What is the end goal of Deconstruction?

>rather values are derived out of specific, historical understanding, not an appeal to any universal truth or objectivity.
but didn't Nietzsche show that before Derrida?
So he is just trying to put Nietzsche into practice ()?}

I think that was put forward before Derrida, but yeah, it's a general assumption at this point I suppose. That doesn't exactly mean that we have to take away the values with out analysis though, because while we can see how strange and arbitrary the values in works before us were, that doesn't mean we have the duty to undermine them with deconstruction. We can understand the context where they were created, but there is no logical follow-up (at least the way I see it.

I mean, that doesn't explain how it has become so relevant in the past few years.

And trying to answer I just want to know what's the end goal of Derrida, maybe not deconstruction as it's just a tool. I want to understand what motivates the man to literally make this the basis of his philosophy. It cannon't simply be just to show that we are able to do it, but there must be values behind what he does, and it would say a lot about the tool if I understood the values behind that.

This guy gets it.

>that doesn't mean we have the duty to undermine them with deconstruction. We can understand the context where they were created, but there is no logical follow-up (at least the way I see it.

I don't see Derrida's goal to be 'undermine with deconstruction'. Rather, I see the goal of deconstruction to be exactly what you say after that: To "Understand the context" of specific cultural, historical objects, without the dogma of modernist or classicist philosophies clouding the view with idealist notions.

Where do you get your impression of Derrida and Deconstruction? If you haven't read Derrida, who is telling you about him? Maybe consider they don't get him, because he isn't the 'Lets destroy Civilization' kind of guy you seem to think he is.

I got it from /pol/, they said deconstruction tried to destroy redpill beliefs to genocide whites, and derrida was evil

lol if your beliefs don't survive deconstruction get new beliefs.

>What is the end goal of Deconstruction?
The eradication of the white race.

But what is the purpose of undermining western society?

To eradicate the white race.

>what's the end goal of Derrida

The reason deconstruction is so difficult for you and many others to understand, is because it's jewish philosophy and you don't understand how jews think. They don't think like Europeans do; they are semites, like arabs, and what are their arab cousins so well known for? Well, destroying stuff. The jew is no different, but he's a more shrewd social chameleon who obtains power by making you believe he's just like you. However, he is not, and at his core is this semitic penchant for destruction.

What's the goal? To destroy -- or more precisely, invert as a means to destroy -- European philosophy that has historically sought to advance the study of truth, knowledge, and meaning. Jewish philosophy, or deconstruction/postmodernism, with the intent to undermine these values, therefore states that there is no truth, that knowledge cannot be obtained, and that meaning is subjective and as a result meaningless.

That's really all there is to it. Many years ago I too approached the avant-garde ideas of postmodernism and deconstruction with confused fascination and had difficulty connecting the dots. I thought it was something real when it was not. It's a merely a reflection of the jewish mind, warped as it is, and the more you understand the jew, the more you will come to understand not just deconstruction, but the entire world you live in, which has been shaped by their influence. If you want to go about thinking I'm wrong or that jews couldn't possibly be this perverse, go on ... but you'll never understand this world until you understand the jew. Good luck.

See Would be happy to answer any further questions, though of course the truth on this matter seems to set off a 'to battle stations' alarm at hadbara HQs.

>no one would scrutinize anything if Jews didn't invent critical thinking
lol someone got buttblasted about their ideology falling apart

I'm sorry?

Little jews jump in to run interference whenever this subject is broached. Here's the first.

was socrates a jew? because he seemed to going around criticizing the fuck out of all the greeks cherished values...was nietzsche a jew? because he seemed to write a lot undermine western morality and values

>im so right that everyone that disagrees with me must be a Jew
Nobody "invented" postmodernism. you can't invent pomo any more than you can invent modernism or enlightenment or renaissance or metamodernism or utilitarianism or gothic. It's a natural artistic inclination. It's not even a philosophy, that doesn't even make sense. Modernism wouldn't be half as relevant as it is if not for postmodernism to respond to it, critique it, deconstruct it, examine it, expand it, and refine it.
At this point in the discussion I doubt you could even concisely define postmodernism in a sentence without resorting to throwing it in the bag of leftist buzzwords

This is a false comparison. Those individuals were fairly open about what they were doing and their approach is more or less easy to understand. Their philosophies therefore lack the subversive elements and ambiguity present in the jewish philosophy of deconstruction.

When you point out where I said 'jews invented postmodernism' I will read past the first two sentences of your post.

Please try to argue in good faith if you would like to be taken seriously. Thanks.

>Jewish philosophy, or deconstruction/postmodernism

My teacher was all about showing how value-less text become when you deconstruct them

>The reason deconstruction is so difficult for you and many others to understand, is because it's jewish philosophy and you don't understand how jews think. They don't think like Europeans do; they are semites, like arabs, and what are their arab cousins so well known for? Well, destroying stuff.

rofl what the fuck has this board become

there's just that one long winded anti-semite and then he has like a redpill sidekick who chimes in with misogynistic shit once in a while, but overall most ppl arent retarded

I'll go along to make the point I've made before. Jews rarely conjure up or invent the subversive ideas they promote, but instead take certain ideas and push them to their extremes. This is the case with postmodern philosophy. The roots of many of the ideas can be found elsewhere, but they became hegemonic as a result of their promotion in post-60s jewish-controlled institutions like academia.

I need somewhere else to go. I hate this place, I hate reddit, and I hate everyone I know in person.

nietzsche was a shabbas goy jewaboo

Oh. So that's what France's continental philosophy period looks like through the ideological lens. Seems like everyone else was able to look at it as another of many global philosophical movements without dropping the J-bomb.
Just stick out the summer bby, some of us oldfags are still here

deconstruction is aimed towards justice

check plato.stanford.edu

i wish i could read books without socializing about it, i'd rather just read rather than participate in any "community" but it's like you have all these weird narratives about the shit you've read that you want to bounce off other humans to see how retarded they are

I feel like I used to come to this place to hang out with a bunch of pretty smart 23 year olds pretending to be middle aged ubermenches but who still knew more than most other communities and had the freedom to be vitriolically honest so discussion could be pretty enlightening but now I just feel like this place has become a fucking /r/The_Donald spinoff. I get so fucking tired of lazy children thinking they are outsmarting society by resurrecting 19th century race theory or by calling out the Jewish cabal. I just want to go to a place that is relatively well read without having to be super formal.

I hate Nazis but that picture seems like a strawman. They don't think Jews are intellectually inferior, they almost always acknowledge that Jews have the highest IQs of any group of people.

turns out maybe 19th century race theory was more true than people were letting on in the 20th century

You know nazis disliked Jews because they thought they were disingenuous, tricksters, traitors etc., and therefore "morally" inferior. This does not in any way cancel out the Jews' (supposed) world ruling ways.

you just arbitrarily added the word 'intellectually'

also what does untermeschen mean, if not inferiority

You're arguing with an anti-Nazi meme by pointing out a fallacy. Are you literally a redditor?

Fucking hell in the two minutes it took me to choose a meme more of you spawned. Fuck off -Nazis- """devils advocates""".

Oy vey

if they were open, they would not have punish socrates by suicide

If you think Derrida was trying to fuck everything up and kill the tradition you are a retard
Someone would had come up with deconstruccion anyways

I think that that's a complete misunderstanding of Derrida and Barthes and the rest of them and the rest of them that practice critical-theoretical criticism. re-centring the work from the fallacy of the author is not equal to depriving the work of any meaning.

you can think of reader-response criticism in the radical way that, if you're reading a book in a language you don't speak, that's a valid reading. that's just re-centering meaning toward the reader rather than the author, which isn't deconstructionist either.

when you look at all those readers' responses, the multiplicity of them, and take that together with social and cultural context, it becomes kind of regressive, but is /still/ not meaningless.

most so-called deconstructionist academic criticism, in order to exist and proven by fact of its existence, doesn't give an infinite number of interpretations, there are schools, and consensuses, based on semiology, episetmology, and the kinds of criticism born therefrom.

you seem to have a pretty black-and-white notion of what constitutes deconstruction. probably pull a few quotes to work with when you're trying to have that discussion.

It's nihilism, basically the last gasp of the European philosophical tradition under its own weight. Derrida's obscurantism is due to certain unsolvable paradoxes within the logical framework he works in, mainly the fact that "deconstruction" is strictly speaking another arbitrary narrative. Nobody ever thought that works are separable from their cultural origins (which was the main point behind the Western tradition of moralistic criticism which dominated until Pater); that's just smoke and mirrors. A good philosopher would recognize the creative potential behind the current lack of cultural values, which is that there is absolutely nobody and nothing that can stop you from developing your own moral system. Unfortunately, too many people are afraid of arbitrariness and subjectivity, not knowing that the creation of truth from tradition is one of the most life-affirming and creative things a man can do.

Don't bother with hacks like Derrida and Foucault. Just read Leo Strauss and be done with all of that garbage.

((()))

This. Only more of the same.

Yeah if you want to bash the fash you're literally above intellectual criticism

It's fairy dust invented by pseuds to retain cushy jobs in the academic ivory tower, a way to peddle substantially vacant research as contributions to knowledge. And why would the party-line left that's come to overtake "the right side of intellectual history" argue with that? It puts ever more vocal minorities with ever more complaints of the "unjust establishment" in charge, which is just what they want. Any layman would be fooled, looking at these pseudo-academics' "qualifications" and seeing all of the big words and big ideas they're using. They'd think to themselves, "We'd better trust these guys, they must really know what they're talking about," all the while being duped to provide these snake-oil salesmen with careers with their own taxpayer dollars. This is the end goal of deconstruction, and if you're just as morally vacuous and clever as Derrida and his cronies, you too can ride this gravy train.

You faggots are fucking ridiculous, not every fucking Jew is a subversive liberal. Strauss is constantly criticized by the left (and jews on the left) for his friendship with Carl Schmitt, a former Nazi. Hannah Arendt went as far as saying that if Strauss wasn't himself Jewish he probably would have stayed in Germany and collaborate with the Nazis. His entire lifes work was spent criticizing cultural relativism on the left for its destructive nature. Listen to some of his lectures on hegel and kant, and plato that are on the leo strauss center website. If you're going to engage in criticism on the left you will have to seriously engage with Strauss and Schmitt at some point.

Nihilism

Your defensive and childish screeching is not as effective as it used to be, Moshe. The goyim know.

Here's a long essay that will help those unfamiliar with the jewish mind better understand Strauss and the distinctly jewish elements of his writing:

counter-currents.com/2013/01/strauss-on-persecution-the-art-of-writing/

>The theme that perhaps will most surprise at least some readers is that Derrida vigorously asserts the importance of the "canon," "the tradition," and rigorous academic discipline. He concludes that many critics have seriously misrepresented his ideas. Pointing to his own rigorous academic training, Derrida maintains that even as he seeks to deconstruct pedagogies and ways of thinking, he is "at some level true" to the "classical" training he received in the French educational system. He stresses that deconstruction "doesn't mean simply destroying the norms or pushing these norms to utter chaos." In fact, if what passes as deconstruction produces "neglect of the classical authors, the canonical texts, and so on, we should fight it."

>This theme recurred throughout the session, indicating how strongly he feels that deconstruction has been misrepresented and maligned. He is convinced that "if deconstruction is only a pretense to ignore minimal requirements or knowledge of the tradition, it could be a bad thing." Apparently, it is often supporters of deconstruction themselves who feed this misunderstanding: "Sometimes the most ferocious critics who react vehemently and passionately and sometimes with hatred understand more than supporters do." Those who "play at deconstruction, try to behave deconstructively" before reading "the great texts in our tradition" give deconstruction a bad name.

>Certainly, we need to open the canon, to broaden it, to question it,but we can' t do so before acquiring at least a "minimal knowledge of the basic foundations of the canon." Only then can we develop "a deconstructive practice."

>As if to warn supporters as well as to answer critics, Derrida insists, "If you're not trained in the tradition, then deconstruction means nothing. It's simply nothing."

>JD: After these preliminary cautions, I would say, very briefly, that the misunderstandings that I deplore most would be, in the broad sense, political and institutional. I think that the 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.

>When people try to confine deconstruction in negative models as something nonpolitical, noninstitutional or as something confined to books, to speculative speeches, to what is in the library, when they interpret text as something which is written down and not in the generalized concept that I've tried to elaborate, I think it's a very serious misrepresentation. But it's the symptom of a resistance; it's not simply a mistake.

The very idea of endpoint is logocentric. There is no zenith for deconstruction, no origin or endpoint, just the trace. Deconstruction is the continuous decentring and uprooting of any discourse

>Anarchist_flag
yasss queen sleiiiI!

vomitorious