How can anyone believe in phallogocentrism, am I missing something? It's comoletely retarded

How can anyone believe in phallogocentrism, am I missing something? It's comoletely retarded.

>It's comoletely retarded.
I feel like you have some repressed emotions that make you feel this way. You probably have severe castration anxiety and your ego tries to repress it. Just let go. Let go and you'll understand what Frued was getting at.

Either this, or you're unredeemably stupid

gynocentrism is pervasive today, but its a very recent phenomenon, only really got started a couple centuries ago. before that, pretty much everywhere save a couple hideouts in Tibet and the like where highly phallocentric since like the of the neolithic transition

Fucking freudian slips

Ahem
>PhalLOGOcentrism

>comoletely
This is what happens when you try to give 2 handjobs while simultaneously typing with your peen

it's only believed by psychopaths and their various theories and why the fuck anyone listens to psychopaths is beyond me

first of all penis =/= phallus. and erection =/= phallus either. if the erection is the material, particular form, for a phallogocentric theory the phallus as such would be the ideal, the erection waiting to be achieved by every particular penis but never actually managed in reality, because unlike, say, a stone obelisk, an erect penis has the primary function of ejaculation, of surrendering its phallic aspirations. phallogocentrism simply asserts that all signifying practice—all efforts to say "i was here," every marked attempt to record a presence in preparation for future absence—has this phallic character that it never fully achieves its own purpose despite its standing out as a visible mark.

so why do you use penises to illustrate this principle

So you can understand.

>Freud
You're thinking of phallocentrism

I'm starting to like Derrida more and more lately, what is happening to me

Does he look like your dad perhaps?

In what texts does Derrida most explicitly talk about phallogocentrism?

because it's a psychological-psychoanalytical point

is that george carlin

There's very few people I dislike more than those who take Fraud seriously.

fascinating

It is retarded. Some people try really hard to convince the world that their neuroses belong to everyone. Welcome to psychoanalysis.

right on, me too, it's almost as if having a friend, a genuine friend when i read him. he has this way of writing which (a thing of algeria maybe, a nostalgic hospitality) befriends you and takes you on a journey with him, being maybe what our fathers were not because they lacked the friendliness part.

circumfession maybe

>*gynologocentrism

thank you for giving us such a clear example of vacuous pseudo-intellectual bullshit
the reason rhetoric like this is worthless, precisely speaking, is:
>for a phallogocentric theory the phallus as such would be the ideal, the erection waiting to be achieved by every particular penis but never actually managed in reality
this implies that every penis is "waiting to achieve" some kind of "ideal erection", which is not only a completely unargued absurd-sounding idea but probably nonsensical
but it's something that you might, for a moment, think is sort of a clever idea, if you use your imagination--and that's all the pseudo-intellectual needs
>an erect penis has the primary function of ejaculation, of surrendering its phallic aspirations.
this implies the same thing as above, plus the idea that ejaculation can be primarily characterized in terms of "surrendering" the "phallic" aspect, which is again an unargued and implausible idea, but if you just put it into the middle of a sentence to make it sound like you know it makes sense, you might just be able to pass it off as an intelligent sub-point
>phallogocentrism simply asserts that all signifying practice...has this phallic character
here the pseudo-intellectual just randomly makes an analogy that is provocative and sounds profound in the context of vague freudianism

as you can see, the moment you actually pay attention to this kind of stuff sentence by sentence, absolutely none of it gets past your radar
it only works in bulk
it literally only ever succeeds because you get barraged by bullshit to the point where you don't have the time to pick it all apart
this is exactly the nature of pseudo-intellectualism
real intellectualism is actually, funnily enough, exemplified by just what I'm doing right now--which is explaining in clear terms what's wrong, intellectually speaking, with some piece of highfalutin rhetoric that tries to change your point of view by giving you deliberately awful verbiage full of half arguments

>but it's something that you might, for a moment, think is sort of a clever idea, if you use your imagination--and that's all the pseudo-intellectual needs
>implying psueds have an imagination
ya blew it, good job, I stopped reading there because your logic is trash
and I'm not even the user you're replying to

Yeah! You totally BTFOd that Anonymous Veeky Forums comment summary of a complex and well-established philosophical and psychoanalytical insight!

>which is not only a completely unargued absurd-sounding idea but probably nonsensical
So what yo're saying is that you don't actually have any knowledge of the argument but sounds kinda bullshitty to you so it must be wrong? Hm.

i struck a chord huh

t. Harold Bloom
at first I was unsure, but it makes much more sense now, women are just incomplete men