Was there a more low-IQ and deliberately cryptic-to-come-accoss-as-profound philosopher?
Was there a more low-IQ and deliberately cryptic-to-come-accoss-as-profound philosopher?
Nicholas Rodriguez
Other urls found in this thread:
Nathaniel Bell
You
Hunter Campbell
Hahaha I knew this was going to be the first post. That means that you're unoriginal and low-IQ.
Ryan Johnson
Equating conceptual difficulty with deliberate obscurantism is brainlet behaviour. If you have a valid issue with Derrida’s thought, why not actively critique it instead of betraying your ignorance by making a substance-less post?
Daniel Long
Leave OP to me
Jordan King
He literally has nothing to say, he has no original thoughts. What he does is wordplay to make things he says sound profound. I'm not accusing him of obscurantism, I'm accusing him of being low-IQ and writing solely platitudes - things that are obviously true, but worded in a certain way makes them seem like something new and interesting.
Joshua Morgan
If you disagree, explain literally one original thought that Derrida had.
Adrian Rivera
You’re one the one making an argument, not me. I don’t have to prove why I disagree because you haven’t given anything substantial for me to disagree with. It’s a safe bet that you haven’t read it if you need me to spoon feed you his ideas.
David Wood
Again, give specifics. General statements about someone’s writing are 99% of the time riddled with misrepresentation. You’re not fooling anyone by avoiding any real engagement with his ideas. If you were to show that you have engaged and chosen to reject it, that’s at least something that we can discuss.
Zachary Flores
>asked to give ONE original idea that Derrida had
>"UUHH im not here to spoonfeed you"
just lol
>I don’t have to prove why I disagree because you haven’t given anything substantial for me to disagree with
Is claiming that he's a hack without any original ideas not substantial enough to you? Literally all you have to do is give one counterexample and I will be proven wrong.
I'm waiting.
Juan Cox
>claiming he’s a hack with no reference to the text to justify it
>still trying to bait me into thinking for you
I’m not going to take it on good faith that you’ve read him if you can’t address your specific points of disagreement with him. Disliking his ideas because of his style of writing is logically incoherent because the aesthetic of writing has no bearing on the truth validity of the ideas it contains. If all of his material is composed of banal platitudes, why is it so much trouble for you to point to even one?
Jackson Long
You're about as smart as Derrida himself. Take that however you wish.
Nolan Lopez
You can accuse Derrida of a lot of things but writing platitudes is not one of them. Even if you think it’s all complete bs you have to admit that it’s at least original bs.
Cameron Turner
Notice how neither of you have given an example of anything you've talked about. This is what Yea Forums is now. Two people arguing about a philosopher they've neither read nor understood, taking opposite sides and seething at each other. You two faggots typify everything that is wrong with this board. Be ashamed of yourselves.
Ryder Green
/thread
Brandon Ross
>OP makes a retarded post and explicitly refuses to justify it
>hurrr you’re just as bad as each other
You fucker I know all about differance, hauntology, metaphysics of absence, etc.- I just see no point in giving a well-reasoned response when OP has offered a total of zero evidenced claims for me to respond to. I didn’t set this level of discourse and I don’t see any reason to elevate it if OP is totally unwilling
Bentley Ward
>signifiant is obnoxiously larger than signifié
I mean, I get someone saying he is just BSing. But what he said is obviously true is completely false. Can you tell me at least one philosopher who said like this?
Landon Williams
>skim key ideas from Wikipedia page
>I know all about Derrida
Ok buddy
Jonathan Taylor
deep
Parker Myers
He was the best of the French Postmodernists (miles better than the others, and he really shouldn't be grouped in with most as his ideas are at variance, his philosophy borders on analytical at times) and certainly the greatest philosopher of the past 50 years.
You are reading from his quotes. Read a collection of his essays like Dissemination. Start with Plato's Pharmacy. OP, give him a chance. I used to dismiss him. He gave way to the noxious neoliberal and liberal culture of his day at times but if you can get past this, there is some value there, and at the very least will make you think.
Pharmakon, deconstruction.
To add, Derrida was remotely not an obscurantist. He is incredibly lucid in most of his essays. You need to subvocalize or read allowed as he plays with language but comparisons to Deleuze (actually low IQ and obscurantist) are disingenuous.
Noah Watson
>Derrida was remotely not an obscurantist!!! He is incredibly lucid!!!!!
>You can understand Derrida completely fine if you spend ten years learning French and figuring out subtle difference of epoche and epoche with accent!!!!!!!
>Oh BTW Deleuze is completely obscurantist and actual low IQ
What a thoughtful reply, user. Very thoughtful
Matthew Gutierrez
Stick to your sitcoms OP
youtube.com
Mason Baker
What are you struggling to understand with Derrida? I can help you out.
Jack Hill
What is 'obviously true' about metaphysics of presence?
Sebastian Jones
How does Yea Forums do it? Despite its flaws, it still manages to maintain higher level discussion than the other media boards.
Wyatt Powell
What thoughts of his do you find unoriginal?
Oliver Stewart
Did you read Derrida and his writing on the notion of origin and think that him not having an original idea was a valid criticism?
Daniel Bell
Higher traffic = lower quality.
Luke Long
Did you miss the part in 'Differance' where he wrote for the length of the essay on 'differance'? Or was it too obscure?
Jace Sullivan
Based
Adam Ward
>>You can understand Derrida completely fine if you spend ten years learning French and figuring out subtle difference of epoche and epoche with accent!!!!!!!
That's not what I said.