3 ms·

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.

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.