So did Derrida pretty much prove that it's impossible to know the meaning of words or what...

So did Derrida pretty much prove that it's impossible to know the meaning of words or what. Did anybody disprove him compellingly?

If he's right then what's the basis of our literature and our codified laws?

J. Peterson has made him irrelevent.

Derrida just immanentizes meaning and makes it dialogical, same with Wittgenstein and most other Heideggerians

You already know the meanings of words. He is just telling you that you can't know them any more than you already know them in that way. There is no magical essence of a word standing outside it and making it make sense. The magic of language is that it makes sense even though it has no permanence.

If you want to move beyond Derrida and all the other immanentists, then start thinking about what a metaphysics after immanentism could look like. Now that we know that language doesn't transcendentally signify essence in any OBVIOUS way, what kinds of questions can we ask about how language DOES work? What anchors our ability to understand meaning in the absence of onto-theology? What makes language and understanding possible, Being possible, for real, evolved organisms, really existing and embedded in a material world? What would a true mystical neo-Platonism look like after being stripped of its onto-theological naivete?

If we apprehend a demand of this kind in its broader context, and view it as it appears at the stage which self-conscious Spirit has presently reached, it is clear that Spirit has now got beyond the substantial life it formerly led in the element of thought, that it is beyond the immediacy of faith, beyond the satisfaction and security of the certainty that consciousness then had, of its reconciliation with the essential being, and of that being's universal presence both within and without. It has not only gone beyond all this into the other extreme of an insubstantial reflection of itself into itself, but beyond that too. Spirit has
not oply lost its essential life; it is also conscious of this loss, and of the finitude that is its own content. Turning away from the empty husks, and confessing that it lies in wickedness, it reviles itself for so doing, and now demands from philosophy, not so much knowledge of what it is, as the recovery through its agency of that lost sense of solid .and substantial being.

This There already are some elaborations, the notion of 'imposible-necesario' of Núñez, and some other approaches to understand the 'spectral existence' of the kantian noumenon.

>Peirce goes very far in the direction of the deconstruction of the transcendental signified. Which at one time or another would place a reasurring end from the reference of sign to sign.
What did derrida mean by this?

Hard to tell without any context.

>Hard to tell without any context

great memes bro

Thanks. I felt like a bad boy for posting them, they're like junk food.
Also btw memes aren't real, the very conception of a "meme" is that of an impossible degenerate sign.

wow tell me more

Have you actually read him? A fraction of what he writes has substance, and even that is piddling. For most of the time, he's pettily rambling over very inane issues. He is an excellent example of the word sophomoric.

>it's impossible to know the meaning of words
But it is not only possible, but unavoidable to have an interpretation of them, which means that communication does not need to cease at all, which is more than likely what he was hoping for.

What have you read by him to reach such conclusions?

Anyone who critiques Heidegger would disprove Derrida.

Any good critique on Heidegger, then?

Why even try to discuss the guy when you've obviously never read him.

The Truth in Painting and Spurs: Nietzsche's Styles

I've never seems someone on Veeky Forums offer a critique of Heidegger

Everyone just sucks his dick, same with Hegel

I was asking for bibliography, though, not a personal commentary from user.

What was the fraction you thought had substance?

I didn't bother taking notes to tell you what pages to look on.

Here's a critique: phenomenological priority does not imply ontological priority.

What I meant is what of it do you remember thinking: this is not utter shit?

You could say that, but that just seems obvious. Heidegger surely didn't just accept that idea prima facie.

It is all shit, but from his rambling he does eventually try to make his arguments, the "substance."

No one does except some Christian, mostly Catholic, thinkers.

>he didn't read it

>everyone must end at the same conclusion of what they have read
Nice one, but unfortunately I did read those two, and they are a fucking horrid slog to get through. I'm not cruel enough to recommend them to anyone.

Let's pretend. How would you compare the two?

They're different books on different subjects, but in both he ultimately discusses linguistics and other people more than the subjects themselves. He revealed in both that he cared little about the subjects themselves, preferring to discuss, for example, what the word "painting" means and what Nietzsche's umbrella note means, and touching on what others have said they have meant. Almost nothing said at all about the subjects themselves but on external discourse regarding very pedantic aspects of them. To me, there is no value in this whatsoever, it's sophomoric content.

t. pseud shill

What do you think I'm shilling?

memes

Strange. Most Catholic thinkers and writers I've encountered think very highly of Heidegger. He is a paradox, simultaneously married to Thomistic cosmology while rejecting its ontological necessity. Heidegger was very seriously considering going into the priesthood at one point and it's clear that his thinking was very much shaped by the scholastics.

>So did Derrida pretty much prove that it's impossible to know the meaning of words or what.
Well if he really did that then you would also never know.
Also Ä**SMJTGFasoiõ
'üöl80o92wemllgfäõqasömvf akimnölamstõäüõ' ä'ass''gh@5tg??

hahah ahahah hahah nice meme!!

Hehe also if someone presents themselves as proven something like that he deserves to get beaten over and over again and over his every protestation it should be said : "what I did not quite catch you? Did you say you really really want more beatings?"

What's the meme here? Is it the logical reasoning or the joke user made afterwards?

The joke, of course. The logical reasoning didn't escape from Derrida, his philosophy is by definition self defeating.

by design, I should've said. Sorry, my English is trash.

>his philosophy is by definition self defeating
please direct us toward said definiton

Why would he set out to elaborate a self defeating philosophy?

suck a fat hog

Jesus fucking christ. I fully understand that this is a troll, but jesus christ. This is the worst comment i've ver read, and if the person writing this was serious, the person would be the person with the most shitty mind possible. Like, just fucking kill all these people, because even though i dont belive this comment in particualr is sincere, there are people in the world that hold these views, and i've spoken to them, which probably is the reson im so revolted, but still, fucking christ.

Thread ended here.

I dont think you understand

TL;DR

yes

>If you want to move beyond Derrida and all the other immanentists, then start thinking about what a metaphysics after immanentism could look like.
>metaphysics
No. Nietzsche is the way to go, metaphysics after him is a mistake.

No, Derrida very much relies on meaning of words to make his point, in a general communicative way, and to look at writing in a more considered way, with regards to etymology and genealogy and the like. He proves that words -- more specifically the written word -- is not just a substitute for the spoken word from which we infer intention and meaning and that it can be read as its own production; and related he proves that the spoken word is not a pure expression of thought or truth, even though the proximity of the speaker hearing himself speak gives the illusion of such.

The basis of our literature and codified laws is the metaphysical belief that speech (and with it the chain of other properties interior/present/intelligible/signified etc.) is a kind of elliptical shortcut to truth as situated in the 'onto-theological' (a Heideggerean term) character of Western thought, and that the derivative or opposite (writing/exterior/absent/sensible/signifier) are inadequate substitutes that lend themselves to corruption. The economy of this system gives us what things 'mean' by the relation of signifier to signified, and Derrida can't do without this, but what he was doing involved reading the text in a way where written words could also 'mean' something other than the pure intention of the author all without disrupting that economy that holds the text together.

>différance

What about it?

>There is no magical essence of a word standing outside it and making it make sense.
This kills the Socrates.

>I fully understand that this is a troll
>still gets mad
lmaoing @ ur life, pseudboi

I don't see how you can even have neo-platonism without transcendental metaphysics and essences. you might as well abandon it

no shit words have no meaning, they're vectors. You have to assume the person you're talking to is coming from a similar place as you so you can guide them to the meaning. A road has no predefined destination but you can give someone directions.

This.

I also find it funny that people think this is a revelation / Derrida was being original with this when the idea already bloomed in Nietzsche, and even before him.

Um, his philosophy is a wholesale rejection of Catholicism and a move towards a radical Lutheranism and Calvinism.

Catholics engage with Heidegger because they have no other choice.

Well, Derrida has done nothing other than to translate Heidegger into french. And Heidegger did nothing other than to rip-off Nietzsche while adding that will to power is still metaphysics.

To understand what you're trying to you have to understand that Derrida was a jew and applying an ethnic/talmudic method of thinking to attack or break down western philosophical notions. Western man uses philosophy to seek meaning; jew uses philosophy to destroy it or promote the notion that there is none. I know it sounds strange to good-natured whites but jews are an anti-people, they are stuck in destroy mode, so whites must approach their ideas and cultural machinations as an attack or attempt to reverse our own, because that's what they are doing.

Jews are a semitic people. The last thing semites are known for are producing creative or original ideas. What they are known for however is dishonesty and repackaging the ideas of others then promoting such things to others with malicious intent. That's more or less the history of Christianity as well, it's an immemorial phenomenon/tribal behavior.

This.

Worth reading CoC for the part on Derrida alone.

Heidegger invented deconstruction though.

i just read
> Jews are a semiotic people

lol it is also true, isn't it?

go to bed Kevin

This was addressed here: Jews are not original thinkers. What they do is in a malevolent fashion pick from others and twist their ideas in ways that are bad for the host group and good for jews, then they promote them tribally by doing things like, say, institutionalizing those nihilistic, iconoclastic ideas in academia. That was the case with Derrida and Marxism generally. But something like deconstruction also was not approached by Heidegger with bad intentions, which is not true for the jews who adopted and reformatted it.

...

>it's impossible to know the meaning of words or what
no he simply showed that often, especially in philosophy, words that are used mostly out of laziness or carelessness end up having more meaning than the author might have thought, and that this surplus meaning recurs systematically through the text

this is such a stupid person's post.

>What would a true mystical neo-Platonism look like after being stripped of its onto-theological naivete?
you'd have to find someway of figuring the transcendental within a form of historical materialism, not necessarily the marxist oriented toward class and contradiction. but derrida already provides this in the metaphysics of writing, trace, iterability, etc. check out martin hagglund

>Jews are not original thinkers.
Define "original thinker"

Derrida thinks words do have meaning though as he says otherwise translation is impossible. People think 'this is a revelation' because they haven't read Derrida.

Jews score low on spatial IQ tests, which are proxies for creativity, which is a proxy for outside the box type thinking, which informs the range of original thought and ideas. Jewish culture promotes consensus and jews are extremely similar to each other due to inbreeding so "original thought" or creative endeavors are and have always been largely absent from their culture.

lol this could be a critique of both the big H's

>lol pure being and nothing are the same thing
>I can't believe nobody has thought of this before!
Why do "people" like Hegel again?

Okay, so define "original thinker"

Someone who fits at the higher end within the framework you were provided.

>ewish culture promotes consensus
Not really true. They bicker endlessly about their Talmud or their modern secular versions of Talmudic discourse

this whole thing about spatial IQ reads like a massive we wuzz to me. Jews are highly overrepresented in physics and math.

It's funny how WNs will trot out IQ scores as proof of race differences but then try to downplay the Asian and Jewish scores. You either accept the metric or you don't, and anybody who isn't biased sees exactly what is going on.

welcome to the borderline of chaos and order, friendo

It's very true and the reason why jewish derived or promoted ideologies put people into believer/heretic camps, be it Christianity, communism, or liberalism: their community isn't concerned with nuance but forcing consensus. Jews are also over-represented more in the theoretical side of a field like physics. And WNs widely acknowledge Asian and jewish IQ scores even when they don't understand the results are based around rote memorization, which is why both groups are under-represented in terms of their actual innovations in fields of science and technology, of which whites are responsible for around 97% of the total. So everything in your post was wrong. Make more of an effort to become informed about the subjects you attempt to speak on in the future so you don't waste people's time correcting you.

Why do westerners need to seek meaning?

It's part of the European spirit, what some refer to as the "Faustian spirit" of white people. This desire to know and understand the world is what spurs artistic creativity, innovative striving, and an inclination to explore the world and beyond, and is as prevalent in whites as it is lacking in non-whites.

This desire to seek meaning is a weakness because it implies there's some magical objectivity to be reached, and then when some come along and say 'sorry folks' they are frustrated.

Rather unproductive and unsophisticated way of looking at things, don't you think?

Well a lot of people like to cling onto concepts and think there are such things as magical words and symbols and whatnot. But it's just sense-data and thoughts that want to grasp onto whatever.

basically this. It's obvious when you think of schizophrenis and bipolar people- for them the meaning is totally out of lign with reality, the subjective feeling of meaning is just a brain pattern, and not some connection with anything outside the person.

For normal people it's the same thing except that the feeling of meaning is correlated with stuff in the real world- love, having kids, art, etc. Ultimately though it's no different, it's just statistically accurate enough for the person to function well enough to reproduce

>It's very true and the reason why jewish derived or promoted ideologies put people into believer/heretic camps
>Everything good in white societies is because of Europeans
>Everything bad in white societies is because of the Jews

>correlated
now we know you don’t know what you’re talking about
>meaning isn’t directly connected with the outside world
wowzer then why do signs look like objects?

>>this whole thing about spatial IQ reads like a massive we wuzz to me
It is.

>dualist thinking is Jewish
no its Iranian and Aryan kill yourself you fucking hack
>Jews are underrepresented in creativity
no they’re overrepresented massively, they’ve created more inventions, theorems, financial instruments, books than all of the hispanics and blacks combined so this is bullshit
>asians aren’t creative
the japanese patent more new tech than anyone else, the chinese are the cutting edge of physics and computer science, no one else is as advanced as they are in biotech and ai research
>whites are responsible for 97%
wow weird how Jews have all those fields and nobel prizes and asians are publishing signifianctly more papers than whites, it must be white genocide tho
>become informed about lying little cowards

You can deconstruct the idea of deconstruction. It's more of an intended feature than a problem, but user's probably referring to that.

Deconstruction isn't a defeating though so probably not -- he's just talking out his ass.

Heidegger was buried a catholic desu.

Attached: snippity snap.png (1148x408, 235K)

It's obvious you're a kike, which is also why your fabrications are so transparent. Dualistic thinking was not what was being described.
>than all of the hispanics and blacks combined
That's not impressive.

>asians aren’t creative
They aren't, and much of their technology has been copied from white countries.

>Jews have
Benefitted enormously from their nepotistic behavior in white countries, where others are assumed to be acting honestly and in good faith, and have used our naivete to inflate their achievements.

Now get off this board, jew.

>i wasn’t talking about dualism but i was, but not when i talk to you
lol at you
>its not impressive
they’re 2% of the global population
>asians aren’t publishing more papers than whites
>they stole all of that groundbreaking AI and biotech research
>jews stole the ability to win fields medals for groundbreaking work and nobels for groundbreaking work
>leave my board so i can mutter in the corner with the other unclean souls in peace

>2% of the global population
N-no way there are that many of them.

yeah correlated as in the meaning feeling happens usually when something important actually does happens. There is a correlation between the feeling and between actual important events.

you’re right, they’re .2% of the global population which would make outperforming 2/3 of it extremely impressive.

You're a jew who is presenting lies and half-truths. This is a part of your nature. Is it worth my time to argue with a jew who has already proven himself to be a liar about why quantity of published papers in China is not a substitute for quality? You probably know this because everyone knows this, but you're a kike so honesty isn't important to you.

lol go home white man you’re finished, exhausted spirit, slimy soul
ignored what i said: WHY DO THE SIGNS LOOK LIKE THE OBJECTS? IF THERE IS NO APPERCEPTION OF THINGS AS THEY ARE THEN WHERE DO THE SIGNS ARISE FROM AND WHY DO THEY RESEMBLE THE OBJECTS GENERATING THEM? OR IS IT A COINCIDENCE THEY LOOK LIKE THEM

People should read Charles Murray's book Human Accomplishment. It explains how jewish scientific and technological contributions were literally nonexistent prior to the 1800s. When they were allowed to infest our societies afterwards was when they suddenly became amazing innovators, which often involved stealing from people and giving each other awards. Jews are dishonest people like the jewish poster itt. Thankfully this nature of theirs is becoming more transparent to others.