No one here understands any of these thinkers

[Anonymous No.11849346]

No one can speak clearly and rigorously about them. They are basically appealed to by pseuds who know they are important but do not really know why. Pseuds who haven’t put the necessary time and effort into reading and understanding them (or put the necessary time into learning how to write about philosophy).

Prove me wrong.

[king stannis baratheon first o(...) !9fB.6ikQAA No.11849354]

did you make this thread in response to my NIETZSCHE thread?

[Anonymous No.11849369]

>>11849354
Let us not fixate on the symptoms (your thread) and instead use this thread to tackle the disease, or, indeed, to prove my hypothesis wrong (something which you will be manifestly incapable of doing if your other efforts give any indication of your capacity for doing philosophy).

[king stannis baratheon first o(...) !9fB.6ikQAA No.11849378]

>>11849369
YOU are the one who cannot speak of these things
you must prove through the provision of a DISCOURSE/RATIO/LOGOS that you are capable of comprehending their works.
the burden of proof lies heavy, on your shoulders, not mine

[Anonymous No.11849379]

Looking forward to reading nothing of substance ITT, from OP or anybody else.

[Anonymous No.11849405]

>>11849379
OP here. I’m happy to not write anything substantial in this thread. I want to see if anyone else here might actually be capable of it. Does that make me a hypocrite, for making another thread whose image bears the faces of the men I am claiming people defer to yet cannot intelligently talk about? Yes. But I do not care.

[king stannis baratheon first o(...) !9fB.6ikQAA No.11849411]

>>11849405
You're polluting this community. You could contribute quality CONTENT to this place but you choose not to. You Ty to shame the legitimate seekers of wisdom here. You are a fool. You do no understand the purpose of this watering-hole.

[Anonymous No.11849421]

>>11849411
You might be right, but I wish there were someone with whom I could actually talk about Nietzsche and Derrida, in the way one would in a philosophy seminar, where a good professor would keep the people who hadn’t done the readings and thought through them from chattering on incessantly about ideas they have not even gotten remotely close to clarifying for themselves.

[king stannis baratheon first o(...) !9fB.6ikQAA No.11849424]

>>11849421
go take a seminar then
pledge your allegiance to the UNIVERSATANITY

[Anonymous No.11849443]

>>11849424
What’s your opinion on anti-psychotics?

[king stannis baratheon first o(...) !9fB.6ikQAA No.11849447]

>>11849443
I'm with DELEUZE AND GUATTARI on this one.

[Anonymous No.11849449]

>>11849447
Clearly

[Anonymous No.11849466]

What a stupid thread. If you really wish to discuss Nietzsche, Heidegger, or Derrida why don't you ask us a question related to some problem provoked by any of these three thinkers? Or perhaps a problem you think intertwined these three? Maybe you could even refer to H's N lectures, and how Kristeva (a student of Derrida) wrote to refute H's reading. And maybe some strengths or problems with either of their readings. Or maybe, since you're so learned about Derrida, you could help explain the Geschlect lectures. But no, you make a thread to complain about how alone on the peak of the mountain you are, when really you haven't even begun the ascent.

You're the worst type of student. It shows so clearly.

[Anonymous No.11849506]

>>11849466
I don’t claim to be some master interpreter of any of these thinkers. But I think the format of anonymity is conducive to overstatement and intellectual laziness of the highest order. When I want to follow seriously some train of thought on here, with others following it with me, what I usually am confronted with is a bunch of overgeneralized borderline shitposts:

“By will to power, Nietzsche, the anti-Christ who was actually a Christian in his anti-Greek Christian approach to being pro-Greek, presages the Heideggerian ready-to-hand, which of course is little more than a rethinking of the Japanese tea ceremony. Derrida knew this, and it is what he referred to as phallogocentrism, or, as Plato said, the logos that IS.”

[king stannis baratheon first o(...) !9fB.6ikQAA No.11849511]

>>11849506
No, seriously go post on a more serious forum if you want better discussion. /lit/ is dilettantes, trolls, and pathetic MFA students.

[Anonymous No.11849531]

>>11849511
Sorry man I’ve been grouchy to you

[Anonymous No.11849570]

>>11849506
>intellectual laziness
Is there anything more pathetic than someone who sincerely concerns themselves with intellectualism?

[Anonymous No.11849577]

>>11849346
we've had multiple insightful Nietzsche and Heidegger threads, Derrida is a snake pedophile faggot who knew absolutely nothing and actively displayed his pseudery in interviews. other than the illegitimate lineage from N to Derrida there is no realtion. >>11849443
they do not work and have about the same long term results as a placebo or just leaving the disease to run its course. psychotic people are on a clock and they will either stabilize and persist until old age triggers the psychosis or kill themselves one way or another either through poor self care or death by cop or drugs or homelessness or suicide. There is nothing to be done, it is a death sentence almost invariably unlike depression which has a very high recovery rate despite what psychiatrists will preach to you inside their little cells.

[Anonymous No.11849592]

>>11849506
You're right to a good extent but it's not as fatal as you say. I'm a PhD student who studies continental philosophy and I've been on the board for like 6-7 years (maybe more?), and just recently I was thinking of some unbelievably dilettantish posts I made 2-3 years ago, let alone 5. I couldn't even identify with the posts in my memory when I recalled them. It wasn't just the know-nothing content, it was the fact that I was willing to open my fat fucking mouth despite clearly knowing nothing. Apparently I just wanted to feel like I knew something because I was participating.

Now that I'm a bit older I see this trend everywhere on the board. There are especially a lot of posts where people are calling out other posters for poor understanding of some text/thinker, but only making that negative critique in a snippy and cryptic way, and never actually supplying a positive correction or saying something substantive otherwise. It's obvious that they THINK they know enough to rebuke someone for their poor understanding, and get a dopamine rush for climbing the secret totem pole of smart people on /lit/, but they're also wary of being mistaken and they know they definitely can't actually hold a full discussion on the topic, so they limit themselves to sniping, and you get back-and-forth exchanges of people defensively hiding that they're both equally uncertain of their own mastery over the material. Other things like this too.

But all this being said, again, I remember doing this shit when I was younger, and most of these posters are probably 18-23 year olds who just want to participate. Underneath the posturing is a genuine interest and curiosity, and underneath the inferiority complex is a genuine frustration at not knowing when they will have crossed the threshold of being able to have a full-fledged discussion. That's a frustrating feeling. You can vaguely assimilate knowledge about Heidegger for years, and a Heidegger thread will pop up and you still can't even tell whether you're in the loop or out of the loop.

tldr this board is composed of people with decent intentions to learn, but they are at varying points along the road of actually fulfilling those intentions, and this place functions as a kind of halfway-house for venting the frustration of being perpetually on-the-road.

[Anonymous No.11849620]

>>11849592
>wall of text
lol stemfaggot

[Anonymous No.11849769]

>>11849577
>likes Heidegger
>dislikes Derrida
This is how you spot pseuds

[Anonymous No.11849787]

>>11849769
Wrong

[Anonymous No.11849797]

>>11849787
Nah, he’s right anon. Your pseud is showing.

[Anonymous No.11849813]

>>11849797
Actually, I'm NS, and I only come here to be by far the hugest barracuda in a stupendously diminutive puddle.

[Anonymous No.11849833]

>>11849813
Stupendously diminutive flirts with pleonasm, and I am utterly certain you are a pseud.

[Anonymous No.11849847]

>>11849833
Pitiable riposte from a vegetative harlequin

[Anonymous No.11849882]

>>11849847
So you like Heidegger, but dislike Derrida, eh? We could talk about Heidegger if you were interested to see how poorly flashy rhetoric masks an incapacity for genuine thought.

[Anonymous No.11849889]

>>11849882
Begin by defining genuinety

[Anonymous No.11849906]

>>11849889
For a hater this sounds like a very derridean way to begin a conversation about philosophy. Let’s talk about Heidegger. Have you read Being and Time?

[Anonymous No.11849917]

>>11849906
Yeah of course, twice, but not in German so no, not really.

[Anonymous No.11849973]

>>11849917
Do you think his “system” can comfortably make sense of evental changes in a given culture’s pre-ontological understanding of being from within that culture? It’s something I’ve struggled to make sense of.

The large scale referential totality that constitutes “significance” for any given culture (that is, its shared, background understanding of being) gets articulated and maintained by the constant interpretive activity of the one (or the they). But one’s dasein is itself a part of the One, as is every other dasein, and dasein, according to Heidegger, can only interpret being in ways prescribed by the One. Other interpretations simply do it show up as possible. So if everyone is already part of the One, and the One delimitation all possible interpretations of being, how do new interpretations of being arise within a culture? Clearly the history of humanity shows that radically different interpretations do in fact emerge. And one could say “oh the new interpretations arise simply from one “culture” coming into contact with another”, but I think that sheds no light on the evental moments in humanity’s understanding of being, like golden age Athens or the Enlightenment. Obviously those were instances where radically new, arguably qualitatively different, interpretations of being suddenly emerged. Can this be made sense of on heidegger’s terms?

(I’m not expecting a solution, but it’s something to talk about.)

[Anonymous No.11849976]

>>11849973
“The One delimits”* sorry I’m phoneposting

[Anonymous No.11849994]

>>11849973
I'm not sure how to respond directly, but Heidegger's early project was to return to when being made itself known as a problem by disclosing itself as itself. For him Aufklarung was not a radical departure but a continuation of the rational ontotheology inaugurated by Plato and Aristotle.

[Anonymous No.11850019]

>>11849994
I guess I’m trying to apply Heidegger to a formal iteration of the problem represented by, say, something like contemporary global capitalism—an interpretation of being that risks becoming the only one on the planet. Does the Heideggerian framework provide us with a means of explaining how we might break out of totalizing interpretations of being given that all he claims we can access are interpretations pre-given by the One of our historical moment?

Do you see that impetus of a return explicitly in Being and Time? Obviously he talks about the forgetting of the meaning of being, but the existential analytic seems so much more like positive philosophy based on contemporarily accessible phenomenological description than anything resembling a return to the wellsprings of pre-platonic thought.

[Anonymous No.11850051]

>>11850019
I guess in a way global capitalism is a bad example insofar as he would see it as derivative of the metaphysics of presence and ontotheology.

It’s just this weird borderline contradiction in his thought where his actual goal is to do something new in philosophy but this philosophy itself doesn’t seem to account for how new interpretations are possible.

[Anonymous No.11850058]

>>11850019
Absolurely the return was crucial, and revolutionary, for him we all had to go back. He said elsewhere that he could find commonality with the Marxists in the sense that homelessness was becoming the defining characteristic of the modern being under planetary technology if you want to link it more to your specific contemporary concerns.

[Anonymous No.11850074]

fuck off OP

YOU are a total pseud from the very start, thinking you discovered plebeian mentality, and asking us for proof LOL what proof do you need faggot? Anyone with a brain has known and felt in the core of his being since the age of 8 that plebs dominate this world and 99% of the population is incapable of thought. The true intellectuals don't need to point this out on 4chan.

shit thread

[Anonymous No.11850075]

nobody knows or reads or comprehends anything, on this board or any other website, or any place irl. it's not exclusive to these thinkers. kys

[Anonymous No.11850090]

>>11850058
Are you this dude?
>>11849592

[Anonymous No.11850093]

>>11849769
Both were peddlers of nonsense, but one can like Heidegger with liking the frog's Saussureian sophistry.

[Anonymous No.11850094]

as a brainlet I've come to terms with the fact that I may never entirely understand Nietzsche the way he intended his writing to be understood. However with each reading I understand a little more and things become slightly clearer. From what I believe I have understood, Nietzsche workd has changed me significantly, and whether I have interpreted it wrong or not doesn't have a bearing on this. As far as I understand him, Nietzsche was all about interpretation and perspectivism, so I think he would be more than happy with the varying interpretations of his work. Perhaps their is no "correct" interpretation at all.

[Anonymous No.11850097]

>>11850090
No, as bad as he is, I'm something far worse >8^)

[Anonymous No.11850100]

>>11850097
A community college professor?

[Anonymous No.11850114]

>>11850100
>being qualified by the State
Fuck no, I just bully anons into reading in the vain hope they might finally BTFO me one day, which obviously will never happen but it's the journey that counts

[Anonymous No.11850130]

Is someone trying to retroactively prove the quality of the trannie thread?

[Anonymous No.11850146]

>>11850114
Sounds like someone’s father wanted a football player

[Anonymous No.11850151]

>>11850146
Okay Sigmund, it's totally not you who was projecting all along.

[Anonymous No.11850155]

>>11850151
Please! Anyone! I’m a big scary barracuda and I need some (you)s to sleep!

[Anonymous No.11850157]

>>11850130
>tranny thread
You're going to have to be way more specific

[Anonymous No.11850164]

>>11850155
That line really was memorable, wasn't it? Just another effortless throwaway, you can keep it. It'll stay burned into your mind anyway.

[Anonymous No.11850180]

>>11850164
You forget things you read less than an hour ago?

>thinks he’s a fish and has a memory like one, too.

[Anonymous No.11850191]

>>11850180
>still reeling, over fish
You jelly I'm a star?

[Anonymous No.11850209]

>>11850191
I knew an image was coming with whatever lines you’d limp-wristedly cast out next.

Your words are enough, anon. Don’t let anyone make you feel otherwise.

[Anonymous No.11850244]

>>11850191
It’s been ten minutes and I need to sleep. Just submit your rough draft.

[Anonymous No.11850247]

>>11850244
"Bitter talentless ingrate" is all i got, sweet dreams anon ><{{{^>

[Anonymous No.11850250]

>>11850247
Kek. Night buddy

[Anonymous No.11850293]

>>11850157
There was a thread yesterday that was about that tranny eceleb neomarxist.

[Anonymous No.11850327]

Only thing I know of Nietzcshe, having never ever read any of him, is that every edgelord teenager loves him - and that is enough persuasion for me to not read him at all.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Anonymous No.11850339]

>>11849592
>mfw i recognize myself in this
>mfw willing to learn, but not there yet

[Anonymous No.11850342]

>>11849511
but dilettantes aren't in academia

[Anonymous No.11850346]

>>11849592
>Assumes that negation is an invalid form of argumentation
Lol good try habibi

[Anonymous No.11850405]

>>11849346
What you said is not true.

Am I a continental philosopher yet?

[king stannis baratheon first o(...) !9fB.6ikQAA No.11850418]

>>11850342
I specified 3 categories of people, didn't I? Are you ILLITERATE?

[Anonymous No.11850475]

>>11850418
Trolls are non-entities, MFA's are by extension in academia because graduate school, and therefore on dilettantism is excluded from uselessness. Are you retarded?

[king stannis baratheon first o(...) !9fB.6ikQAA No.11850514]

>>11850475
>Trolls are non-entities

[Anonymous No.11850584]

Who cares about Heidegger and Derrida

[Anonymous No.11850606]

>>11849346
If this is true, shouldn't you have better things to do? If you understand their philosophy and how to write about philosophy so we'll, why aren't you writing about philosophy instead of posting this?

It's hard to take seriously someone who posts a thread to feel superior. Insecurity is repulsive.

[Anonymous No.11850703]

I understand Nietzsche quite well, almost finished reading all his works.
but for the other two this:
>>>11850584

[Anonymous No.11850742]

>>11850584
No one worth listening to

[Anonymous No.11850928]

I worry a lot about how much I don't understand Nietzsche. In everything I read of him I cannot help but feel a lot of his sadness and human passion. He definitely did not write self-help books but most of his writing is empowering to me in an enlightening kind of way, him exposing his untimely soul, his utter greed for life affirmation, self assertion and razor sharp critiques of thinking's inherent psychological roots. HE places value on things in a way I haven't seen before. In every scathing condemnation of his love shines through for an idea of a humanity that surpasses our own. I hate to use this word but I love his yearning, his idealism. The lack of scientific rigor in his work is obvious but that's intended. I feel like he's writing for a few like-minded individuals across time - people who suffer from the world, yet who also deeply love it.

[Anonymous No.11850965]

Well in my experience anything said about NEETchan will result in some autist saying: uhm sweetie akschually you don't understand him.
Eventually it leads to Orgy of the Will.
There is not much to understand in that dumb kraut's works.

[Anonymous No.11850969]

>>11849346
Fuck, marry kill.

But anyway, Nietzsche is the easiest to understand, also because he's the best writer of the three by lightyears. Heidegger is a blubbering coot, barely has anything coherent to say. You have to dig and dig with his books just to get the tiniest little nugget of clarity.

Derrida is a pseudo par excellence. I wouldn't touch him with a ten foot pole. His gibbering nonsense has wasted the time of far too many.

[Anonymous No.11850970]

>>11849346
Nobody understands Einstein because he was a GENIUS too, duh.

[Anonymous No.11851047]

>implying anyone can speak clearly and rigorously about another person

Most people can’t even speak rigorously and clearly about themselves

[Anonymous No.11851094]

>>11850969
Derrida is just a banal version of Blanchot imo

[Anonymous No.11851105]

>>11851047
I agree with you

[Anonymous No.11851245]

So is there a lit consensus on Nietzsche?

Like, 2nd hand material that interprets him correctly/the best?

I remember reading that you can't understand him without good understanding of Greek literature (poets/plays etc.).

I've part of Genealogy of Morals and it didn't seem anything complicated.. pretty straightforward stuff so am I missing something?

Desu I've been afraid ever since to read more of him.

[Anonymous No.11851635]

>>11850327
>¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Go back to where you came from where you can be as pathetic as this and get upvotes for it.

[Anonymous No.11851639]

>>11851635
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Anonymous No.11851664]

>>11849346
true of heidegger, not the other two

[Anonymous No.11851667]

>>11851245
The consensus is that he is very much worth studying. Not only reading, but studying. To do that you not only start with the Greeks, you also go through philosophical corpus beyond that and only then go about studying Nietzsche's works. You may think that you understand Nietzsche, or anyone else for that matter, but the truth is you have to almost become Nietzsche to understand Nietzsche, and that means dedicating yourself to careful study of philosophy in its entirety and at the source (as opposed to reading footnotes to a Kaufmann translations).
In that sense, the OP is right, most of anons on /lit/ don't understand Nietzsche or Heidegger or Derrida. Sure, the discussion is usually a notch higher from the absolute meme-level dopamine-philosophising of reddit or youtube, but valuable posts in philosophical threads are nonetheless a rarity.

[Anonymous No.11851670]

I don't even know who the last one is lol

[Anonymous No.11851672]

>>11851667
that applies to everyone basically, i was more interested in particulars

[Anonymous No.11851747]

All I need to know is they're dumb nerds

[Anonymous No.11851769]

>>11849346
How can you claim to understand these people and also think you deserve to be proven wrong?

[Anonymous No.11851925]

>>11849354
>>11849378
holy fucking shit lmao can we ban trip fags already

[Anonymous No.11851929]

>>11849882
imagine being this much of an analytic

[Anonymous No.11852379]

>>11849354

[Anonymous No.11853784]

>>11852379
Butthurt

[Anonymous No.11854162]

>>11849378
>lol burden of proof checkmate theists

[Anonymous No.11854175]

>>11852379
Truthfully I wouldn't mind it if they didn't all namefag, too.

[Anonymous No.11854192]

>>11849449
lethal. ban trip fags

[Anonymous No.11854195]

>>11849511
what would those forums be

[Anonymous No.11854209]

>>11849592
this problem exists in real life, too, but people have degrees and such to prove that they are out of the loop. here, it's just chaos