I’d appreciate it, someoneisatthedoor, if you could recognize what sarcasm is and what I take to be the truth. My comment was in agreement with Bill’s “Found quite a funny page mocking Derridaâ€. That is why I added “But, I think Derrida has allowed some space for expansion and shrinking of his theory. More about this, later, if I get the time.‗in defense of Derrida against websites like that. Before shooting off your mouth know how to distinguish sarcasm and real assertion and affirmation.
No one who has done his homework would say this. Only you maybe because you cannot even read properly what people posts. Again, I am trying to bring some analogy hoping to understand why people who mock Derrida or deconstruction say such things as the website says. Please stop acting like you are the expert on the subject. It is analogy that brings about discontent against some theories, like that of Derrida or Heidegger’s.
So, if you are not gonna play intelligently, FUCK OFF!!!
There is no such thing as ‘something’ or ‘nothing’. I could tell you that there is no such thing as ‘something’ but then you would probably still say that ‘nothing’ is something, but only by definition. Nothingness and something are exactly the same thing. Niether one of them exsts, or both exist. Make up your own choice.
Were you or were you not being sarcastic when you claimed that nothing we say or write means anything, ultimately, according to Derrida?
Prove me wrong. Derrida never argued that nothing exists. On the contrary he argued that meaning and the means to talk about it (language) precede any individual’s existence. He couldn’t very well go and argue ‘nothing exists’ when his entire philosophy is based on the fact that something exists. He wasn’t a nihilist. He wasn’t even close.
Oooooh, I’m scared. You’ve descended to the level of profanity.
Your analogy is incorrect because Derrida wasn’t a nihilist. Nor was he arguing what you claim he was arguing.
I’m not ‘the’ expert on the topic, nor am I presenting myself as such. I’m simply explaining what I know from several years studying. You could actually argue against what I’ve said, rather than attacking me. You could, but I expect you won’t.
If your next response is as poor as your last I will not respond to it.
Who is at the door?
Well you know things must be going well when someone ends one post with
And in a later post we see
So, who is this Someone… an elitist engaging in only purely academic matters, or an everyman, a fellow traveller, joining we the plebians in a search for that ever elusive truth? Given someone’s insistence that Arendt must argue a role he has assigned her, going so far as to ignore the fact that she has already stated she doesn’t support the very same arguments that Someone would have her support, I would say that the answer is neither.
I will take "wannabe elitist asshole’ for two hundred, Alex.
So what’s your point? I asked arendt for clarification as to whether she was being serious when she implied that Derrida claimed than nothing we say or write ultimately means anything. That’s still unclear from what she wrote. Somehow in your mind that makes me a wannabe elitist? Ha!
Hurhurhurhur, I’ll take ‘passive aggressive know nothing’ for a hundred
You are a kid who raided his mother’s wardrobe. Beyond the ill fitting dress, smudged make up, high heels, and that odd looking hat with the FTD floral arrangement resting on top of it, you are playing pretend. When someone else doesn’t play the way you want, or when that matching thong begins to ride up into uncomfortable places, you start laying down rules for how things must proceed. Your greatest fear is that, one day, an adult will show up and laugh at you.
It seemed clear to me what Arendt said. That you can’t discern meaning from what people write doesn’t make you an elitist, it makes you a wannabe elitist. A poseur. A fake. A fraud. A Charlatan. If you don’t understand what Arendt wrote, why not ask for clarification, instead of insisting that she argue according to what you admit isn’t very clear. If it isn’t very clear to you why do you assume that she is even in disagreement with you so much as she is in disagreement with your childish attitude? This isn’t about anyone arriving at the truth. It is about you trying to feed your needy ego. You should maybe start a rock band or go sky diving or something. Philosophy already has enough pretentious snobs.
If my calling you a wannabe elitist seems to be unoriginal, that is probably because you have heard it too often. Maybe you should decide what it is you actually know, before insisting on what others must know first. If this bothers you, there is nothing I can add, except that maybe your mother’s pink blouse really brings out the coloring in your eyes.
Tell me, do you have anything worthwhile to bring to this discussion or are hackneyed insults your limit?
I haven’t been called a wannabe elitist often, indeed every teacher and lecturer I ever had said I was an outstanding student. But I have seen other talented people be accused of elitism or pretension for poor reasons a great many times.
You are keeping your distance from the content of this discussion because, I would think, you don’t know enough to engage with it. You are more comfortable with trying to insult me. This doesn’t speak highly of your intelligence or your character. But please, don’t let me stop you.
While I consider your proposed experiment to be a good one, I don’t think I’m in the elite. That is the assertion of others who misrepresent or misunderstand me.
How about each of us tries to train a thousand monkeys, that have been genetically modified to resemble us, to write a Shakespearean sonnet?
It looks like Someoneisatthedoor needs to learn logic. My advice to you, someone, is learn logic alongside deconstruction. Your information doesn’t mean anything if you cannot defend it with logic. Learn from Yuxia—I strongly recommend him
What really makes me laugh is this assertion: “…to reveal your obvious lack of knowledge and to irritate those who’ve actually bothered to study the files in detail.â€
Tell me, someoneisatthedoor, how do you define knowledge? Since, this is a philosophical forum, please use the vantage point of epistemology. Because if you believe, and I say BELIEVE, that what you found in deconstruction is knowledge, please enlighten us all what you consider to be knowledge. Because your assertion that I have lack knowledge of deconstruction doesn’t hurt me at all. In fact, hell yes—I do not consider what I learn about deconstruction knowledge. The fact is, you are mistaking your belief to be knowledge. This is a common mistake of those who fail to study epistemology and logic. And I think you do lack training in logic.
Next:
Your lack of training in logic shows in your failure to distinguish what an assertion is, and what I speculate what people who doesn’t understand deconstruction must be thinking. I never assert that Derrida argued nothing exists. You deliberately attributed this to my post to get a foothold. Well, you fail. An assertion, someoneisatthedooor, is something that you take to be true. I never asserted anything in my original post. I never made a claim. This is what you’re supposed to understand. A sarcasm is a way of denying what the website says—but not a way of asserting what deconstruction is or what Derrida says.
“Jacques Derrida is dead. Deconstruction, however, lives on, carrying forward the insidious tendency toward relativism and nihilism that Nietzsche presaged more than a century ago.”
Do you think I care about your assessment of my logical faculties?
Deconstruction, like any theoretical movement or school, is based on premises. Just like Pyhrronian scepticism has its modes, deconstruction has its concerns. That language precedes my birth, that meaning exists whether I like it or not, that ‘the choice exists, like it or not’ (Derrida, Echographies of Television) that ‘To remain undecided is to give oneself over to the choice of the Other’ (Derrida, Points) that ‘Language has no discernible unity’ (Saussure, Course in general linguistics) that ‘there is no private language’ (Wittgenstein, not sure which book since I read it in a Reader)…
How do I define knowledge? Perception and abstraction.
If so why did I ask for clarification? That you were putting words into the mouths of Derrida’s ignorant detractors was not clear. How ironic, given we’re talking about deconstruction.
You seem to feel persecuted by me, I wonder why you care so much what I think if you consider me to lack so much knowledge. There’s a lot of irony here, I’m sure you’ll agree
For the record, you did claim that you thought Derrida allowed for some ‘shrinking and expanding’ - no?
Aside from that, I thought you were offering a claim, rather than suggesting it of others. Whatever, it makes little difference now
