Thread replies: 16
Thread images: 6
Thread images: 6
File: Derrida.jpg (99KB, 1200x1448px) Image search:
[Google]
99KB, 1200x1448px
>>applying the lessons of structuralism to philosophy
>What does this mean?
That there is some mediating structure between us, the thinking things, and reality as it is
>>no one-to-one link between signifier and signified
>What does this mean?
That there is nothing intrinsic to any object that gives us the word that we use to describe that object.
>>the signifier exists in a network of other signifiers, the 'signifying chain'
>What does this mean?
Signifiers i.e. signs or words that we use to describe things are only distinguished by how different they are to other things per the point above
>>progression of logic is due to the hierarchical organisation of binaries
>What does this mean?
Whenever there is a binary there is a dominant and a lesser aspect of that binary, and Western thought has presupposed one aspect dominates the other without any direct proof
>>a centre (the 'transcendental signifier' or 'logos') which is absent if there is a network
>What does this mean?
The 'transcendental signifier' is the cause of all meaning, but if current philosophical thought suggests there is no point of origin then all philosophy that stems from this belief must be adjusted accordingly, by the logic of the philosophy itself
>>We can't escape language when we talk about language, so language isn't based on the logos
>What does this mean?
The logos is situated outside structures but otherwise gives that structure its form and meaning. Without the logos as a signifying structure we must look for other means that define structure i.e. language, which is not removed from which it seeks to describe
>>he logos presupposes that there is presence and then there is representation
>What does this mean?
That there are derivative forms of truth like in Greek philosophy there is truth or the ideal, then there is the world as we know it which is a lesser form of being, then there is a form even lesser than that to record it
>>with speech being a more direct access to truth than writing by which we record speec
>Why do you presume so?
The Greeks presume so.
>>This is a demystification of a common thought in Western philosophy,
>Not according to above. Great confusioon.
It is according to above. What do you mean?
>>
Sounds on point, OP. I'm not sure what the goal of your post is. Is it to elaborate positions of common sense and philosophical endpoints? If so, you've succeeded in the most obvious manner. Your comments are clear and concise, and there isn't anything to disagree with unless one commits to goofy metaphysical notions or laughably sincere theories of language and thought. I'm not too sure what else to say other than that you understand Derrida's thought processes quite well and why corny materialist conceptions of language fall flat on their faces instead of offering anything meaningful to contemporary linguistic philosophy.
>>
File: beanz_&_thyme.png (149KB, 424x282px) Image search:
[Google]
149KB, 424x282px
Everybody trying to market Derrida to me makes him sound like a footnote to Heidegger.
Language is indeed the house of Being, yes.
Will the real great innovative philosopher please stand up? Please stand up? Please stand up?
>>
>>10031083
Of course he's a footnote to Heidegger. The whole of the post-structuralist and hermeneutical and deconstructive traditions are just workings-out of work Heidegger already did.
>>
>>10031083
>>10031098
this board has already established derrida is leftyheidegger
>>
Finally a non-memey post about Derrida. Appreciated even if I think he is completely wrong.
To use logos to show that logos is being taken on faith is exactly the central issue of Being. You can't accept Being as Good unless you voluntarily do so. Rejecting the Logos as Jews do (and Derrida is a Jew) is only to impose another transcendental signifier to Being like money.
>>
>>10031083
Aren't stories the house of Beings?
>>
>>10030832
You can trace much of the lingo of campus sjws to Derrida and his acolytes. ie. 'deconstruction' things being 'problematic' muh 'subaltern'/'cultural appropriation'. Everything worthwhile Derrida said was cribbed straight from Redpill Aryan thinkers like Heidegger, De Man and Klages. The truth is 'Deconstruction' is nothing but the class philosophy of liberal HR managers and text wanking professionals. It is in the interest of those whose profession deals with the management of 'texts' to pretend that the world is nothing but one big text waiting to be 'deconstructed' by the properly accredited experts.
>>
File: mpv-shot0004.jpg (291KB, 1920x1080px) Image search:
[Google]
291KB, 1920x1080px
>>10030832
Holy shit you answered to me. I'm officially DISABLED PARKING now.
>>
File: r960-c_f98defe75570b565a76036fe3b256464.jpg (113KB, 928x960px) Image search:
[Google]
113KB, 928x960px
>>10030832
Bill Mitchell=Chad Derrida
>>
It is funny how most of the people who rant against Derrida are the ones that show big lack of competence and understanding concerning his work.
>>
>>10030832
Last semester in University I took a course in contemporary philosophy, and the last lecture, that was about Derrida, I skipped to play vidya with my friends. Just today though I found myself faced with structuralism and deconstruction, and couldn't understand it. Subsequently I felt regret, but then I saw your post. Thanks, Anon.
>>
File: 600full-billy-herrington.jpg (64KB, 576x768px) Image search:
[Google]
64KB, 576x768px
>>10032228
I think Derrida looks more like an old Billy Herrington.
>>
>>10032236
I was the one who asked all those things in last thread in a genuine attempt to understand what he had wrote. I'm more than happy now that he answered =D
>>
>>10031083
>Language is indeed the house of Being, yes.
t. wizard
>>
File: derrida.png (232KB, 496x360px) Image search:
[Google]
232KB, 496x360px
i can finally post this
Thread posts: 16
Thread images: 6
Thread images: 6