/lit/ - Literature

>>18678687
>>18678720
To give an example, 'promiscuity' is understood, in general, as being abnormally sexually active. This language is in itself cut and dry, describing nothing more, nothing less, than an empirical state of affairs - person 'x' fucks more than a population average. Depending on whether you wish to view 'abnormality' as a term with negative or positive moral connotations, however, you'll naturally skew discourse so as to emphasize only that dimension. Often by means of associating freely with people who share your particular attitude. This is really put into perspective if you consider the idea of 'neurodivergency'. In itself, the term is again, clinically cut and dry, describing an empirical state of affairs. It's however, co-opted by a psychopolitical agency markedly ressentimental against those that affirm 'neurotypy'. The kicker, and the bridge from this moral absolutist schema to my point of view, is that you can embody neurotypy and emphasize neurodivergency, and vice-versa. People, implicitly or otherwise, think and act as though your comprehension needs emphasize your social role. This isn't unique to post-structural feminism (I pick it because I'm on 4chung), or even the general cluster of post-modern Marxian-derived social theory, but is just as much seen in fraternity, 'Trump'-ism, even day-to-day social relations. On this point I diverge from Zizek. He at least seems to view only large scale ideology, as the -isms, as being menaced by this kind of language. I find that dangerously naïve, and so try, as opposed to Zizek's rhetorical strategy of interpreting pop culture as 'subject' to ideology, in a kind of distanced philosophical aristocracy, to show how pop culture IS abstraction, how by means of Zizek's aristocratic reversal, the distance is really nil.

Shit I'm never gonna publish my shit anyway so I might as well post it here. Relatedly the schniffgnome has this idea about the Lacanian big Other. Long story short it's like a foundational lacking dimension of the psyche that we confuse for a symbolically present idea. He explicitly poses God as belonging to the big Other, not as a deity absent, but the lack of a deity composed only by divine semiological 'effects', to which in religion we have to give an account of ourselves. With this in mind the media juxtaposition between Peterson and Zizek; It's played up as a rivalry between a Marxian and a Conservative Christian, while Peterson's idea of the deity is really more radical, far closer to Zizek, than both the media and either of the two have the guts to admit. Peterson says in his lecture on whether he believes in God that, paraphrasing, "he doesn't know if there's a God but he chooses to act as though there is". To take this as admission as proof of Zizek's theory is to miss the point; The two share the same psychoanalytic episteme and are really talking about the same exact thing, providing the same solution for social ill. To present this is my idea.

>>17080263
L'homme orange is pretty attractive desu
Would fug

Has there ever been a more midwit foundation for writing than deconstructionism?

How do I get into his ideas with minimum background knowledge in philosophy ?

If all understanding is in constant motion and therefore potential contradiction, can we truly attain knowledge? Is there even a point to Derrida's deconstruction technique?