What the fuck is he on about?

>>8859176
Sophistry.

Anyone who gets paid to philosophise is literally a sophist. Never trust anyone who gets paid to make up shit, they'll make up shit unnecessarily for the sake of making shit up and keeping their paychecks.

They're like the news. Even if there's nothing happening they still need to come up with new material.

"spooks"

Pancakes, golden retrievers, and enemies (which may include god)

File: why-not-derrida-san.png (99KB, 264x191px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 264x191px

hell if i know but he's comfy to listen to. i have a suspicion his hair is actually made out of theories and that's what keeps it so amorphous and ethereal. like the same principle that made schoppy look like a poodle crossed with wolverine.

>>8859194
But the news is legit. Without it my right wing ideology has no legitimate claims.

Islam is ruling the world.
Niggers are apes and their rights should be abrogated.
We have too many economic rights and people are taking advantage, so we should demolish the social safety net.
Rich people should pay less taxes so they can have extra money for creating jobs.
Governments should be kept perpetually impotent.
Police should all be allowed to be heroes.
Free trade, free markets, free minds. Globalism.

File: kik.jpg (277KB, 616x693px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 616x693px

>>8859225

>>8859176
-exactly-

>>8859225
I'm a liberal myself, but you're only fooling yourself if you honestly think conservatives control the media. Just look at the Clinton campaign. Most of the media exhibits massive statist, neoliberal bias.

>>8859234
>can't into newscode

>>8859234
being this spooked lmao.

there is another politcal position that isnt liberal or conservative

>>8859271
Hey you. Commie boy. I'm gonna ask that you stop misusing the Stirner meme and actually read him. You're only embarrassing yourself.

>>8859225
>>>/leftypol/
>>>/reddit/

>>8859176
chomsky thinks he's a cunt

>what about, like, everything 'in' the text that isn't actually IN the text.
>there is this tendency in the west regarding its own canon to privilege the given, what is present, as it were, immediately; that what is said simply is.
>but I would contend, to the contrary, and given what we know of the nature of language itself--the 'meaning' of a given signifier being primordially that it isn't another--that it is precisely what is NOT in the text that is determinative of its content

>>8859302
The fuck does this shit mean

>>8859302
i think i'm in love. it's how i think about everything also.

>>8859284
>>>/leftypol/
>>>/reddit/

>>8859302
i'd like to see him run a political campaign

File: occcmzlrasyx.jpg (95KB, 918x613px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 918x613px

>>8859225
Pro tip whenever your views are this extreme you are wrong about something and your mind is subconsciously overcompensating to prevent cognitive dissonance from causing you stress.

>>8859304
Means niggas lie and shitpost and bullshit. Draw comparisons to /pol/acks posting absurd ironic over the top shit that deep down they kind of believe whether they acknowledge it or (especially) if they don't. Text inherently has these ambiguities because it can't explain itself the way a person can.

Here. This is acceptable for "what the fuck is he on about?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0tnHr2dqTs

File: z1432483236960.png (306KB, 600x700px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 600x700px

>>8859334
>whenever your views are this extreme you are wrong

>>8859302
>privilege the given, what is present, as it were, immediately; that what is said simply is.

the given being what is presented in the text?

>>8859335
what a simplistic interpretation

>>8859176

the possibility of interpretation

>>8859203
kek/10

>>8859345
Thank you. I'm saving my dissertation for its own thread.

>>8859346
sounds like religious self-whipping

Derrida's incomprehensibility is a trap of his own design, for on the one hand he is determined to show that the text always carries along the loose thread that, if tugged, unravels the whole thing, while on the other, is committed to showing that reading the text "as it is," as it would like to present itself, always tugs that thread. So he wants to show that the text cannot really be coherently interpreted, and also wants to show that the coherent interpretation is the condition of decoherence.

>>8859304

it means you should try learning to read lol

>>8859362
That sounds banal and retarded

>>8859362
>coherent interpretation is the condition of decoherence.

so many people miss this one

>>8859362
tips neckbeard

he's just filling time between potato chips

>>8859362

This is p good.

Derrida's basically wrong, but this is a nice summation of his error.

File: image.jpg (39KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 480x360px

>>8859225
>AMEN

>>8859376
I like this

>>8859334
>make racists afraid again
>again

>>8859176
Basically, nobody can read a text.

>>8859370
thats because post-structuralism IS banal and retarded

>>8859538
is it about text or language in general.

>>8859546
its about interpretation

>>8859553
read between the lines is what i've always been saying

>>8859302
Thats it?

>>8859731

That's *basically* it.

>>8859336
After watching a few School of Life's "modern topics", I can no longer trust this guys thinking

>>8859376
Wow
So true
10/10

>>8859334
Christ America is a fucking pit of hopeless retardation. How is that legal?

>>8859821
>being this trolled by the video
c'mon anon even derrida got over photography

>>8859370
>>8859545

typical il/lit/erates