[ 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: 47 KB, 300x372, derrida.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15731773 No.15731773 [Reply] [Original]

"the Einsteinian constant is not a constant, is not a center. It is the very concept of variability -- it is, finally, the concept of the game. In other words, it is not the concept of something -- of a center starting from which an observer could master the field -- but the very concept of the game"

what did derrida mean by this?

>> No.15731776

>>15731773
holy shit Derrida is the dumbest fucking faggot to ever walk this earth

>> No.15731779

>>15731773
What game?

>> No.15731788

>>15731773
Where's that quote from?

>> No.15731810

>>15731773
nothing, he was trolling retarded STEMfags like Sokal and judging by this dumbfuck's >>15731776
reaction he was successful after all

>> No.15731811
File: 27 KB, 250x361, 1920_martin-heidegger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15731811

>>15731776
> holy shit Derrida is the dumb-
*hold my beer*

>> No.15731821

>>15731810
>literally I was pretending to be retarded

>> No.15731822
File: 33 KB, 349x642, derrida.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15731822

>>15731810
>HURR DURR DERRIDA WUZ BIG TIME EPIC TROLLING, HE NOT ACTUAL RETARD HE JUST PRETEND TO BE
cringe

>> No.15731844

>>15731788
unsourced hearsay

>> No.15731860

>>15731773
What's the source of the quote?

>> No.15731869
File: 49 KB, 789x750, 1593109090433.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15731869

the fact that this man was ever allowed to obtain a PhD let alone a tenured position is a testament to the absolute state of western civilization.

>> No.15731874

>>15731811
"What is to be investigated is being only and—nothing else; being alone and further—nothing; solely being, and beyond being-nothing. What about this Nothing? … Does the Nothing exist only because the Not, i.e. the Negation, exists? Or is it the other way around? Does Negation and the Not exist only because the Nothing exists? … We assert: the Nothing is prior to the Not and the Negation…. Where do we seek the Nothing? How do we find the Nothing…. We know the Nothing…. Anxiety reveals the Nothing…. That for which and because of which we were anxious, was ‘really’—nothing. Indeed: the Nothing itself—as such—was present…. What about this Nothing?—The Nothing itself nothings."

so is this the notorious depth of continental philosophy
lmao

>> No.15731876

>>15731869
he was a good philosopher, now you, anon, on the other hand...

>> No.15731894

>>15731876
im not the one pretending to be a philosopher

>> No.15731895

>>15731869
>I don't understand it so it must be dumb

>> No.15731995

>>15731874
Wittgenstein held Heidegger in high esteem and even defended this specific passage in “Dictation for Schlick”

>> No.15732036

>>15731773
Derrida's observation relates to the invariance of the Einstein field equations under nonlinear space-time diffeomorphisms (self-mappings of the space-time manifold which are infinitely differentiable but not necessarily analytic). The key point is that this invariance group “acts transitively'”: this means that any space-time point, if it exists at all, can be transformed into any other. In this way the infinite-dimensional invariance group erodes the distinction between observer and observed

>> No.15732051

>>15731874
this is the most based essay in 20th century philosophy, go suck daddy Cassirer's dick some more you bugman

>> No.15732079

>>15731894
how can you say he is not a philosopher if you aint one yourself

>> No.15732098

>>15731874
go play sudoku instead, it's more up your speed analyticuck

>> No.15732236

>>15732079
>how can you say this food is bad if you aren't a chef
retard

>> No.15732248

>>15731895
>I don't understand it so it must be deep

>> No.15732287

>>15732236
>food analogy
lol

>> No.15732389

>>15732287
>no argument
xd

>> No.15732434

>>15732389
>any eater's knowledge of food is as good as a chef's
>personal taste determines what's good
I just didn't want to humilitate, anon.

>> No.15732475

>>15732051
>this is the most based essay in 20th century philosophy,
what's it called

>> No.15732558

>>15731773
its a case of people making up stuff derrida said to get mad at.
faking science faking, if you will.
check out this article (the first one you get if you google the phrase)
http://math.bu.edu/people/nk/rr/jd.html

>> No.15732577

>>15732475
"What is Metaphysics?"
the quote posted above cuts out all of the context, argument, and explanation and only includes the deliberately provocative lines.

>> No.15732591
File: 22 KB, 485x443, 1517602970919.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15732591

>>15731874
>By a further accumulation of instances, it would be found that every comparison requires, besides the related thing, the ground, and the correlate, also a mediating representation which represents the relate to be a representation of the same correlate which this mediating representation itself represents.

haha cool analytics rule :)

>> No.15732623

>>15731773
>read translations
>don't understand it
>"WTF it's the author's fault even though he literally didn't write that!"

>> No.15732632

>>15732434
Yup, taste is subjective, thank you for agreeing with me.

>> No.15732664 [DELETED] 

>>15731995
wittgenstein never mentions heigger in his published or unpublished work, not even oncs.
heiddeger mentions wittgenstein a couple times, and they are critical against him.
wittegnstein is reported to have said this about heidegger:
> A man might be obscure and still have something important to say... But I don't trust Heidegger
wittgenstein is a giant of the history of european thought, heidegger is a bug.

>> No.15732674

>>15731995
wittgenstein never mentions heidegger in his published or unpublished work, not even once.
heidegger mentions wittgenstein a couple times, and they are both critical.
wittgenstein is reported to have said this about heidegger:
> A man might be obscure and still have something important to say... But I don't trust Heidegger
said that, wittgenstein is a giant of the history of european thought, heidegger is a bug

>> No.15732699

>>15732632
Yup, you're brain dead.

>> No.15732725

ironic bump

>> No.15732745

>>15732699
ironic coming from the bugman

>> No.15732780

>>15732745
You can't help yourself, how amusing.

>> No.15732816

>>15732745
derrida and bergson were bugmen. the aesthetics of irrationalism is due to plebeian instincts. the enlighteners were all aristocrats, the romanticists were the first examples of low caste philosophers.

>> No.15732879

>>15731773
>the Einsteinian constant is not a constant, is not a center.
it can't be a constant (relating to structuralism, not a mathematical constant) because it is defined by variance under Riemannian geometry instead of Euclidean.
>It is the very concept of variability
see above. it's nonlinear
>it is, finally, the concept of the game.
think of this as a set of rules you have to follow. chess, ZFC set theory, a sorting algorithm, etc. derrida means this in the sense that Einsteinian physics takes away the empirical evidence of the observer in favor of an abstract "game" that can be described with equations, even if it violates our experience. thus all physical laws and theories are comparable to axioms and theorems interacting like rules in a game.
>In other words, it is not the concept of something -- of a center starting from which an observer could master the field
it's not a center that a structure, namely physics, can be built around
>but the very concept of the game
rule shuffling

>> No.15732892

>>15732879
lmao

>> No.15732928

>>15731874
>What is to be investigated is being only and—nothing else; being alone and further—nothing; solely being, and beyond being-nothing. What about this Nothing? … Does the Nothing exist only because the Not, i.e. the Negation, exists? Or is it the other way around? Does Negation and the Not exist only because the Nothing exists? … We assert: the Nothing is prior to the Not and the Negation…. Where do we seek the Nothing? How do we find the Nothing….
all of this makes sense
>We know the Nothing…. Anxiety reveals the Nothing…
takes a little background to know how and why this is so, but it makes sense.
>That for which and because of which we were anxious, was ‘really’—nothing.
humor
>Indeed: the Nothing itself—as such—was present…. What about this Nothing?—The Nothing itself nothings."
that last line is up to your interpretation. it's like that on purpose.

>> No.15733130

>>15732816
>derrida and bergson were bugmen
How so?

>> No.15733198

>>15732674
>wittgenstein is a giant of the history of european thought
>The Tractatus has barely 1 original idea. the rest is just Schoppy rip-off.
Wow such giant omg.

>> No.15733224

>>15733130
the moment derrida realized his own philosophy could be weaponized to deconstruct the same things he held sacred like justice and friendship. It's self defeating trite.

>> No.15733387

>>15732674
>wittgenstein never mentions heidegger in his published or unpublished work, not even once

He defended the “Nothing itself nothings” passage in “Dictation for Schlick” without explicitly mentioning Heidegger and said the following about him in a remark dated December 30, 1929:

“I can very well think what Heidegger meant about Being and Angst. Man has the drive to run up against the boundaries of language. Think, for instance, of the astonishment that anything exists. This astonishment cannot be expressed in the form of a question, and there is also no answer to it. All that we can say can only, a priori, be nonsense. Nevertheless we run up against the boundaries of language. Kierkegaard also saw this running — up and similarly pointed it out (as running up against the paradox). This running up against the boundaries of language is Ethics. I hold it certainly to be very important that one makes an end to all the chatter about ethics – whether there can be knowledge in ethics, whether there are values, whether the Good can be defined, etc. In ethics one always makes the attempt to say something which cannot concern and never concerns the essence of the matter. It is a priori certain: whatever one may give as a definition of the Good – it is always only a misunderstanding to suppose that the expression corresponds to what one actually means (Moore). But the tendency to run up against shows something. The holy Augustine already knew this when he said: «What, you scoundrel, you would speak no nonsense? Go ahead and speak nonsense – it doesn’t matter!»”

>> No.15733390

>>15733224
>disregards grammar
>disregards philosophy
Why are you even on /lit/?

>> No.15733415

>>15732816
There is not a trace of a critique of Reason and Enlightenment in all of Derrida, quite the contrary

>> No.15733433

>>15731773
wtf is the "einsteinian constant" even

>> No.15733451

>>15733433
See: >>15732036

>> No.15733458

>>15731773
I don't find it difficult to understand at all. He's talking about Einstein in the context of science and that science is a game of tricks, jargon and language games.

Which is true, but not a very profound observation.

>> No.15733462

>>15732879
if that's correct, there is a clear fucking way to express this and an anon from /lit/ did just that

>> No.15733480

>>15733462
Poor brainlet, we’re so sorry

>> No.15733485

>>15733458
>I don't find it difficult to understand at all
>proceeds to project his own dumb take into the text

>> No.15733505

>>15733485
Except I'm not wrong fagtron.

>> No.15733513

>>15733480
this obscure passage can be interpreted in a couple of different ways retard, you fail to see it and that makes you feel smart

>> No.15733523

>>15733505
lol

>> No.15733530

>>15733505
You are lol, he definitely didn’t intend to say that science is a “language game” or whatever. You got everything you know about Derrida and Wittgenstein through cultural osmosis and as a result mix up the notions they use.

>> No.15733558

>>15733523
>>15733530
Lets hear your expert takes then faggots.

>> No.15733565

>>15733558
seconded

>> No.15733575

>>15731773
This is a quick, off-the-cuff response Derrida had to give to Hyppolite in a conference that took place in 1966 before Derrida has published any of his works

>> No.15733587

>>15733558
I already gave it

>> No.15733617

>>15733587
Where? Please point it out or reiterate.

>> No.15733633

>>15733617
Here: >>15732036

>> No.15733635

>>15733558
I don't even need to have a take to see that your take is obviously shit.

>> No.15733658

>>15733633
Thanks anon, I did appreciate this reply.

>> No.15733693

>>15733633
>"haha your so wrong bro, derrida isn't talking about language games lol"

>literally your entire response is couched in advanced scientific jargon which Derrida most certainly had zero knowledge of, and literally proves my point that it's about language games

lmao, you're fucking dumb

>> No.15733720

>>15733693
>lol literally proves my point
Not him but you're idiotic, anon.

>> No.15733788

>>15732036
The diffeomorphism group of GR isn't the "Einstein constant" unless he misused terminology.

>> No.15733846

>>15732036
You are full of shit. I am not even sure you know what analytic means. There isn't even self a self interaction of gravitational fields. You need the Schrodinger-Newton equation for this and that is pure speculation.

>> No.15733871

>>15733130
because derrida and bergson, as i said, lean on the appeal that
> occultism
> esotericism
> thriller
> magic
> wishful thinking
> shamanism
> kabbalah
have on plebs and women, both wild and domesticated, but especially the latter.
heidegger's philosophy is above all a masquerade aiming to make said things enjoyable once again for overeducated, hunchbacked bookworms.
the original sin is that:
> logic
> reason
> causality
were never meant for peasants like heidegger, schuler and klages , or middle easterners like adorno.

>> No.15733946

>>15733871
you're reading too much into it desu

>> No.15734281

I don't know for sure what he meant with it. But, I have the feeling that a dual statement would be that x in 7x = 3 is a constant, and not a variable, and that x = 3/7 is the concept of the game.
More specifically, it seems to me that he asks whether the constant having a fixed value, or whether the fact that we have, at least mathematically, the possibility to set the constant to what we want it to be, is the concept of the game.

>> No.15735316

He's just analogizing Einsteinian relativism with différance. Both are centreless centers/groundless grounds; and both are the condition of identity/something, rather than an identity/something themselves.

>> No.15735827

>>15732674
The late Wittgenstein stuff is probably the most overrated writings in analytic philosophy, what did you like about him

>> No.15735858

>>15733871
Derrida and Bergson were both bottom of the barrel thinkers, but so are you and you obviously don't know anything about philosophy, go back to /pol/ to talk about the Jews and stop embarrassing yourself

>> No.15736998

>>15735858
if you knew anything about philosophy you'd also know that schopenhauer was an "antisemite", hegel was an "antisemite", kant was an "antisemite".