Derrida

I think this is genius:

The Nietzsche Family Circus

Certainly a huge improvement over the regular Family Circus. I’ve never understood whether/why anyone actually enjoys that comic and how on earth it gained such huge syndication.

…very funny

For all the Poindexters in Forumosa, I guess I’ll just post things now and then that may be of interest and hope others do the same.

I just finished Paola Marratti’s Genesis and Trace [Stanford 2005, available at Eslite]. It is a careful study of Derrida’s PhD thesis on Husserl (which is available through Amazon.com). If you ever wanted to know, in step-by-step detail just what Derrida saw in Husserl and just what is the kernel to his enmous output and confidence, this is the book to read.

I’d like to know, in concrete terms, what anyone finds useful in Derrida. I have to agree with the Cambridge profs’ characterization: “…little more than semi-intelligible attacks upon the values of reason, truth, and scholarship…”

More confusing than either Derrida or Mr. N is why these two threads have been merged.

jdsmith: But Mr. Derrida, what of the chicken and egg?

Derrida: To first understand the genesis of what is known of the chicken and egg relationship, one must first comprehend the depth and understand the purpose of the chicken and the egg.

jdsmith: Thanks asshole.

Derrida is like Picasso, a god to some, and an intellectual boob to others. I prefer boobs. Deconstructionism gave a reason for thousands of talentless grad students to get PhDs because they wrote real purty and make their dissertation board chuckle at the innaness of their thesis.

But to really get what I’m saying you must first question the authenticity of my post because I used a small “g” when spelling “god.”

Both filosofy innit? :laughing:

I don’t know how to do the quote thingy…anyways, somebody asked just what concretely Derrida’s value is and referred to some Cambridge profs. This book by Marratti goes right to that point where Derrida questions Husserl and makes very plain something that will allow someone to decide for themselves: Is this a genuine philosophical insight and if so, just how valuable, and in what way? Marratti shows how the whole of D’s career does not waver from that initial insight (if it is an insight) Anyways, that’s why the book is worth a read for those so inclined…

Sounds to me like he was too stubborn, and he did everything in his power to hide his “insight” in mindnumbing mumbojumbo.

What I find really funny is that Knome Chompsky doesn’t like him either. So now I know what the Chomper and I can talk about if we ever get stranded together in an elevator.

Thread about random Nietzsche quote generator for inanely innocuous American cartoon strip. Thread about Derrida.

Merged together.

Whoa…that’s cryptic commentary by the powers that be. It’s so, like, meta.


The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.

Nietzsche and Derrida, hmm.

Maybe we’re supposed to deconstruct the Übermensche.

I know, been there done that, but some oldies can be goodies. So, let’s dig around for a binary opposition. I suppose it could be individual/herd. Actually, maybe interpretation/fact (haha, better yet transvaluation/values). So Nietzsche presupposed the value of individualism, which he clearly distinguishes from herd mentality – a fairly easily definable opposition. And he actually intended this – not at all like the way Frost’s “Road Not Taken” was bizarrely interpreted as some nonconformist anthem until Derrida came along. Anyway, on to deconstructing the opposition. I guess the easiest route would be to take the attack line against Søren and Jean-Paul – that you can never be a truly free responsible agent so long as you are at least partly determined by your cultural, historical, classist, racial, and gendered, etc. circumstances. And “partly” is what denies the possibility of a simple reversal: many of the latter discourses themselves claim to break from the herd. Very silly, since they depend for a voice and political power upon a herd (that old “carving out more margins to the distance between grains of sand” shtick). There, we’ve upset and complicated the hierarchy – all without having touched on morality or German nationalism. The will to power itself is insufficient to break from the herd since individualism is dependent upon and determined by the herd.

Oh yeah, and God may be dead, but the Mod is not. Lesson? The will to power might land your ass in temp.

Wrong thread, love. You were paged over to the “who’s hottest” contest.

And I suppose you’re wearing a beret? :raspberry:

I am nothing. How about you? :smiley:

Or must we presuppose existance? Just because one lives among the herd and exhibits some behavioral similarities doesn’t mean one is one of them of course, since being among them is a state of mind more than anything else. The comparison comes from the herd, not from the one outside the herd…the Other One. Naturally the one outside the herd just calls himself Joe or something and the herd people “Those assholes.”

I could swear you can read my thoughts. I was reading through this thread wondering, “Who the hell is Derrida et al?” and although I’m aware of Nietzsche I’m not familiar with his writing. This thought popped into my head, “Am I just fecking uneducated or why are folks always babbling on about people like these without me having any idea what they’re on about?” Right as rain, next post was SAF. :noway:

I could swear you can read my thoughts. I was reading through this thread wondering, “Who the hell is Derrida et al?” and although I’m aware of Nietzsche I’m not familiar with his writing. This thought popped into my head, “Am I just fecking uneducated or why are folks always babbling on about people like these without me having any idea what they’re on about?” Right as rain, next post was SAF. :noway:[/quote]
It’s kind of like me when it comes to rugby. I know next to nothing about the game, so I tend not to post in rugby threads. But like you, I do wonder in spite of my ignorance why people babble on about the game. All I can conclude is that some people really like it.

But back on topic, Derrida.

And I suppose you’re wearing a beret? :raspberry:[/quote]
Who needs a beret to mock both the right and the left when all you really need is a newspaper? :smiley:

Of course we don’t have to do anything of the sort, and that was kinda the point. Much of the whole existential shtick was based on “existence precedes essence,” right? They attacked the cogito, saying “I think therefore I am” presupposes an existing “I” before any thinking can happen. Derrida merely countered that “I” is itself first rendered into language. Besides, there are plenty of other deconstructive possibilities for Nietzsche: we could go after his presupposition that there are no truths, only interpretations – no objectivity, only subjectivity – no morality, only his own ego (well okay he didn’t actually come out and say that).

But enough of Nietzsche since the merged thread is now about Derrida. It might be fun to deconstruct Derrida. Better yet, argue that they’ve been deconstructing in these parts for quite some time. Here’s an idea just as silly as any of Derrida’s: Zen Buddhism as radical deconstruction. For example, Shenxiu really set up some nice binary oppositions here:

身是菩提樹
心如明鏡臺
時時勤拂拭
勿使惹塵埃

Then Huineng went and tore him a new one:

菩提本無樹
明鏡亦非臺
本來無一物
何處惹塵埃

The pharmakon and the bodhi tree? You be the judge, but if that ain’t deconstruction, I don’t know what is - and the exchange predates Derrida by a thousand years. Matter of fact, maybe we should just rechristen deconstruction “Lame Zen.” In fact, is it possible that some of Derrida’s concepts are not as alien here as they were to Western structuralists in the 1960s? The reductive nature of forcing everything into black and white oppositions (unless of course they’re blue and green)? Western philosophy being largely logocentric? Truth as fragmentary? Language as unstable, ambiguous, and notoriously slippery? I’ll have to think this over. Or not,‘coz a lot of my friends here do not dig bricolage.

The “some behavioral similarities” is precisely why we can’t simply reverse the binary – attempting to flip the hierarchy would be tantamount to the sort of arguments that go on in IP. From a Derridean perspective, then, you’re probably right – the only irony is that in order to establish correctness among competing subjectivities, we often take refuge in consensus. Maybe we should take a poll to see what everyone else thinks?

The sound of one hand clapping.

Really.

[quote=“smell the glove”]

The sound of one hand clapping.

Really.[/quote]
Yes, back to those dreams of Jolin…

My guess is that the problem of binaries is derived from wanting to talk with someone else. Wasn’t there a great composer who said that the perfect performer to audience ratio was 1 to zero?

Is this because “we” feel the need for competition in the first place? Aren’t the best nonfiction books written by people who don’t write books for a living? They do it out a cathartic need to cleanse themselves and minimal writing/communication skills? The Bell Jar opens?

That would be absolutely hilarious if we weren’t having this particular conversation. :laughing: :wink:

Derrida got on my bad side because he seemed to be intentionally fucking with meaning, not only to suit his purposes, but also to be malicious, which is what destructive rudderless pricks who worship at their own alters do. I know some people like this, and “unstable to the herd” is the kindest words that apply to them. What is nervewracking about them is that rarely even see this trait in themselves.

I guess the point here is that unless we learn to understand one another without communicating, Life, due to its infinate interpretations and confusions is going to kill us all off and we’ll be just about begging for it to do so by the end.

No wonder existential nihilism is so depressing. It has a better chance of being “Right” given the speed with which the human virus now “communicates.”

Speaking of Nietzsche. :wink:

I could swear you can read my thoughts. I was reading through this thread wondering, “Who the hell is Derrida et al?” and although I’m aware of Nietzsche I’m not familiar with his writing. This thought popped into my head, “Am I just fecking uneducated or why are folks always babbling on about people like these without me having any idea what they’re on about?” Right as rain, next post was SAF. :noway:[/quote]
I’ve actually read his works. Therefore I am allowed to post in this thread. Even if that post is simply nagging the Glove to go where he was paged to go.