What the FUCK was his problem /lit?

What is that supposed to mean? Derrida deconstructed seemingly abstract ideologies to highlight that they were bound and somewhat determined by socio-political, ecenomic, and cultural factors. He grounded theories in their time and place. Derridas problem was ideology and he attacked it effectively.

I don't know if I hate poltards or obvious rabbitors like you more.

You don't hate me.

>begins answering the question by demonstrating one of the fundamental moves of deconstruction
God damn Derrida is awesome. He's always doing this shit, where not only is the philosophy contained within the content of his writing or response, but the structure of work itself is doing philosophy. There's a great essay he wrote
as part of a collection to be presented to Levinas as a gift towards the end of his life (Adieu to Levinas...Levinas might have been dead already actually). Levinas had a thing about gift-giving though where he says that true respect for the other requires ingratitude. So what does Derrida do? He intentionally misreads Levinas in certain places as a sign of ingratitude, thereby showing his true respect for Levinas as a thinker. Of course this is an interpretation you could only see if you already knew Levinas and recognized the context of the writing, which is so often the case with Derrida. But the man was insanely smart and creative

Thought you meant he was ideologically-driven. I saw your comment in the milieu of teenage Zizek-posting

People can parse out what he's saying though. Which is why there's so much excellent secondary literature on Derrida, much of which breaks down the ideas into something more palatable. But maybe not all writing is intended to be written for the layperson. Don't you think there should be some room for writing that's geared toward fellow academics who are also extremely well studied in the history of philosophy? Or should everything be written at a level that an undergrad can look over a few times and get? And shouldn't there also be room for people to experiment with style? He has an early work on Husserl that's fairly straightforward and easy to understand, so he could clearly write that way.

He was ideologically driven to destroy ideology.

>reads a translation
>tells the writer to learn how to form a sentence
You fail to think things through often, dont you?

The contingency of linguistic signs desu

>Don't you think there should be some room for writing that's geared toward fellow academics who are also extremely well studied in the history of philosophy?
Only if that is literally the only way it can be expressed. Academics shouldn't seek t turn their fields in to exclusive circlejerks.

he was circumcised

I see him as the Hitler of philosophy.