*dispels the mystifying elements of philosophy to keep it from developing into totalitarianism*

>it hasn't become more mystified and totalitarian as it becomes elements
everything is personnel and nothing personal, you little tinkerbell

Yeah, that doesn't clarify anything, thanks for trying though.

Ah yes, good old Jacques "Fuck-you-Dad" Derrida. My favorite 20th century biographer.

Derrida doesn't fittingly represent it at all though. Do you have some select quotes?

>Nietzsche diagnosed the root of jewish thought that Derrida so fittingly represents
m8, you're going to be very upset when you read what Nietzsche wrote about the jews and about the germans. I suggest you keep not reading him.

i have some infographics from /pol/ on my other computer

He is very handsome.

Being shitted is more meaningful than praise, user.

>from /pol/

Quelle surprise

Have you read the first part of Genealogy? Transvaluation refers to the jewish inversion of European morality and belief systems, and how this inversion is uniquely jewish. Derrida's philosophy is also an inversion of European philosophical norms and belief systems. What Nietzsche was referring to, which again he was not the first to do, was how jews think, and Derrida is an extension of that.

This imposter is not me.

Do you honestly expect pseudointellectual philosophers to actually clarify their ideas? That is incredibly naive of you. The job of the philosopher is to obfuscate as much as possible so they may guard their positions of prestige while pretending to do work.

Oh look, it's Money and Pussy Guy

Was Socrates the first uniquely Jewish subverter, my redpilled white brother?

You seem to think Nietzsche thought transvaluation was a bad thing.You're asking for a religion of pity, and you're getting it.

>Derrida's philosophy is an inversion
pure bullshit

He did think it was a bad thing, though he acknowledged it had been successful via jewish Christianity. Nietzsche was very pro-aristocracy and the transvaluation he spoke of was in opposition to that.

It's blatant and obvious.

>expect
No but I'll give someone the benefit of the doubt.

Derrida was literally a fucking mongoloid

Yeah, jew-hating user is talking out of his ass again.

it's the bronze skin

>You seem to think Nietzsche thought transvaluation was a bad thing.
He did

It's called redpill and it's true, cuck. the logical conclusion to Derrida's project is to have white women breed with black men instead of me, thus killing the West

You need to provide a counter-argument if you want to have your opinion taken seriously. I'm open to hearing it.

Nietzche referred to himself as a transvaluatator. He also had a great respect for the Jewish people. Your attempt to string together a loose form of logic that says Jew=evil is shallow and stupid.

Wasn't he well known amongst philosophers for completely making up narratives and themes in ancient Greek texts to make a point about phallogocentrism?

Also, did he ever write an actual philosophical work? I thought he was more of a writer than a philosopher proper.

>The job of the philosopher is to obfuscate
you are an idiot

How do you pronounce womxn?

No, please quote Derrida where he has inverted European morality and belief systems. Do you have some sort of alternate reading of Derrida where he doesn't explore the language as it actually is in the canon that makes up European morality and belief? You cannot progress your argument without direct reference to Derrida which is why I asked for quotes. There is no point responding to me unless you do this so please demonstrate your claims.

With 2 'x's

Womoxen

not that guy, butNietzsche referred to himself a a transvaluator in the sense that a new transvaluation was needed in order for humanity to move past slave morality and become ubermensch; he didn't see the jewish transvaluation of aristocratic values in a good light at all

There is no need to counter such a silly idea that Derrida would represent a root. It's fantasy.

how about you dispel these damn nuts

>He did think it was a bad thing, though he acknowledged it had been successful via jewish Christianity.
No, he says it was necessary because the Church was anti life and anti nature and welcomed it with open arms. This is basic
>God is dead he died choking on his sympathy for mankind
shit.

You're not even fifteen year old reading Nietzsche for the first time thinking
>Je suis le superman
retarded.
You've moved into haven't read the text and being blonde enough to think we can see the tits you're trying to coast through life on retarded right now.

Do you need some tech support?

You don't want to listen so you're hearing what you want to hear.

Nietzsche stated that jews manipulate the weak to bring down the strong. One can see this strategy in Christian morality, communism (proles over the bourgeois), liberal multiculturalism (non-whites over whites), and one can see it in Derrida's notions that promote subjective interpretations, assumed bias, and the inversion of western philosophical norms.

This is how jews think. There are endless examples of this going back millennia. It's an ethnic strategy they use to weaken their host society.

it's one of the clicks in Xhosa

>Derrida's notions that promote subjective interpretations
you don't get it at all, subject is not center

>Nietzsche stated that jews manipulate the weak to bring down the strong.
>being this german while quoting the polish philosopher
why would you chose that embarrassment for yourself if you didn't deserve it, i guess. laughing girls jpeg and so forth

No, you are wrong. He did not say it was necessary, he said the jewish slave revolt was successful but he was clearly in favor of a return to aristocratic values and not inverted jewish slave values.

It's right there.

These are not real arguments. These are people who are reflexively defending jews and are not interested in the truth about what is being discussed here.

You know the transvaluation of values being a good thing is the entire basis of The Antichrist. The antichrist is also a good thing and the only book he completed on the matter

Post them titties.

>HE DOESN'T KNOW NIETZSCHE HATED GERMANY
>HE DOESN'T KNOW HE ASKED TO BE CALLED POLISH BECAUSE GODDAMN HE HATED GERMANY
>HE DOESN'T KNOW HE FAVOURED HIS FRENCH TRANSLATIONS OVER HIS ORIGINALS
>HE DOESN'T KNOW NIETZSCHE WAS A FRANKABOO
I yelled because you're definitely not in a library.

Proles
> Go to war and die
> Do all the hard shitty work that keeps society going
> Occasionally build revolutions and put bourgeois scum up against the walls
> Make all the culture (now that aristocracy is dead or made mediocre by bourgeois decandence)
> Know that truth is truth because they work with real stuff in reality every day, and can get killed on the job if they live in la-la land

Bourgeois
> Rely upon cops (proles) to violently suppress opposition
> Make all their money by doing nothing
> Own all the media that disseminates bullshit lies and tricky propaganda
> Control academia and hire academic shills to disseminate SJW liberal propaganda so the ruling class doesn't unite

Gee, who is manipulating who? Who is the weak and who is the strong?

That's just a pdf I'm screenshotting for convenience. Would you be more prone to presenting an actual argument if I took pictures of the Clark and Swensen-translated physical copy in front of me?

yes, post pics

Communism was about jews using the lower classes to overthrow the European aristocracy and install themselves as the new elite, and this is exactly how the bolshevik revolution played out.

>if I post a different version of a less relevant text, will you stop pointing out ASZ and the The Antichrist called me pathetic?
No, you're pathetic. Read more if you want to discuss texts you haven't yet read. Stop being pathetic if you don't want to be pathetic. It's not fucking rocket science.

Present a reasoned counter-argument and I will consider it.

The main point is applying the lessons of structuralism to philosophy. Since there is no one-to-one link between signifier and signified (the signifier exists in a network of other signifiers, the 'signifying chain'), there is less reason to believe that the progression of logic is due to the hierarchical organisation of binaries since that would imply a centre (the 'transcendental signifier' or 'logos') which is absent if there is a network. It's much the same thing as philosophers have done after Kant, which is clarifying the philosophical search for truth by the scope and limits of what is available (the extent of categories or faculties), rather than making claims that can't be disproven.

We know for certain that we can't escape language when we talk about language, so language isn't based on the logos. The logos presupposes that there is presence and then there is representation, with speech being a more direct access to truth than writing by which we record speech. Derrida argues that speech functions because of a coded structure of communication that actually precedes it (Derrida calls this writing because it is a demarcation to give the world/presence 'structure'), otherwise we couldn't understand each other. This is a demystification of a common thought in Western philosophy, that speech precedes writing. If writing precedes speech then we need to look at philosophy in a new way, but by still using that codified structure of philosophy because otherwise it wouldn't function as philosophy. Philosophy belongs to that codified structure and is the point of where we have distinctions between speech and writing in the first place.

Demarcation by making distinctions (based on other distinctions; the signifying chain) has allowed for a hierarchy to develop that is otherwise unable to be demonstrated. What complicates these previous hierarchies is that the lesser of the binary opposite tends to 'disrupt' the hierarchy on its own accord (thereby demonstrating that the hierarchy is unstable). The problem in interpretation of Derrida is believing he is advocating this 'deconstruction' rather than recording this tendency for it to occur, because the structure -- based on logical principles -- tends to 'act' in a way almost without an actor, like when we mean to write something but the ambiguities of language has us mean something else to someone else. But the belief that this hierarchy is true has led to all sorts of mystification based on unproven beliefs and preserving a naturally unstable hierarchy leads to totalitarianism rather than a humanism that preserves the integrity of the logical project of philosophy.

The man is a genius.

superlative_laugh.jpg

(Checked)

>B-but JEW
b-but Derrida is why [s4s] and [s4s] is love. Derrida cannot be Jewish anyway because he's a ghost. His hair was practicing to become one just before OP's very nice bicture. Don't say mean things like JEW about [s4s] again, anonchama, because it is love and you do not want it to call you bully and maybe not be your friend some day and share cakes and dainty things like mems.
TIA I know you don't mean to be rude to nice things, it's okay, I would forgive you even if you were a Jews.

No, that's the other one, but this is a common mistake.

drivel

sabotage thought in general to the degree that no one is capable of ever getting coherent and organised enough to set up another shoah.

Seemed to have worked so far.

He deemed a return impossible in that very book. Modern morality is a mix of both. The aristocrats were healthy, pure but dumb brutes who were easily tricked.

You can give it a rest now, nobody cares about your inflammatory rethoric and accusations. We can read.

rude and uncalled for and i question your certification in memehistoriography and general memetics. how many bird pictures have you?

further, nice dubs. see: you're not all bad

You are having trouble separating the concept of Jews from resentment/slave morality. These are two separate concepts which sometimes overlap. You're going for this stupid "eternal Jew" bullshit, which is itself a form of resentment.

Man trump copied his style from derrida. White hair and horrible tan.

What? No. I'm highlighting how jewish intellectual behavior is based on inversion, how this can be seen in ancient as well as modern contexts, and how it has been commented upon by numerous non-jewish thinkers throughout the centuries.

>being an essentialist
>to argue nietzsche said
kek.
what you think you're doing, you're doing wrong.

What you are essentially doing is cherry picking the Jewish behaviour that does fit the pattern of inversion, ignoring the rest, and filling in the gaps with your own personal excrement.

The most significant Jewish philosophy is Spinoza who's work was a continuation of the classical tradition and whom Nietzsche identified as his predecessor.

The strategy of inversion is used by all weak, sickly people. So it was originally used by Jews who were enslaved by Babylonians but it is not an appropriate strategy for successful, healthy, confident Jews. Likewise the strategy of inversion is perfectly fit for the ugly, stupid, resentful anti-semetics: a group Nietzsche himself specifically called out as losers.

You clearly do not understand cause that is not what I'm saying at all here lol. But I guess you're trying; I am aware that many simply can't reach the bar.

1 post by this id

you know who you are

Jewish intellectual behaviour being based on inversion is an essentialist proposition. What you think you're doing, you are doing wrong. What you think you're indicating to your audience is not what you're actually revealing to them. It's very postmodern ironic of you, and I can't wait to teach you Greek.

pleased to meet you

>What you are essentially doing is cherry picking the Jewish behaviour

Is this a joke?

The examples here are Christianity, communism, liberalism, Marxism, and postmodernism. Do you know the definition of "cherry picking"? You don't seem to.

I understand you want to present an argument here, but put a little more thought into it. I am using macro systems of as my examples.

>Nietzsche himself specifically called out as losers.

He didn't live to see the damage jews caused in the 20th century. I'm not taking him as a general authority on jews, though, I'm highlighting an idea of his that has been expressed by many others to show the larger picture.

You never did, son.

Has there been a single refutation of him by an user, which references directly those passages which they disagree with and subsequently demolishes his arguments? Or is he the unbeatable final boss of Veeky Forums philosophy?

The inversion I'm referring to is literally the reason jews were kicked out of Egypt. This is nothing new and you want to make comments that insinuate you understand I recommend doing a better job of listening.

Here's the argument: He's a Jew

*stage whisper*
postmodernism is the reason you've heard of nietzsche. it's sadly also the reason why you think you can get away with memeing against even a sparknotes reader, but in someone more skilled and talented's hands it could be interesting.

all that room and you read his sister. all the girls you could have picked to read, and you chose the never heard of any more nietzsche. beta af

not an argument

Of course it's nothing new, you've only read part of one of his early books and have no understanding of his work or use of terms. If you had something other than that, which was more interesting, like ostriches or ironmongering, then maybe you could do something new and interesting, even if it were as wrong as you currently are about Nietzsche's hard on for Heraclitus. I'd suggest if you do have ostriches, you trot them out.

Derrida's philosophy is a reflection of jewish thought, which is the inversion of western thought. Just as the weak > strong inversion of morality I've been using Nietzsche's example of, Derrida's inverted version of jewish philosophy contends that truth cannot be known, that meaning is subjective, and that hierarchy should be torn down, which is an inversion of the tenets of western philosophy that strive to obtain truth and meaning within a hierarchy of thought.

Weak and not an argument, try again.

Listing off your fabricated assumptions of me is also not an argument, try again.

>if I call him weak he'll stop owning me
spooky, my property

Christianity was a creation of Paul a gentile and most of the major players in it's foundation were gentiles.

You're understanding of post-modernism as an evil Jewish conspiracy is laughable.

In contrast Zionism is actually very close to the aristocratic values Nietzsche promotes.

The anti-semites hate the Jews for preciously the reason Nietzsche would praise them for: wanting to deceive and conqueror everyone else. While the anti-semite them-self set them-self as docile, lamenting, victims.

They're presumptions, and it's intended to be a statement which you cannot refute, so since you can offer no counter argument, I win. Nice doing business with you :^)

>Derrida's inverted version of jewish philosophy contends that truth cannot be known, that meaning is subjective, and that hierarchy should be torn down

Where does he say this?

Thank you for taking the time.

>Since there is no one-to-one link between signifier and signified (the signifier exists in a network of other signifiers, the 'signifying chain'), there is less reason to believe that the progression of logic is due to the hierarchical organisation of binaries since that would imply a [logos] which is absent if there is a network.

This is such a dubious claim that I don't really know where to begin. I guess the most obvious place to start is why are the only two descriptions of language 1-1 communication model and a network model? Where is the evidence that these are the only two models of language, or that either of them are valid? I can certainly see situations in which either of them could be valid - A military boot camp probably relies heavily on a communication model, for example.

>that meaning is subjective,

This is also Nietzsche's position you tard. And if you bothered reading the man you'd see it was also a position that existed in the pre-socratic period (aka Western civilization) via Heraclitus.

Please stop invoking the N man's name, when you clearly haven't read him and stand against him in all positions.

It's just a JIDF shill. If he claims he's read Deleuze, then he's Israeli trained. They're the only ones who read it. It's why he's laying it off on a Nietzsche scholar, because he's the Jewish rat. P. obvious.

>Christianity was a creation of Paul a gentile and most of the major players in it's foundation were gentiles.

No one is going to read your posts and take the time to craft serious responses to your posts if you make obviously false assertions like this.

m8, have you not read the Bible?