You have ten seconds to sum up for me in three letters why I shouldn't believe this guy's remarkable philosophical...

If you claim to understand this man then you have completely misunderstood him and will forever be lost.

Fpbp

pomo/atheist/homo writers are so easy to refute, they basically refute themselves. Finally Veeky Forums is waking up to what /pol/ realized decades ago

Does he purposefully misrepresent arguments of left-wingers, or does he just not actually understand/read them?

His understanding of Marx is laughable for a tenured professor.

Whenever I see this shit, I wonder how he got a job as an academic. Solely because of his speaking and presentation skills? Or perhaps his research is actually that good.

In any case, his lectures are a crime. He doesn't cite sources for most of the political/historical (and often even psychological) claims and arguments he makes.

How is this acceptable in an academic institution?

Also, Derrida is trash. But not because of the reasons Peterson says.

Derrida's major philophical propositions

*Truth is relative
*Gender is an oppressive social construct
*Society must be destroyed in order to end oppression
*The best way to destroy society is to invert the founding values.

!FACT!
Derrida was the founder of and the most importaint of a the post-modernist movement. He also publically admits to being a Jew!

Derrida's major philosophical proposition was that binarys are bullshit, meaning is a shifting thing, and signifiers lose their signifieds in a shifting circle of borrowing and "defference."

You obviously haven't read him.

>You obviously haven't read him.

Why would you read the works of a lying Jew? Have you seen the type of stuff that's in the Talmud? Peterson knows it's bullshit too and he's going to bring down the whole house of cards like a house of cards!

>binarys are bullshit
So there's 46 different genders! Not just 2?

>meaning is a shifting thing, and signifiers lose their signifieds in a shifting circle of borrowing and "defference."

This just sounds like Kabbalist trickery. If you want to know what something means use wikipedia.

>Derrida's major philosophical proposition was that binarys are bullshit, meaning is a shifting thing, and signifiers lose their signifieds in a shifting circle of borrowing and "defference."

So he just injected some useless jargon to the ancient hermetic idea of polarity, and acted as if he was saying something new and interesting?

>"Everything is dual, everything has poles; everything has its opposite: like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature but different in degree; extremes meet; all truths are but half-truths; all paradoxes can be reconciled." - the kybalion

...

Right on, brother. God is the only answer and he has chosen Europe and the white man as his choice to lead the world. We must content ourselves with nothing less than death for any lesser race that does not comply to European values and even more than that for any traitors of the white race. DEUS VULT

pff

>So he just injected some useless jargon to the ancient hermetic idea of polarity, and acted as if he was saying something new and interesting?

Not quite. He claimed most philosophy (and general discourse) throughout time, since Plato, has generally applied bipolar schemas to things, and spectrums where they aren't actually applicable. He argued that in the modern world, this idea has begun to break down. As it broke down it created unanchored meanings which causes an instability of meaning. He argues this is closer to the actual objective state of things, because objects don't exist in pure binary oppositions to other things, but it creates a constant slippage of meaning as the referents are no longer anchored.

It's hard to explain and its been a while since I read him.

I don't actually rate his philosophy too highly, especially because it's written in an overly convoluted way, but it's very complex and impossible for me to summarize.

>So there's 46 different genders! Not just 2?
Derrida would argue that having 46 genders is just as arbitrary as having 2, so why not.

I doubt he would preference one or the other. Or he might prefer 46, because it subverts tradition or something.

The other thing Derrida was into was "deconstruction". Which is the idea of looking closely at binaries which we take for granted, and finding where they fall apart.

>because it subverts tradition

So why this board hates Derrida even tho he wasn't a commie while adoring Deluze who was an actual commie?

cos pronouns man said to and we don't read

You clearly haven't read him either.
>defference
Embarrassing.