He may just be another subversive Jew but boy is he right about everything...

I think you should feel much more embarrassed. He offered information. You swooped in without even bothering to cover your star of david protection team logo and offered nothing.

memes aren't exactly information desu

>Further, Faye shows that the famous word Dekonstruktion was first used in a Nazi psychiatry journal edited by the cousin of Hermann Göring, and that the word Logozentrismus was coined (for denunciatory purposes) in the 1920s by the protofascist thinker Ludwig Klages. In short, sections of French and, more recently, American academic discourse in the “human sciences” have been dominated for decades by a terminology originating not in Heidegger but first of all in the writings of Nazi scribblers, recycled through Latin Quarter Heideggerians.

>aye shows that after 1933, under pressure from Nazi polemics, Heidegger began to characterize the prior Western metaphysical tradition as “nihilist” and worked out the whole analysis for which he became famous after 1945: the “fall” in the Western conception of Being after Parmenides and above all Aristotle, the essence of this fall in its modern development as the metaphysics of the “subject” theorized above all by Descartes, and the evolution of this subject up to its apotheosis in Nietzsche and the early Heidegger ofBeing and Time. Between 1933 and 1945, this diagnosis was applied to the decadent Western democracies overcome by the “internal greatness” of the National Socialist Movement; after 1945, Heidegger effortlessly transposed this framework to show nihilism culminating not in democracy but…in Nazism. In the 1945 “Letter on Humanism” in particular, Western humanism as a whole is assimilated to the metaphysics of this subject The new project, on the ruins of the Third Reich, was to overthrow the “Western humanism” that was responsible for Nazism! Thus the initial accommodation to Krieck and other party hacks, which produced the analysis in the first place, passed over to a “left” version in Paris, barely missing a step. The process, for a more American context, goes from Krieck to Heidegger to Derrida to the postmodern minions of the Modern Language Association. The “oscillation” that Faye demonstrated for the 1890-1933 period in Langages totalitaires has its extension in the contemporary deconstructionists of the “human sciences,” perhaps summarized most succinctly in Lyotard’s 1988 call to donner droit de cite a l’inhumain.
breaktheirhaughtypower.org/the-nazis-and-deconstruction-jean-pierre-fayes-demolition-of-derrida/

>breaktheirhaughtypower.org

that site could really use an "about" page cuz i have no idea what their focus is supposed to be

A book that offers refutations of the individual the OP said he couldn't think of refutations for is literally about as on point as a post could be. And what was the point of your post again? That it's a meme? Why, because you haven't read it and are mentally dysfunctional? The mods really need to do something about these Jewish trolls shitting up threads.

>A book that offers refutations of the individual the OP said he couldn't think of refutations for is literally about as on point as a post could be.

That would be a deconstructive refutation therefor confirming Derrida is right.

Jean-Pierre Faye's Letter on Derrida reeks of ressentiment. His retransmission theory, on which he bases his belief in the toxicity of Derrida's language, has been criticized for its lack of credible methodology and described as approximative.

>The mods really need to do something about these Jewish trolls
hilarious

That was pretty good. I think Derrida is full of shit, but I do love hearing the different variations of the "everything is postmodernism" argument.

If Derrida is full of shit then you must agree that there is no place for politics in a dispassionate argument based in logic, therefor there are no grounds on which Culture of Critique can be offered as a refutation of Derrida's arguments.

>I can't think of a single refutation to intellectual paradox games
Sucks to be you then.

you have to make coherent points in tbe first place to have other people refute them
>what the fuck is differance
what a posturing, obscurantist, pointless-neologism-creating retard

>anarchism anti-imperialism argentina bolivia bordiga cesar chavez china class composition class struggle clr james comintern crisis theory culture egypt enlightenment fascism fictitious capital german revolution imperialism iww korea left communism lenin luxemburg Maoism occupy philosophy Populism portugal postmodernism protests race russian revolution second international social reproduction spanish revolution stalinism strikes trotsky Trump turkey unions vietnam wisconsin workers

standard run-of-the-mill marxism what's so hard to get

>standard run-of-the-mill marxism
Are you on drugs?

>can't even figure out what differance is

> I can't think of a single refutation to any of his points

"Because of the victim, in so far as it seems to emerge from the community and the community seems to emerge from it, for the first time, there can be something like an inside and an outside, a before and after, a community and the sacred. We have already noted that the victim appears to be simultaneously good and evil, peaceable and violent, a life that brings death and a death that guarantees life. Every possible significant element seems to have its outline in the sacred and the same time to be transcended by it. In this sense the victim does seem to constitute a universal signifier...I am not saying that we have found the true transcendental signifier. So far we have only discovered what functions in that capacity for human beings....The signifier is the victim. The signified constitutes all actual and potential meaning the community confers on to the victim and, through its intermediacy, on to all things." - Rene Girard

I haven't done much reading on derrida, so please excuse my plebbing.

My question is: isn't deconstruction a confirmation of structuralism, in a way? I mean, to actually be able to deconstruct means there should be a structure somewhere to be dismantled.

Also, how can we as human make sense of what we read if there is no solid structure that governs our understanding of meaning? What does he says in this regard?

>heidegger was a nazi fascist nazi racist nazi so that makes derrida's ideas invalid
truly btfo

>isn't deconstruction a confirmation of structuralism, in a way?

Yes, and even though we consider Derrida a 'post-structuralist' it is of note that he himself doesn't. The idea of deconstruction functions by Saussure's idea that signifiers only obtain a meaning by their contrast with other signifiers. Derrida suggests this external (to self and reality) structure of language can't actually be dominated and used accurately when one writes so there are different ways of reading a text in different contexts. So things mean things in context, to answer your question, but the context can change slightly and as a consequence the meaning also changes slightly. This itself isn't a new idea because even the Greeks were suspicious of writing and its ability to be misleading or even dangerous. To Derrida though the Greek (and later) idea that writing is a type of mimesis that is derived from and thus lesser than speech is complicated by the reliance of philosophy on writing and metaphor. Rather than using writing to point to some isolated ideal, the status of that ideal is affected by the writing on which we rely to learn of these ideals, so it isn't that isolated at all. The project of Western philosophy therefor does not have legitimate grounds to base this idea of 'ideal' as origin and 'mimesis' as lesser (i.e. logocentrism) because all we have is mimesis for philosophy to actually function as a meaningful enterprise, in both the reliance on writing for preservation and the codes (structure) of language we use to form our ideas (archi-writing).

Yeah sort of, but he's just saying that it lacks a center. That meaning is always going to be in flux. And he thinks structuralist texts show this unknowingly.

Heidegger's Nazism is bad for his philosophy on his own terms. I think it seriously weakens his claim about the primacy of language as the house of Being, his connection between German and pre-Socratic Greek language. Heidegger's philosophy suggests that Germans ought not to have been the raging technophiles that they were. True that the Nazis engaged in some environmental practices, but they were also fully on board with the kind of technocratic thinking that Heidegger would say conceals Being.

Of course Heidegger realized the Nazi party wasn't going to fulfill all of his ideals and moved away, but it strikes me as pretty flawed on his part to assume that thinking in German will make you more aware of Being qua Being. He still defends German culture in his final interview (Der Spiegel) as saying that they're the ones who are going to revive the west, if it's ever to be done.

tl;dr What was it about the Nazis that made them technocratic and conceal Being?

Fully agree. There comes to be a point when reading Derrida when you just throw your hands up and realize that he's a fucking genius. The only other time I've had an experience like that was with Schelling. I think it hit me when I was reading Ousia and Gramme.

Have you read Heidegger?

Yes, I've read more Heidegger than any other philosopher. I did my master's thesis on the second division of Being and Time.

Surely it's Heidegger who is the real genius here. Would you disagree? Does Derrida add something that wasn't already nascent in Heidegger?

>white values
I'm Finnish so I wouldn't know, but what are these?

#ffffff

...

>We're all LARPing hypocrites
uh... yeah. was that ever up for debate?

Did he not get hijacked by the very descontructivists he advocated though? In Derrida I can see the means for staying in confusion and not becoming >pure ideology again, but in all that sprouted after him all I can see is the capital all over again

Yes I would disagree. Although Derrida is an important reader of Heidegger, if not the most important, Derrida is more of a companion to Heidegger than just his commentator. I mean Derrida built an entire methodology of literary criticism out of Heideggerian metaphysics. That's not something that's just nascent in Heidegger. Likewise, it's not like anyone can do what Derrida did given enough time. The work that Derrida did requires real insight and genius. That's like saying that Jakob Böhme is the real genius and Schelling is just picking up on things already there. Not to mention that I think his political works are very important, specifically the death penalty lectures and rogues that are vaguely Heideggerian but nothing that Heidegger himself would ever comment on.

Long story short, I see where you get this idea but in reality Derrida's work is much too insightful to be called mere Heideggerian afterthoughts. In fact, I think that they are methodologically some of the most important works out there. Can we really trust Heideggerianism? That's one of the central questions of Derrida, but by no means the master question.

Do you need to know french to understand this Kike? And what should I read before? I would read Heidegger, but I don't know if I want to spend the next year going through being and time

I still see his literary criticism nascent in Heidegger. It's really just a matter of temperment that Heidegger focused on speech and Derrida on writing. I really feel Derrida is just purified Heidegger.

> Not to mention that I think his political works are very important, specifically the death penalty lectures and rogues

I agree and I think this is some of Derrida's best work. Politics of Friendship is underrated imo. But when people say Derrida ended philosophy I'd have to say Heidegger did it first.

How did they end philosophy?

pretty much every single important philosopher since heraclitus has been said to have 'ended philosophy'.

It's something that gets tossed around a lot. I don't believe it and I think it's a stupid thing to say but it has to do with the philosopher dealing with so much of the western tradition that it is now completed and cannot go further. It's more obvious in Wittgenstein and Heidegger, because they literally point towards the need to abandon philosophy to go any further.

I'd say this attitude starts with Hegel, at least self-consciously. He argues that all thought culminates in him and all thought after him will have been pre-empted by him.

Fuuuuuuuuuuck

What? A meme is by definition a type of information.

Why do you think this refutes one of Derrida's points? It doesn't even relate.

It's not the entire argument, but it absolutely does.

Please explain how. Waxing poetics on victimhood and Saussure's model isn't really a convincing argument regarding Derrida's points. Which points, by the way?

R E S S E N T I M E N T

Well, he's situating meaning in the victimage mechanism, which occurs in the foundation of every culture. He uses the model-obstacle that comes out of mimetic desire to show how the logos of John is different and subsumes the logos of Heraclitus.

And he's more waxing poetics on violence. His theory is very much against SJW victimhood and "lovey-dovey let's all hold hands" (an actual quote of his).

peak charlatanism, folks

Again, how does this relate to a point Derrida is making?
Seriously, what you wrote reads like a collage from a very, very special child.

>He argues that all thought culminates in him and all thought after him will have been pre-empted by him.

Before or after being very explicit about everyone's incapability of understanding what he says?

>Before or after being very explicit about everyone's incapability of understanding what he says?
citation needed

He cannot deliver because Derrida never claimed this.

>Derrida or Derridont. There is no try.
t.Chomsky

He was actually pretty right about interpretative horizon, logocentrism, and the difference between signifier/signified distinction. But deconstruction in the end is still just another metaphysical system, only it bound by language and not "onto-theology", Heidegger and Derrida still remain in metaphysics even as they deconstruct it.

No one escapes metaphysics.

I'm not sure that Hegel ever stated that people couldn't understand what he says.

any books or essays which make this claim and discuss this?

ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=theology_facpubs

and

jstor.org/stable/pdf/23338858.pdf?refreqid=excelsior:375298be0a566817dbeb80c52be35db9

interesting, thanks user

"Once the mechanism of the surrogate victim has been recognized, the beginning and the end of the ‘deconstruction’ are at hand, since its accomplishment amounts also to a ‘reconstruction’ which begins at the common matrix. The genetic and structural perspectives are joined in a type of analysis that transcends the limits of previous methods.

The discovery of the scapegoat as the mechanism of symbolic thought, human thought itself, justifies a deconstructive discourse and at the same time completes it. It can also explain the character aspects of this contemporary discourse...If you examine the pivotal terms in the finest analyses of Derrida, you will see that beyond the deconstruction of philosophical concepts, it is always a question of the paradoxes of the sacred...This is also true for a reading of Heidegger. Everything that he says concerning being can also be said of the sacred, but philosophers will hardly admit this since they have no desire to go back beyond Plato and the pre-Socratics to consider Greek religion.

...deconstruction seems content with a pure mirroring of the scared that amounts to nothing, at this stage, but a purely literary effect; it risks degenerating into pure verbalism.

Interviewer: With an understanding of the surrogate victim, in sum, a true structuralism might begin, one that would be not only synchronic in orientation but diachronic through and through in its understanding of the composition and decomposition of structures.

Girard: We need to emphasize that we are not speaking of any single even or of a chronology; our scheme is able to explain the functioning of mechanisms of composition and decomposition – its relevance and applicability are a function of the uniquely rational and elegant solution it proposes for understanding the transition from ritual to non-ritual institutions.

...The sign is the reconciliatory victim. Since we understand that human beings wish to remain reconciled after the conclusion of the crisis, we can understand their penchant for reproducing the sign, in other words, for reproducing the language of the sacred by substituting in ritual, new victims for the original victim, in order to assure the maintenance of that miraculous peace. The imperative of ritual is therefore never separate from the manipulation of signs and their constant multiplication, a process that generates new possibilities of cultural differentiation and enrichment. The processes that we have described...in relation to hunting, the domestication of animals, sexual prohibitions, etc., might all be described as the manipulation and differentiation of the sign constituted by victimage.

...The moment arrives when the original victim, rather than being signified by new victims, will be signified by something other than a victim, by a variety of things that continue to signify the victim while at the same time progressively masking, disguising, and failing to recognize it."

Not directly that argument but in many ways Agamben moves beyond deconstruction.

Read The Open by Agamben if you want that.

>Heidegger and Derrida still remain in metaphysics even as they deconstruct it.
>No one escapes metaphysics.

And that's what Plato said and for which they called him an idiot.

Yeah, that's crap talk. This continued riffing on victimhood is quite self-interested, to say the least.

Pure reason isn't the highest form of truth, especially not when you deal with the chaos of the soul.

...

>Did he not get hijacked by the very descontructivists he advocated though?

Yep, even the term 'deconstruction' being the term that people adopted is strange to him. But that's writing for you.

Language can't be outside language though. Metaphysics to Derrida is the structuring of meaning around a center that is outside. Language can't be center and outside.

Derrida never makes the claim that he is outside metaphysics. He is a metaphysician. Why the fuck do people act like Derrida claimed he ended metaphysics or brought it to its completion. He's not fucking Hegel. Read the goddamn beast and the sovereign.

>yeah...but, nah

constructive dialogue underway, as always

coming from the dude posting girard at length then failing to address criticism

i've only been lurking until now

and you didn't provide any substantive criticism other than to call girard 'self-serving' because he...advocates for his interpretive position, i guess.

I'm not that guy but do something other than post girard. If you're not justifying anything you're just brandishing quotes which is fucking dumb.

again, i did not post the girard quotation

suck my fucking dick then

'no'.

lmao you're not even trying

do you think others are going to see your post and say "Yeah, he's got a point! How self-interested! Such crap talk!"

Literally self-interested crap talk.

Please refrain from crap talking.

>We're all LARPing hypocrites.
Where specifically does he discuss this? I have been reading a lot of TLP lately and am interested in the narcissist LARPing theory of modern man.

He doesn't really, it's just kind of implied that we pretend metaphysics are real but it's a false position given what and how we write about it.

saved.jpg

libgen.pw/view.php?id=390819

This is actually a great post.

Logocentrism was Ludwig Klages' idea. Funny how Jews like Derrida stole the insights of highly redpilled volkisch thinkers like Paul De Man, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Carl Schmitt, Klages, repackaging them for politically correct mass consumption, while adding absolutely nothing of value. The vitalist life affirming philosophy of the Aryans is perverted by the expression of life denying Jewishness in Derrida. do not be deceived this is the same life denying semitic nihilism that has sickened the west since Plato and Jesus Christ.

>To the Jew, everything human is a sham. One might even say that the Jewish face is nothing but a mask. The Jew is not a liar: he is the lie itself. From this vantage point, we can say that the Jew is not a man. … He lives the pseudo-life of a ghoul whose fortunes are linked to Yahweh-Moloch. He employs deception as the weapon with which he will exterminate mankind. The Jew is the very incarnation of the unearthly power of destruction. (RR, 330)

>Ludwig Klages, on the other hand, demonstrates that it is precisely the images and their ceaseless transformations that constitute the only realities. In the unique phenomenology of Ludwig Klages, images constitute the souls of such phenomena as plants, animals, human beings, and even the cosmos itself. These images do not deceive: they express; these living images are not to be "grasped," not to be rigidified into concepts: they are to be experienced. The world of things, on the other hand, forms the proper subject of scientific explanatory schemes that seek to "fix" things in the "grasp" of concepts. Things are appropriated by men who owe their allegiance to the will and its projects. The agents of the will appropriate the substance of the living world in order to convert it into the dead world of things, which are reduced to the status of the material components required for purposeful activities such as the industrial production of high-tech weapons systems. This purposeful activity manifests the outward operations of an occult and dæmonic principle of destruction.

>Klages calls this destructive principle "spirit" (Geist), and he draws upon the teaching of Aristotle in attempting to account for its provenance, for it was Aristotle who first asserted that spirit (nous) invaded the substance of man from "outside." Klages’s interpretation of this Aristotelian doctrine leads him to conclude that spirit invaded the realm of life from outside the spatio-temporal world.

revilo-oliver.com/Writers/Klages/Ludwig_Klages.html

This describes (((Derrida))) to a T
>Yahweh’s medium of expression is the gesture. The meaning of all of his gestures, so far as they actually possess any metaphysical significance, can be interpreted as an ever-deeper subjugation of one principle at the hands of an ever-loftier one: consecration, blessing, etc., on the one side, and repentance, contrition, and adoration on the other. Semitic religiosity is restricted to adoring worshipper and the adored deity. When this religiosity attaches itself solely to the personal, the emblem of worship becomes the individual person. Only the Semitic religions bow to the “One God.” In adoration, the believer achieves the non-rational form of ego-consciousness. Pagan rationality glides right past the god to the ego; in the Semitic “service of God,” however, the transcendental “One” brings destruction to the world of “appearances.” Apollo is, so to speak, an ethically developed Dionysus; he works on the soil of blood-thinning. Yahweh is the all-devouring nothingness; he works on the soil of blood-poisoning.

Fucking Germans subverting and destroying Western culture yet again.

You mean he used Saussure's term in his work that dealt explicitly with Saussure? Go figure.

>To the Jew, everything human is a sham.
This is the opposite of Derrida.
>This describes (((Derrida))) to a T
Also the opposite of Derrida.

zizek is right, derrida is still in metaphysics

...

>volkisch thinker and Nietzsche in the same sentence

Deplorable.

Derrida hated Carl Schmitt you fucking moron

Why is it literally all the same with you people

>x figure is ruining the world
>oh actually I've never read x figure
>post on Veeky Forums anyways
>here's a bunch of block quotes
>have you read culture of critique?

Eat shit