/lit/ - Literature

>>10918060
>Why does x think a of y when y actually meant z
>Gives absolutely no citations to validate each variable
Disgusting
>>>/pol/

>>10918073
You can Google the quote, which is from Roger Scruton. He also referenced Peterson.

>>10918060
This is unfortunately very common in discussions of any subject that even borders on political. People often seem unable to separate their own extrapolations of a person's views and the actual stated views.

>>10918093
>He thinks I'm just talking about the quote
Awww that's so cute. Give ya a few minutes to think about what I actually meant

>>10918060
>>10918100
>For Derrida, there is no such thing as meaning – it always eludes us and therefore anything goes.
kek. i hate the way writers like scruton treat the readers like children

>>10918073
>But when Scruton and Peterson don't cite it's ok.

>>10918119
Okay, I'll have a good think. I will let you know when the light of your valued contribution breaks through the fog of my humble mind.

According to the translator, the gesture of the preface can be taken in another way - as a gesture of homage & parricide, for the book (the father) makes a claim of authority or origin which makes it both true and false / Humankind's common desire for a stable center and for the assurance of mastery - by knowing or possessing / And a book "with its ponderous shape and its beginning, middle and end, stands to satisfy that desire" / But, what sovereign subject is the origin of the book ? / Proust made the analogy in his narrator, that a man is like an army - with particular men taking the post at particular times, possessed of different temperament - and the shifts of post are done sometimes anonymously / What is the book's identity? de Sassure remarked that the "same" phoneme pronounced twice or by two different people is no identical with itself, its only identity is in its difference from all other phonemes / so do the two different readings of the 'same' book show an identity which may only be defined as a difference / the book is not repeatable in its identity: each reading produces a simulacrum of an original that is itself the mark of the shifting and unstable subject Proust describes being used by a language equally shifting and unstable / Any preface commemorates that difference by inserting itself between two readings - "my reading, my rereading, my rearranging of the text - and your reading" / The preface, by daring to repeat the book and reconstitute it in another register merely enacts what is already the case: the book's repetitions are always other than the book / there is in fact no book other than these ever-different repetition: the book in other words is always already a text constituted by the play of identity and difference / a written preface provisionally localizes the place where, between reading and reading book and book, the inter-inscribing of readers, writers and language is forever at work - Hegel suggested in Derrida's mind that the fulfilled concept - the end of the self-acting method of the philosophical text - was the pre-dictate - pre-saying - pre-face, to the preface / in Derrida's reworking the structure preface-text becomes open at both ends , the text has no stable identity, origin or end / each act of reading the "text" is a preface to the next, the reading of a self-professed preface is no exception to this rule

>>10918176
the cope is real

>>10918144
>Strawmen
Gross
>>10918176
SEETHING

>>10918073
explain yourself, pseud

>>10918197
Lrn 2 cite your arguments m8

>>10918200
If that's your point, why the autistic algebra?

>>10918200
That's the point of the OP numbnuts.

>>10918060
All I did was read Derrida's shit on that unpublished note of Nietzsche's regarding his umbrella. That pretty much told me to not bother with that fucking guy. He's horrible at staying on point, and even having one.

Why does Jacques Derrida says Viola?

>>10918209
>Autistic algebra
Wew lad
>>10918214
And I was pointing out the obvious hypocrisy ya dummy

>>10918241
It's Voila.

>>10918060
>Why do thinkers associated with the right correctly and succinctly paraphrase the arguments of french 'intellectuals'?

>>10918247
So you want me to cite shit that Derrida doesn't say?

>>10918267
I want you to cite what Derrida does say to prove he does think to prove otherwise dufus. Not hard

>>10918269
>he does think to prove otherwise
*He does think otherwise

>>10918247
I don't think algebra is autistic, of course, just what you wrote. It shows how much of a pseud you are.

Damn just about to go to bed and I see a spicy Derrida thread.

I was introduced to his ideas of binary oppositions a couple months ago, and that all makes sense. The preference for one over the other makes sense. I agree that the logical leap (especially Peterson, who I am 50/50 on but took issue with his Derrida comments immediately) that there is no meaning or that society needs to fall is a bit much.

My interpretation is that we should be AWARE of binary power structures that make up our society. Going further in our civilization with these awarenesses can help us avoid them in the future (which is avoiding unnecessary oppression/suffering).

Not sure if this relates to historical revisionism, but revising history with a lens of this power structure isn't the worst thing in the world. It's analyzing our western/American/whatever narratives and seeing where/how they might have been wrong or perpetuated in a certain way.

>>10918269
No you rely on it being hard because it involves going through different texts by Derrida looking for a quote that perfectly summarises his entire philosophical project which, if you are familiar with Derrida, is not something that is in line with that project; and secondarily if you were familiar with Derrida you wouldn't need for me to cite you anything because you'd also know how the conclusions reached by Scruton and Peterson are incompatible with deconstruction. I don't have to 'prove otherwise' anything about Derrida -- his work is published and you can read it yourself, and it remains 'proven' outside of any argument on 4chan, which has no bearing on that which is already published. If you are more interested in winning an argument (for reasons that escape me... are you the justice of logic or something, or just some Peterson fanboy?), then yes ok you proved the point that we should include citations, which is exactly my point. If not, read Positions.

>>10918283
Peterson is wrong in thinking in universals, like such and such about 'society' in general, when Derrida is explicitly engaged with the concept of 'Western metaphysics'. Metaphysics excludes and marginalises but Derrida is very careful to make clear constantly that there is no pure and simple moving beyond or outside metaphysics: no 'end' to metaphysics while he discusses its 'closure'. He is writing after other philosophers and at a time where science has kind of challenged but not displaced the importance of the logos and related concepts on that side of the binary. He is in effect trying to describe a general turn in Western thought rather than advocate for anything as radical as meaninglessness and destruction of society, i.e. what are the conditions of possibility for deconstruction? Minor spoiler, they were 'always already' in the Western canon -- the excluded were included by their explicit and named exclusion, and it doesn't seem logical to us now to argue, as has occurred in Western thought, for the legitimacy of some things at the expense of others, as though we can just pretend they're not really part of the economy of meaning.

>>10918326
How does metaphysics as a concept exclude and marginalize?

I'm still relatively new to Derrida and postmodern philosophy in general, but a lot of the ideas have intrigued me. Still have a way to go though, the concepts are pretty complex

>>10918346
Metaphysics marginalizes by moving beyond physics.

Connor Cunningham's got a fascinating chapter comparing Derrida's nothing outside the text to the Plotinian en in his Genealogy of Nihilism. There's a pdf online. Great stuff.

>>10918346
>How does metaphysics as a concept exclude and marginalize?
It doesn't. Derrida is literally shit but because it's popular to shit on him there's plenty of people on lit who pretend he's good or interesting.

>>10918281
>It shows how much of a pseud you are.
I guess variables are too complicated for you? Pretty sad really
>>10918293
>I don't *need* to cite my arguments
>You pseuds just need to trust me that people who read Derrida and come to different conclusions than me are just inherently incorrect
Reaching levels of brainlet that shouldn't even be possible lmao

>>10918326
>Metaphysics excludes and marginalises but Derrida is very careful to make clear constantly that there is no pure and simple moving beyond or outside metaphysics: no 'end' to metaphysics while he discusses its 'closure
Then. Cite. It.

Fucking hell

>>10918060
>Why do thinkers associated with the right insert their own conclusion of Derridean premises into their interpretation of Derrida?
>Does nothing different than the people he is criticizing
Jeez

>>10918346
From what I understand, the primary concern of metaphysics is presence. In a phenomenological sense, it corresponds with the auto-affection of hearing-oneself-speak: it establishes the self as a thinking, speaking, acting subject and it provides a kind of illusion that there is a closer proximity between thinking and speaking. Speech, as understood to be the expressive substance of thought, is given greater privilege due to its proximity to (dialectical) truth or logos (hence logocentrism) and the proximity to truth allows all the related metaphysical concepts: interior/exterior, self/other, nature/culture, presence/absence, essence/form, understood/sensed, signified/signifier, etc. When extrapolated, it forms a system of inclusion and exclusion, like in the example of writing which is traditionally (up until Derrida, basically) thought to be a self-effacing substitute for the present speaking subject, and is, at worst, dangerous to the conveyance of meaning (and thus truth, good, proper, etc.). From here it can be understood as necessary for metaphysics to suppress and exclude the opposites and derivatives and substitutes in this system, because of the danger they pose.

>>10918455
Positions p24

>>10918474
Oh yeah nice citations their. I'll just crack open *Derrida* and look exactly for the quote you and I both know we are talking about because of our psychic link

Write it out you lazy fuck

>>10918478
"You're a fucking idiot, I have no idea why you're still here since you have nothing to prove." - Derrida, J. (tr. Alan Bass), Positions, 1981, The University of Chicago Press: USA. p24.

>>10918060
>What do they have to lose by representing his arguments carefully and honestly?
a thousand reactionary points

>>10918176
btfo

>>10918241
He is urging spics to rape

>>10918060
>He argues that the meaning of a sign is never revealed in the sign but deferred indefinitely
>...but nowhere does Derrida argue there is 'no such thing as meaning'

I've heard several people state that Derrida doesn't say that 'meaning doesn't exist' and only says that it can't be acertained because of indefinite defferal.

But I'm confused as to the exact value of this dinstinction. If we can't ascertain meaning because all our signs required more signs to explain, that themselves need signs to explain, then I'm guessing that means there's no way for a person to discover a sign's meaning, and therefore it doesn't hold any value for civilisation or literary interpretation to keep stating the sign has meaning anyway if we can never ever discover it, apart from just to reminder ourselves of the true nature of the thing.

If we can never know the meaning because of indefinite deferral, does it change anything to proceed as if that meaning doesn't exist, apart from misrepresenting the truth of the nature of it? Our literary interpretation and society has to behave as if it wasn't there anyway when we act to try to interpret it, no?

>>10918465
Sounds like this whole business of logocentrism is made up and the rest doesn't even follow. Which canon works of metaphysics have to do with the spoken word like that, again? You would think it's about some Eastern mystic rambling about concepts related to breathing like prana or (some translations of) qi. I cannot see what Derrida is seeing. The issue Plato has with writing is purely paedagogical-mnemonic-ethical, based on the observation that texts don't talk back, he's like Bruce Lee vs wooden boards. What do theories of the subject, self, interiority even have to do with arguing over the supposed faults of writing?

>>10919480
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

>>10918491
>Being this much of an idiot
This is just sad really, like you can't be asked to write down the text to cite his thoughts and you're going to be this much of a salty cunt?

>>10918060
>and therefore anything goes.
Why does everyone jump to this misreading every time

>>10918060
>The first half of the quote is true
Especially this part:
>He's difficult to summarise because it's nonsense.

>>10919507
I think the writing vs. speech is just an example of where this idea of binary preference comes in. Speech is argued as closer to truth and therefore preferable, whereas writing can more easily distort truth. When you apply that to the other binaries in our world (light vs dark, make vs female) you see that there is/has been a clear preference (at least in western society).

>>10918060
>a sign only means something by virtue of its difference from something else
>For Derrida, there is no such thing as meaning

These are not the same thing.
The first sentence pretty clearly shows Derrida does think there is such a thing as meaning, it's just not contained in the sign itself but in the relationship that sign has with others.

and as for
>therefore anything goes

This is just intellectual dishonesty, crowbarring in something that Derrida never said and not explain at all how it relates to his semiotic theories discussed in the first part.

>>10919480
We can understand what things mean in a language to some extent, otherwise it would be difficult to communicate and things like metaphor or translation couldn't be possible. There is a relatively safe communication of ideas, but not pure as the signifier is not a one-to-one substitute for the signified that occurs like it would in a vacuum. The extent of language includes the elliptical network to which the signifers belong (the signifying chain) making the transferrence of meaning 'unpure': for example, metaphysical assumptions are imbedded in our language that we can use without really being aware of them, and this is true even of the more 'masterful' users of language such as the philosophers. Deconstruction however is about 'close reading', which is paying attention to these hidden parts of language (without taking the piss, because some philosophers can get caught in etymological traps assuming that a word has retained its same sense as its etymological roots), taking it to its extent, and making the attempt to uncover the meaning otherwise lost to the mystification of onto-theological metaphysics.

>>10919507
Made up in general, or made up by Derrida? I think Derrida's point is that it is kind of made up, that the metaphysical assumptions made by philosophers to account for a binary like soul/body has affected the constitution of all other signifiers. Derrida tends to cite Plato, Aristotle, Rousseau, Hegel, Husserl, Saussure, etc. as continuing this line.

This as well: >>10919507

>>10921494
It's hard to deny that traces of this metaphysical predicate are prevalent in literature. Common statements like this author "has a voice", meaning some worthwhile, abstract quality, works because writing has long been thought of as a supplement to speech.
This conception of text being delivered to the reader as a voice and, specifically, how James Joyce wrote accordingly, is what Ulysses Gramophone is about. /lit/ should read it.

>>10919480
Signs have no inherent meaning obviously.

>>10918283
>but revising history with a lens of this power structure isn't the worst thing in the world
if we were living in an ideal society, yes.
at the moment, no, this will obviously result in some weird American critical theory whining about toxic masculinity of history and white cis privilege etc.

>>10922695
Well that's it taken to an extreme. I am against that line of thought, but it's undeniable that queer/non-white people have been discriminated against throughout western history. Deconstructionism is just analyzing how deeply that discrimination was perpetuated via power structures. How extreme you take it is on an individual basis

>>10923645

>but it's undeniable that queer/non-white people have been discriminated against throughout western history.

The question is why I should give a shit to begin with. The irony is that Derrida could rely on Jewish power structures to implicitly exclude questions of more vital interest to the host culture.
That is, he can oppress whites by claiming they are the oppressors while lecturing at them from an elite academic perch. He lectures us on oppression while he advocates removal of the oppressors history from his position as a victimized Harvard professor.

There is a presumption that anyone should care what happens to homos rather than say questions about 'How has humanities conception of himself changed over time', 'How can we live honorably if God is presumed not to exist' etc.

The interests of queers and other minorities are of marginal interest by definition and the fact that we're required to discuss them is, as always, evidence of the inverse of claims about 'oppression' made by those on the left.

>>10920389
I don't see the problem.
>the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron"
>>10921494
>the metaphysical assumptions made by philosophers to account for a binary like soul/body has affected the constitution of all other signifiers
Yes, writers create concepts, add signifieds to signifiers, and otherwise affect language, it's been that way since the invention of literature. Dante with his De Vulgari Eloquentia and Divine Comedy started the scholarly project called Italian language, so sometimes they create the whole thing. There has to be a reason if poetry is called poiesis, creation (or is creation called poetry?), something that reminds me of the late Heidegger - and in English too artists are sometimes called creators. Derrida is a bit late to the party with his supposedly interesting discoveries, better late than never I guess.
>>10922547
>writing has long been thought of as a supplement to speech
Or maybe illiteracy was the norm and mass literacy and mass education are a novelty, i.e.: I can't stop the movements of a peasant with the written word so I will employ a form of communication that isn't for privileged people such as myself, in order to warn him of danger.
Then again the status and authority of Scripture in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, as well as the relevance for writing in the case of any and all secular lawmaking, such as constitutions, makes me question what Derrida is even doing, a Jewish man of all people can't possibly be this clueless of the political significance and priviledge of written over unwritten laws, ever since the Code of Hammurabi. Has he ever seen the blue ink on a Torah scroll?
Guys, you're making this philosopher sound like a complete idiot, am I being involved in some kind of baiting?

>>10924468
I see your point, but two things:

First, I think it's a cop out to argue that philosophers are in no place to philosophize on what society does or how we act because they're "not included." The field of critical theory is inherently grand and there can't really be anyone who fills all the roles they're referencing when referring to society. It's been an argument against philosophers since Socrates and I think it's missing the point.

Second, I get that it seems unnecessary to give such consideration to minority/marginalized groups, but from specifically an American standpoint it is important (which is why, I think, this is such a big issue in America specifically) because our credo is that all are welcome blah blah. And regardless of that, the aim of pointing out the power structure is ultimately I think to just be aware of it. Every movement needs radicals to be successful, and the radicals are what you think of when you think of identity politics (which I agree is way too intense and too much) but I think of this as a transition period where there is a surge of this sort of stuff (since about the late 80's/early 90's) until the "point is made," at which point it can die down (hopefully)

>>10918060

>What do they have to lose by representing his arguments carefully and honestly?

In Peterson's case, his brainlet Patreon cucks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uIABzV5PKY

A synopsis.

>>10925098
If Derrida were interested in honest discourse, he would have issued his arguments clearly. The whole continental tradition is built on dishonesty. The only truth about his writings we can be sure of is that his writings do not make any sense, and his behavior seems to indicate this too.

>>10918060
>implying he's wrong
Derrida IS obscurantist noise.

>>10925312
>>10925476
>I can't understand him, therefore he's obscurantist
everytiem

>>10925503
>spend time and effort deciphering the intellectual equivalent of a pyramid scheme
the joke is on you

>>10925312
Are you stuck on a particular passage? Maybe I can help you out.

>>10924583
>Yes, writers create concepts, add signifieds to signifiers, and otherwise affect language, it's been that way since the invention of literature.

This isn't exactly a discussion on literature as such; Plato was by no means a poet and nor would he want to be. Rather than isolated national examples of standardised language Derrida's focus is the constitution of 'Western thought', and it is primarily within philosophy and metaphysics that he writes. His project involves a new definition of writing, which includes but is not limited to mark-making, based on 'spacing' to the temporisation of speech.

>I can't stop the movements of a peasant with the written word so I will employ a form of communication that isn't for privileged people such as myself, in order to warn him of danger.

That would imply a standardised language of mass literacy, so you've gone in a circle.

One of the key messages of the Bible is that Jesus is the Word made manifest; the living word. God is the living God, etc. Part of that economy is that speaking the word of God is making God present. Scripture was oral first, which is why its so repetitive sometimes, so it is designed to be read aloud and supposedly restore the presence of the absent speaker/God.

>>10924468
Deconstruction may be seen as the most influential philosophical project in the humanities of the last 50 years, but there is a reason why Foucault is the most cited philosopher in the humanities -- not even the left understands Derrida, and their application of him is poor and inconsistent. Is he understandable? Certainly, but he's a lot of work for which the average undergrad is in no way prepared. Foucault's concern, loosely, has been about power structures and how they have changed over time; much easier to reference when talking about letting the homos marry or whatever. Derrida on the other hand is a lot harder to politicise, at least when it comes to his big four works regarding the development and systematic application of deconstruction. Political 'deconstruction' now is subverting tropes in cartoons.

>>10918491
I loled, holy fuck this guys >>10918478 a fag

>>10925587
It's so very, painfully, true.

>>10918450
>inherently
What's that word even doin there?

The Bible says that sweaters are gay. Prove with a citation that it doesn't.

>>10925503
>writing what you wrote then posting an obscurantist fraud
bravo

>>10918176
Kek

>>10918060
Because they are accurately paraphrasing a notoriously obtuse author, mate.

Derrida likes to take the point from the philosophy of science, in it's critique of logical positivism's verificationism, that we can't know when we completely know for absolute certain.

He then allows this apparent relativism to hang, which conveniently establishes a pseudo-epistemological basis for any claims, whatsoever.

Yet the answer to the conundrum is also within the philosophy of science, because science was building on logical positivism, not destroying it to make room for fantasy.

Science replaces verificationism with falsifiability and a focus therefore on predictive validity as an indicator of closeness to absolute truth.

More predictive validity means that the theory is more true.

A claim which cannot be falsified cannot be tested for validity, thus such claims are of no practical value, and can be ignored until such a time when they can be tested, if ever.

Derrida was just another ignorant socialist cunt, peddling nonsense in order to sound cool by the standards of a pretentious French audience.

He was a perfect example of why reading outside of your discipline is so important, otherwise you end so far up your own arse you talk nothing but shit.

>>10931747
>Derrida destroys logical positivism
>makes room for fantasy
Two claims, one false other hypocritical. He wasn't aiming to destroy or discredit the common scientific approach towards what's "true", he was merely remarking on how it performs within the epistemic model he creates. He constantly repeats throughout the text the importance of knowing such thing in order to progress or deconstruct them. You also use fantastical as some derragatory term, whilist it assumes the same position with or without Derrida's philosophy.

Think of having two values of the absolute "truth", one which isn't know and only appears as signifiers, the other as a conventional truth, nominaly scientific truth. He doesn't bar you from engaging with the knowledge you want. He actually tries emancipate from the historical western ontological beliefs which stifle other systems that don't conform with their "unfalsability."

>>10926712
>Plato was by no means a poet
Detecting unprecedented levels of brainletry in this sector. Plato was a poet/playwright before becoming a pupil of Socrates, and the reason his scholars don't dispute this account is found in his dialogues. Do sophomores even read the Symposium in Angloland?
>That would imply a standardised language of mass literacy
What are: skulls
>Jesus is the Word made manifest
*Logos
>speaking the word of God is making God present
Ye olden Israelites would kill you for this blasphemy and idolatry, maybe even some of the new ones as well
>Scripture was oral first
Then it was no Scripture and the law wasn't written
>which is why its so repetitive sometimes
No, it's repetitive because the stuff you would expect in literature from millennia later isn't there, beginning with the absent punctuation. And Moses began yet another sentence with a conjunction

>>10931747
Shouldn't you have tested this claim on a Derridean text? Where does he say 'u cant no nuthin'?

>>10924583
>Or maybe illiteracy was the norm and mass literacy and mass education are a novelty
That has absolutely nothing to do with what Plato or Derrida are talking about

>>10932773
A lot of this post is just mindless nitpicking without sight of any discussion of Derrida. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.

If Plato was a poet at some point, the work with which Derrida engages is not his poetry, its his philosophy. Western metaphysics didn't develop out of his poetry but a rigorous, systematic approach to describing how reality functions.

And what we are discussing now is the 'origins' of language, as did Derrida in Of Grammatology, that you skipped over in the first response in order to further nitpick. Again, not sure what you're doing. Are you the fag from before who wanted citations?