*destroys western society*

Kek, this is prettty funny post

HE CAN'T KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH IT

wtf, i made that... u losers are still posting it. thanks g! x0x0

You sound like the kid from Home Movies. Not the fat one, or the girl one. The other one.

You fuckers probably just regurgitate all your retarded opinions from Jordan Peterson. If this was Veeky Forums pre-2015 normalfag invasion everyone here would be shitting on you. Jordan Peterson is not your surrogate daddy and he does not give a fuck about you, he is a glorified meme life guru who says a bunch of vague, unsourced bullshit to make ez patreonbux off of gullible, insecure teenagers.

>derrida is LITERALLY heidegger in french

But Heidegger doesn't deconstruct?

>destruktion der metaphysik

Is this the first philophical YTP ever made?

I suppose it's just a coincidense that Derrida is a Yid.....nice try Schlomo but I outsmarted you by looking up his ethnicity on wikipedia!

You're the only Veeky Forums meme channel I know of. Make more School of Life videos too please.

so did Derrida invent Seinfeld or not? i'm curious now

>last year+1
>being a Veeky Forums reactionary

Star Wars was always terrible.

you really haven't seen the real interview this is taken from?

he's a pretentious douche who said that "he won't talk about seinfield because he'd never seen it and he'd recommend reading books instead"

>getting mad at someone for recommend people read
>on a literature forum

Nice try at canceling the irony of this thread with more irony. Maybe next time m8

He does say that but
None of it is pretentious

What's your
Point?

>he won't talk about seinfeld because he'd never seen it
Good
>he'd recommend reading books instead
Fair

Foucault did a lot more to "destroy western society"

>"he won't talk about seinfield because he'd never seen it and he'd recommend reading books instead"
is he /ourguy/ then?

ideayayinevi.com/okumalar/faulconer/deconstruction.php
>I learned a lot from my teachers. ... This instruction was very hard and heavy, very demanding according to classical norms. I was trained in those very classical norms. And probably people who read me and think I am playing with or transgressing norms--which I do, of course--usually don’t know what I know: that all of this has not only been made possible by but is constantly in contact with very classical, rigorous, demanding discipline in writing. ... the fact that I am at some level true to this classical teaching is essential. ... When I take liberties, it’s always by measuring the distance from the standards I know or that I’ve rigorously been trained in. Deconstruction questions the thesis, theme, the positionality of everything. ... We have to study the models and the history of the models and then try not to subvert them for the sake of destroying them but to change the models and invent new ways of writing--not as a formal challenge, but for ethical, political reasons.
>I wouldn’t approve of simply throwing texts into disorder. First, deconstructing academic professional discourse doesn’t mean destroying the norms or pushing these norms to utter chaos. I’m not in favor of disorder.
>I started with the tradition. If you’re not trained in the tradition, then deconstruction means nothing. It’s simply nothing.
>I think that if what is called "deconstruction" produces neglect of the classical authors, the canonical texts, and so on, we should fight it. ... I’m in favor of the canon, but I won’t stop there. I think that students should read what are considered the great texts in our tradition. ... Students could develop, let’s say, a deconstructive practice--but only to the extent that they "know" what they are "deconstructing": an enormous network of other questions.
>I’m in favor or tradition. I’m respectful of and a lover of the tradition. There’s no deconstruction without the memory of the tradition. I couldn’t imagine what the university could be without reference to the tradition, but a tradition that is as rich as possible and that is open to other traditions, and so on.
>Logocentrism literally, as such, is nothing else but Greek. Everywhere that the Greek culture is the dominant heritage there is logocentrism. I wouldn’t draw as a conclusion, as a consequence of this, that we should simply leave it behind.
>I think that people who try to represent what I’m doing or what so called "deconstruction" is doing, as, on the one hand, trying to destroy culture or, on the other hand, to reduce it to a kind of negativity, to a kind of death, are misrepresenting deconstruction. Deconstruction is essentially affirmative. It’s in favor of reaffirmation of memory, but this reaffirmation of memory asks the most adventurous and the most risky questions about our tradition, about our institutions, about our way of teaching, and so on.

No
0%humorface.jpg

Case in point

youtube.com/watch?v=JNkh4pEQDLw

"Heidegger has always been for me the essential philosopher." - Foucault

reminder that post-modernism is thoroughly German and Lutheran

"If I had known about the Frankfurt School I would have been saved a whole lot of work." - Foucault

Reminder that post-modernism is thoroughly jewish.

Take your tricks to reddit, heeb.

>If I had
>is

I once saw Derrida in Rome trying to deconstruct the Coliseum brick by brick. He had this almost demonic expression on his face while he was doing it which I will never forget. It's just sickening to think that such an individual hates Western civilization so much that he would try to bring down one of its most iconic pieces of architecture. I walked up to him and said, "Hey you postmodern bastard, stop that right now!". He slowly turned towards me and in a sly French accent he said "If this work seems so threatening, this is because it isn't simply eccentric or strange, but competent, rigorously argued, and carrying conviction". A manic grin then appeared on his face. I was horrified. I began walking backwards, slowly at first, then I span around and took off as quickly as possible. I could hear his malevolent cackling laughter echoing as I sprinted off into the distance.

LITERALLY pseud

man, those bloody post modern neo-marxists. so, let me tell you about neo-marxists. so, back in 1970s Foucault and Derrida decided to destroy the idea of masculinity because it was too penis-logic centric. And that's dangerous! What could you do without a penis-logo centrism as a male? That's why I tell my students... so, Jung wrote about this and Jung was a VERY smart man, talking about the image of god - not god, but image of god - so, Jung talked about a descent to hell, and man... he MEANT it. That was NOT a metaphor, to Jung hell was ACTUALLY hell. Like in the Biblical stories, when Adam got bit by God's snake... that was hell. and you DON'T want to go there, you know, that's CHAOS and you need order as well as chaos or you're going to DIE. And that's what exactly happened in Soviet Russia, well and also Nazi Germany, too much order and it devolved into HELL. You need a balance, an equilibrium, of yin and yang. So, when I tell my students about responsibility, I can see their eyes lit up! No one ever told them that before! Those bloody post modern neo-marxists man...

10/10 the pasta is good these days

Jack Balkin destroyed his hypocrisy in this text:
digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/272/

lol

*destroys western society*
heh nothing personnel kid

Just so newbies know, jews try to play this game with postmodern jews and shabbos goys wherein they pretend that the postmodern jews who actually hate whites and use these deconstructionist methods to attack white culture have the same benevolent or reformist intent as Heidegger, Nietzsche, or whomever. It's true that jews lack the creativity to come up with these ideas themselves and took concepts from those thinkers to develop their spiteful form of Marxist/postmodern critique, but the differences are that jews utilize these philosophical tools for malevolent purposes, and not because they want to better society, as these European philosophers did. They are a hostile alien presence that attacks from within, and their intent is never improvement, only destruction via Marxist/postmodern deconstruction.

>Western civilization started by being destroyed.

Whites take it personally.

Heideggerian realizes Frankfurt School are saying the same thing.

made me jouissance

Don't turn your brain off. Heidegger spent his life fucking Jewish women in his cabin. Arendt invalidated her own philosophy (ie, Eichmann and the banality of evil) by her association and forgiveness of Heidegger. Heidegger is the exact same that Eichmann was. Banal little bureaucratic moves against Jews in academia. But why Arendt doesn't see this in Heidegger is beyond me.

Anyway, Heidegger was super excited about Derrida and really liked what he read of his work and wanted Derrida to come visit him in his cabin but Derrida bailed out at the last minute. I know Heidegger read Foucault but it doesn't look like he took much interest in him. Foucault at the end of his life admitted that he was most influenced by Heidegger.

The guy created post-modernism skepticism. He's the reason we have feminist epistemologies.

>this guy created post-modern skepticism

heidegger was merely a mule that continued to carry nietzche's thoughts

Just so newbies know, faggots post like this in order to virtue signal to their tribe and to provoke a response from the uninitiated. It's true that they actually believe some of the retarded things they are saying, but the differences are that they intentionally exaggerate their own views in order to expand their tribe, and not because they want a rational debate, as they will often supplement their posts. They are a hostile alien presence that attacks from within, and their intent is never improvement, only assimilation via the dissolution of discourse.

It never occured to me till I read this that alt-rights virtue signal.

you must be new

For real?

w-what is this redpill?

I assumed they were sincere in their insanity.

>western society
heh, you can have it

It's only natural to have doubts, I guess.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

*deconstructs your deconstruction*
Nothing personal bucko

This post was written by a jew defending his tribe using alt right terminology.

yeah, went down the shitter almost immediately
oof

>He's the reason we have feminist epistemologies.

no pretty sure the subjugation of women as political and philosophical participants is the reason for that

Peterson willfully misreads Derrida, or at the very least, doesn't take the time to understand his theory properly. The supposed limitation of deconstruction, the idea "that deconstruction deconstructs itself," is a "limitation" that Derrida was certainly aware of, and in fact, is not a limitation at all. Deconstruction must deconstruct itself. If it did not, it could not be articulated or exist in language. If deconstruction was not privy to the very process it describes, it would itself become the very sort of notion that it condemns and says is impossible, the idea of something "absolutely present outside of a system of differences." Every word/concept capable of being articulated and understood in language can only be understood in a system of differences. This means, essentially, that a word never has a positive meaning derived from itself, but rather, we can only understand the meaning of a word by the way in which it differs from other words. We must essentially rule out everything it is not (to the extent which are finite language system allows) in order to articulate what it "is." The idea of deconstruction is essentially an expansion of this concept. For example, good is privileged over evil, however, good can only be truly understood in the context of evil, by the way in which it differs from evil. If there was no evil, there could be no good, or at least "good" in a sense that we can understand because it would have nothing to compare itself to. It must exist in a system of differences--good "differing and deferred" from evil. In this same way, deconstruction must be dependent on the very thing it critiques in order to exist at all. It's paradoxical thinking, but it has to be. Deconstruction needs logocentrism to exist, and vice versa. The flaw is not in deconstruction, but in our language, and our radical distinction between true and false. Our society privileges truth over falsity (and rightly so), and so, in order for deconstruction to be believed in, it must be said to be true, which immediately makes it privileged, which in turn makes it false, because there can be no privileging. This is not due to the invalidity of deconstruction, but rather to our inherent privileging of truth.

This place isn't for you. Make the trot over to reddit little guy.

Deconstruction itself is neither true nor false, presence nor absence, "but exceeds them both." If deconstruction did not deconstruct itself, it would become something "absolutely present outside a system of differences," the very sort of thing Derrida condemns as being dependent on a sort of creationist theology, something absolutely present outside the system, whose meaning and existence is self-contained and self-referential, only coming from itself. Furthermore, privileging is more complicated than a willful act on our parts, but again, also comes from flaws within the system of language itself. In the beginning of this review, I cited the Derrida/Peterson debate. Here, I have already privileged Derrida by placing him first. I suppose I could have written, Derrida/Peterson , Peterson/Derrida, but even then, I'm still privileging; the set of terms where Derrida is privileged because it comes before the set of terms in which Searle is privileged. The same would happen if I wrote Peterson/Derrida, Derrida/Peterson. Because we read left to right, there is no way out of this. We have the same problem writing Mr. and Mrs. on an envelope, we can either write Mr. and Mrs. Smith, in that order, or Mrs. and Mr. Smith, if we want to be avoid traditional gender hierarchies, but either way, because we read left to right, we inherently have to make a choice which we privilege something, one over the other--we cannot read/view them simultaneously, in one fell swoop in a way that would privilege neither. Again, the flaw is not in deconstruction, but in the language system and the reading structure itself.

yea i should reddit doesnt have any retards on it

>reddit doesnt have any retards on it

whos that frog he looks cool

Heidegger was Catholic though

Read more, little brainlet. He left Catholicism and developed a big hard on for Luther. Towards the end of his life he made approaches towards Catholicism and received a Catholic funeral. I'm not sure he fully went back to Catholicism but he definitely did express a break (he writes to a Catholic that he and his wife no longer believe in the 'Catholic system' but are still Christian).

Compare Heidegger and Luther on truth, rejection of the Latins etc. Heidegger is Nietzsche + Luther.

It's funny to see true believers of this semitic philosophical scam pretend they know what it is.

>Peterson willfully misreads
>implying peterson reads
he doesn't, i don't hate the guy but take him for what he is, a psychologist, he is no philosopher or literary critic

What does privileging mean in this context?
t. brainlet

This parody of him so is so good I can read it in his exact voice while simultaneously feeling a shivering frisson of cringe at how cringey it sounds.

I find it funny that it takes so much time and effort and words for philosophers to talk about concepts that are more poetically, beautifully, effectively, and succinctly showing up in forms of mysticism like Masonry, Hermeticism, Buddhism, Sufism, Hinduism, etc.

*destroys western civilization*

i'm pretty sure three world wars destroyed europe on its own.

was Derrida afraid he'd also get fucked in the cabin?

I read Arendt's Human Condition years ago and it just keeps ranking higher and higher in my eyes. Really good book.

LMAO

Someone give me the basic rundown on Foucault.

Every time I open up a book everything I read smells like a right winger 14/88 tier stuff where he slaps on a communist conclusion without much argumentation.

Was he secretly a nazi? I mean the guy wanted cripples to be stoned in a public square ffs.

>people begin to question first principles and whether old values and heirarchies have a place anymore
>must be those Jews trying to genocide white people by destroying muh family values and introducing the scary brown people
Brainlet, gb2 /pol/

>destroys Western civilization

I actually remember some NRxer outright saying his movement is anti-Socratic, but the quote's gone because he went delete fucking everything mode.

youtube.com/watch?v=JNkh4pEQDLw

Oh shit I actually found a low-quality source for that, look at the tweet section in pic related.