Spend 10 years avoiding Derrida because I think he's some final boss of philosophy

I mean there is a reason Derrida has been a dead dog even in shit comp-lit departments for 15-20 years.

People on here think he is still important because (a) they went to shit schools and their professors just teach the same shit they learned in grad school 30 years ago, or (b) Derrida is taught to undergrads because he ruined literature departments for so long they feel like they have to teach him to undergrads.

Kant is the father of continental philosophy. Check out his Wikipedia article again.

I am 73 years old and I have been on this board for years. I have never seen any post like this. I can assure you that Derrida is an +A level philosopher who brought us deconstruction.

Kant is the father of all philosophy that came after him, including analytic philosophy.

There would be no Frege or Carnap without Kant. And Sellars, Rawls, C.I. Lewis, Peter Strawson, Korsgaard, McDowell, are pretty big names in analytic philosophy...

calling Derrida "derivative" of Saussure shows just how little you understand both of them, lmao

he is still pretty important for postcolonial studies, i should think

>WASN'T HE QUIRKY???

For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.

Guess he figured it out. Probably had to read a book though. Weaksauce.

Yes

Well, all the worse for postcolonial studies I guess

>only a trendy celebrity because horrendous parody-of-themselves-tier philosophers
>not including Lacan as the absolute quintessence of that category

>Lacan
>Philosopher

pls let this meme die

Derrida at least looks like a final boss

What the fuck was he then?

Suck my fucking dick you fucking retard.

i think its levi strauss

le worlds greatest topologist of course

>he didn't know Derrida is a pseud

that's not really an answer to the question nor is it even as much as an appropriate response.

ah i see. i don't really think that's a fair characterization either, though. haha.

if you want to go after derrida, though, go after him on his obsession with "metaphysics;" marx had already killed it with historical materialism. ethics are the real problem, which derrida would have known if he were a better reader of neitzsche.

lacan is le best le knot theorist! SUBJECTIVITY IS PRESERVED UNDER ALL CONTINUOUS DEFORMATIONS!!!

i don't wanna go after derrida, i love him

don't worry, historicism can always rehabilitate. what Derrida is in need of is a "return to Nietzsche," in the same way Lacan engineered a "return to Freud"

fucking lol. if you want to go after derrida go after the fact he is a derivative fake who was a shit reader of the philosophical tradition and didn't know when to fucking quit it with his stupid rhetorical ticks

Come on guys, he is at least as much of a philosopher as Diogenes of Sinope. As far as I know he just acted like a douchebag in order to prove it is possible to act like a douchebag. Sounds like somebody else.

Not as good a philosopher as Bobby 'Don't Worry be Happy' McFerrin though!

Kant is not one of the bad guys - he was an actual philosopher (despite his regrettably tortuous writing style).

In the interest of naming the enemy, here is the list of pseudo-philosophical charlatans you want to avoid:

Hegel, Bergson, Heidegger, Benjamin, Gadamer, Lacan, Adorno, Sartre, Levinas, Arendt, Merleau-Ponty, Levi-Strauss, Beauvoir, Ricoeur, Lyotard, Deleuze, Foucault, Derrida, Irigaray, Badiou, Nancy, Rancière, Kristeva, Agamben, Latour, Zizek, and Butler.

>Heidegger
>pseudo-philosophical

?

Literally go fuck yourself.

>Stop liking what I don't like philosophy edition

Fucking Hegel? Are you serious? He created the foundation for all of materialist thought

They are all le epic personalities and """"funny"""" and """""""quirky"""""" celebrities, not philosophers.

you aren't even wrong

ITT : people talking about authors they never read

Philosopher here!

Hegel, Heidegger, Gadamer, Lacan, Adorno, Sarte, Levinas, Merleu-Ponty, Arendt, Ricoeur and Foucault are all real philosophers, and range from excellent to merely interesting.

Benjamin is a great thinker, but I don't think he is a philosopher (not that he isn't more interesting than many philosophers). Deleuze is a mixed bag, Zizek is an entertainer, and the rest are frauds.

Sorry! I didn't mean to include Lacan on the philosopher list!

what a silly thing to say!

>foundation for all of materialist thought

Epicurus and Democritus

...

Levi-Strauss and Barthes are NOT philosophers.

levi-strauss is hugely important in several areas of philosophy because he is a theoretician of geisteswissenschaten

barthes too but not so much

Current materialist thought. He's really fucking important is the thing

All continental philosophy is is the obfuscation of unsubstantiated opinions.

>Current materialist thought

Please tell me who you are thinking of.

HAHAHAHAHA

YOU
FUCKING
RETARD

>Claude Levi-Strauss

what an unfortunate name

Heidegger is the paradigm example of a gibberish-spewing bullshit artist who masquerades as a 'philosopher'.

Bullshit - you are clearly not a philosopher. Nobody studies any of those figures in philosophy.

No, he isn't. He is never cited by actual philosophers - materialist or otherwise.

1. not true
2. i don't work on them, but that doesn't mean i don't read and enjoy them.

how's undergrad?

pls read more

Zizek, the list goes on :^)

Agreed.

Anyone who reads deconstructive texts with an open mind is likely to be struck by the same phenomena that initially surprised me:

>the low level of philosophical argumentation
>the deliberate obscurantism of the prose
>the wildly exaggerated claims
>the constant striving to give the appearance of profundity (by making claims that seem paradoxical, but under analysis often turn out to be silly or trivial)

funny man ;)

and don't forget Malabou. the most important philosopher working on phil mind/neuroscience alive!

Nobody studies any of those figures in philosophy. Nobody even cites them.

Why is there a sudden influx of anti-Derrida (and anti-continental in general) posters these last two weeks? I thought we had all agreed to coexist peacefully, analytic friends jerking off to logical systems while continental friends pretended they were "organless" transgender lolis for some deep Foucault roleplaying, but you people are shitposting at extreme levels.

I mean, Derrida is sort of passe, but to claim he has no influence at all in any meaningful school or shit like that is just being ignorant and considering only anglophone, logic oriented departments are worth a shit.

My nigga by all accounts Derrida was actually tsundere for Debord, who wanted nothing to do with him.

>giving b+ to derriduh

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_Inc#Dispute_with_John_Searle_.E2.80.94_.22Afterword:_Toward_An_Ethic_of_Discussion.22

Read this you fucking retard

The only reason based Benji isn't a philosopher is that Adorno and Panofsky were too dumb to understand the Origin of German Drama (but so what, so am I, I could barely make it past the intro lel)

>considering only anglophone, logic oriented departments

This is an English-speaking board, troll. Also, even globally, philosophy = what you call 'analytic' philosophy. "Continental philosophy" is not a thing, except on Veeky Forums. Pseuds like Derrida are only read by other pseuds in shit fields like "Cultural Studies".

This isn't true.
Let's walk through a few departments:
NYU: i count 6 people on the faculty who have interests in some of these figures
Columbia: i count 8
Pitt: I count 5
Chicago: I count 9
Harvard: I count 6
Yale: I count 6
Berkeley I count 7

do i need to continue? fucking learn something about your field.

There are (few, but still) anglophone departments who aren't necessarily continental.

You're just mad you didn't understand some shit on you week studying on Grammatology or some shit, but honestly, tell me how the fuck can analytic philosophy say something about, say, aesthetics, without sounding completely retarded.

And before you say Danto, you must take the following into account: A) he had one good idea through a 60 year old career which he milked like no tomorrow B) he's a fucking hack C) even that one good idea depended on his studying of continental philosophers

Bullshit. Name who you are talking about. And stick to top 5 departments (NYU, Rutgers, Princeton, Michigan, Pittsburgh).

Nelson Goodman, Richard Wollheim, Kendall Walton, Noel Carroll, Monroe Beardsley, Peter Kivy, Malcolm Budd, etc. etc.

I got my phd from one of those departments you stupid fuck.

NYU: Anja, John Richardson, Beatrice, robert hopkins, anthony appiah, david velleman
rutgers: martin lin, howard mcgary, susanna schellenberg,
princeton: des hogan, alexander nehemas
pitt: brandom, mcdowell, thompson,
Japa Pallikkathayil, stephen engstrom,

yep. best essay i've read in the last few years:

richard moran: "kant, proust and the claim of beauty"

perhaps the best writer on aesthetics in the analytic tradition: stanley cavell

>I got my phd from one of those departments you stupid fuck.

Really? I got my PHD from one of those departments, so I would probably have heard of you if you did.

You're listing people who cite Hegel and *maybe* Heidegger, but not Derrida etc, and who are in any case not representative of mainstream philosophy. Brandom and McDowell are the only big names on that list, and they are famous for their heterodoxy and obscurantism.

jesus christ you are a fucking idiot.

look at the list of people I said were interesting philosophers: Derrida is not on it.

And everyone I listed is a prominent philosopher. Sorry if you haven't heard of...people at the department you got your PhD from.

Also you are lying. I don't believe you have a PhD if you don't think David Velleman, Susanna Schellenberg, Alexander Nehamas, Beatrice Longuenesse, or anthony appiah are 'big names'

>jesus christ you are a fucking idiot.

I can tell you don't have a PHD in philosophy.

>look at the list of people I said were interesting philosophers: Derrida is not on it.

"Gadamer, Lacan, Adorno, Sarte, Levinas, Merleu-Ponty, Arendt, Ricoeur and Foucault" are ALL people on your original list, and none of them are cited with any frequency in philosophy. Do I need to post links to citation data?

>And everyone I listed is a prominent philosopher. Sorry if you haven't heard of...people at the department you got your PhD from.

Of course I've "heard" most of their names in passing at some point, but they are certainly NOT prominent philosophers. In every department you will have marginal figures who focus on history of philosophy, or philosophy of art, or some shit. These are not part of the mainstream conversation in philosophy, which revolves around issues in metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of language, and philosophy of mind.

okay: explain your dissertation to me. you can copy and past your abstract if you like

>marx had already killed it with historical materialism
no lol
>ethics are the real problem
not rly
>omg these people believe something i dont like that means theyre LIOTERALLY BOOGEYMEN HITLERS HOW DARE THEY NOT LIVE THEIR LIVES TRYING TO FURTHER MY STEM IDEOLOGY
Modern philosophy is a joke that has devolved into STEM-and-Societies pandering nonsense that gets upset when prose beyond a high school level is used.
Plebbit and Veeky Forums trolls/teens have invaded; idiots that think 'ITS NOT STUDIED IN FUCKING 2016AT THESE REALLY FAMOUS SCHOOLS' is a conclusive argument that ends all arguments.
>IF ITS NOT SUPER FAMOUS AND POPULAR AND THESE SUPER FAMOUS-POPULAR UNIVERSITIES THAN ITS FUCKING DUMB OMG ITS 2016
>IF ITS NOT MAINSTEAM THAN ITS FUCKING DUMB ITS 2016 YOU HAVE TO DO THINGS I LIKE AND BE TRENDY

Fucking children ruining my Veeky Forums
His dissertation: its 2016 and any philosopher or philosophy not circlejerked over by my academics at these incestuous schools that are only good because I SAID THEY ARE are bad and also its 2016 time to stop being white

I took a class with David Velleman. I remember reading Appiah's early work on conditionals. The others may be big names in your quasi-continental world, but are not well-cited in mainstream philosophy.

i'm limiting myself to the top 30 or so departments in the english speaking world and finding tons of people who read, write, talk about and cite these figures. and these people themselves are cited all the time. you know jack shit about philosophy. I work in a technical field, but i study philosophy, so i know what goes on in the field, what a fucking embarrassment you are.

Ah, I was wondering when you would find this thread. How was your Monday, trollboi?

Wait, I thought you had a PHD from a top 5 philosophy department? Are you dropping that charade now?

And no, those people are not well cited outside their respective niches, if at all.

I meant just looking through the top 30 or so departments. I have my phd from one of the four departments i mentioned people by name from. what you are saying is just wrong.

wait, have i been trolled? you haven't shown you even know the first thing about the field of philosophy. in fact you've demonstrated the opposite. oh well.

Why do you think 'IF YOU POST THING I DONT LIKE YOUR A TROLL' is an argument?

Go boast about your fake PhD on Veeky Forums or something. I'm sick of you spoiled, unpublished, uneducated brats shitting up this board because they aren't trendy or progressive enough for you.

Philosophy is not a STEM sperg field that focuses on modern theories, it does not work on falsification and there is no linear progression.
i said thing so its true.
Of course it's a troll

man it's so obvious. ah this is embarrassing.

>Hegel, Bergson, Heidegger, Benjamin, Gadamer, Lacan, Adorno, Sartre, Levinas, Arendt, Merleau-Ponty, Levi-Strauss, Beauvoir, Ricoeur, Lyotard, Deleuze, Foucault, Derrida, Irigaray, Badiou, Nancy, Rancière, Kristeva, Agamben, Latour, Zizek, and Butler.

>I do not understand these people, therefore they are bad !

>This is an English-speaking board, troll. Also, even globally, philosophy = what you call 'analytic' philosophy. "Continental philosophy" is not a thing, except on Veeky Forums. Pseuds like Derrida are only read by other pseuds in shit fields like "Cultural Studies".
each one of your sentence shows your lack of understanding the society

>tell me how the fuck can analytic philosophy say something about, say, aesthetics, without sounding completely retarded.
Read Hume and Kant.
Shut the fuck up, you type like a child.
Continental """philosophers """ aren't evere mentioned in academia for a reason.

Analytic Philosophy = real philosophy based on logic and reason
Continental """Philosophy""" = bullshit garbage obscuritism mentioned in sociology departments at best, heh.
It's not difficult to understand, only a PSEUD who's too stupid to understand real philosophy that he has to resort to "poetic" nonsense, would say otherwise.

I am the person with an actual PhD from a top 5 'analytic' department and he may have been one of the people I was arguing with, but what he is saying is pretty much accurate.

Riiight. So what did you mean when you said "I work in a technical field, but i study philosophy, so i know what goes on in the field" ?

Someone who was too stupid to even understand undergraduate Phil and hopes he can make it through autodidactism but failed so he has to resort to gibberish detected.

I work on a technical subfield, but I (like anyone with a PhD in philosophy) am expected to know and be conversant with and be able to give feedback on talks and papers in ethics, epistemology, philosophy of language, ancient, modern, kant, foucault, phil. action etc. It doesn't matter if my dissertation is on dynamic approaches to epistemic modals or whether grounding is an irreflexive relation or whatever, i need to be conversant in philosophy. Otherwise I am poorly trained and don't know shit about my field.

>Shut the fuck up, you type like a child.
wow so logical and reasonable

Troll harder.
>OMG ITS NOT MENTIONED IN THESE DEPARTMENTS IN 2016 WHY ARENT YOU ENLIGHTENEND AND INTELLETUAL LIKE ME???
Go troll /pol/acks on Veeky Forums you non-entity.
Project harder.

I am actually published, I do not make claims of 'OMG MUST BE CITED THIS MANY TIMES IN THIS DEPARTMENT AND ONLY DEPARTMENT I LIKE SO ITS DUMB', I don't boast and perpetually stroke my own intellectual boner on an anime imageboard.
but its 2016 if you dont only care about these people i like and these super progressive departments that have more pocs and women in them than evil white men then ur jus tdumb and racist and a troll btw your a troll and if you even reply to me ill call you a troll (this doesnt make me a troll at all though because im super logical and reasonable and am the smartest person alive because an excerpt on my paper on vagina ethics was cited once by tarjeet mcpakislam)

what is wrong with you?

You type like a /pol/tard teen and spout the same shitty memes they do, I doubt you're published.

I'm 28 and only 'spouting memes' because you are a living political caricature and thereby will be treated as such.

>omg its 2016 how dare you question me?!!?!!?

>because you are a living political caricature
Says the moron that thinks that Continental """Philosophy""" is mentioned outside of a few isolated incidents in academia.

I think you are confusing who you are talking to. There is the person with a PhD who has shown you to be full of shit, and then there is this weird autist.

I never said that

I said that it is irrelevant how trendy something is.
>ITS NOT LE PHILOSOPHY IF IT DOESNT PROGRESS MUH STEM AND SOCIETIES ITS 2016 YOU HAVE TO BE TRENDY OR YOUR RACIST

it's true that it doesn't matter how trendy something is. I have no idea why you are bundling this up with weird identity politics and 'if you don't like trendy philosophy you are racist'. It is just obvious you don't know what you are talking about.