own set of signs. It's the act of reading/interpreting it that actually assigns meaning, in a sense you construct the text or work yourself using pieces given to you through the marks on a page. How you set up these relations and meanings very much depends on your viewpoint as that person in that place at that time. By looking at how this meaning is changeable you can start to better recognise which parts are of the text and which parts are you. That's more or less diferance, how you construct meaning from the text. Then you can start to try to construct a stable meaning of the text again.
Deconstruction is this ability of a text to have its apparent meaning undone, through the I guess "process" above. I dunno how helpful that all is, ot should he pretty good but I'm p tired and it's not massively easy to cut down into a 4chan post
>>8007424
A thread about philosophy, and you use a well known fallacy to try and make a point?
>>8007681
Sounds like a load of horseshit.
>>8007660
This. He is an utter non-entity in the field of philosophy.
>>8007401
Just another data point here, anon, but I've now been at a few schools pretty highly regarded all around and in philosophy in particular, including two that have nontrivial continental contingents, and have never met anyone who takes him really seriously. The most common attitudes seem to be that it's bullshit or that at best it's not really worth the effort to extract what insight there is (might as well just reinvent the wheel if you have to spend dozens of hours reading the instruction manual and even then don't have much grasp on what it's saying and don't feel like you've learned much once you finally do think you understand it).
I did have one prof, though, who saw a lecture by him and thought he was very impressive in person.
>>8007424
And yeah, almost all the analytic philosophers I know are either apolitical or left of center, including quite a few who are well to the left. I guess there's the occasional libertarian.
I took a whole seminar on him, so yes.
Unpopular opinion alert!
I think Derrida is a better philosopher than Nietzsche.
Nietzsche is the best writer of any philosopher, but as a philosopher, I think he's middle of the road.
Derrida is less desultory than Nietzsche. Desultary is really a piss-poor quality for a philosopher to have and it's N.'s achilles heel.
Derrida showed very convincingly that the nature of language itself (the means of expression for the philosopher) is inimical to one of the most fundamental principles of philosophy: the law of non-contradiction. If you don't see how this is a very important insight and challenge, then. . . maybe philosophy isn't for you.
>>8007681
That's a pretty neat idea. Which book outlines this? Interested in more
>>8007918
Can you give a top 5 or so of continental philosophers taken seriously at that level? I've read all of the major ancient philosophy texts, the German idealists, and the existentialists and I want to start moving into the more modern schools.
>>8007968
Hmm, can't think of any really contemporary people, probably just because I'm not up to date, but I'd say (and these are each controversial): Habermas, Foucault, the Frankfurt School, and maybe Gadamer. Going back further it's easier: Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Husserl, Brentano, Freud, Kierkegaard, Marx, etc.
My impression is that to understand the more recent people, the most important people to read, if you haven't yet, would be Marx, Heidegger, Freud, Weber.
My own recommendation, perhaps alongside this other stuff you're getting into, read some analytics. Try Frege's Foundations of Arithmetic, or some papers by Lewis, Nagel, Davidson, or Foot. Or, if you're mainly interested in political stuff, try Rawls, Nozick, and/or G.A. Cohen. For a continuation of some parts of German Idealism, check out the Pittsburgh school: Sellars, Brandom, McDowell (would be a good idea to read late Wittgenstein first).
In any case, good luck!
>>8007952
what is
>the nature of language itself
and how did Derrida show
>very convincingly
that it undermines the law of non-contradiction?
could you summarize the argument?
>>8007424
Absolute idiot
>>8007965
Quine's Word and Object
>>8007965
Quite a lot of the groundwork is in of grammatology
>>8007681
>which parts are of the text and which parts are you. That's more or less differance.
What the fuck?
I like Derrida's stuff about logocentrism but I don't really care about his work with signs or texts. Is there a book of his that's more about cataloging logocentrisms?
>>8008362
Why have you edited out the last part of thecsentence?
>>8007440
zizek likes to go on about how he's all about showing how lacan is actually really saying something underneath the apparent gibberish layer
>>8007635
>Plus, he can be funny. Not least of all because people get bent out of shape about him.
i hate you
When people here approach Derrida they seem to forget how much he's working in the same path Heidegger tried to carve. The whole Derrida thought stems from the Heideggerian cosideration of metaphysics, as way of thinking which "forget" the Being, hides it behind "what exists", and necesessarily leadss to nihilism.
Now Derrida tries to formulate an approach to text where every reference outside of the text, where the mutual relationship between the word tree and a tree is broken and deem as metaphysical, and more importantly, the link between the intentions of the author and meaning is broken what remains is just the text. Meaning for Derrida comes from relationship with words and words only, that why the possibility of meaning lies on what eventually disrupts meaning. That is the differance, the operation, the repetition of words, their (dis)placement in time which causes what Derrida calls the "effacement" of meaning.
But since he's trying to write and think post-metaphysically he can never actually conceptualize differance, instead he has to resort to make emerge from his texts and never actually give definitions, just what it does functionally.
This is really just a tiny fraction of his thought though, I left out the whole logocentris part which is closely connected to this and I'm sorry if I have been imprecise, but this is the best I can do given the circumstances.
>>8007424
You can't try to be smart and use the word "cuckery"
>>8008555
It's spelt cookery
>>8007968
Kant and Hegel prefigure all modern philosophy
Fichte, Schelling, Schiller, Schlegels, Coleridge (after Schelling), Schopenhauer follow immediately
Nietzsche and Marx/Engels are obviously important, the former being easy enough to read and the latter being a chore
To a lesser extent Kierkegaard
Bergson is very important, little read today but much read by many giants of modern philosophy
Croce, Gentile
Freud is vitally important because of how many people were psychoanalysis cultists and how many other deep psychology were inspired by psychoanalysis
Husserl is vitally important because phenomenology prefigures much of 20th century philosophy
Heidegger was a student of Husserl and is vitally important
Gadamer, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre were students of Heidegger
Kojeve, Strauss, Ricoeur, Buber, Levinas, Jaspers, Habermas
No real reason to read Althusser anymore, Gramsci (for Neo-Gramscians if interested in Marx, Gellner, Kolakowski, Perry + Benedict Anderson, Eagleton
Saussure + Prague school of structural linguistics, Claude Levi-Strauss, Barthes
Foucault, Bordieu, Badiou, Marcuse, Adorno + Horkheimer, Benjamin
Jung, Reich
Deleuze, Lacan, Koyre, and Derrida are memes you should only read if you're a leftist woman
Bachelard, Canguilhem, Feyerabend, Kuhn,Piaget
Schmitt, Gehlen
>>8008850
>Deleuze, Lacan, Koyre, and Derrida are memes you should only read if you're a leftist woman
it's funny because leftists women read way more Foucault than Derrida or Deleuze.
Derrida is a philosopher for readers of literature, he is not a philosopher's philosopher
>>8007424
>Real men
>Read
>>8007424
Excellent bait
>>8007424
Caught so many fish with this tasty morsel
>>8008551
Derrida is not trying to work in the same path as Heidegger, he's trying to work in the same path as Walter Benjamin, with a greater focus on language than aesthetics. His entire project is to take Benjamin's The Author as Producer and On Some Motifs in Baudelaire and move them forward, into the realm of language focus, with application to ideology and political systems. Have you ever even read Derrida?
>>8009100
> it's a "I know the inner thoughts of this philosopher better than you" episode
What you say is interesting and I see what you're getting at I think, but to make out like Derrida has no influence from Heidegger is a massive folly. There's nothing wrong (or even really that debateable) with the other anon's comment unless you want to play the game of toxic ivory tower academia, where everyone but you knows nothing
>>8008897
>it's funny because leftists women read way more Foucault than Derrida or Deleuze.
Get real, most don't even read Derrida and Deleuze. "Think pieces" published by strong WoC in Mother Jones and r/socialism posts on Donald Trump don't count as reading.
>>8007445
A lot of people understand Derrida. He started an entire branch of philosophy still being worked on today.
Why do you people even bother with this? Unless you want to be a proffesional philosopher there is no point in doing an in depth reading of any philosopher unless he is fun to read, like nietsche or deleuze.
I would say Deleuze is a great read and his writing and ideas connect ot contemporary experiences of life.
You read a philosopher in depth to write about him or to use his ideas in your own philosophical writings...
Do you really think learning philosophy is gonna reveal some truth to you? Its as much a construction as anything else, finding different ideas that allow society to choose from a breadth of options for different circumstances.
You can find more "truth" in your own personal experiences.
Reading philosophy is examining certain ways of thinking that are connected to certain personal experiences and culture of the writer. Reading a philosopher from your own culture is closer to your own experiences but living life yourself, experiencing things in person is as "true" as it can get.
>>8008907
what did he meme by this?
>>8009100
>Have you ever even read Derrida?
Of course not.
>>8009397
Your own philosophy is whats important. You only need to study other philosophers if you want to persaude others to accept your philosophy, examine it, interpret it and bother with it.
If you indeed want others to examine your ideas and what you think, then you need to rely on the structures and methodologies of authoritative "truth" like known philolosophers to make others appreciate how learned you are and bother with your ideas.
If you dont want that all you need is to find a person you love who is willing to take the time and dive into your own world to understand it.
Unless you are interested in actually working as a philosopher, writing essays on other philosophers, meticuleously studying their ideas, all you have to do is engange yourself in deep fullfilling relationships that give the parties involved the motivation to understand each other in depth.
>>8009543
topkek
>>8009397
>I would say Deleuze is a great read
Deleuze is another nonsense peddler. You got conned.
>>8009381
Not even close. Derrida is an utter non-entity in the field of philosophy.
>>8008850
Holy fuck - every writer mentioned in this post other than Kant and Kuhn is a gibberish-writing pseudointellectual. Great job.
>>8009397
In this way normies should stick to the culture they exist in, as their world is primarily external and mostly "real" (normies can't be like Underground Man). What led up to the current zeitgeist and where it will go aren't terribly important to them.
Intellectuals and overthinkers, for whom most of their world is their internal thoughts, can benefit greatly from philosophy, as most philosophers are like this themselves, and careful readings of any great texts requires a sort of "dialogue" with the text (why did he write this? why did this character do this and not this?) which can yield helpful perspective.
If you have faulty assumptions in your way or system of thinking then, while your experience is "true", it may be ignorantly self-destructive. Carefully reading philosophy can give you the tools to deal with this, or at least give you alternative ways of thinking to try out.
philosophy is a practice, not reading books
>>8011055
>other than Kant and Kuhn
lel okay
>>8008850
>Schiller, Piaget, Jung, Freud, Saussure, Levi-Strauss, Barthes
>philosophers
yeah, sure, buddy.
>>8013003
>i'm interested in continental philosophy
>let me just not read any of these thinkers who defined massive chunks of it, because a robotic machine sorting algorithm would rank them as another discipline instead of "Philosopher" and i confuse that sorting for platonic reals
going to stab you
>>8011034
Then read him as a novel. Like I wrote, He is a great read, his style of writing is very inspiring. I mean it, it loosens your thoughts.
>>8007445
He's hard to translate into English. He reads more smoothly in French or another romance language.
>retards stuck in the 19th century, looking for an "underlying truth".
Get your asses into post modernity already.
Why is all of 4chan stuck in Classical modernity?
>>8013005
I've never heard of a philosopher influenced by Levi-Strauss or Barthes, the influence of Saussure on philosophy is one of the great catastrophes of the continental intellect in the 20th century, Jung is for soccermoms who also believe in homeopathy, Schiller's conception of beauty as a moral experience could well be called proto-fascist and Piaget is pretty based, but representative more of the kind of scientist whom philosopher's should really pay attention to, but don't (today's equivalent would be non-classical cognitive and neuroscience).
>>8013137
You need to get a more nuanced perspective of how intelligentsias work. You're basically saying "don't read any structuralism because I don't like it," and "don't read guys who had enormous influence on other thinkers and artists, because I think they're wrong!"
It's not even worth prying apart your post in detail.
>>8013156
I've read Saussure and many inspired by him. My perspective on how "intelligentsias" work is relatively nuanced, mainly because I've read most of a postdoctoral thesis which analyses the Young Hegelians in terms of the sociology of knowledge (I know a bit about France/Paris and the way trends like structuralism or the Nietzsche revival(s) worked, but nothing in depth or with a lot of theoretical scaffolding to hold it up; Vienna in the decades before and after 1900 would be something I'd love to read about, if you can recommend a particular work).
The fact that you include "influence on artists" as a relevant criterion in the history of philosophy does not bode well...
>>8013204
We're on a literature board and you don't care about the influence of philosophy on art and literature? What the fuck? That's what makes me doubt that you understand how """""intelligentsias""""""""""" work.
We're in a Derrida thread where Lacan is mentioned. Derrida is by far mostly significant in literary criticism. Should he be read less as a philosopher because of that? Lacan is a structuralist and psychoanalyst, speaks of fellow structuralist Levi-Strauss as his "friend," and was no doubt inspired significantly by the latter's repeated calls, postwar, for French thought (not just philosophy) to take inspiration from structuralism. Levi-Strauss himself denounced Lacan. All of this was going on while Sartre, a philosopher and extremely prolific literary and artistic writer (playwright), was being abandoned by intellectuals, philosophers, activists, and artists of all stripes in favour of the literary theory of men like Barthes, whose essays on writing now sit right next to Sartre's on a shelf, in the Libary of Congress classification system.
You care about the influence of psychologists on philosophers (Piaget's epistemology - is that not philosophy in itself?) but you don't care about the influence of philosophy on art, or presumably vice versa. Again I could just type sixty five pages of examples of how philosophers took direct inspiration from art. And not just for showing off, or padding out their stuff with literary citations, but actual inspiration. How about Foucault citing Borges' Celestial Emporium in The Order of Things? Even more importantly, do you really not recognize that the unconscious of an intellectual era is shot through with those KINDS of things, ideas and conceptual frameworks, mentalities and zeitgeists and whatever, that informed both Foucault's and Borges' thinking? In ways that don't respect pseudo-platonic professional or intellectual walled gardens like "this dude's an artist, lol, I don't need to read him to understand his contemporaries' conceptual frameworks better."
You say you understand intelligentsias but I don't believe you.
>>8013243
>We're on a literature board and you don't care about the influence of philosophy on art and literature?
Not when the question is "which continental thinkers are taken seriously in academic philosophy?", no.
>>8013278
Well, I'm in academic philosophy, and I study this stuff, and so does my adviser, so there's that.
You have a weirdly narrow view of what's "important" or vetted by the establishment. Especially since even the establishment is against doing that, these days, at least outwardly.
Either that or your view of someone being "taken seriously" is strange. Have you never met a philosophy PhD doing his work on Pascal, or some obscure Greek or medieval who isn't "taken seriously" anymore? People study moderns in the same way. Example:
>Ricœur argues that psychoanalysis is not a science but a language, a "semantics of desire." He seeks to bring Freud's ideas into conformity with the linguistic turn - the "effort to understand virtually all aspects of human behavior in terms of language."[1] For Ricœur, all interpretation partakes of a double hermeneutic. Psychoanalysis involves an "archaeology" of meanings, motives and desires, an attempt to delve into the unconscious layers of repressed or sublimated memory. Yet it also points a way through and beyond that condition by offering the patient renewed possibilities of self-knowledge and creative fulfillment.
>>8013314
I was reading Agamben's The Other a few weeks ago and it got me thinking how this "canonical" view of philosophy /lit/ (and undergrads in general) is alienating, since you have someone like Agamben, who's clearly one of the sharpest minds in today's philsophy, who's citing texts ranging from everything to gnosticism to medieval theology to biology to the Frankfurt school to present his ideas, while people just keep on selling this theleological, contained view of philosophy in which every writer is merely commenting on other philosophers.
>>8013351
"What strikes me with Bachelard is that, in a way, he plays against his own culture with his own culture.
In traditional education and also in the culture we receive there are a certain number of established values, things one must read and others one must not read. Oeuvres that are estimable and others that are negligible. There are the small people and the big people, there is hierarchy. You know, the whole celestial world with its thrones, dominations, angles and archangels -- all this is well hierarchized, and roles are very precisely defined.
And Bachelard knows how to separate himself from this ensemble of values. He knows how to separate himself form it by reading everything and by confronting everything with everything. He reminds me of skilled chess players who manage to take the biggest pieces with the little pawns. Bachelard does not hesitate to oppose Descartes to a minor philosopher or an imperfect or eccentric eighteenth century scholar. He doesn't hesitate to bring together in the same analysis the most important poets and a minor poet he might have discovered by chance, browsing through a small bookshop.
By doing that, he does not mean to reconstitute, if you like, the great global culture, which is that of the West, of Europe, or of France. It's not about showing that it is always the same great mind that lives and swarms everywhere. On the contrary, I have the feeling that he tries to trap his own culture with its interstices, its deviances, its minor phenomena, its dissonances."
>>8013355
Fuck All had top tier prose, those retards who keep spouting how he's undecipherable are just people whot ook Modern Logic 101 and decided every continental philosopher is shit
>>8013351
Canon is just there to provide a basis for understanding the fundamentals of western philosophy. You think Agamben didn't start with the Greeks?
>>8013243
Studying who referred to whom as a friend and which books are next to each other in the library of congress can be interesting, but it's not studying philosophy, it's studying relatively tangential aspects of the history of philosophy. In any case the question you initially answered wasn't "how many people can you name who are in some way or another important for 20th century philosophy" and you are trying to shift the goalposts here which a rigorous thinker should avoid.
>>8013243
>or presumably vice versa
How would you presume such a thing? I am truly baffled. If a philosopher is influenced by a scientist and writes a work of philosophy, that's philosophy. If a painter is influenced by a philosopher and paints a painting, that's a painting. These two directions of inspiration are not interchangeable, they are the opposite of each other (you are probably going to point out how both of these happen in the same social circles, but that doesn't change anything about the formal aspect of what's going on).
Foucault's citation of Borges in Les Mots et les Choses is pretty shit. The categories of the chinese dictionary are exactly as fanciful and imaginary as Foucault's idea of being able to identify monolithic epistemes and the way they determine the entire thought of an era, but my latest rant on Foucault is over here >>8012138
I understand that the intellectual milieu of a thinker influences his thought, but that wasn't the question to begin with. What you are doing sounds like cultural studies of intellectual elites, or a sociology of knowledge, or a history of ideas, but not actually "studying philosophy" in the narrow sense.
>>8013243
fantastic post lad
nice thinly veiled analytic vs continental thread, shithead
Con artists like Derrida, Foucault, Agamben, etc are not studied in Philosophy. They may be studied by other con artists in junk fields like "cultural studies" or "SJW studies", but that's neither here nor there.
>>8008089
The nature of language is that it has no static semantic scaffolding to make it unambivalent. Words and their usage are super flexible. The result is polysemy, the multiplication of meaning of a words. Take the word "order" for example. It carries several different meanings and connotations. This multiplicity can and does cause severe rifts between the intentions of the communicative moment and its interpretive results, up to and including contradiction.
Evidence: oxymoron's place in the catalogue of rhetorical tropes, and the very existence of contranyms such as "cleave."
As for how he showed that, read his work. Etymology is his pry bar.
>>8015212
That's just throwing your hands up and saying "it's all just too complicated!" No, stop being a drama queen and calm the fuck down. Start with a simple model and refine it until it is empirically adequate - just like any other science.
>>8015237
How? I don't think that it's even all that non-trivial, introspection should reveal how much our use of language is dependent on context instead of absolute meaning, especially if you've learnt a second language. There's no reason to believe that we can scientifically refine our understanding of a given word until it becomes absolute in any given sense.
>>8015276
Meanings are of course contextual, but this can be explored in a systematic manner. In physics, we start with frictionless planes and perfect vacuums even though these conditions do not exist in the real world. Additional constraints are added to improve precision where desired. Semantics is no different.
>>8015212
Polysemy sometimes leads to miscommunication miscommunication (great discovery, I be nobody ever noticed that!), so... something something contradiction?
I just don't see it yet. How does this undermine the law of noncontradiction in any way?
At best it can get us to trivial observations akin to noticing that some possible utterances of "I'm hungry" are true and others are false. And though it's an interesting question how best to model the meaning of words like "I", no plausible account of them will result in thinking there are contradictions in the offing here.
And in any case, does any of this apply to non-context dependent formal languages as well? Because if not, then I'd happily just take the principle of non-contradiction to be about a suitable formal language, which presumably has sufficiently "static semantic scaffolding", whatever that means.
>>8009543
>nobody's talking to me
>obv because im a genius
>>8015237
>empirically adequate
nice oxymoron
>>8008850
Will Stirner ever be taken seriously?
>>8015868
Stirner won't be taken seriously because people don't like to accept the idea that we are all self serving in the end. People don't like the idea of egoism because considering your needs first priority in your life is "selfish" and "negative". It also has something to do with him being obscure relative to other philosophers outside of /lit/. Stirner might one day be taken seriously but I doubt it. People want peace of mind through ignorance and love, not spooks and anarchy.
>>8015903
Do you know of any good thinkers who would destroy Stirners ontology and descriptions (because he doesnt really argue) of life?
>>8015564
Sounds like you don't know what "oxymoron" means.
>>8015868
It's not that he isn't "taken seriously" as a philosopher by contemporary academic philosophers. Rather, he is simply considered a minor figure of his era, focused narrowly on moral and political issues. He is mentioned by philosophers and historians of anarchism, but that is about it.
>>8015903
I like to think about Stirner's philosophy as a pro- for transhumanism. How do you feel about that, anon?
>>8016190
>I like to think about Stirner's philosophy as a pro- for transhumanism.
Not that anon but the fact that it has an ism attached to it should raise a redflag.
One of the key points of ownness is not being tied to a pro or anti view point of anything
>>8011047
undergrad please
>>8007681
pretty decent summary bro
>>8007968
>>8008082
Bruno Latour, Bernard Stiegler, Paul Virilio, Rosi Braidotti, Gilles Deleuze.
There seems to be less interest these days for the linguistically oriented post-structuralists like Derrida and Foucault and more interested for phenomenologists and philosophers of technology, posthumanism, new materialism etc.
>>8013005
Do you ever think Linji Yixuan kinda meant "kill pseuds"?
>>8016219
Nobody takes any of those people seriously in philosophy.
>>8016240
nobody takes you seriously
>>8015431
>miscommunication
It depends what you mean by miscommunication (ahahahahaHAhahahah). You are never going to be directly communicating thoughts, and as things become more abstracted the amount of interpretation and differences in understanding and so on become much bigger. From my own experience even I find that even quite straightforward language and ideas can be vastly "miscommunicated", and I put this down to a kind of rush in education. A lot of people have to learn stuff very quickly and then pass this information on as quickly, they don't have the resources they need to develop a more resilient and thought out set of definitions or world view or w/e, so even in less abstract language this sort of thing can creep in.
We're moved away from Derrida and into my own thoughts here btw, I don't want to confuse anyone. As an example, Galen's anatomy work used to be read out at dissection classes, and while a lecturer read, a demonstrator would perform a dissection to go along with the text and demonstrate it. This should be a good example of almost totally unabstracted, directly describing reality language, but Galen's work had some really very glaring inaccuracies, missing or misdescribing some organs and even describing parts that don't exist. This sort of thing went on for a few hundred years until the 16th century until Vaselius and others started looking at it more empirically again.
>>8016219
I rarely see Stiegler mentioned here. I talked with him a couple of months ago.
>>8016255
Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just giving your the facts.
>>8016284
>muh prison
>>8016315
I never saw him talking about it.
>>8016103
just stick to the part moron.
>dilettantes
Holy fuck op I've been looking for that word for 3 years now. Such a compact way of describing myself. Thank you so fucking much.
okay
>study philosophy on rigorous academic level
>>8016273
Um, okay, still not seeing any reason here for rejecting classical logic.
saco ford
>>8007614
God this post is all too true. Everyone is trying to carve out their own tiny bullshit island where they can be king of the hill.
Grad school is largely training in how to pick out fads and latch on to them so they'll carry you into a tenure track position where from you can sit in a comfy chair for 40 years writing bullshit no one cares about, milking our absurdly inflated educational system and eventually retiring a millionaire.
Derrida was a fad of the 90's into the early 2000's. Times have changed, and depending on which departments you're looking at you'll see different fashions.
In the anglophone scene analytic is still in vogue, but it's trying so hard to be science that it's now sucking at the teat of neurocogsci. In a lot of places they don't even pretend to be doing philosophy any more.
>>8007681
>Derrida gets past this by placing importance on the readers own personal relationship or interpretation of a text.
>It's the act of reading/interpreting it that actually assigns meaning, in a sense you construct the text or work yourself using pieces given to you through the marks on a page.
Not really. Your summary sounds more derivative of hermeneutics than descriptive of anything Derrida wrote.
Just googling a pdf of the differance essay (which I unfortunately haven't read in like six years so bear with me) yields this:
>We provisionally give the name of differance to this sameness which is not identical: by the silent writing of its a, it has the desired advantage of referring to differing, both as spacing/temporalizing and as the movement that structures every dissociation.
Nowhere does Derrida mention anything about how a subject or "viewpoint" constructs / assigns meaning to a text.
Without pretending to be able to give an adequate summary of Derrida's "achievements," I just want to register that you're wrong.
One of the reasons why you're wrong is your assertion that, for Derrida, signification can find a stable anchorage in the interpretive context that a subject brings to a text. But actually Derrida argues (in Limited Inc, for instance) that no context is every "absolutely determinable" and no text can be saturated by a context.
My interpretation of a text might presume to put that text into a relatively determined context. A text's condition of possibility -- what makes it possible for writing to signify at all -- is, however, its ability to break from one context and graft into another. In other words, for a text to be a text it has to be structurally and temporally non-identical with itself -- also known as its "iterability."
Whatever "stable meaning" an act of interpretation might assign already presupposes its own displacement or "dissociation" because it is just this displacement that allows a text to mean anything in the first place.
As for your definition of deconstruction, it seems close but also somewhat wrong. Mostly because a deconstructive reading would also want to show how a text undoes the difference between apparent and implied or concealed meaning. But I also don't have a competing definition, so whatever. Bye
>>8009100
No, >>8008551 is right. Derrida is much more indebted to Heidegger than to Benjamin. Deconstruction of the metaphysics of presence ring any bells? Not to mention that, methodologically, Derrida's erudition cleaves closely to the history of philosophy, whereas Benjamin's archives are much more scattered / culturally miscellaneous (see the Arcades Project) because he wants to write an infrastructural prehistory of the present.
Although they politically they do have some resonance insofar as both are interested in messianism -- see Benjamin's "Theses on the Philosophy of History" and Derrida's Specters of Marx.
>>8009397
Kind of agree. Deleuze is weird af and can help you trace out your desiring-machines etc.
>>8013156
Fucking this, thank you
>>8015333
>semantics is no different
why isn't it? You're missing a few argumentative steps that demonstrate the two are analogous.
>>8007614
>Undergrad
>Already starting to do this
Ah fuck. Does the philosopher make a difference in this? Ive been focusing a lot of my work on Peirce, and how semiotics apply to biological systems.
>>8009397
Here's a second thought: You might be reinventing the wheel just relying on your own thinking. You read the "professional philosophers" because many of them may have arrived at similar ideas you're thinking about, then spent months or years pursuing their logical conclusions and condensing that intellectual process into a book you can read in a shorter amount of time. You then get to compare your own ideas and see if they still hold up. If they don't, and you're on board with the person you've just read, then you've accelerated your own thinking process and are in a far more advanced position from which you can continue to think.
>>8016219
Thanks Deleuze looks like a good read. Right now I'm thinking I'll read Deleuze, Wittgenstein, and Macintyre and then go deeper in whichever school seems more interesting.
-sigh- An entire thread filled with harmful bromides, memes, and not a single mention of the Left Hegelian tradition from Lukács, Horkheimer, Adorno, Williams, Leavis, Thompson, etc.
>>8008850
>Deleuze
>meme
I doubt this very much. His critique of psychoanalysis is a very important shift in French thought and how we understand desire. Queer theory may have appropriated his work and turned it to bile but Deleuzian/Foucauldian stance is the way out of identity politics.
>>8019543
Except for, you know, that even a rudimentary reading of Lacan solves many of the charges in Anti-Oedipus. You're absolutely wrong in suggesting that the chromatic vision of Deleuze, and the channelized image of power in Foucault have no influence on IdPol. I say this as someone on the Left and not some phrenologist neuroscience guy.
>>8019557
How does Anon suggest Deleuze and Foucault didn't influence identity politics?
Doesn't the last sentence explicitly acknowledge that queer theory appropriated their work? Here appropriation is more or less synonymous with influence. Anon is suggesting that, despite that influence, the "Deleuzian/Foucauldian stance" (whatever that is) can be used differently, namely to get out of identity politics. The second claim implies that we shouldn't confuse Deleuze / Foucault's influence on identity politics with how they might be used for a different politics.
And, non-adversarially, I am curious about how Lacan solves Anti-Oedipus's critique of psychoanalysis. Not asking for anything super in-depth, just curious bc I haven't really spent any time reading Lacan.
( I would just for this dope graph )
boump
>>8016103
>Sounds like you don't know what "oxymoron" means.
you seem bright enough to know what oxymoron means
>>8013369
It's people who took Sokal too seriously (ie took him as anything other than a joke) that paint him as indecipherable.
I can't remember if it was Sokal or someone like him that made out Foucault believed in a literal ship of fools sailing from port to port, ironically by taking a part of a paragraph out of context and taking it literally. Also many people with him as a major influence (like Judy Butler) get labelled as indecipherable, perhaps for slightly better reasons but not anything to take seriously again.
>>8019440
Well, first of all you cannot define "a deconstruction", it's an automatic act that a text can do to itself, or should I say has the means within it to do it. Part of how that is possible is by the text existing through your own act of reading, you make the text yourself from the marks on the page.
Not sure what you're trying to get at with the point about saturation of context, but it is possible to read a book without there being an act of deconstruction. Deconstruction is (at least nearly) always possible tho, that's what Derrida would be referring to in all likelihood.
Iterability as far as I can recall is a word or sign or w/e in some kind of discourse (so it recurs in different contexts). That's something else really. On perhaps a more fundamental level it's how we assign meaning and draw boundaries between this thing and not this thing and that thing and not that thing and so on that leads to a possibility of deconstruction.
Beyond that (and even somewhat within tbat) you're talking past me tbqph, we agree
Derrida isn't worth reading
>>8022653
Judith and Michel pls go, Sokal btfo of you
>>8007424
>this triggers leftie dreamwarriors
>they dismiss it as bait
LOL
>>8022739
Quite likely what I wrote was off on a tangent. Thanks for clarifying.
What I took issue with, initially, was the suggestion that a text's meaning is somehow resolved when a subject reads it. Here the subject would be the context that saturates -- or totally determines -- the text's meaning. To be fairer to your summary, I would try to bring in something De Man says about "phenomenalization" but it's too late and too tedious.
I guess I brought up iterability because it seems like a kind of differance. Vis a vis deconstruction, I would venture that deconstruction is to iterability as a text is to a sign. That is, it must be structurally possible for a text to be deconstructed in order for it to be a text, just as it must be structurally possible for a sign to be iterated for it to be a sign.
so far, nobody can say what meaning means
>>8007401
I studied philosophy in college.
None of his texts were required reading.
Some professors commented than a few of his works were unnecessary - I can't quite remember the name of Derrida's book, but they say that many his claims and studies regarding language were already done years before and better by Wittgenstein.
