Real austictic philosophers hour

just because you didn't bother to look for any doesn't mean there isn't

Soft ass ideological double-bind: he's either sincere or hiding something because my razor sharp intuition says it must be one or the other! My 'humour' thread masking a lack of knowledge isn't though! Fuck outta here clown.

Tell me one thing Derrida had to say that sheds light on anything at all worth caring about. I demand proof that he's not a sophist.

It's just him. I can even be convinced that Lacan wasn't just jerking himself off.

Zizek is also a dumb wanker in his interviews. You kinda gotta to be to earn the role. Jesters or some shit. But are you asking about homosexual or pretentious philosophers? Cause Zizek is pretentious, not homo. And what is wrong with either anyway? Honestly, however, I think Zizek's books are alright. Then again, they're kinda like a "read one, read them all" sorta thing. Same with Derrida's books. Not bad but kinda not so exciting after you understand it either. It's not nearly as esoteric as made out to be. Why are you watching vids? Read essays and books for philosophy.

How about you describe in detail critiques of 5 positions for which he is known. Because I'm sure you don't even know his work and have already made up your mind on some contrary-to-the-contrarian egotrip you're on. And please don't resort to the wikipedia and Standford pages for your summaries lol.

What a chad

>How about you describe in detail critiques of 5 positions for which he is known.
Maybe I would be more prone to accomplish this if his writing style and way of explaining himself weren't so self-indulgently abstruse.

I kind of like the guy for this.

do you guys even read or just subsist on youtube and social media wankery?

has the post-text society finally been realised?

what year were you born

That's literally some experimental film, you autist

Derrida has God tier proportions.
Perfect hands, no hitchhikers thumb.
Perfect golden ratio. Add his charisma, and animatedness, you can see how he got away with being a pseud for so long.

> The history of Immanuel Kant's life is difficult to portray, for he had neither life nor history. He led a mechanical, regular, almost abstract bachelor existence in a little retired street of Königsberg, an old town on the north-eastern frontier of Germany. I do not believe that the great clock of the cathedral performed in a more passionless and methodical manner its daily routine than did its townsman, Immanuel Kant. Rising in the morning, coffee-drinking, writing, reading lectures, dining, walking, everything had its appointed time, and the neighbors knew that it was exactly half-past three o'clock when Kant stepped forth from his house in his grey, tight-fitting coat, with his Spanish cane in his hand, and betook himself to the little linden avenue called after him to this day the "Philosopher's Walk." Summer and winter he walked up and down it eight times, and when the weather was dull or heavy clouds prognosticated rain, the townspeople beheld his servant, the old Lampe, trudging anxiously behind Kant with a big umbrella under his arm, like an image of Providence.

> What a strange contrast did this man's outward life present to his destructive, world-annihilating thoughts! In sooth, had the citizens of Königsberg had the least presentiment of the full significance of his ideas, they would have felt far more awful dread at the presence of this man than at the sight of an executioner, who can but kill the body. But the worthy folk saw in him nothing more than a Professor of Philosophy, and as he passed at his customary hour, they greeted him in a friendly manner and set their watches by him.

Attached: kant.jpg (187x270, 16K)

>tfw you realize Kant was Satan himself, shaking loose the reigns of god from earth with all the methodical deliberation of a murderer

So why did his pipes grow larger?

>In the first part (the "Doctrine of Right," the Rechtslehre) of his late, post-critical Metaphysics of Morals (1797), which part is devoted to the Law, Immanuel Kant tells us about a crime that is "deserving of death" with regard to which it still remains doubtful whether legislation is also authorized to impose the death penalty." This crime is "a mother's murder of her child."1 But Kant is not concerned with a Susan Smith, who drowned in an automobile submerged in a lake her properly, legally, conceived children. That it is "doubtful" that the law should be brought to bear against infanticide is reserved by Kant for a special case:
[...]
>"Legislation cannot remove the disgrace of an illegitimate birth. ... A child that comes into the world apart from marriage is born outside the law ... and therefore outside the protection of the law. It has, as it were, stolen into the commonwealth (like contraband merchandise), so that the commonwealth can ignore its existence (since it was not right that it should have come to exist this way), and can therefore also ignore its annihilation."

Attached: der goblin de koninsberg.jpg (581x1024, 240K)

I love this debate because it's literally a back and forth between two people that's gone on for like five or six responses where neither party has engaged in the ideas they're talking about....It's perfect

>it must be one or the other
Yep its nothing. He just does that and it doesn't mean anything, hope you just get run by a bulldozer, it would be nothing for you.

Imagine being such a faggot that you think posting a fucking video means people don't read, I didn't say post videos just whatever you find funny.
>experimental
Keep drinking the cool aid, it must feel bad to be this disconnected.

This is not an interview, genius, it's a semi-improvised scene from a fictional film

he's saying whatever he wants and has that sexy French thottie eating out of his hands, you're just jealous

These are s.o.i.c.vcks who haven't laid off their reddiquette and actually believe their say and opinion matters

Attached: 1480945249074.jpg (1440x2560, 492K)

>>experimental
>Keep drinking the cool aid, it must feel bad to be this disconnected.

>oh, yeah, an interview that starts with a nonsensical question, ends with the woman ecstatically agreeing with him three or four times times in multiple shots, and a quarter of the time wasted on an unrelated phone talk, is obviously dead serious YOU DUMB LIBERAL

Attached: 0y1vc57o3tb21.jpg (550x540, 34K)

Most philosophers are out of touch with reality.
The most autistic philosophers are German Idealists, PoMos and Acc niggers.
they are so abstruse and spiteful towards the reality of facts precisely because they don't understand it and live in their delusional theoretical worlds.

I saw the movie too. I went away with "aha, so you can get famous by being good looking and spouting some witticisms"
Pretty disappointed. But then again I didn't study much of his actual work, maybe those are a turning point for something.

>to undermine the idea
how so?

I hope he had fun doing all this - otherwise it's a very bad case of life impacting ideology

>mr. derrida, do you believe in ghosts?
>that's a difficult question

Attached: derrida.jpg (330x480, 37K)

could have written this post with an algorithm

nah

>Mr. Peterson, was Jesus a real person who was killed and came alive again
>Well,...

(based on a true interview)

Attached: maps.png (717x651, 375K)

Mean, I refuse to believe my thoughts are reproducible by an algorithm.

Well, yours are. Mine are definitely not.

Fun fact: the film where this "interview" is from (Ghost Dance) also contains a scene with Hagrid dancing like a snake.

Denial is a symptom

Looking at this photo on young Peterson, you can’t tell me he wasn’t bullied, gang raped and had his head dunked in the toilet numerous times

He lived in Canada and apparently wrestled kid whatever that means...

Imagine the heroic strength it required to decide that civilization would be better off in a void of uncertainty rather than the cancer known as Christianity. Nietzsche has nothing on this man

Do you people realize that Derrida and Deleuze are largely arguing for similar ontological positions, right?