Name a philosopher more nonsensical and obscurantist than Jacques

whoever wrote my diary

>even the most nonsensical hack there is was able to BTFO analytical posterboy Searle

feels good to be team Continental ^_^

Kant. Hegel. Fucking Heidegger.
Derrida's an open book by comparison.

>>8645523
Not even close. Those philosophers actually say shit. Derrida just apes the superficial aspects of a intelligent and insightful people. But them being hard to understand isn't an end, it's a side effect of them having actually deep and far out shit to say

>>8644897
>nonsensical

You're just dumb

>>8645550
Poststructuralism is literally "remedial intellectualism for frauds"

What's with the butthurt analytics lately? Fuck off back to /sci/ or something and stop shitting this board.

>>8645554
Take the redpill, kid

>>8645564
Lol this brainlet wants a safe space

>>8644901
kek.

these diary jokes never get old

>>8645575
Shows the maturity of people making these threads.

>>8645523
>Kant
>nonsensical

how low is your iq?

>>8645550
"You just don't get it xD"
-Jacques Derrida

>>8644897
Derrida's obscurantism serves a purpose

Hacques Lacan on the other hand...

File: QTeiaeagveas.png (730KB, 995x724px) Image search: [Google]

730KB, 995x724px

Reminder to all: Postmodernism and "Deconstruction" created SJWs AND NazBols.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-F1_Kat3Ok

>>8646531
back to /pol/, stupid neckbeard

>>8646545
>is against nazbols
>is somehow /pol/

>>8646513
"I've never read one of his books"
-You

File: 3242543534534543.png (41KB, 413x530px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 413x530px

>>8644897
Try to understand Parmenides without some sort of formal education. It's impossible.

>>8646591
this @ the entire thread

>>8646531
>Jason Unruhe
God I hate this fucker.

Like him or not, he's goign to be remembered as one of the five or so most important European intellectuals of the late 20th century

>>8646694
Yes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfRgvfruhPo

>>8646728
I really like the part "Let's give our own scapegoat of what deconstruction is, then say it's madness and non-sense ha ha ha"

>>8646728
Heather Mac Donald is insufferable. She's basically a wannabe Camille Paglia.

>>8644897
Chomsky

t. low IQ simpleton

>>8646594
This is actually pretty simple, it's just stated longwindedly.

some of that speculative realism stuff is worse. like graham harman. also derrida's earlier work isn't that bad and his argument in the animal that therefore i am is pretty straightforward.

>>8646563
It's overlooked how amenable postmodernism and deconstruction are to extremely reactionary politics. They're so theoretical that they become a toolkit to justify whatever you'd like to achieve.

>>8644897
Lacan

i win

>>8648467
Please leave now

File: 1473223924478.jpg (50KB, 691x540px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 691x540px

>philosophy
>post-1900

File: B E Y O N D P O L I T I C S.jpg (187KB, 1240x826px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1240x826px

>>8648493

This. It reached its terminus with Nietzsche.

>>8645523
>>8646512
I've read all of these authors that are mentioned here, and the only one I'd say is more obscurantist that Derrida is Heidegger.

>>8648504

>He didn't read Introduction to Metaphysics before Being and Time

There's your problem, champ.

>>8647129
get a fuckin clue friendo

>>8648493
that's when it actually gets good tho

>>8644897
When even Foucault calls you an obscurantist terrorist, then you know you've fucked up.

>>8648865

>With Derrida, you can hardly misread him, because he’s so obscure. Every time you say, “He says so and so,” he always says, “You misunderstood me.” But if you try to figure out the correct interpretation, then that’s not so easy. I once said this to Michel Foucault, who was more hostile to Derrida even than I am, and Foucault said that Derrida practiced the method of obscurantisme terroriste (terrorism of obscurantism). We were speaking in French. And I said, “What the hell do you mean by that?” And he said, “He writes so obscurely you can’t tell what he’s saying. That’s the obscurantism part. And then when you criticize him, he can always say, ‘You didn’t understand me; you’re an idiot.’ That’s the terrorism part.” And I like that. So I wrote an article about Derrida. I asked Michel if it was OK if I quoted that passage, and he said yes.

Based.

>>8648101
finneganspieceofcake.jpeg

Why don't you give us it in a sentence or two then?

>>8648871
>We were speaking in French. And I said, “What the hell do you mean by that?” And he said, “He writes so obscurely you can’t tell what he’s saying. That’s the obscurantism part. And then when you criticize him, he can always say, ‘You didn’t understand me; you’re an idiot.’ That’s the terrorism part.”
C'est pas faux
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2ohjNBKhIA

Derrida likes puns. He likes turns of phrases that are ambiguous too. This in turn makes him v difficult to translate, since he's also able to be misunderstood even in French. Some of what he's trying to signal is encode in how he uses the language, so even something like a verb becoming a noun ("deconstruction") is a big change in meaning.

I don't think in this sense he's unnecessarily obscurantist, it's just how he works to get his point across ironically.

>>8648955
>Derrida likes puns. He likes turns of phrases that are ambiguous too. This in turn makes him v difficult to translate, since he's also able to be misunderstood even in French. Some of what he's trying to signal is encode in how he uses the language, so even something like a verb becoming a noun ("deconstruction") is a big change in meaning.
>I don't think in this sense he's unnecessarily obscurantist, it's just how he works to get his point across ironically.
The only thing that's 'encoded' in his style is the suggestion that there's something utterly meaningful hidden there which you can't find, which of course is not the case.

>>8648963
>which of course is not the case.
Derridian as fuck brah.

There's definitely some interesting ideas in there. I'm not so quick to denounce his thinking, but he over reaches quite a bit (e.g. claims about ideology being removed totally or the deconstruction of "law" by which we mean French law which in turn is not practiced in the same way as common law).

Heidegger

>>8649079
To be or not to be, is that even a question?

File: jean_baudrillard.jpg (30KB, 456x620px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 456x620px

i've been summoned

>>8648871
Don't want to mess with you, but that's really just ad personam, with the request of Foucault to legitimize the whole ("Foucault told me bla bla bla")
This part wasn't in Searle's favour, he had better arguments than that

>>8648963
You're quick to conclusion...
You say that as if he was pretending to only wrote on a "sod" kabbalistic level, this is not the case. A lot of authors wrote on several layers on meanings, I don't see where the problem is.

File: 3852[1].jpg (86KB, 500x732px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 500x732px

Pic related

>>8649981
Simulacra and Simulation was a very easy read 2bh

Lacan. He literally used fake math in his philosophy.

>>8650177
You literally didn't read him though

File: ziz.png (192KB, 600x399px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 600x399px

>>8644897

>>8650220
I literally read excerpts and commentary explaining his B**L SHIT. There's this book called, hold on . . . Fashionable Nonsense. Read it, Fatboy.

>>8648955
>He likes turns of phrases that are ambiguous too.
How is it not obscurantist to deliberately say things that don't mean anything in particular

File: 1445913397724.gif (428KB, 200x183px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 200x183px

>>8650249
>I literally read excerpts and commentary

ITT: non-faggots who haven't read Derrida.

Man I really want to shit all over Derrida but I know it's just because I don't understand him really. His ideas were influential but I'm not sure that they were useful

>>8644897
>>>/his/

File: f09a5f2b48d79753d5c6463ce2435a3a-1.jpg (13KB, 641x347px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 641x347px

I've never read Derrida. And yet, every time I've seen him cited by someone who has, it's been illuminating and incisive. Why is this? Is this very fact, dare I say, Derridean?

>I'M NO FOOL
>I READ DERRIDA
>I READ DERRIDA

>>8648504
heidegger isn't obscurantist, he's just sophistiacted

>>8650744
Are you Heidegger? No? Then you don't know.

>>8646728
Twelve minutes, zero content. At least Derrida can get a point across in as many pages.

File: z.jpg (33KB, 460x276px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 460x276px

Hola!

>>8650793
>At least Derrida can get a point across in as many pages.
Can he?

>>8650830
No. Not really. I have no idea what that poster is trying to say.

File: 1475621327859.jpg (95KB, 480x711px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 480x711px

I'm actually a Hegel fan but I couldn't not post this.

>>8646531
this guy looks way too soft to be a marxist

File: Deleuze-delighted_screen-shot[1].png (3MB, 2880x1800px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2880x1800px

how is it that this crazy motherfucker has not been mentioned

>>8648501
this is the best picture I have ever seen on /lit/.

Take a second and think why you might hold a strong opinion on an author you've never read.

>>8650876
How are Nietzsche and Marx incomprehensible?

File: finnegans.jpg (176KB, 453x604px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 453x604px

>>8648926
Damn, somebody is a /lit/ vet. Didn't think they used these anymore.

File: derrida-1.jpg (45KB, 363x527px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 363x527px

>>8645550

underrated post

>>8652295
>these dummies can't understand anything I say hehe ;]

>>8650800
He's low-tier when it comes to philosophers.

>>8652081
I did read Derrida. La Pharmacie de Platon, a good chunk of De La Grammatologie and his letter to the japanese dude. It's utter nonsense.

>>8648501
Nietzsche was a edgy teenager compared to Heidegger. They were both geniuses, but Heidegger actually made something out of existentialism.

>>8644897
Deleuze. 100%

>>8645523
kant isn't obscurantist he just had turbo autism
he's not intentionally misleading he just wrote sentences that went on for three pages but they could all be parsed just fine

>>8646519
Exactly... Lacan!

>>8648504
Heidegger is lucid on the most intelligent level

>>8648504
>>8648513
>>8650744
>they read Heidegger in anything but German and then talk about how he is or isn't understandable.

File: directed-by-andrei-tarkovsky.jpg (58KB, 856x482px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 856x482px

>>8644897
Derrida writes in a complicated way but what he says about language is pretty much self-evident unless you're a stupid piece of shit.

>nonsensical and obscurantist
>believing words and langauge have a fixed meaning
>believing in the difference between performative and constative statements

OP even Bakhtin would think you're an idiot.

>>8650250
They do mean things in particular, they just don't mean one thing in particular. Like most things.

>>8652654
>reading Heidegger without a background in Ancient Greek philology

>>8652675
this guy gets pegged by his obese girlfriend

>>8652927
More power to him

>>8652675
he say Derrida writes in a complicated way

he, after that proclaim not believing that words and langauge have a fixed meaning.

choose one my friend.

>>8653028
Oh FFS bro what the hell?

File: 1474785941561.png (29KB, 702x788px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 702x788px

Not thinking that Derrida is full of shit is the hallmark of a pseud

File: 1469236489888.jpg (38KB, 432x600px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 432x600px

I always thought that Derrida was a cunt for saying that there is nothing outside the text. What he should have said was that there is nothing that cannot be included in it, which is precisely the problem today.

Take that lack of a dick out of your mouth and get on my level, you plebs.

>>8653171
>I always thought that Derrida was a cunt for saying that there is nothing outside the text.
It's actually more like there is no outside to the text, and at a very basic level you can just take that as the way academia works with texts is always in making reference to more and more texts.

As such you could say nothing cannot be included in it, but also that nothing is included in it, which results from this lack of an outside.

>get on my level, you plebs.

>>8653215
You could say that, but you would be wrong. Because there actually is an outside to the text, which is what allows for criticism and the fuck-ugly sweaters that Derrida wears.

Derrida can't explain meme violence. Baudrillard gives the example of robbing a bank with a fake gun and getting arrested by real cops. If a guy in a clown suit shows up at a Starbucks and begins shooting the place up with actual bullets, it doesn't matter if this is a 'performance' or not. You can deconstruct it all you like. Maybe later, when that asshole is in a holding cell later on, you can read Derrida to him and maybe he'll agree. But it doesn't matter.

This is why people shit on continental philosophy. And they're exactly right.

>>8646594
that's p accessible

>>8653171
There is nothing outside the text, I've always understood to be an almost metaphysical statement (odd for a post-modernist).

What I get from it is that existence in its entirety should be seen as a text with nothing outside it. It's a kind of linguistic monism. Whereas previous conceptions of existence in its entirety have had some kind of outside to them (i.e a transcendental signifier), the Derridean universe is entirely closed and self-referential. This presents all the usual interpretative difficulties that we associate with Derrida.

I'm not sure how sympathetic to this view I am. I mean it's refreshingly metaphysical for a postmodernist, but it also smacks of the smug enshrinement of language as the only thing worth talking about in philosophy.

If I've horribly misinterpreted Derrida, feel free to correct me. I'm not an expert by any means.

File: VEMUh.jpg (71KB, 461x346px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 461x346px

>>8653300
You haven't misinterpreted him at all. You've drawn exactly the conclusions from his thought that make him a cunt. Being a cunt, he will say that you have misunderstood him.

If you reduce all existence to literary criticism, which is exactly what anyone would conclude from reading Derrida's philosophy, you will get a closed and self-referential world in which everything becomes interpretation and 'misunderstanding.'

Jacques Derrida is the reason why you have 218 gender pronouns on Facebook, all of which have to be 'respected' AND this guy. It's a fucking double-chocolate scoop of retardedness.

>>8653252
>Because there actually is an outside to the text, which is what allows for criticism and the fuck-ugly sweaters that Derrida wears.
These are outside of the project of deconstruction, in the sense you mean them anyway.

>You can deconstruct it all you like. Maybe later, when that asshole is in a holding cell later on, you can read Derrida to him and maybe he'll agree. But it doesn't matter.
Deconstruction is reflexive, automatic. You do not impose deconstruction from the outside, it is something that happens to itself and all by itself.

>>8653300
>What I get from it is that existence in its entirety should be seen as a text with nothing outside it. It's a kind of linguistic monism.
Yes and no. We always construct our own meanings from the text, and in that we bring a bunch of junk from outside. However, that doesn't mean you can't do a lot without looking externally for meaning.

Don't take it as a be all and end all either.

>>8653028
Christ man, the fuck?

>>8653028
btfo

File: 3446949065_Putin20Laughing_answer_1_xlarge.jpg (13KB, 288x237px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 288x237px

>>8653028
damn

>>8653545
>Deconstruction is reflexive, automatic. You do not impose deconstruction from the outside, it is something that happens to itself and all by itself.

Ever try having an argument with an SJW? This is exactly why Derrida is a cunt. If deconstruction is 'reflexive' and 'automatic,' then what the fuck is philosophy? If you just take everything as being a priori you don't have philosophy, you don't have critique, you don't have anything. You have a RELIGION. And, for that matter, a religion that refuses to call itself a religion, and labels you as the one who doesn't get it. It is bogus enlightened despair, but it is always phrased in a way that this is someone else's fault, right back to the beginning of creation.

It is the cult of the hot potato, a never-ending game in which one tries to appear to say as much as possible without saying anything at all.

>>8653028
Oh god, somebody screencap this.

>>8653672
>If deconstruction is 'reflexive' and 'automatic,' then what the fuck is philosophy?
You often spew non-sequiturs? It's called deconstruction as a quirk of translation, Derrida however uses it as a reflexive verb (texts deconstruct themselves).

>>8653690
Non-sequiturs, my ass. What is the term most frequently associated with Derrida? 'Difference.' His entire theory pivots on a term that cannot be accurately translated or interpreted. Being accused of using non-sequitur or obfuscation tactics by Derrideans is rich.

I will remind of you what the problem is here: exactly that 'quirk of translation' really means. It means that if everything is performance, then nothing is. There is *always* going to be some fucking quirk, some little extra piece, some pivot point.

Zizek made his career on this shit. It's not even that the idea is crazy or wrong. It's entirely how 'deconstructionists' like to spin it, failing to see that if all you have is a hammer then everything looks like a nail.

'Texts deconstruct themselves.' What a fucking joke.

antonin artaud
>>8653685
http://imgur.com/r/4chan/OBGyf7L

>>8653751
not that one
t. other

this is off topic, does anyone have any information on the status of "hot pocket"?

>>8653028
I don't understand this post

>>8653672
Fun coincidence: SJWs and Derrida have the same fringe political beliefs.

(it's not a coincidence)

But how do we know what obscurantist really means unless we look at obscurantist in its relation to a series of other words?

>>8655615
ever heard about dictionaries, sperg?

>>8653801
hot pockets is alive and well

>>8655570
The SJWs are even worse, because they are the god-fearing disciples of a man who had already absolutely nothing to say.

>>8653742
Read him before opening your mouth. It shows you don't have a clue what you're talking about, you don't even have a basic grasp of the concepts.

>>8656116
t. assmad derrida scholar

>>8646596
Pretty much. The intellectual cult he inadvertently spawned is way, way worse than anything he actually wrote. The basic idea of looking at concepts as being interdependent and derived from their context instead of being individually self-sufficient entities.

>>8647129
Care to explain?

>>8656300
Of course he can't. Chomsky takes pains to make his reasoning and arguments as clear and justifiable as he can.

>>8653171

Perhaps Derrida's most quoted and famous assertion,[55] which appears in an essay on Rousseau in his book Of Grammatology (1967),[58] is the statement that "there is no out-of-context" (il n'y a pas de hors-texte).[58] Critics of Derrida have been often accused of having mistranslated the phrase in French to suggest he had written "Il n'y a rien en dehors du texte" ("There is nothing outside the text") and of having widely disseminated this translation to make it appear that Derrida is suggesting that nothing exists but words.[59][60][61][62][63]

File: how can mirrors be real.jpg (24KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 300x300px

>>8656116
I know exactly what I'm talking about, which is why you're going to the playbook for a response. Are you suddenly realizing that any random fuckwit on the internet is capable of exposing Derrida for a fraud? It's not like it's difficult.

Please, though. Enlighten me. I'm genuinely interested to see how Derrida people think. It's like making contact with an alien species. The combination of obscurantism and pretension is such a hot look. I never get tired of it.

>>8656479
It's okay, I already follow Jaden Smith on Twitter. He cleared this all up for me.

>>8656777
>Enlighten me.
>memes
>sci fi elements
Pls make your next post m'lady.

>>8656801
Shh, quiet. The humans are talking. Go back to sleep, l'il guy. Everything is under control.

>>8652759
>not spending 15 years of your life dedicated to studying Aristotle