I don't understand Derrida

"To pretend, I actually do the thing: I have therefore only pretended to pretend." - Derrida

Anyone who writes something like that is clearly taking the piss on some advanced meta level.

His writings, which focus in large part about the impossibility of a fixed event of singular meaning in language, are difficult to understand because it would be disingenuous to write about language in a simpler way if you were trying to demonstrate its instability.

But. You can know some of his basic principles. Maybe the basic place to start with deconstruction is the simple idea that language, both as a system and in the event of individual signs, contains irreduceable ironies and contradictions, and that you can gain a deeper understanding of yourself, language, and a given text if you start to unravel particular instances of these ironies or contradictions and follow them for what they reveal as a fuller account of what is occurring in a given linguistic event, which contains also that which it ostensibly does not signify or opposes in signification.

I think, idk really.

There is no transcendental signified
Therefore various signifiers are in a constant state of flux, or movement, enabling their meanings to change randomly at anytime, thus, altering the system of language and how we extract meaning from surface phenomena through it. It is because of this that meaning, to a certain degree """"""dies"""""". Most of your average Veeky Forums plebs can't handle the ambiguities that are intentionally projected by Derrida's writing (like those just mentioned above), and therefore call him a pseud.
Though I'm aware and have read/listened to a fair amount claiming "oh hurr hurr French philosophers are bullshit because they intentionally wrote incoherently." These people completely miss the point, and as far as I'm concerned, will NEVER understand Derrida, let alone any contemporary philosophy.

piss takers really get on my tits when they come round

You have completely misunderstood Derrida in claiming that you have understood him. You are just as bad the the people you decry.

I understand the text I was alluding to in my writing, not Derrida in his totality. However, You'd be a fool to subscribe to the way the author tells you to read his work.

>I understand the text I was alluding to in my writing
From what I can tell, you have not. You are still only thinking very superficially in regards to his ideas. Think in terms of additional layers of deconstruction. There is deeper knowledge to extract from his writings.

Guess the text then, cuck.

texts*
Différance is a principal concept in Derrida's deconstructions and permeates many of his works.

Now I suggest you read a bit more of him to "understand" his ideals and their ramifications.

>Foucault said that Derrida practiced the method of obscurantisme terroriste (terrorism of obscurantism). We were speaking in French. And I said, “What the hell do you mean by that?” And he said, “He writes so obscurely you can’t tell what he’s saying. That’s the obscurantism part. And then when you criticize him, he can always say, ‘You didn’t understand me; you’re an idiot.’ That’s the terrorism part.”

Based anal-fisting turtleneck man!

"Structure, Sign, and Play"
Of you're here to posture yourself as "knowing" in your unknowing, you're unprepared to have a serious discussion about Derrida. To have some sort of loose conceptual grasp on his writings is what puts one in the rhelm of knowing, not some bs posturing.

>To have some sort of loose conceptual grasp on his writings is what puts one in the rhelm of knowing
Again, you have completely and utterly misunderstood him. It not the act of knowing itself, but the act of knowing and CLAIMING such knowledge that signifies a misunderstanding.

Refer to again and THINK.

Did it already happen to you to be unable to understand what you had earlier written ? It happened to me several times and I think it kinda proves that something absolutely obscure can have a perfectly clear and honest meaning and intent. When it comes to an author like Derrida, a few years should be spent on studying him (that is, on TRYING) before ending up rejecting him or not.

That means he's smart, right?

So... this is the power of obscurantism...
it's academic shitposting OP. nothing to see here

Don't waste your time. You have two choices with Derrida, as with most postmodernists: dismiss or be poisoned.

Hm

There's literally nothing wrong with poisoning yourself