Why the fuck are there leftists out there who recommend this bloated CIA adjacent fuck?

  • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]
    ·
    2 years ago

    I’m not looking for reasons, I found two or three and I’m sticking with them

    Sure you are dude

    cause all your “refutions” are just naive nonsense or convenient excuses

    Which of those categories does the fact that Derrida did not rehabilitate Heidegger fall under?

    • CyborgMarx [any, any]
      hexagon
      ·
      2 years ago

      As is well known, Derrida's first works – The Problem of Genesis in Husserl's Philosophy, the Introduction to Husserl's Origin of Geometry, and Speech and Phenomenon – were dedicated to Husserl's phenomenology which, together with Heidegger's analysis of existence, had been since the 1930s the major reference for most important French phi­losophers of this period: Lévinas, Ricœur, Sartre, and Merleau-Ponty. Derrida found in Husserl the main themes of thought (the role of writing in science in Origin of Geometry and the conception of soliloquy and voice as self-presence in the first Logical Investigation) that constituted the basis of his project of deconstructing logocentrism and phonocentrism, as expounded in the fundamental book published in 1967 under the title Of Grammatology. But if it is clear that Derrida discovered these themes in Husserl, it is nevertheless Heidegger's thinking that constitutes not only his major reference, but the very milieu, the “element” of his philosophical enterprise. From the middle of the 1960s, with the text dedicated to Lévinas under the title “Violence and Metaphysics,” in which we find his first reading of Heidegger, until the very end of the 1990s, with “L'animal que donc je suis,” where Heidegger's conception of animality is once more analyzed, Derrida never ceased to be engaged in a critical dialogue with Heidegger's thinking. As he explained in an interview in 1967, nothing of what he attempted in this period, which was the most decisive for his entire work, “would have been possible without the opening of the Heideggerian questions,” and especially without the attention given to what Heidegger names the ontological difference, in spite of the fact that this difference seems to him to be still retained in metaphysics.

      Yeah, that's not simply critique, that is incorporation, I said previously I was deconstructing Derrida, at first I was joking.....now

      Also what was it another commenter said in terms of how to use Derrida properly "But undoing, decomposing and de-sedimenting of structures was not a negative operation."

      Yes I'm using the word rehabilitation, maybe it was a little too strong, but because Heidegger was crucial to Derrida's works I'm sticking with it, but hey there's no "negative operation" just decomposition of a structure of analysis

      • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]
        ·
        2 years ago

        God this is tiresome. I seriously do not care about any of your gotchas. And it's laughable that you're pretending to base your position on "deconstructing Derrida" when you had to have the meaning of deconstruction explained to you in this thread. Like from the moment you heard that definition, you were like, how can I either dunk on this in order to dunk on Derrida, or how can I apply this to dunk on Derrida? You didn't know what it meant and you still don't know what it means and if I showed that you're not applying it correctly you'd seamlessly transition back to "well, deconstructionism is dumb anyway."

        You know Marx's ideas were inspired by Hegel, right? Even though Hegel reached entirely different political conclusions than Marx? If I showed a quote of Hegel defending slavery, should we also cancel Marx? What a load of nonsense. And that line of logic has absolutely nothing to do with deconstructionism, which, near as I can tell, you think means a sort of "one-drop rule" applied to philosophy, which is just... like, there is no possible way you could arrive at that conclusion if you've actually studied the concept in any capacity.

        • CyborgMarx [any, any]
          hexagon
          ·
          2 years ago

          Why are you talking about Hegel and Marx and presenting deconstructionism as this mystical high-level concept, nah I got the concept, a method of discerning meaning from a text in a way that teases out differing interpretations usually thru contrast, just cause this perfectly coherent idea is used to generate ahistorical gibberish by theorists like Derrida does not mean I hold some hostility to the concept in general

          My contention is that unlike Marx, Derrida on Heidegger is not simply engaging in a critique but taking the Nazi idealism of Heidegger at face vague while ironically commending/critiquing Heidegger for "rejecting the vulgar biologism of nazism in favor of a "spirit" nationalism, but thru this rejection revealing the same failed underpinnings of Nazism in general" this is just idealist nonsense, there's no "revealing", instead just a French doofus taking a Nazi doofus's self-mythology at face vague and in no way undermining Nazism in the process

          Derrida sounds good on paper, sure as shit don't work in practice judging by that lecture

          Can't say Marx ever took Hegel at face value

          • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]
            ·
            2 years ago

            Marx literally called himself a Hegelian, I'm dying to know what you'll come up with next :data-laughing:

            • CyborgMarx [any, any]
              hexagon
              ·
              2 years ago

              Ok, I don't disagree with that? But what exactly do you think Marx meant when he "stood Hegel on his head"?

              • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]
                ·
                2 years ago

                That his ideas drew inspiration from Hegel but that he was also critical of him. Perhaps that he was "engaged in a critical dialogue with Hegel’s thinking" or that some of his ideas "would not have been possible without the opening of the Hegelian questions."

                It's almost like philosophers can engage with the ideas of other philosophers without accepting their political conclusions. Almost as if philosophers frequently engage with ideas that they disagree with in order to critique them.

                • CyborgMarx [any, any]
                  hexagon
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  Taking a Nazi's self-mythology at face value and claiming its construction by said Nazi somehow undermines Nazism is not critical dialogue, and you comparing that idealist drivel to the rigor Marx applied to Hegel is ridiculous

                  I'm not calling Derrida a nazi, I'm calling him an idealist who can't even competently critique Nazism without sinking into unsupportable assumptions about a Nazi's headspace

                  • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 years ago

                    I’m not calling Derrida a nazi, I’m calling him an idealist who can’t even competently critique Nazism without sinking into unsupportable assumptions about a Nazi’s headspace

                    Lmao, now you're saying that. We started out at "rehabilitated Nazis" then progressed to "'rehabilitated' Nazis (technically, for certain definitions of rehabilitate)" and now we've arrived at "critiqued Nazis, but not well enough." If you opened with "Derrida's critique of Nazis was insufficient" then this conversation wouldn't be happening.