[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 67 KB, 900x750, jacques-derrida-2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11233093 No.11233093 [Reply] [Original]

Why does every degenerate and destructive philosophical idea has its root in France?

>> No.11233095

>>11233093
*Germany

>> No.11233098

>>11233095
*America

>> No.11233103

>>11233093

>tfw you realise Descartes was the origin of the destructive tendency

>> No.11233108

>>11233103
Care to extrapolate?

>> No.11233109

>>11233093
What exactly is destructive about him? I find contribution to lit crit invaluable.

>> No.11233114

*Judea

>> No.11233132
File: 107 KB, 776x851, 1523338025990.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11233132

>>11233093
Because it's destructive to who holds power over them, therefore granting them the best route to power

>> No.11233251

>>11233108
Dude he literally erased everything Greeks had worked for

>> No.11233258

>>11233098
Greece

>> No.11233260

>>11233093
Because they give up even in truth seeking :^)

>> No.11233310

>>11233109
please be memeing.

>> No.11233452
File: 312 KB, 700x478, postmodernes.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11233452

because they suck at managing colonies and so those who find themselves in between have the resources of a western power while having a fucked up colonial past well stored in their minds and sols. so, those broken lives use those resources to find some coherence in such mess.

compare with:

english colonies produce nothing of real value because the natives were sweeped without mercy, and the survivors have no real place in the social and political life of the new world, while those who could use its resources only care about having a good comfortable life.

spanish colonies: same thing at first, natives were sweeped and then used as slaves without social existence, and then all this mess was left to itself causing a context where life is reduced to pure survival, between the remains of tribal tradition and an imposed modern world where no ideas can sprout or develop.

i wonder about contemporary germany tho.

>> No.11233480
File: 812 KB, 540x768, f6a3ba71d11b8e56ab2d9c1fea57a431[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11233480

Because post-war France is as degenerate as post-war Japan and every single other nation brutally defeated in warfare.

You cannot expect people traumatized and humiliated in the field to produce anything but idosyncratic, degenerate philosophy and art.

>> No.11234152

>>11233103
>>11233251
Destructive is not the same as deconstructive,and Aristotle plays a huge part in his thought. If you'd even done a little research you would've seen that he's written about his relationship to ancient philosophy, look up "We Other Greeks".

>> No.11234161

>>11234152
I use destructive intentionally.
Descrates literally destroyed the Greek philosophy thanks to science, and something new was born out of him.

>> No.11234163

>>11233093
that is a rootless cosmopolitan, not a frenchman

>> No.11234168

>>11233108
Wrong use of the term extrapolate.

>> No.11234198

>>11234161
>Descarte literally destroyed the Greek philosophy thanks to science
Did he really though? He might've opened the door to new modes of thought and practise, but that's not to say the history of thought is made redundant by his discoveries. It's a paradigm shift, not necessarily the revelation of truth capital T but a far closer approximation of the underlying reality.

>> No.11234230

read (clap) the (clap) fucking (clap) authors (clap) before (clap) you (fucking kike) talk (clap) shit (clap) about (clap) them

>> No.11234325

>>11233093
>root in France
Rhizome, surely? (As in the Deleuzian concept rather than Snoop Dogg booking a plane ticket to Italy.)

>> No.11234432
File: 86 KB, 1073x535, 1519858661525.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11234432

>>11233452

>> No.11234511

>>11233310
read a fucking book

>> No.11234675

>>11234230
spoken like a true fucking twitter terrorist

>> No.11234714

>>11233108
*elaborate

/you idiot/

>> No.11234754

>DUDE NOTHING EXISTS OUTSIDE THE TEXT LMAO
>WORDS REALLY DON'T MEAN ANYTHING KEK, THEY JUST REFER TO OTHER WORDS
>LMAO YOU CAN'T ESCAPE WORDS LUL

Derrida was truly the greatest philosopher.

>> No.11234773

>>11234754

>derrida was the best philosopher

Even that statement has now been deconstructed lol

>> No.11234845

>>11233480
dumb

>> No.11234854

Derrida is just a Wittgenstein plagarizer.

>> No.11234884

>>11234230
The would have written clearly if they were meant to be read.

>> No.11234889

>>11233093
Pretty much all of those French philosophers took after Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Hegel

>> No.11234919

>>11234889
And most of them also took the worst parts of Nietzsche, Heidegger and Hegel.

>> No.11234931

>>11234854
this

>> No.11234984

What is with with Americans, who have the most degenerate and hedonistic culture on Earth, constantly LARPing as bourgeois elitists?

Cringe-inducing.

>> No.11234991

>>11233480

WN critiques are the bane of humanity.

>muh postmodernism is evil

literally the most stupid, uninteresting, and ham-fisted of posturing.

>> No.11235001

OP is American.

>> No.11235053

>>11234984
Americans on the internet ARE bourgeois elitists you retard. They aren't LARPing.

>> No.11235092

KGB did that. You already know about Kristeva. Many of these people were REAL members of the Communist Party. Also it is known that the USSR sponsored the figures of the Frankfurt School (in the Soviet Russia the work of these authors was banned). Time bombs. 'Russian hackers' even before the Internet.

>> No.11235156

>>11234984
assblasted by the fact that getting welfare in america still puts you in the top 1% of the world.

>> No.11236035

>>11235092

Center for Cultural Freedom shills off the board IMMEDIATELY

>> No.11236059

>>11233093
>Make serious Derrida thread
Gets archived with less than 4 posts all shitposting
>Make /pol/ meme thread about degeneracy
Get (you)s instantly
It pains me how low /lit/ has fallen

>> No.11236109

>>11233480
>every single other nation brutally defeated in warfare
Then why does America produce the single most degenerate culture the world has ever seen? Is it because of Vietnam?

>> No.11236118

>>11234168
>>11234714
It's a meme, you dips.

>> No.11236128

>>11233098
>>11233095
*france

>> No.11236135

>>11234152
>deconstructive
kill yourdelf faggot this was a derrida hate thread

>> No.11236141

>>11233093
two reasons: folks being lefty and stupid, and having the worst type of jews in europe, the french jews.
Lacan, derrida, 68 revolution, etc

>> No.11236475

>>11235092
Cool, I like communists such as myself.

>> No.11236517

>>11234754
>say rock
>point to rock that exists in my senses (and presumably others)
Obviously this rock is not a word. Even in this case, i refer to the concept of a rock in your mind since i have no actual rock to refer to. A word is only meaningless if its definition (or words in the definition) never refers to an object of the senses or a concept in ones mind

>> No.11237301

>>11233093
>implying Derrida didn't save metaphysics by making it relevant in a scientific and technological age when babbies are on /lit/ trying to say philosophy is dead

>> No.11237304

>>11234884
There's reading and then there's whatever you do

>> No.11237310

>>11234754
He's right though. The essence of a being doesn't issue forth from some metaphysical ideal, we only can tell what things are by what they're not.

>> No.11237329

>>11237310
No, he's not right. When I say the word love, everyone knows what I mean, even though other words must be used if I want to give a strict definition of the word love.

The semantic content of a word is immediate and cannot be relative. If it was, communication wouldn't and couldn't exist.

>> No.11237338

>>11237329
How does it being relative deny possibility and existence for and of communication? Communication could still exist, just broken-ly. It's intersubjective and thus relative. Think 'meme'

>> No.11237351

>>11237329
It's a pretty wild assumption that everybody knows what you mean when you speak, specially with a concept as nebulous as love

>> No.11237353

>>11237338
How is the meaning of a meme relative? I'm not talking about relativity in the sense that there are people who understand something and there are people who don't, I am talking about the signified, e.g the semantics of a word.

If I say the word "tree" to someone who is an English speaker and they start to doubt the meaning of the word tree, how is this not the definition of a loss of communication?

>> No.11237360

>>11237329
Maybe you should actually read Derrida.

>A noun is proper when it has but a single sense. Better, it is only in this case that is is properly a noun. Univocity is the essence, or better, the telos of language. No philosophy, as such, has ever renounced this Aristotelian ideal. This ideal is philosophy. Aristotle recognizes that a word may have several meanings. This is a fact. But this fact has right of entry into language only in the extent to which the polysemia is finite, the different significations are limited in number, and above all sufficiently distinct, each remaining one and identifiable. Language is what it is, language, only insofar as it can then master and analyze polysemia. With no remainder. A nonmasterable dissemination is not even a polysemia, it belongs to what is outside language.

>> No.11237366

>>11237351
I didn't say speak. I said words. Most people have some direct semantic connection to words.

The word "love" means something to every single English speaker.

>> No.11237367

>>11237329
lol

>> No.11237371

>>11237360
>the different significations are limited in number

Literally exactly what I am talking about.

>> No.11237373

>>11237366
>means something

This avoids what is actually at stake with Derrida. Meaning 'something' isn't as strong as you would like it to be. A word only ever conveying the very thing to which it refers is the traditional idea in metaphysics.

>> No.11237376

>>11237371
So you've falsely attributed an argument to Derrida in order to attack him.

>> No.11237382

>>11237373
>Meaning 'something' isn't as strong as you would like it to be.

It is strong enough to be specifically connected to a single word.

Nobody is going to ever mistake the meaning of the word love, for the meaning of the word rock.

>> No.11237383

>>11237353
Relative in that ito 'action' commonality is understood, but there is never static meaning/absolute definition of anything. Meaning differs and is constantly deferred to other 'pointers' which are communicable through description, writing etc. And in communicating there is no end point, no reachable 'final' consensus or agreement. Only partial understanding conferred by text, in writing, and context (historical et al) in politics.

>t. drunk and south african but i mean what i say

>> No.11237387

>>11237376
More like I'm actually surprised that he agrees with me and not the faggots in this thread.

>> No.11237388

>>11234198
>a far closer approximation of the underlying reality.
what humanist scholars mean by this?

>> No.11237395

>>11237382
>It is strong enough

Again, still not what is at stake. You live in a post-Derridean world and you are not familiar with philosophy so you don't understand how metaphysics has changed. If you don't believe there is only ever a one-to-one transpositional relationship between idea and word then you agree with Derrida.

>> No.11237404

>>11237395
>If you don't believe there is only ever a one-to-one transpositional relationship between idea and word then you agree with Derrida.

Not really. I'm pretty sure de Saussure said that in the 19th century.

>> No.11237411

>>11237404
Yes, Derrida explicitly states he is dealing with the consequences of Saussure.

>> No.11237425

>>11233132
this fucking image makes me so mad

>> No.11237426

>>11237411
Either way, I'm pretty sure most vocabulary is one-to-one to most individual people.

Now, interpersonally however, it clearly changes because people abstract differently.