4 ms·

Conflating Derrida and Sartre with Frankfurt's school is extremely weird. Especially Sartre. Sartre's ideology is existentialism, it have close to nothing to d

by orwin 2y ago

Conflating Derrida and Sartre with Frankfurt's school is extremely weird. Especially Sartre. Sartre's ideology is existentialism, it have close to nothing to do with the post-hagelism/neo-marxism of the Frankfurt school. The only common point is that they're continental philosophers and atheists. Concerning Derrida, his main contribution is that the best way of criticizing a book is to make abstraction of who wrote it and when, of current ideas and laws and only judge the book for itself, finding internal contradiction,and that what he called 'deconstruction'. Yes it's the same word as Frankfurt's school 'deconstruction' but it has nothing to do with it. I get why he's classified as a post-modernist,but he is post-structuralist before everything, and post-structuralism is anti-marxism by definition, so making him a friend of Frankfurt's school is disingenuous. Also he disliked Foucault. Also, Freud, Deleuze, Lacan and Foucault are frauds and while most post-modernism is basically wankery (if this word doesn't exist,it should), Derrida, and especially Lyotard and Baudrillard do not deserve to be put in the same basket. Lyotard because he explained Marvel 'films' 50 years before Marvel, and Baudrillard because anybody who wants to understand social media has to read him, despite the fact that he died before Facebook was a thing. And conflating all of them with hagelians is an insult to any intelligent being who read them. And for the 'age of consent' petitions you linked at the end, the story is that the age of consent in France was 21. It was then reduced for non-homosexuals to 18, then 15. The petition (at least the one signed by Françoise d'Eaubonne) was to have the same age of consent for both homosexuals and heterosexuals, which ended up happening. The latest petition I think was to either have consent lowered to 13, or have the penal responsibility raised from 13 to the current consent age,but it was signed by like 60 people and quite weird. P.S I checked the English version and the French version, one has a lot of facts, citations, point of view and seems quite complete, the other seems quite targeted. I wasn't exact in my description of what happened but I'm a lot closer than the English Wikipedia.

Der_Einzige 2y ago
[flagged]
- toofy 2y ago
  > Also I think that people so willing to defend these people are often affiliated with Langley or ft Meade. please don’t imply another commenter, one who took the time to engage with you in good-faith of being part of some vast conspiracy, please. you can do better. it’s incredible how the mere mention of the frankfurt school brings people like this out in absolute droves. every. single. time.
  - Der_Einzige 2y ago
    [flagged]
- orwin 2y ago
  What do you mean pseudoscience? I don't think Derrida's deconstruction as ever claimed to be scientific or even the best method for literature analysis. And while you can disagree with him that words and meanings evolve through time and culture, hence you can't rely on your current definitions to understand a book and have to understand through other means, I still think that his method of resolving that through finding internal contradictions is clearly a very good idea. If you don't think so, well, it's your opinion, but why would it be unscientific? Also, it's not critical theory. They use the same name but it's two different things. Derrida's 'deconstruction' is largely influenced by Heidegger (ps: now I get why Sartre and Derrida were put in the same sentence), while critical theory is inspired by Marx. I'm not saying Derrida wasn't into new-age bullshit, but he is mostly known as a linguist, grammarian, and litterature critique,and on that I think he's ok. Mostly wrong,but those were new fields at the time. And I haven't read any arguments against his deconstruction,so if you have one,I will read it. [Edit] and to be clear, ni idea who is Langley or the other one. The most recent book I've read on an adjacent subject is Eidolon from Shoumacher, and I doubt someone who call 'hyperreality' 'pseudoscience', showing that labels do sometimes take over what they are describing originally read the same books I do :D
  - amenhotep 2y ago
    Langley and Fort Meade are the headquarters of the CIA and NSA respectively. He's insinuating, bizarrely, that you're a government agent posting covertly on the internet as part of a conspiracy to promote continental philosophy for... reasons?
Marazan 2y ago
Derrida belongs in the fraud bucket so hard I got him a specially labelled bucket to put him in.
- orwin 2y ago
  Is he a fraud because it takes him two books to finally get to a fucking point (in that case I totally agree) or is he a fraud because someone who didn't read him made him say stuff he didn't write or said and you now think that his deconstruction, inspired by Heidegger's 'Destruktion', is the same as critical theory deconstruction, which it is not? If your only issue with him is his deconstruction, I implore you to read what it means, in his main subject, linguistics and literary criticism. If it was his weird affection for psychoanalysis and other new-age shit, you're right but it isn't really present in his most known works, and I would not understand why put him in a special bucket.
  - Der_Einzige 2y ago
    Being into "weird new-age shit" taints you to the point that you should not be listened to. It hints that their whole epistemological world-view is biased by charlatanism. I don't care if a chiropractor is right about some stuff, they're too tainted to listen to... at all... Look at what happened to people who were almost coherent. I actually love "Mass Psychology of Fascism" by Wilhelm Reich. Great explanation of the right-wing fear of sexual pleasure. Too bad he went loony as hell right after: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgone Or Althussuar killing his wife suddenly and without warning? (his wife was a hardcore communist woman who apparently summarily executed "collaborators" shortly after WW2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A9l%C3%A8ne_Rytmann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A9l%C3%A8ne_Rytmann Or Jung's literally mystical ideas of collective unconscious? This ideology literally makes you nuts. Hence why they want you to be "Schizoanalytical" and "Rhizomatic".
    - orwin 2y ago
      I don't like to defend what he wrote once again, it's mostly unactionnable and unreadable, so useless for anyone, but he never published new age shit, the only criticism you can do on him would be that he doesn't criticize it as much as he should. His complacency with Deleuze and Garrati (or whatever his name was) is problematic, but once again, he never reference it in any published work. Also he was clearly in the non-Lacanian branch of poststructuralism, at least in what he published, so i think you have conflated his writing with a Zizeck or someone else. In his book on Freud, while he is quite incomprehensible as always, it's also clear he tries to deconstruct and refute Psychoanalysis through freud's writing (this is a point i really disagree with Derrida, he make everything about literature and his textual deconstruction). You can criticize the fact that he does not finish, but i don't see where this taints him. My opinion is that he was such a poor and distracted writer that it makes it easy for people to misread him on purpose and make him say shit he never did. Also his method of literary analysis is good, even if hard to pull on really good books (bu that's why it is a really good method), and i think it is hard to disagree on this.

by orwin 2y ago

Der_Einzige 2y ago

[flagged]

toofy 2y ago
> Also I think that people so willing to defend these people are often affiliated with Langley or ft Meade. please don’t imply another commenter, one who took the time to engage with you in good-faith of being part of some vast conspiracy, please. you can do better. it’s incredible how the mere mention of the frankfurt school brings people like this out in absolute droves. every. single. time.
- Der_Einzige 2y ago
  [flagged]
orwin 2y ago
What do you mean pseudoscience? I don't think Derrida's deconstruction as ever claimed to be scientific or even the best method for literature analysis. And while you can disagree with him that words and meanings evolve through time and culture, hence you can't rely on your current definitions to understand a book and have to understand through other means, I still think that his method of resolving that through finding internal contradictions is clearly a very good idea. If you don't think so, well, it's your opinion, but why would it be unscientific? Also, it's not critical theory. They use the same name but it's two different things. Derrida's 'deconstruction' is largely influenced by Heidegger (ps: now I get why Sartre and Derrida were put in the same sentence), while critical theory is inspired by Marx. I'm not saying Derrida wasn't into new-age bullshit, but he is mostly known as a linguist, grammarian, and litterature critique,and on that I think he's ok. Mostly wrong,but those were new fields at the time. And I haven't read any arguments against his deconstruction,so if you have one,I will read it. [Edit] and to be clear, ni idea who is Langley or the other one. The most recent book I've read on an adjacent subject is Eidolon from Shoumacher, and I doubt someone who call 'hyperreality' 'pseudoscience', showing that labels do sometimes take over what they are describing originally read the same books I do :D
- amenhotep 2y ago
  Langley and Fort Meade are the headquarters of the CIA and NSA respectively. He's insinuating, bizarrely, that you're a government agent posting covertly on the internet as part of a conspiracy to promote continental philosophy for... reasons?

Marazan 2y ago

Derrida belongs in the fraud bucket so hard I got him a specially labelled bucket to put him in.

orwin 2y ago
Is he a fraud because it takes him two books to finally get to a fucking point (in that case I totally agree) or is he a fraud because someone who didn't read him made him say stuff he didn't write or said and you now think that his deconstruction, inspired by Heidegger's 'Destruktion', is the same as critical theory deconstruction, which it is not? If your only issue with him is his deconstruction, I implore you to read what it means, in his main subject, linguistics and literary criticism. If it was his weird affection for psychoanalysis and other new-age shit, you're right but it isn't really present in his most known works, and I would not understand why put him in a special bucket.
- Der_Einzige 2y ago
  Being into "weird new-age shit" taints you to the point that you should not be listened to. It hints that their whole epistemological world-view is biased by charlatanism. I don't care if a chiropractor is right about some stuff, they're too tainted to listen to... at all... Look at what happened to people who were almost coherent. I actually love "Mass Psychology of Fascism" by Wilhelm Reich. Great explanation of the right-wing fear of sexual pleasure. Too bad he went loony as hell right after: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgone Or Althussuar killing his wife suddenly and without warning? (his wife was a hardcore communist woman who apparently summarily executed "collaborators" shortly after WW2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A9l%C3%A8ne_Rytmann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A9l%C3%A8ne_Rytmann Or Jung's literally mystical ideas of collective unconscious? This ideology literally makes you nuts. Hence why they want you to be "Schizoanalytical" and "Rhizomatic".
  - orwin 2y ago
    I don't like to defend what he wrote once again, it's mostly unactionnable and unreadable, so useless for anyone, but he never published new age shit, the only criticism you can do on him would be that he doesn't criticize it as much as he should. His complacency with Deleuze and Garrati (or whatever his name was) is problematic, but once again, he never reference it in any published work. Also he was clearly in the non-Lacanian branch of poststructuralism, at least in what he published, so i think you have conflated his writing with a Zizeck or someone else. In his book on Freud, while he is quite incomprehensible as always, it's also clear he tries to deconstruct and refute Psychoanalysis through freud's writing (this is a point i really disagree with Derrida, he make everything about literature and his textual deconstruction). You can criticize the fact that he does not finish, but i don't see where this taints him. My opinion is that he was such a poor and distracted writer that it makes it easy for people to misread him on purpose and make him say shit he never did. Also his method of literary analysis is good, even if hard to pull on really good books (bu that's why it is a really good method), and i think it is hard to disagree on this.