How could this dense motherfucker get away with writing the way he did...

How could this dense motherfucker get away with writing the way he did? Was writing bullshit considered to be academic activity/theorizing in the 60s? Was he another Jewish puppet used to undermine intellectual activity and make it look like a joke?

If any of us write like him, no one would ever fucking read us. How did this fraud find readership?

Seriously, fuck Derrida. Fuck him right in his nonsensical ass. And fuck Academia for forcing his down on us.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=giDhL1LOEu4
youtube.com/watch?v=yvwhEIhv3N0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>obvious retard full of incomprehension
>bullshit, dense mother fucker, fuck him in the ass, fraud, etc.
>muh Jews

Go back to /pol/ moron. Everything is 'kikes', 'SJW', 'Chad', 'Stacy'. and 'cultural marxism', i.e. simple for you to comprehend. Stay there.

seconded.

Perhaps the meaning was lost in translation?

We know who the dense one was here. Ha! Derrida is fucking legend, buddy. Is he hard to read? Of course--he's undermining language!

>How could this dense motherfucker get away with writing the way he did?

Isn't that surprising considering what Christians have been getting away for millennia

Completely agree. Only goofy fucks studying literature take this guy seriously. In philosophy courses he does not exists, like almost every french from the last century. But I guess reading this idiot will get you laid somehow.

he was mostly popular among academics in english departments who wanted to base their literary theory on philosophy (to give it at least some appearance of depth and authority) but who didn't really know anything about proper philosophy. so, he was canonized by people obsessed with the appearance of depth over genuine insight. from that perspective, his terrible writing was a plus, since it lets you bullshit about whatever and wiggle out of any objection by arguing that the objector didn't understand the text

>wiggle out of any objection by arguing that the objector didn't understand the text

YEAH BECAUSE DERRIDA WOULD TOTALLY SUBSCRIBE TO THE VIEW THAT THE TEXT HAS AN INHERENT MEANING

i was talking about the literary theorists who appropriated derrida regardless of whether they understood him, not derrida himself. and regardless, derrida often complained that he was misunderstood/misinterpreted by his opponents, so he is not exactly consistent on this score.

>YEAH BECAUSE DERRIDA WOULD TOTALLY SUBSCRIBE TO THE VIEW THAT THE TEXT HAS AN INHERENT MEANING

That doesn't necessarily follow from what the user said. Lrn2read

That's funny, he's a god in every philosophy course I've taken. You must be only taking American analytic pleb-core philo classes. Branch out little buddy and get some pussy to boot!

most non-analytic departments these days are focused on deleuze and his followers at this point. you are at an old-fashioned school

What the fuck what courses are you taking where Derrida is considered relevant?

If you are philosophy major you must have history of philosophy courses. Why would Derrida be in a course on ancient Greece?

You think you can "focus on Delouse" without discussing poststructuralism and Derrida? Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft!

lol at spell check's "delouse"

>without discussing poststructuralism and Derrida

as a footnote, not as 'god'

Pseudointellectuals think that incomprehensibility means depth. That using big words that sounds difficult means what you're writing is important and insightful.
It's a trick. When you are young you are easily confuse by things since you don't know any better. Usually this confusion is a good thing since there is actual depth to the things that you don't understand. As you grow older you find that it is clarity that is sought after that language is only a means and must be as clear as possible. Some people never grow up and disassociate the sense of incomprehension with depth.

one may say that this immaturity is appealing to women, nonwhites, and liberals, i.e. the obscurantism and fear of truth? While rationality and logic is for the white male who values tradition and clarity?

youre deep man

Well, up until recently anybody trying to take them to task on it was shunned and/or publicly killed.

As a result it is unsurprising that some places have a dearth of sceptics; after a thousand or so years of killing public doubters people tend to get funny ideas about dissent from the group norm being fundamentally wrong or something.

Derrida is a "footnote" to late 20th c. continental philo? What planet are you on, mate?

Nah

cuck

No. It's about representation. It's about language. It's about patterns. For example pseudo intellectual motherfuckers like to use complicated words such as "potential" or "energy" without their proper context because most people are stupid and associate the word "potential" and "energy" with physics and "physics" with hard. And if something is hard then it must be meaningful.

that's literally what women and liberal nu-males do.

As you get older, your mental stamina decreases. My sympathies that you can no longer keep up with jeu

Polcucks like you have a deeply Americanized taste for jewry. The real conspiracy is how topjew Avram Noam Chomsky led the campaign of defamation against Jack Derrida. Only Americans consider Jack a "pseud." The rest of the western world places him probably in the top 5 philosophers of the 20C. Keep memeing the good meme, goy.

I only read one book by him, it was about art. Because I was so into the subject I managed to plow through it and I'm incredibly glad I did. Based on this one book I've read I think this man is a genius; he is a true artist of language, he is like an old master and the language is his brush. In the book he admits to being jealous of his brother who could draw while he couldn't, and resolve to language as his means of artistic expression.

lol, you must be intellectually immature.

In fact, he's a hack. And you're a pseud

not at all, nothing he said in that book didn't make sense if you stopped and thought about it long enough. He is sculpting with language, he is to philosophy what Joyce is to literature. Again I've not read any other of his works but his use of language impressed me so much I gained infinite respect for the man, while being aware that while he could have behaved, sometimes, like a bit of a hack, his intellectual capabilities were immense.

Nice try.

As the OP said, he is simply a Jewish puppet intend on breeding out whiteness through the use of postmodernism

lol, source?

I'm glad the Parisian intellectual means nothing anymore.

France has become such an irrelevant country on all fronts. And rightfully so.

>all this resentment

oh yeah? France is multicultural because of "intellecualism" see where that got them? Terrorism and liberalism

No, really not. It had become a meme where every fucking dork could piggy back ride the whole "Parisian milieu" with his charlatanry.

Lacan is of value, but he has to be the biggest bullshit writer that has ever been seen on the face of the Earth.
Why in the holiest of fucks do you have to write like that?
Simple, it was the whole Parisian intellectual scene which loved these dumbass theatrics.
Even Zizek fucking admits this.

youtube.com/watch?v=giDhL1LOEu4

Look at this fucking shithead. Does anyone talk like that? It's a fucking performance.
And of course that dumbass Situationist had to also chime in and do his performance art.

Paris needed to die to make room for a more global intellectual scene that can detatch itself from this toxic influence that still haunts literature and philosophy.

You're just proving me right.

Eastern vs Western Philosophy: the post

he slowly became more crazy with age
his early stuff was much more approachable
he got his foot in the door, basically
and then English departments in the Anglo world glommed onto him for whatever reason

He wasn't like Deleuze and Guattari where they weren't so bothered about the use of their thinking, he was trying to describe certain very particular aspects of written language that were difficult to focus on.

He turns up in sociology courses even in some countries. Hell, you could still take architecture courses heavily focused on Derrida in Yale until recently.

philosophy as a whole is a pseud genre

>That's funny, he's a god in every philosophy course I've taken.

What were his main insights/contributions/profundities?

If any American Jew defamed Derrida it was Harold Bloom. Alan Sokal also attacked Derrida but got BTFO.

>he was trying to describe certain very particular aspects of written language that were difficult to focus on.
can you detail this ?

>Look at this fucking shithead. Does anyone talk like that?

Starting watching that video, not much interesting, but just gained my interest (and respect) with an interesting point made at 14:54

You are in the wrong hood, motherfucker. Go back to /pol/ if you wanna talk about bull shit like cultural Marxism.

around 21:15 bit after, some kid does something really obnoxious that is inexcusable, but then as a really quite profound speech (something I have known and is obvious, but always interesting, exciting and a bit invigorating to remember)

>some kid does something really obnoxious that is inexcusable
Why is it obnoxious?

As for inexcusable, you had the Red Army Fraktions in Germany and Japan, the Weathermen and Panthers in the US, even the New IRA in Ireland and Britain. You want this pretense of politeness for some reason, well the guy wasn't challenging Lacan's authority through militant means. It's not even clear that the groups I just listed, tho ostensibly terrorist groups, were inexcusable: they were attacking a highly militarized, highly controlling system. Very easy to draw parallels between them and the ANC for example. The guy spilling some water and making a speech is really nothing.

It's important to remember that the situationists were looking for another way. I would say that's commendable.

>The guy spilling some water and making a speech is really nothing.

What he had to say was pertinent and interesting, that act kind of made him seem like an ass, there were lots of papers and electronic equipment on the table (I wouldnt want any of my papers getting wet) ,

*is a douche* "Everyone listen to me, let me lead you into a utopia"

I thought the essence of what he was saying was: Society is very much exactly the way it is, but there are many ways it could be, some of which, may be an unknowable amount better. Like in a radical sense. Like everyone acts exactly as they act, and there are actions that occur that undesirable, bad, and so they do not necessarily have to occur, but they are occurring, and it sucks that I cant do anything about it, and it sucks that the overarching way things are (the system mannn) "allows" them to sprout/occur... like, we could make atlantis (mannnnn)

Furthermore, the world is and has already been that way for many people, the, sucks, part, is that everyone cannot say so for themselves, and they come to say it is not ultimately their fault the world sucks for them, and they believe it could be better for them if the ways of the world were different.

He sounded like, anarchyist or hippie commune type

>I thought the essence of what he was saying was: Society is very much exactly the way it is, but there are many ways it could be, some of which, may be an unknowable amount better. Like in a radical sense. Like everyone acts exactly as they act, and there are actions that occur that undesirable, bad, and so they do not necessarily have to occur, but they are occurring, and it sucks that I cant do anything about it, and it sucks that the overarching way things are (the system mannn) "allows" them to sprout/occur... like, we could make atlantis (mannnnn)
No. You're giving him some kind of overwhelmingly positive slant when it's really just about any alternative to the current status quo.

Are you aware of your history? Do you know that for example the streets of Paris were built in straight line because guns shoot in straight lines, and that this allowed the state military to quell popular uprisings? That many leaders that were the worst kinds of Nazi sympathizers kept their high positions in government after WWII? That the usual reasons people give for going into that war (because of the holocaust, because of eugenics etc etc) not only weren't the reason, that most of the elite in the western world didn't think there was anything wrong with that shit (Churchill built concentration camps well before Hitler and was a leader in pushing eugenics, and Hitler wrote a letter thanking the US for their eugenics laws which he could use as a base for Germany's as well as the whole Japanese American camps)? It's no exaggeration to say these "hippies" were fighting against Nazism. And like often actual Nazism, even beyond Eichmann "just doing my job" type of Nazism. That's not to then also get into shit like Vietnam either.

Perhaps then you can see it isn't about offering a better alternative, but purely about ways to undermine the corrupt state apparatus. I would also question the thing of it being obnoxious, it's no more obnoxious than Lacan lecturing the students, the students attending a closed off elitist university or any other hierarchical shit in there.

How is it called? I tried reading Deleuze's book about cinema and was blown away at how hard it was.

what did you learn form the book?

French philosophers are all cancerous socialists that crave to be controlled by the state. No one likes them now b because we listened to those cucks and got what we have today... Welfare states galore

youtube.com/watch?v=yvwhEIhv3N0

I would argue Lacan was an exceptional case in that no French intellectual was as cynically intent on self-aggrandizement as Lacan. You're right on the mark as far as his strange manner of speaking. Lacan's affect is highly performative, even grandiose. His appearance in public was always impeccably groomed and foppish. He was manipulative in his personal life (he took to conning his psychoanalytic patients out of money by overbilling them), and the circle of disciples and epigones that surrounded him showed signs of being a cult of personality. If he saw a shrink today, they'd probably diagnose him with a Cluster B personality disorder. In my opinion, what's most scandalous about his acceptance by French academia is that they fell for it.