/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11523616]

Anyone else fall for this scam artists take on Derrida?
Here is a video from 1993 from Roderick debunking attacks made on Derrida, apparently even then some loonies completely misrepresented him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvAwoUvXNzU

When I saw this I did some more digging and pretty much all of Peterstein's claims about him are false, I don't understand how someone with a supposed genius tier IQ (above 3 SD's) can be so misread on the issue unless it's deliberate. In that case, what is his endgoal?

[Anonymous No.11523624]

>>11523616
>In that case, what is his endgoal?
Obviously he has a (conservative) political agenda.

[Anonymous No.11523628]

>>11523624
Derrida is conservative though.

[Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 No.11523647]

>>11523616
It's not about Peterson attacking Derrida, it's that philosophical pragmatism (which is the school of thought Peterson subscribes to) is antithetical to the theoretical post-Hegelian shit of continental Europe. The two ways of thinking aren't compatible. It's not that Peterson is actively spreading lies about Derrida, it's that their fundamental axioms differ.

[Anonymous No.11523660]

>>11523616
He's wound himself up into believing this conspiracy theory about postmodernist marxists causing all off society's ills. Listening to him talk, he's clearly got a hyperactive mind and is constantly making connections between everything without slowing down and checking them out. He's built a web of connections between strawmen and thinks he has it all figured out.

It's also hilarious to hear him talk about religion, he talks as if Jung and Dostoyevsky are the foundational figures of Bible study. He's a broken record who can only engage with topics in terms of his handful of favourite writers and Marxist boogeymen.

[Anonymous No.11523666]

Derrida was french, and therefore a gay.

[Anonymous No.11523685]

Derrida's writing was intentionally written to be completely devoid of meaning, so every interpretation is of equal value.

[Anonymous No.11523690]

>>11523647
He is actively spreading lies, he constantly says that Derrida doesn't recognize a central theme, but he did exactly did, he recognized a central theme around which interpretations can be derived is a necessary function.

[Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 No.11523711]

>>11523690
What constitutes an axiom from which we can legitimately derive our interpretations form in Derrida's epistemology? Any answer that isn't "our inherent biology" is fundamentally subjective.

[Anonymous No.11523726]

>>11523616
Peterson's takes on postmodernism and Marxism come (by his own admission) from Stephen Hicks's Explaining Postmodernism. Hicks is affiliated with Brand's Objectivism school, and so his book itself owes its understanding to Brand's pet hatreds, like of Kant and Rousseau.

Revealingly, when bothered to read any Foucault (It was one of the books on madness, I think), he found it good and trivially true, as though that were a shocking discovery. But such is what you get with pseudo who can't otherwise be bothered to substantially engage with their enemies except through the mediation of other polemicists.

[Anonymous No.11523728]

>>11523647
But Peterson is fond of Nietzsche, who is a very much a “continental” philosopher.

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11523731]

Any interpretation of derrida is equally sound and valid lmao.

How will derridafags ever recover? Postmodernism btfo.

[Anonymous No.11523738]

>why would anyone do that? tell lies on the internet?
wait til you find out how off his representation of heidegger is
>but surely nobody would lie about their IQ on youtube or patreon for profit
pretty sure people who talk about their IQ would do that for free

[Anonymous No.11523739]

>>11523731
Derrida wasn’t a relativist

[Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 No.11523744]

>>11523728
Nietzsche was sort of the black sheep of that tradition though

[Anonymous No.11523748]

>>11523739
What did Derrida believe to be objectively true?

[Anonymous No.11523751]

>>11523728
Nietzsche's the only one who knew how to write in any capacity.

[Anonymous No.11523753]

>>11523748
the bits that aren't interpretation

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11523758]

>>11523744

[Anonymous No.11523759]

>>11523753
What constitues an objective ethic in Derrida's eyes?

[Anonymous No.11523768]

>>11523759
idk dude, i'm not in his eyes. that's like asking me to guess how close to god's grace i am. idfk, maybe jesus doesn't like me more than your overcurious ass?

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11523782]

>>11523739
Then who is?

[Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 No.11523786]

>>11523758
The appeal of Nietzsche to teens is that he bucked continental trends by critiquing Socrates in ways that his post-Enlightenment co-academics found almost sacrilegious

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11523789]

>>11523786
Don't force me to embarrass you.

[Anonymous No.11523796]

>>11523768
If you can't state Derrida's notion of objective ethics, then how do you defend him against charges of relativism?

[Anonymous No.11523799]

>>11523616
Has Peterson not gone as far as to admit that he's never read Derrida at all?

[Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 No.11523804]

>>11523789
Go ahead, my degree isn't in philosophy so my ego can take being proven wrong on this subject

[Anonymous No.11523807]

>>11523616
we all know Derrida stole all his good ideas from highly redpilled aryan thinkers such as Heidegger and Paul de Man

[Anonymous No.11523817]

>>11523796
i didn't, and if it were objective it wouldn't need me to. i said that he believed the bits that were objective were the bits that weren't interpretation, but most of his work deals with interpretation so i don't know why you think you're going anywhere with this, but i wish you luck in the face of both empirical reality and objective truth when it rips your face off in the spiritual presence of whatever god you worship.

[Anonymous No.11523819]

>>11523782
Tylo B. Chillin

[Anonymous No.11523832]

>>11523616
That guy looks more like Peterson's daughter than Peterson does

[Anonymous No.11523833]

>>11523817
>the claim that Derrida was a relativist who viewed every epistemological framework as a different way of interpreting the same data is false
>but I don't know what he actually believed to be objectively true because he only cared about interpretation
waste of fucking time talking to people who take him seriously

[Anonymous No.11523836]

>>11523728
That's another thing, one of his heroes ie: Nietzsche was basically a gateway to Foucault and others, how can he not see that he is essentially in the same camp.

[Anonymous No.11523842]

>>11523711
Just because it's subjective it can still be a useful function for interpretation of the text.

[Anonymous No.11523844]

>>11523836
Just because Nietzsche inspired Foucault doesn't mean that Nietzsche and Foucault share identical epistemologies. Plato inspired Kant. Doesn't mean that someone can't enjoy Plato but disagree with Kant.

[Anonymous No.11523849]

>>11523833
>if i misconstrue his position then he'll say that facts don't exist
>when he said all facts lay side by side and one cannot erase another any more than you can erase him having said that and making your retarded argument wrong before you were even born
you're going to be a wrong a lot, i'd stop avoiding it.

[Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 No.11523857]

>>11523842
The pragmatist rejoinder to that would be that not every subjective interpretation is conducive to a healthy, stable society, however defined. So not every interpretation should be given equal weight.

[Anonymous No.11523867]

>>11523849
I don't care about what Derrida said about "facts." The issue doesn't concern facts, it concerns how facts are interpreted to create ethical and epistemological frameworks, and as far as I can tell Derrida can't seem to tell the difference between a framework that's useful and one that isn't.

[Anonymous No.11523868]

>>11523857
>The pragmatist rejoinder to that would be that not every subjective interpretation is conducive to a healthy, stable society, however defined. So not every interpretation should be given equal weight.
This. I love how Derrida cocksuckers don't even realize that philosophy is pointless if it doesn't give a cogent tool of analysis that can be used by others.

Derrida was the biggest pseud of the 20th century.

[Anonymous No.11523869]

>>11523726
>Stephen Hicks's Explaining Postmodernism
I saw a quote from that in a thread here and it was the most laughably misleading bullshit.

[Anonymous No.11523870]

>>11523759
Read his works on the ethics of hospitality

[Anonymous No.11523878]

>>11523844
You have obviously read very little and will probably end up reading Plotinus before Kant OR Plato (obvious from your remarks about Kant and Plato).
Peterson doesn't understand N either. How can you claim death of god was not triumphalist? How can you claim the heaviest burden was not designed so as to replace, in joy (gay science anyone?), the god's place in meaning making, if you have actually read Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.11523885]

>>11523867
>i have never met humans
okay, so how are you going to get all the humans to have the same interpretation of the magical universally interpretable framework you've interpretted a need for? how deep in the STEM acronym are you?

[Anonymous No.11523892]

>>11523878
>How can you claim death of god was not triumphalist?

>"Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent?

Doesn't sound triumphalist to me

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11523898]

>>11523804
Your post regarding the manner in which "teenagers" view, and become attracted to the philosophies of Nietzsche as an iconoclast of Socratean presuppositions is utterly ignorant of Thomas Aquinas and the epistemological implications of his ontological propositional logic.

[Anonymous No.11523900]

>>11523868
>>11523711
>>11523647
>implying pragmatism and deconstruction don't feed off on each-other
read Rorty some day will ya?

[Anonymous No.11523914]

>>11523857
>So not every interpretation should be given equal weight
Derrida never says that the weight function should be equally distributed to all interpretations.

[Anonymous No.11523916]

>>11523885
It's not about getting a universally-agreed upon framework (although we do have some dominant frameworks), it's about privileging the frameworks that are the most universally useful, and finding places where different frameworks overlap in order to create something close to (but not quite) universal.

[Anonymous No.11523920]

>>11523900
>implying pragmatism and deconstruction don't feed off on each-other
They don't. That's like saying logic and pseudointellectualism feed off of each other. The latter might feed off the former, but it's more of a parasitic relationship than a symbiotic one.

[Anonymous No.11523922]

>>11523920
Logic is for pseuds

[Anonymous No.11523925]

>>11523922
>muh interpretationism
>muh moral relativism
Logic has given us the modern world. It is unreasonably effective at teasing apart the universe. Nothing Derrida has ever uttered is useful. I'd take a burger-flipper over a Derrida scholar because at least the latter produces something useful for society.

[Anonymous No.11523937]

>>11523922
THIS

" One chooses logical argument only when one has no other means. One knows that one arouses mistrust with it, that it is not very persuasive. Nothing is easier to nullify than a logical argument: the tedium of long speeches proves this. It is a kind of self-defense for those who no longer have other weapons. Unless one has to insist on what is already one's right, there is no use for it. The Jews were argumentative for that reason; Reynard the Fox also — and Socrates too?"

[Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 No.11523939]

>>11523914
His lack of value judgement does create the impression of equal weight in the minds of the people who read him. The view that interpretation and epistemology are synonymous automatically sows doubt when it comes to privileging one mode of thinking over another.

[Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 No.11523946]

>>11523939
Basically there's no form of hierarchical thinking in Derrida, as far as I can tell

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11523965]

>>11523937
What he is saying in this quote, you psuedo, is that the substrate of the arguments put forth by men of deep and profound comprehension of the nature of the quandary favor the framing and articulation of the conclusion of the propositional logic forming the demonstrable proof of the conclusion itself, instead of dryly presenting the logic as if it is as convincing without the character of the man whom is acting as surrogate for the outsourcing of the cognitive processing required to comprehend conclusion and process both.

[Anonymous No.11523973]

Answer me this though, why did Derrida never deconstruct the Communist Manifesto? Tell me this, why did his followers never deconstruct Freud?

[Anonymous No.11523976]

>>11523916
>it's about privileging the frameworks that are the most universally useful
and that would be? and you would make everyone value it how?

[Anonymous No.11523980]

>>11523973
please stop posting my fetish

[Anonymous No.11523985]

>>11523976
>and that would be?
Some of the values shared by most religious traditions (like the golden rule) would be candidates.
>and you would make everyone value it how?
Narrative art is probably the best means of imparting ethical frameworks that currently exists

[Anonymous No.11523989]

>>11523980
How would you describe this fetish?

[Anonymous No.11523991]

>>11523976
>and that would be? and you would make everyone value it how?
This. Any argument that begins with "privilege" presupposes the conclusion. WHY is it privileged? Could it be because the framework is actually the most proven and valid way of looking at the world?

[Anonymous No.11523993]

>>11523985
>Some of the values shared by most religious traditions (like the golden rule) would be candidates.
Which is why I said good luck with the experience and objective truth of any of them you choose to go with. You'll be as wrong as any of the others.
>>11523985
>Narrative art is probably the best means of imparting ethical frameworks that currently exists
You should tell that to the Catholics, their numbers are growing faster than yours.

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11523994]

>>11523973
Because the two fundamental presupposition of Marxist ideology, that individuals are foremost representatives of their collective group identity, and that those groups are separated into oppressor or oppressed categories, is too useful to the moral relativist and social constructionists. Regardless of whether or not it's true. Which it isn't.

It can be applied to any category one wishes to legitimize the intellectual degradation of an opponent based on personal characteristics.

It's basically an argument from personal incredulity and ad hominem rolled into one

[Anonymous No.11523999]

>>11523989
ichythoanthropophilia

[Anonymous No.11524008]

>>11523993
>Which is why I said good luck with the experience and objective truth of any of them you choose to go with. You'll be as wrong as any of the others.
Objective truth isn't the goal, it's a universal useful truth that's important.

[Anonymous No.11524015]

>>11523731
kek kek

[Anonymous No.11524018]

>>11524008
>Objective truth
>universal truth

Not that guy, but you are literally mincing words. When people say objective, they usually mean universal.

[Anonymous No.11524020]

>>11524008>>11524008
>it's a universal useful truth that's important.
then i suggest the raelians or the unarians or maybe nation of islam. they all believe the aliens should be consulted on the matter too. i think the catholics got rid of the galgamecs or whatever since that south park episode.

[Anonymous No.11524021]

>>11523999

Based word-smith

[Anonymous No.11524046]

>>11524018
In the pragmatic sense (which is Peterson's) they aren't the same. It's useful to separate them in order to retain the distinction between a fact and an interpretation of said fact.

[Anonymous No.11524074]

>>11523647
What the fuck would you know about any of it?

[Anonymous No.11524141]

>>11523973
>why did Derrida never deconstruct the Communist Manifesto

He did

[Anonymous No.11524149]

>>11524141

He did?

[Anonymous No.11524571]

>>11523869
It's laughably bad. When you start arguing that Rousseau and Kant are pomos, you've fucked up.

[Anonymous No.11524581]

>>11523892
But that's clearly not Nietzsche's last word on the subject. That's where Zarathustra and self-overcoming and yes-saying and value creation all come in. The death of God signals the coming of nihilism, but nihilism is an opportunity.

[Anonymous No.11524596]

>>11523925
The logic of the enlightenment gave you the modern world *and* all of its attendant crises, such as those Peterson is concerned with. I don't like most Derrida, his philosophy aims at silence and ends up being endlessly garrulous, but he points out difficulties of thought that Peterson and modern proponents of rationalism would rather ignore, and at their own peril if they don't see how the enlightenment is just unfurling by its own inner logic.

[Anonymous No.11524597]

>>11523925
>utilitarian proof calculus
>logic

The absolute state

[Anonymous No.11524602]

>>11523973
What? The former wad done in his Spectres of Marx, the latter He's taken in up in several essays and books.

[Anonymous No.11524654]

What do you guys think about Peterson being wrong in the strict academic sense of the Postmodern authors themselves, but being correct about the current sjw types and all that essentially unconsciously inheriting these kind of postmodern themes and also misrepresenting them.
I feel like he's dead on about what the kids are subscribing to today he just needs to come out and separate them and tell it like it is.,

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11524661]

>>11524654
Trusting postmodernist academia in any capacity is about the biggest red flag any scientist can give off.

You're trusting people who tell you to your face they have no moral qualms about lying to you on the basis they're in academia. What's more retarded than that? Being a postmodernist, and that's it.

[Anonymous No.11524704]

>>11523985
But per Nietzsche this is impossible. There's no going back, and to do so would be to put a bandaid on a wound that's going to fester in the same way; you'll just get a repetition of it all in a possibly more severe form.

[Anonymous No.11524760]

>>11523738
First time I've chuckled in 3 whole days, thanks for that

[Anonymous No.11524793]

does anyone else see the irony of a horde of pomos telling someone that their reading of a text is wrong?
i see it.

[Anonymous No.11524795]

>>11523898
In English, Doc

[Anonymous No.11524818]

>>11523916
How do you define useful? Genocide is useful to the genocidaire - it acquires land, free labor,and builds the prosperity of the group that shares the privileged framework on the backs of those that don't.

I don't actually want to hear your answer, but my point is that deconstruction is a useful tool to pragmatism - that you can use it to examine the position of frameworks that are being left out, and consider how you can better meet those groups desires and needs to create a more cohesive whole.

I've never read any of these guys, and only know of Jordan B Peterson as a meme

[Anonymous No.11524845]

>>11524661
>You're trusting people who tell you to your face they have no moral qualms about lying to you on the basis they're in academia.
Source?

[Anonymous No.11524855]

>>11524845
postmodernists overtly deny the existence of objective truth. and that any truth claim is just bullshit meant to dominate their racial, sexual, class enemies.
they literally do not believe in telling the truth. how can you possibly trust someone like that?

[Anonymous No.11524862]

>>11523666
satan is correct

[Anonymous No.11524864]

>>11524818
>How do you define useful?
Rawls' veil of ignorance deals with this issue. And the problem with relativism isn't that it's used as a tool of interpretation, but that it's used as way to critique the dominant ethical framework.

[Anonymous No.11524870]

>>11524864
Rawlsianism followed to its logical conclusion can only lead to a world of overfed neoliberal letzer mensch. i'd rather go full pomo nietszchean edgelord, thank you very much.

[Anonymous No.11524871]

>>11524855
>objective truth
not the other guy but I think you can reconcile the two words "universal" and "objective" using structuralism--to have the unmoved solidity of an axiom without implying the application of anything past the ontological "horizon" or "clearing" on which truth-as-correspondence sits

[Anonymous No.11524872]

>>11524855
>postmodernists overtly deny the existence of objective truth.
have they only been doing this since peterson lied to you about what sjw's were called? i think you might need a dictionary

[Anonymous No.11524886]

Ironically, as uninformed Peterson is about postmodernism, his points have pragmatic value. The picture of postmodernism/marxism he paints is self-contradictory and vague, but there is a large swath of people who genuinely hold such views. They themselves don't understand Marx or PoMo, but they don't need to when their theory comes in such a nice package and introspection about said ideas isn't expected or encouraged. I'm at uni now and regularly dealing with people without completely incoherent philosophies, particularly the more political or socially aligned ones.

[Anonymous No.11524906]

So, if Derrida isn't behind it, what the fuck is the philosophy of the new left LGTBQQIHJNFXJS++ who can't stop saying "deconstruct"?

[Anonymous No.11524908]

>>11523616
who here /postmodernhitlerist/? i am aware the term ''cultural marxism'' is etymologically unsound yet i love using it because it pisses all the right people off, for instance when used in reference to 'the lgtb community' or 'affirmative action'

[Anonymous No.11524912]

>>11524906
Derrida is behind it, but not of his own doing, and not in his own words.

[Anonymous No.11524923]

>>11524912
And how did that happen?

[Anonymous No.11524925]

>>11524908
When you troll a libtard epic style.

*brofist*

[Anonymous No.11524930]

>>11524906
>what the fuck is the philosophy of the new left LGTBQQIHJNFXJS++ who can't stop saying "deconstruct"?
it's cultural marxism, my dude. proof: next time you have the misfortune of coming face to face with those freaks, just call them out as 'cultural marxists' you won't believe the look on their faces. welp! i've been found out!

[Anonymous No.11524931]

>>11524886
you might as well call them neo-cons or hassidic jews as postmodernists or marxists at that point. they're not, they're sjws probably, and the only reason that postmodernism and marxism comes up is that the people who think they're fighting them would like to believe they know what they hate. they don't, which is why they need to lie about it.

if peterson said sjws, he'd lose prestige on the package he's selling. his fans want to believe they're up against something you'd need to read a few dense books to understand, and they want to believe they too have bested derrida by not reading him. they're the same kind of arrogant that sjws have about feminism, and sjws hate postmodernist feminism. postmodernist feminism is unlikely to make them happy at all, since that's the one that says there are no ugly women, just lazy women who didn't read vogue or suck enough cock to be considered pretty.

[Anonymous No.11524963]

The point of theory though, including this fresh Anglo-Canadian reception of Derrida, is negative: it should be judged by the debate it produces. And at least he's shilling reading and literature. If it makes you this upset try actually reading Derrida (note: Roderick ISN'T Derrida) and debating phallo-phono-logocentrism and its relation to (ethno-)centrism itself with some Lobsters, hmm?

[Anonymous No.11524996]

>>11524864
So the dominant framework should never be critiqued? Doesn't sound very robust.

[Anonymous No.11525063]

>>11524923
Different anon, but that would be a long account, of which there's a whole mess of factors and other related thinkers to sort through. Derrida is in a certain way combining a bunch of elements of other philosophers (Husserl's notion of sedimentation, Heidegger's Destruktion, Nietzsche's question of the possibility of philosophy, Hegel's systematization of history), but that combo also manifests itself as a deep skepticism of whether philosophy and metaphysics are possible, and that hits in the 60s when everyone's going crazy at the same time. In the West and in Russia you have Taylorism modifying how everything's operated, ostensibly for convenience and efficacy, but a big result is that people know less and less about how to be self-sufficient, and everything requires expert advice. And *that's* all happening at the same time that America's trying to make sense of what its doing with its black populace and how it should be shaping world politics post-WW2, and France and Britain are both "finding" themselves in light of their colonial projects and new awkward position in global politics. All this, and people are still trying to figure out whether they'll die tomorrow because it turns out we can use all of our brand new enlightenment science to either industrialize genocide or political repression (Nazis & Soviets, just to start with), or blast ourselves off the earth with our new atomic powered weapons, and the positivism that resulted in these enlightenment advances is now also shaping and guiding the professional school philosophies of America and Britain (i.e., analytic philosophy). In this mess, Derrida looks like a possible holdout for some way to dismantle the enlightenment, either in part or in whole, in order to bring us back from the edge, both because of his philosophy's skepticism of the enlightenment conceptions concerning truth and what reasoning can achieve, and because of the remaining metaphysical commitments underlying the remaining moral and ethical understandings of the enlightenment politics, which, again, look like they'll throw us into seemingly mindless wars where everyone can be blasted apart.

That's all a big part of it, as well as how it gets watered down and appears in less and less rigorous forms in English departments, analytic philosophy having moved so far away from Continental philosophy since Husserl so as to dismiss it as some bafflingly other thing. That lack of real philosophic engagement with his thought means that when it's brought into those English departments, it;s brought to students without any of the accompanying philosophic engagements that would have made it make any sense anyway, and it turns into class and ingroup signalling. That ends up happening to a lot of radical philosophy, and because everyone's learning it in English, everyone misses that, oh yeah, it's philosophy, and so everyone collectively shits the bed trying to understand it, mishmashing it all.

[Anonymous No.11525163]

>>11523939
>>11523946
That is more the fault of the reader than derrida, a philosopher's job (at least after deleuze) is simply to bring about new ideas after all, not decide what is done with them

[Anonymous No.11525248]

>>11523753
>"everything is a text"

lmao contys btfo again

[Anonymous No.11525260]

>>11525063
Terrific post, anon

[Anonymous No.11525264]

>>11523647
> it's that philosophical pragmatism (which is the school of thought Peterson subscribes to)
He wrote an entire book about meaning making and didn't even mention Peirce or semiotics. gtfo of here tripboomer

[Anonymous No.11525423]

>>11523844
>Just because Nietzsche inspired Foucault doesn't mean that Nietzsche and Foucault share identical epistemologies
What? You might want to read some Foucault and compare him with how Nietzsche comes across throughout Beyond Good & Evil. If they're not the same, they're so close as to be effectively the same. I don't think Peterson gets that.

[Anonymous No.11525690]

>>11523616
Derrida was a scam artist. Wake up.

[Anonymous No.11525694]

>>11523628
>Derrida is conservative though.

Citation needed.

[Anonymous No.11525738]

>>11524930
that look on their face is them finding out you have a mental handicap

[Anonymous No.11525754]

>>11525738
>cultural marxism has never been tried
how droll, and indeed, apropos. shrill macaws don't know they became from fierce tyrannosauruses while remaining that which they hitherto were, yet this is- - precisely -- that which the keen eye will observe. Poignant, astute and above all: IMPORTANT.

[Anonymous No.11525843]

>>11525423
Exactly, Foucault's thought process was basically molded by Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.11525871]

>>11523616
Lets be real, he's never actually read Derrida, or Foucault for that matter.

[Anonymous No.11525876]

>>11525871
He claimed that he read Foucault and that the conclusions of his work were trivial, but they were not that trivial for that time to the masses and Peterstein himself is a clinician so obviously he would already know the historical development of clinical institutions.

Foucault is the 20th century Niezsche. I also bet Peterson hasn't read on truth and lies in a nonmoral sense.

[Anonymous No.11525877]

>>11525871
Looking through a pdf copy of his book, he never cites them even though he seems to talk about their ideas a whole lot, so it's a pretty safe assumption. What poor scholarship.

[Anonymous No.11525883]

>>11525876
>Foucault is the 20th century Niezsche
This is the dumbest thing I've read all day. Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.11525901]

>>11525883
In terms of thought patterns he absolutely is.He owes almost the entirety of his work structure to Geneaology of Morals, Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense and Beyond Good and Evil.

[Anonymous No.11525904]

Daily reminder that he is a drug addict.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x35Rbe81vkU

[Anonymous No.11525907]

>>11524931
Peterson called them sjw several time already.

[Anonymous No.11525910]

>>11525901
I really wouldn't go so far as to say as "Foucault is the 20th centuries Nietzsche" simply because they shared a methodology, anon. That's quite a leap.

(I'm not the same person who replied to you initially, btw)

[Anonymous No.11525911]

>>11525877
It's almost like he's never read them and has no idea what he's talking about. Weird, right?

[Anonymous No.11525926]

>>11525911
t. pseud who needs to justify $100k degree somehow

Peterson is a UN apparatchik who was memed by /poc/ into thinking an Aryan restoration was immanent, and in a frenzied panic loosely threaded together a couple of thinkers he saw discussed there to try hook them in, which explains his whole incel schtick, in order to shill them thymoanaleptic reproductive toxins.

[Anonymous No.11525961]

>>11525910
Fair enough, I guess I should rephrase it as him being on of the most "prominent Students" of Nietzsche's thought in the 20th century.

[Anonymous No.11526146]

>>11523685
brainlet

[Anonymous No.11526163]

>>11523628
Derrida's whole thing is questioning authority brah

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11526434]

>>11524845
I possess a functional brain.

[Anonymous No.11526451]

>>11524908
damn, so much hate for de Man.

[Anonymous No.11526456]

>>11525907
the problem is that he's also calling them postmodernists and marxists of various affiliations. i mean, it not like if you call tolstoy french and black that anyone will take your third opinion that he wrote about christianity. your first two ports of call clearly make you not a tolstoy expert.

anyone who thinks an sjw could pick out a postmodernist if her liver depended on it is overestimating the skill set of an sjw. peterson thinks both he and sjws are smart enough to read heidegger, and they're both clearly not or they wouldn't be on our screens.

[Anonymous No.11526474]

>>11523726

>Peterson's takes on postmodernism and Marxism come (by his own admission) from Stephen Hicks's Explaining Postmodernism. Hicks is affiliated with Brand's Objectivism school, and so his book itself owes its understanding to Brand's pet hatreds, like of Kant and Rousseau.

Is there a source for this claim? I can definitely see this being true but I would like a confirmation.

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11526498]

>>11526456
>Referring to a group by their chosen group identifier is somehow misunderstanding them.

You're a marxist, aren't you.

[Anonymous No.11526504]

>>11523616
Rick Roderick was an absolute unit. RIP

[Anonymous No.11526610]

>>11526474
He said as much on a Reddit AMA. Just Google Peterson and Stephen Hicks.

[Anonymous No.11526618]

>>11526163
>being conservative means never questioning authority

[Anonymous No.11526851]

>>11524760
That's a while between chuckles. Hope you're doing alright mate :)

[Anonymous No.11526872]

>>11524793
but Peterson is a postmodernist.

[Anonymous No.11526885]

>>11523660
t. Armchair warrior who hasn’t published a single paper in his entire life

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11526899]

>>11524793
A keen eye.

[Anonymous No.11526924]

>>11524793
No because all texts have a core.

[Anonymous No.11527218]

>>11525063
10/10, excellent.

[Anonymous No.11528205]

>>11526474
They look like they're buddies.

https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/88obab/stephen_hicks_explaining_postmodernism/

[Anonymous No.11528223]

>>11526498
>trusting bitches when you ask them if they've read marx, and she says yeah
ask her if she's read sade, she'll say yeah, then give her the story of o. bitches don't read unless you give them smut, and you're a dumb fuck who's never read marx if you think a bluehaired starbucks sucking halfvegan queer has the vocab to understand him. stop being such a pleb, look at the first page of das kapital, and realize bitches have no morals which is why marx uses them as typifying examples of the degeneration of the species under industrial labor distribution.
oh wait, i just saw you're a trip fag, lol. it's terminal

[Anonymous No.11528533]

test

[Anonymous No.11528554]

When questioned by Serge Doubrovsky, who said; “You always speak of a non
-centre,”

Derrida replied in the following manner: First of al
l, I didn’t say that there was no centre, that we could get along without
the centre. I believe that the centre is a function, not a being -- reality, but a function. And this function is absolutely indispensable. The subject is absolutely
indispensable. I don’t destroy the subject; I situate it. That is to say, I believe that at a certain level both of experience and of philosophical and scientific discourse one cannot get along without the notion of subject. It is a question of knowing where it comes from and how it functions (Derrida, “Structure, Sign and Play”
271).

Wow, really disappointed by JP to go completely misrepresenting other people, it's kinda embarrassing really.

[Anonmouse No.11528556]

>>11523660
I'm not bothered by that kinda stuff, sure hes limited in his references but w/e. I only really cringe when he does his 'equality of outcome' and 'equity is evil' shit, genuinely sounds like a slightly above average intelligence teenager who starting watching the news three weeks ago and thinks hes worked out the secrets of world history.

[Anonmouse No.11528561]

>>11523728
I doubt Peterson even knows this, when he gets political its so obvious he never got past the introductions of most of these writers books.

[Anonymous No.11528569]

>>11523685
>implying in borrowing the lexicon of metaphysics than anything therefor written could be 'devoid of meaning'

Read some Derrida sometime

[Anonmouse No.11528570]

>>11523738
kek

[Anonmouse No.11528576]

>>11523744
He's right bang in the center of that tradition he just had snappier prose. Its actually difficult to write about complex ideas in relatively simple, jargon-free prose. Hence you will sell a lot of books and be famous if you can.

[Anonymous No.11528585]

>>11523731
Where does Derrida say that any interpretation is valid? Is it where he says explicitly that an interpretation that acknowledges the intention of the author is necessary?

[Anonymous No.11528588]

>>11523748
Obviously enough language is 'true'. Subjective/objective isn't anything really to do with Derrida so I don't know why it comes up as much as it does

[Anonymous No.11528596]

>>11523867
Please don't pretend that 'use' justifies itself.

[Anonymous No.11528602]

>>11523868
>philosophy is pointless if it doesn't give a cogent tool of analysis that can be used by others.

Proof?

[Anonymous No.11528603]

>>11524871
what does this word salad mean?

[Anonymous No.11528611]

>>11523748
see
>>11528554

[Anonymous No.11528645]

>>11528585
On the other hand, he explicitly denies the relevance of Plato's intention in his essay on the Phaedrus.

[Anonymous No.11529403]

>>11523832
Damn, Lisa from The Room looking good these days

[Anonymous No.11529716]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11530129]

>>11524795
Jeff Mangum thought Nietzsche was the first philosopher to challenge Socrates, but December reminded him that Aquinas did it. It's a dick measuring contest stacked on top of another dick measuring contest that spanned thousands of years. Life is precious.

[December !!TY0+NRMplWe No.11531056]

>>11530129
In fairness, he was the first to successfully challenge virtually everyone simultaneously and win. Not exactly an easy feat.