>Deconstruction of the Subject, if there is such a thing,

Deconstruction of the Subject can in no case amount to dissolution of the Subject, but he doubts such a thing is even possible

>>9635609
Literally read what is saying next he says it in the simplest way possible, as he says "in jargon-free language". Mods delete this thread

>>9635609
This is stupid a thread but its something I always think when dealing with deconstruction.

If Decostruction is always working in the text, and if there is nothing outside text (meaning that everything is mediated through grammé, singns traces, postponement and such), why wouldn't a deconstruction of the subject be possible?
And by subject I dont mean subject sub specie aeternitatis, I mean this or that given subject (me, you, the plumber, Donald Trump).
After all he makes a specific point in his critique of Husserl that conscience and its contents are always mediated by signs.

Maybe I confusing conscience and subject, but but leaving out the subject from the deconstructve "danger" wouldn't transform Derrida's project in just another, even if highly eccentric, form of trascendentalism?

Of course dissolution is out of the question, as decontructed text dont dissolve, but create new meaning.

He means Heidegger was right about literally everything.

Derrida = Heidegger

>>9635837
Derrida gives Heidegger a taste of his own medicine several times in his work.
Read Ousia and Grammé

>>9635842
So he's more Heideggerian than Heidegger himself. It's all still already in Heidegger. Just things that the deluded little cabin manlet wanted to ignore.

All around a dumb and useless philosophy that should be forgotten.

>>9635914
go away Bernhard

>>9635951
> muh kitsch

he was right, I should read some bernhard

little petit bobo intellectuals always serving you up a little slice of martin highnigger

>>9635959
So what's your gripe with Heidegger, I'm genuinely curious because whether we like it or not everyone in the continental tradition is more or less influenced by Heidegger.

>>9635977
>I'm genuinely curious because whether we like it or not everyone in the continental tradition is more or less influenced by Heidegger.

And they shouldn't be. It's because he's so damn easy to write about (same with Derrida) that every one is influence by him. I've stated my gripe with Heidegger many times on /lit/. He's raised some interesting questions (mostly about tech and ecology) but his philosophy fails to accomplish what it sets out to do and worse, has gotten nearly all of continental academia on the wrong path(s).

De(con)struktion was a mistake.

>>9635993
It's funny cause what I don't like the most about Heidegger are his views on technonlogy (and that's why for me Derrida > Heidegger).

I expected some negative mention about his theorethical stuff, but if you dont want to talk about it that's fine.

Can I infer something here? Are you some kind of nostalgic for classical metaphysics, cause that was on it's way out at least since Kant

Tired: deconstructing the Subject
Wired: deconstructing the international ancient giant conspiracy

Deconstruction of subjectivity can neither lead to a reclamation of primordial Being (where subject-object divides are dissolved) or a one-sided negation of Being (the ascetic Nothing of Schops or religion). A deconstructed subject is more like a Hegelian advance without the promise of Spirit, like the pessimistic Marxists see it.

>>9635609
He tells what he means right after. >>9635705


>>9635837
This is not the first time you post this stupidity but it's still stupidity, repeating it doesn't make it true

>>9636163
>This is not the first time you post this stupidity but it's still stupidity, repeating it doesn't make it true

It's one of the most discussed/published topics in Derrida/Heidegger studies. It's fine if you disagree but it's not at all stupid.

>>9636120
THIS guy gets it

>>9636860
>>9635837

"Derrida = Heidegger lol" isn't the most discussed topic in anything.
No legit philosophers in the world would spew that stupidity whenever they hear talking about Derrida, because people doing philosophy actually like some nuances in their thoughts. They make sentences and arguments to begin with (hint : these are not "prove I'm wrong lol")

>>9635815
so no one has got anything to say about this?

>>9637069
Not really, sorry. It's a reaction to an out-of-context sentence and sort of "strike" aside the point. The text following the sentence pretty much explain what it means, but >>9635609 didn't quote the entirety of the paragraph

>>9637116
So you mean that afterwards Derrida outlines the possibility of a decontruction of the subject?
Could you indicate me where I can find this stuff, because as I said the role of Deconstruction in regard to subject is a topic that interests me.

>>9637181
It's a difficult question, I personally can't answer.
You can find the original text on google books, just type : "which I doubt, can in no case amount to" and it's the first link on google.

If these questions interest you, you could read Derrida interview with Jean-Luc Nancy "Who comes after the subject". They refer to Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe who is also someone you can look up to on these questions. You're up for a big ride, it's a huge theme.

>>9637245
alright thanks for the tips

>>9637289
You're welcome

>>9637013
>No legit philosophers in the world would spew that stupidity whenever they hear talking about Derrida, because people doing philosophy actually like some nuances in their thoughts. They make sentences and arguments to begin with

Sorry, faggot, I'm not typing out a masters thesis on 4chan for you. It's a widely debated topic. Deal with it.

Did I crush your pathetic graduate studies worldview?

>>9637013
Do you sperg out when people suggest that all of Aristotle is also contained in Plato?

Never read him but I would like to think its "talk shit, get hit"

>>9637380
The widely debated topic of "I will only say "Derrida = Heidegger" every time I see Derrida's name on 4chan".
Keep enlightening me "philosopher" friend

File: gty_andy_williams_dm_120926_wg.jpg (40KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 640x360px

>>9637532
If I say Heidegger's Dasein amounts to ego death you'll tell me the exact thing Derrida just said.

>>9635609
>shaving your chin hair to spell someone else's name
What did Derrida mean by this

>>9637834
>Dasein amounts to ego death

I'd tell you the Being for Death isn't ego death, it means to in being aware of the possibility of non-existance (physical death) the Dasein reaveals its structure as project thrown into the world. This realization is living authentically.

>>9637881
> Deconstruction of the Subject, if there is such a thing, which I doubt, can in no case amount to dissolution of the Subject.

>>9637013

there is reason to argue that derrida is an absolutization of heidegger in a similar fashion as marx is an absolutization of hegel

>>9637881

is death a "negative" in this case?