Has this guy actually read Derrida?

It's pretty obvious he hasn't. At this point I'd be surprised if he's even read Foucault.

He is. Either you notice, or you don't. There is no official source.

youtube.com/watch?v=nKL3MsKRtJo

youtube.com/watch?v=cXVDtICVwMA

youtube.com/watch?v=o9BbQyg7zwQ

Peterson is a lite academic version of the redpill who seems to be doing a good job of railroading destructive jewish ideologies like Marxism and postmodernism. He is a good starting point for many and since he is essentially, knowingly or not, attacking jewish concepts that are harmful to whites, I have no reason to think he is anything but beneficial to white interests.

>seems to be doing a good job of railroading destructive jewish ideologies like Marxism and postmodernism
I agree. That is what it seems to be. I do think he also doing something else but I can't quite put my finger on it. He frequently makes excursions into politics, Nazis, SJW, and Israel. I think he's trying to shield Jews from anti-semites, and turn as many alt-right kekistani/Sargon/pol/etc. kids into GOP style Judaeo-christian conservatives as he can. His attacks on SJWs/marxists/etc. is an attempt to remove the kindling the alt-right is thriving on in order to neutralise them. I'm not sure though.

>who seems to be doing a good job of railroading destructive jewish ideologies like Marxism and postmodernism.

Yes, and leading you straight into Jewish Capitalism lmao

>criticise a whole school of thought
>don't need to read their work to criticise it
truly the intellectual of our time

If Derrida intended his work to be read, he would have written in a readable style.

>"Probably to some extent" and "read enough to figure out the core elements"
>let me claim that user is vouching for not reading someone's work at all as a prerequisite to criticize
Truly a marvelous display of quality reading comprehension.

>to read enough to figure out the core elements in them
in other words not reading their work, just reading a short summary and thinking you 'get' them. if you're going to criticise a whole school of thought it's a good idea to actually have a solid grounding of their work rather than reading a wikipedia article

>I think he's trying to shield Jews from anti-semites, and turn as many alt-right kekistani/Sargon/pol/etc. kids into GOP style Judaeo-christian conservatives as he can. His attacks on SJWs/marxists/etc. is an attempt to remove the kindling the alt-right is thriving on in order to neutralise them. I'm not sure though.

I think the opposite is likely true. Peterson is not going to turn anyone on the alt right, no way. What he is, is an entry point into the alt right, who exposes these jewish ideologies but shields himself from any backlash by never mentioning the jewish roots of these things. Plenty of people do this these days. Anyone under 30 who eases into Sailor will be on TRS in a matter of months. Once people start feeling comfortable with these ideas they've been told are taboo all their life, the only direction one can go is further to the "right," into race realism and ultimately the jewish question.

I don't have to eat the shit to know what it's like, I just have to smell it to have a good idea.

Derrida is no problem for anyone who understands the tradition Derrida is writing from but manchildren think having read Plato's Apology is enough to plop right in. It's like dropping a bowling ball on your foot through your own incompetence and being mad at the ball.

Isn't this a misleading analogy insofar as you presuppose what the actual content of a said text is?
Certainly critical practice ( i.e. authorities) exists for a reason - to separate meritorious thought from that which is not, but these are only guidelines.
Do we no longer study Plato in virtue of Aristotle's critique?
It is disingenuous to compare a concrete object with something more difficult, and more abstract, and intellectually dishonest to claim we grasp a persons thought - further, that they bothered to write down for us to scrutinize, if we only work on a core or slogan basis of their work.

One may say another's thought is worthless, but how do we know, and at a glance at that?
This isn't to say we ought to read the entirety of all work ever to be, but if we are to laud or condemn a thinker, we owe it to the practice of philosophizing itself that we do more than the bare minimum - and what you suppose IS the bare minimum.

I'm not saying scholars are worthless. They contribute significantly. But haven't you heard the saying, "Those who can't, teach"? Well, those who can't philosophize, become scholars of philosophy.

To be a scholar of philosophy is to be someone who studies the ins and outs of philosophies very carefully and almost religiously and never actually performs; to philosophize requires a certain temperament, you need to know how to separate the wheat from the chaff and quickly, you need to be an intellectual heavyweight and you need to be active. To be active requires that you don't read every single drop of text out there, like real life. Haven't you been in a position of authority at your job before, or in a project you were a part of? There is no way to do all of it yourself, you need to employ others to do things for you. The number of philosophers in history who have been silly family men like scholars usually are are next to none, I can't think of one; they are all men who know well how to divide and conquer, and know how to take pieces of things that they like and eliminate the things which don't fit into their own structuring of the world. That's how you build character in your work, and that's what makes it philosophy rather than just a scholarly research paper.

Derrida outdoes every other writer within his tradition by a long-shot. He deserves to be misinterpreted.

He hasn't read anything, he's a psychology professor, not a philosopher. I know they're easy to confuse with each other - they both start with P - but Peterson's one idea is basically "people were more contented when they did and thought as they were told, so we should start doing that again on purpose and pretend it makes us happy until it actually does". Not intellectual, but he works for those people who want an intellectual defence for beliefs they hold for emotional reasons.

>But haven't you heard the saying, "Those who can't, teach"?

Yeah, stupid peasants say it all the time.

Interesting way of looking at it.

Have you read "White Mythology"?

I feel like that quite clearly shows Derrida intending his work to lead to transformative justice... i mean cucc-stuf

I know this is a dumb question considering the platform.

Do you actually believe any of that?

Yeah, we do actually all unironically not want to be murdered and have our sisters, girlfriends and daughters raped in front of our eyes by animate fecal matter. We're not LARPING, we don't want to be killed.

ahahha love that

He always gets "interviewed" by people who basically suck his dick.

What issue do you have here?

No issue, who am I to say what's right and wrong. Just couldn't tell whether it was a satire that went over my head, or a bit of a semi-related rant.

nearly no one he's been interviewed by understands philosophy, it's just because of the SJW stuff which is all youtubers actually understand.

>black pill
How does being hopeless and nihilistic about life help?

And angry scholars never have a decent counter argument.

>understands philosophy
He's a social-psychologist.
He is essentially fighting the SJW fags and using language they can understand.
Leftist can't grasp the idea of hard work and legacy, so you have to hit them with "intellectual thought".
If you can dismantle all the damage that's been done to their brains, you can get through to them--maybe.

i'm not speaking of him, i'm talking about the interviewers. none of them can bounce anything interesting back to him half the time and just ask about the same events over and over.

>Person A who I disagree with says something about person B who I agree with therefore person A is misunderstanding person B.

He uses a lot of wordplay yes but that just makes it more engaging when you get the concepts and backgrounds. Niggas don't realize how many jokes he makes.

>jokes

You believe that Jews have magic powers that make things written by them harmful even if the same exact words written by non-Jews wouldn't be as harmful?

>Jews have magical powers
holy shit.. user, I think you're on to something

Well, stormtards do usually think that Jews are magic demigods with mind control powers, and whites are just brainwashed robots - well, except for our Fearless Neo-Nazi Heroes, of course.

Like in the essay Differance right at the start he's introducing the way a simple spelling mistake (giving the example of difference as differance) transforms a word and unearths "as though prescribed by some mute irony, the inaudible but displaced character of this literal permutation. We can always act as though this makes no difference." See that use of "difference" in context of the essay is a funny little bit of wordplay worth a sensible chuckle if your sense of humor is as lame as mine, and at the same time his usage displays his point about language usage.

ah fuck I mean this for my mistake

You do know that most leading/famous Jewish academics have been involved in Kabbalah, right? Gershom Scholem's friend list is just the tip of the iceberg. The Armanenschaft has worked as a dispelling source, hence the clarity found in some circles.

He literally says in interviews that he wants to preserve the tradition. There is no real way of addressing or 'questioning' the Western tradition without actually relying on that Western tradition itself. Like you can't deconstruct a text without 'doubling the commentary' i.e. reading it according to the intention.

He has admitted to reading Derrida 'a lot less' (or something) than Foucault. He mainly attacks Derrida for being the source of deconstruction in lit crit even though that is an American phenomenon rather than intended or present in Derrida's work itself.

It is a readable style if by 'readable style' you don't mean derivative of human speech but as a piece of written text. But in saying that he seems to talk in a very complicated style as well but it's not completely incomprehensible.

>HURR, Truth is utility
>DURRRRR, postmodernism is bad because relativism

To Derrida philosophy has a claim to truth which separates it from other writing, to Peterson truth is just whatever works at the time. Yet people think Derrida is the nihilist.

If you have an argument other than a question, write it out.

But I bet OP won't ever write out a coherent argument. It's always with these anti-Peterson threads..

What do think truth is if it's not relative? As Wittgenstein said, philosophy is the study of language. It doesn't matter what your ideas are they are still bounded in language. Unless you manage to somehow practice philosophy without words, which is impossible. Now truth is comparing what is said or written to something else and seeing if it matches. In other words if your representation is accurate.

>Now truth is comparing what is said or written to something else and seeing if it matches. In other words if your representation is accurate.

That doesn't mean it is relative though. The truth is an ideal and ideality is contingent on its repeatability i.e. the signs (and structure, like language) used to denote it, which is accessed differently by different people. So philosophy is a study of language which is the 'event' of structuralism that Derrida refers to -- language defines the structure but can't be situated outside the structure (like God or man).

For philosophy though it is separated from other writing (language in general) by its claim to truth which has to be taken seriously instead of dismissed as mere literature. Structures are important to philosophy but sometimes what is outside that structure disrupts the inside, so you get writing disrupting the 'self-presence' of speech (by being able to be misinterpreted), decorative aspects sitting outside the artwork disrupting how one views the composition within the artwork, literary understanding of language like metaphors disrupting philosophy, etc. The point (of Derrida at least) is to look at the proposed ideal from the point of view of the contingent or accidental or historical, i.e. what is repeated in the 'real world' with the ideal in mind (that what is compared between two sources in an attempt to reach or represent that truth), to test the integrity of those claims to truth.

Derrida was for most anglo Derridians just an excuse- a way to surmount their American guilt: the inferiority complex of upper crust wannabes descended from shit farmers who were handed an empire and expected to explain while really being 'new worlder' cast offs. Basically, Derrida allowed such people to say (to others and themselves): "well this apex FRENCH thinker shared my ressentiment, ergo my ressentiment is justified"

No argument can be made against a person who does not know what they are talking about

Yeah I think this is true which is kind of a shame because there are some good American 'postmodern' ideas, especially in art, before Derrida was read in the US. But civil rights and second-wave feminism occurred there first and provided a lens through which to read Derrida.

Yes. You can point how he don kno nuffin.

>everybody believes the same fringe concepts as me, they're just too afraid to say it and it's all subterfuge

Fucking hell, what a charlatan. Anyone who takes him seriously needs their brain examined.

>Derrida is dangerous because he thought that identifying meant excluding

Does Peterson realize that this is NOT one of the original Derrida's premises? Does Peterson ferally hate Kierkegaard too? Because he said the same thing, verbatim.

didn't you listen to Baked Alaska on TRS? these are truly the greatest thinkers of our time

>who's monitoring

>everyone I don't like is zog

>/pol/ crossboarders

When will /pol/ fucking go? I'm genuinely tired of all this clueless, unsourced, blind antisemitic blabbering, which is pestering 90% of the threads of this board (and most Veeky Forums threads in general).
I mean, these people are trying to dismiss Derrida as a philosopher on the ground that his parents were Jewish: why shouldn't I immediatly assume that they are retarded teenagers who got educated by /pol/ infographics? In what world this is legitimate criticism? It's too stupid even for kindergarten's standards, and we are supposed to be on a board for literary and philosophical discussion.

This site is becoming far too pathetic.

Whiny shabbos goyim like you make this place 10x worse than any pol poster. You post is pure cringe.

No substance, lots of buzzwords.
Here's another worthless post, written to defend retards who attack Derrida for his Jewish parents (a criticism that identifies the critic immediatly as legally retarded), rather than his ideas.

Imagine giving third billing to a YouTube parody rapper at your rally.

Derrida was a jew, jews are different than Europeans, jewish ideas are frequently antagonistic towards Europeans--is this really that hard for you to grasp? You are emotional, annoying, and whiny. Much worse than the people you are crying about. Shut up or bitch over at reddit, you weak faggot.

Talk about cringe. Your pol tier posts... Wew.

>implying there isn't an international jewish conspiracy facilitating the displacement of whites in their homelands
i'm not even anti-semitic, i grew up with jewish friends, i even went to my classmates bar mitzvah (nagila hava, nagila hava. nagila venishmeja). The point is I have no problem with individual jews, the problem is the international jewry- the globalists, the special interests, jewish finance, the media, the banks.

Did he just read one page from Of Grammatology where Derrida mentioned how he will use the concept of logos and nothing after?

What a lazy pseud brainlet

Explain why Derrida's ideas weren't antagonistic towards Europeans then

You are from /pol/, /pol/ is different than Veeky Forums, /pol/ ideas are frequently antagonistic towards Veeky Forums--is this really that hard for you to grasp? You are emotional, annoying, and whiny. Much worse than the people you are crying about. Shut up or bitch over at reddit, you weak faggot.

Excellent response.

Except I'm not from pol, asshat. Everybody knows about jews these days. You whiners just have your heads up your arses and choose to ignore the obvious, or, more likely, are just kvetching jews yourselves. Whichever, you should go cry on reddit.

/pol/ is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him /pol/ and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.”

>I'm not pol
>You're a Jew
This is getting silly.

Quickly he turns the attacker’s charges back on him and the attacker becomes the liar, the troublemaker, the terrorist. Nothing could be more mistaken than to defend oneself. That is just what /pol/ wants. He can invent a new lie every day for the enemy to respond to, and the result is that the enemy spends so much time defending himself that he has no time to do what /pol/ really fears: to attack. The accused has become the accuser, and loudly he shoves the accuser into the dock. So it always was in the past when a person or a movement fought /pol/.

I've been here for 8 years, and it has NEVER been this shitty. Don't try to normalize it, otherwise this retarded clueless antisemitism will become the common sense of this board.

I mean, how do these guys approsch a philosophical text? They approach it this way:

>Derrida was a jew, jews are different than Europeans, jewish ideas are frequently antagonistic towards Europeans--is this really that hard for you to grasp?
>>implying there isn't an international jewish conspiracy facilitating the displacement of whites in their homelands

Why the fuck are we pretending that this is literary/philosophical criticism? Why? Can't you see how worthless and empty these speculations are? And how damn common are they on every thread of this board? Should I pretend that Veeky Forums was like this even 2 years ago?

This is the blabbering of a deeply ignorant people who know only one thing about Derrida: that he is a Jew. Nothing else. We clearly all know where these empty talking points come from (/pol/ is only a bioproduct of the actual propagandists) and we clearly all know how recent these tendencies are. Why am I supposed to pretend that this is not a bunch of people brainwashing teenagers on /pol/ with infographics and youtube videos, and then tell them to spread on other boards? It's obvious.

They have done a good job, so much that now opposing antisemitism is controversial, and calling them out will only result in them sttacking you and in "moderates" telling me to chill out. Apparently it is impossible to criticize these tendencies without creating controversies, which are never resolved through calm and collected debating (name calling is the name of the game).

lol at the buttsore of this guy. Still not from pol though.

Can you not see how people like you are viewed as more annoying than pol posters because of whiny screeds like this?

t. /pol/

I suspect Memerson has brought a lot over from /pol/. They watch a few videos, hear a couple of names like Derrida and Jung, and convince themselves they're all literary n' shit.

>Can you not see how people like you are viewed as more annoying than pol posters because of whiny screeds like this?

You're just playing their game to fit in. The result of your pandering? Posts as worthless as the ones I've quoted.
Apparently out of 40+ retarded antisemitic posts me criticizing them once is too much. Give me a fucking break.

i'm glad i preemptively deleted my post before you linked this wall of aspie to it.

all your outrage is so transparent, the truth is you have grown accustomed to the immediacy of this Veeky Forums posting style and while there are potentially better places to long-form discuss topics like these you'll ignore them because poor memeboy wants to keep doing it in an arena that feels more immediate and entertaining. you are stuck between wanting to give a serious treatment to these topics and still wanting to be subtly entertained by this immediate posting style. so you project your shit all over the shop in annoyance.

u aint foolin me son.

The few of you itt whining for the last however many posts, who I'm guessing are jews, sound like 14 year old girls crying about their spoiled birthday party. It's annoying. It comes off as insecure and defensive. People don't like it. They don't come here for that. And you're rightfully told to piss off to reddit. Veeky Forums is not your safe space away from hearing any negative talk about jews.

What you're not understanding is that you are using Veeky Forums as a safespace for antisemites. I have criticized them, and you got triggered, as if my criticism was an infringement of free speech.
This is the game you are playing for them: you are neutering every possible criticism, labelling it as people being butthurt, justifying this way the most retarded users of this board, which are currently pestering every thread of this site.
You're basically treating discourse as a feud between high school girls, in which what is said is less important than the appearsnces of the person who was arguing his point.

Your point is that I am wrong because Veeky Forums is shit, therefore I should praise retards and criticize who wants to create some decent content?
You're as defeatist as it gets.

>You're as defeatist as it gets.

you're a denial case dork who lectures people about healthy eating as he keeps shoving cake into his face. you like this shit website because it's fun to shitpost here. that's it.

>i is a sychologist

Shitposting is different than having to pretend that "le Derrida is bad because jew" is a good argument. It's retarded, but pointing out apparently means that I'm butthurt and that I want a safespace. Somehow you fail to recognize that you are in fact asking for a safespace for your fsvourite brand of retwrded shitposting. Imd rather see some genuinely, creative funny posts about actual writers, philosophers and their ideas.
Also, apparently, writing long posts on Veeky Forums is bad. Let that sink in.

>a nothing post calling out the conflicted hypocrisy of some larper is a serious attempt at psychology

okay.

>you got triggered
Do you people ever stop projecting? You're the one writing long moaning muh antisemites screeds itt. I'm just telling you they're annoying, make you look bad, and highlight why people don't like jews. You blame everyone else when your behavior is more annoying than what you're complaining about. There's no introspection on your part, it's always everyone else and never you. Sheesh, get some perspective, man.

most of it is shitposting though, is an excerpt from a contrapoints video i'm pretty sure. there are more sane people here than you think, most of us are just done wasting our time trying to convince people that there is no jewish conspiracy

Do you realise that you have not addressed not even a point. As I've said earlier, in 2 istances:
>You're basically treating discourse as a feud between high school girls, in which what is said is less important than the appearsnces of the person who was arguing his point.
and
>You're just playing their game to fit in.

And again, the fact that you think that long posts on Veeky Forums are weird and out of place is downright hilarious. It really shows us how new you are.

>Also, apparently, writing long posts on Veeky Forums is bad. Let that sink in.

you've been here for 8 years and now you're that wet blanket older guy who tries to lecture younger kids on how they should be posting and what they should be posting about. let that sink in.

It's a thread syaing that antisemites are a-okay becuase of international jewry.
Now, what is this thread about? Derrida. Why is international jewry mentioned? Because Derrida's parents are sephardic Jews.
You guys can't add 2 to 2

Therefore I should not criticize retarded posts? I should not point out how stupid they are because... I have been here 8 years? Because habing been here for 8 years means that you can concoct a strawman in your head?