Searle or Derrida? Was the Algerian simply an obscurantist?

i read arguments in threads like this to determine my answer

Derrida is not an obscuratist anymore than laguage itself is obscurantist, and appeling to common sense only cheapens the role of the philosopher.

If anything all his work can be interpreted as an effort to to encourage anyone in taking responsibiliy when interpreting any text since what enables it to have a certain meaning it's the same engine on which lies the possibility of a different meaning.

But I'm not actually this debate other han some cursory reading here and there, so I can't really say who won, altough I enjoy how he got anglo philosophers their panties in a twist.

File: 9780812694246-us-300.jpg (13KB, 300x448px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 300x448px

heidegger v carnap 2.0?

>>9573239
I'd like to know as well.

I don't think anybody can reasonably claim Derrida "won" after he resorted to extremely petty ad hominem.

I'm actually having trouble remembering any time Derrida won anything, people didn't want to deal with his bullshit even in death.

>>9573340
I mean, he pretty much pwn'd Lévi-Strauss in Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of Human Sciences.

>>9573362
And Foucault in Cogito and History of Madness

>>9573288
this guy gets it

derrida more like derridoodoo

>>9573340
>I'm actually having trouble remembering any time Derrida won anything

To be generous to Derrida, I'd say his later work had some interesting things to say about politics and the political tendencies of certain philosophers. He wasn't retarded. Absolutely not. He was clever and knew how to work the university system.

Not a real genius, but neither was Heidegger.

Just read Gadamer and then move on from Heideggerian deconstruction.

>>9573239
>Derrida
>Algerian

How the fuck did we go from Kant and Hume to these fucking clowns

>>9573912
Jews

>>9573813
I'm thinking that's the problem with Derrida, he wasn't nearly as interested in politics as required in French philosophy, he also wasn't particularly talented, perhaps he would've more well received if he was only moderately successful instead of constantly being pushed into the limelight.

File: derrida-heidegger-porno.png (744KB, 743x539px) Image search: [Google]

744KB, 743x539px

>mfw when there's still people who haven't denounced the metaphysics of presence

>>9574360
explain

Derrida lost all credibility when he tales about the non-existent "Einstienian equation" that one time

>>9574400
source?

File: thumbnailImage.png (684KB, 1075x810px) Image search: [Google]

684KB, 1075x810px

>>9574370
The formula "Metaphysics of presence" stands for the systematic removal in philosphy of anything that wasn't a clear presence, where presence stands for an unmediated, always accessible object, anything from Being, structures, ideas, meaning or even the subject itself. This sort of thing is what led the philosophical project as whole to be insuccessful, as the removed (that's the core of decontruction) is always back and a constitutive part of the metaphysical object. From this removal stem all sort of philsophical "injustices" like what he called "logocentrism" , (that everyone so often invokes as central in Derrida's though, it is but a symptom of a deeper problem)

It's similar to Heidegger critique of metaphysics as a hiding of Being in favor what is ready-at-hand (beings), but there's two crucial differences
1- It's not a progressive disease starting from Socrates and worsening afterwards. Anaksimandros or Parmenides weren't any closer or purer than Aquinas or Descartes. It's an inherent fault in the western philosophical discourse as a whole

2-There's probably no escape from it, cause launguage itself and consequently the very way we structure our thoughts is full of pitfalls. Although one could say that the Deleuzian post-metaphysical vision of reality as a complex always self-differentiating system of forces and singularities comes very close. In fact Derrida often expressed symphathies for Deleuze callaing him the philosopher he felt closer to.

Don't know if I'm being clear tho.

>>9574490
based post, illuminating and well-thought out. i actually think i understand now. so heidegger really privileges the presocratics, but derrida doesn't - is that why there is no reverence for Being in derrida?

>in fact Derrida often expressed symphathies for Deleuze callaing him the philosopher he felt closer to

kek i never heard this before. sometimes it feels like deleuze was this chosen one of philosophy that everybody wanted to be closer to or have on their team. i can understand why, i've read some of his stuff and he was a kwisatz haderach-tier metaphysician, there's nobody else quite like him

>except guattari i guess

anyways thanks anon, my only regret is that i have but one (You) to give

>>9574526
thanks anyway, there's not really a "derridean onthology", after all he didn't really consder himself a philosopher. A professor of philosophy he would say, It's ironic, humble yet he ruffled everyone's feather's so bad-

Anyway I found a quote in his eulogy for Deleuze he wrote

>Deleuze remains no doubt, despite so many dissimilarities, the one to whom I have always considered myself closest among all of this “generation.”

My own interest in Searle is his position in the AI debate. The past is of little moment.