Most here oppose a Derrida view of literature I assume, because

you stupid fucking nigger get out

>by saying every word, phrase, paragraph, chapter, story can be interpreted infinite different ways doesn't allow a discussion.

That's not how the majority of people in literature see it though. They see it the complete opposite way. It's why there is discussion.

um

oke first of all that's a heckin dumb way of reading Derrida.

there aren't /infinite/ ways of reading a text, there are potentially infinite ways of reading a text I guess, but there are as many readings of a text as there are subjects who read it. that seems p finite to me, in practice.

oke and then Derrida isn't saying that if you read a text in French and you don't know how to read French that that's some kind of beautiful new idyllic way of reading a text. what.

basically how Derrida and critical theories actually work out is that you take the "enlightened" woke whatever frameworks of understanding, like feminism and Marx and whatever, and then you come to a kind of consensus about what the work says and /does/ (performatively) to create a culture and what it reveals about the culture that created it.

why is it always so black and white with you people.

there's obviously an agenda with that shit too, which is to be woke I presume. like there's an ethics of it but if Foucault says that everything you tell yourself you are is a social construct, then who the fuck cares.

so yea, people who are opposed to woke agendas, which basically says that certain meaningless subjects should sacrifice their privileges to other meaningless subjects so it's fair??? for what??? justice is a narrative anyways? (I know Derrida doesn't say that but he kind of should, right?) then yea people aren't going to like that.

maybe read Sartre or something before you start acting like you know what Derrida is talking about.

although that may well be what he /intends/ to mean and that's what you're picking up on, but you're supposed to ignore what he intends to mean anyways, as an author?

idk it's confusing but that's a dumb question.

File: 1501552955848.png (21KB, 382x333px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 382x333px

>>9853894
>like idk??? do you even???? like s mh fa m tb h hth tia ??? ? right? like, ? like ~right~? there aren't like, idk, t bh /infinite/ -ways- to um.. idk, ?

>>9853915
lol I know

File: uh huh.jpg (21KB, 286x261px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 286x261px

>>9853894
>oke first of all that's a heckin dumb way of reading Derrida
>????
>oke

hmmm

>>9853938
um I explained how it was dumb tho. eat a dick.

>>9853656

great thread we've got here, discussing a critique of a caricature of derrida

>>9853959
yea I'm p sure OP thinks he's being somewhat ironic tho, so, s/he can continue being pleased with him or herself despite not understanding what s/he's talking about.

I mean Derrida understands deconstructionism as a project that isn't practicable by everyone who reads a text, it just requires that the people who are capable of practicing it understand that meaning isn't located in the author's intention but is a function of culture(s), to which both the author and reader belong. happy?

>>9853984
I'm just going to fuck off now. bye guise.

>>9853894
sweetie posting will be thing that makes me snap one day

>>9853894
holy shit....

when i read this, I imagined someone like Katie's Classics Books was saying this to me, in a sarcastic tone.

I think you and sweetie posting need to die.

>>9853656
There are plenty of us who embrace this method of understanding art, because it's useful and obvious. If we can't re-interpret literature, then we're stuck with all sorts of silly out-of-date understandings.

I think most of us just get tired of debating the memerson retards and the 'le cultural marxist' retards. It's clear they don't actually read anything.

>>9853915
When you think about it, is writing that way any different than posting an intentionally bad drawing as a reaction image?

>Meaning is slippery, even impossible.
>Yet I am able to communicate something to you with this statement, and I even intend to be taken seriously.
Really fires the synapses.

>>9855703
How about you fucking read what Derrida actually wrote before spouting bullshit.

Everybody here is a meme LARPer who doesn't understand anything about the subjects discussed apart from what is pingponged back and forth in this echo chamber or what they got from a 5 min skimming of a wiki article or a hamburger youtube vid. I am so fucking done.