/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11354199]

*deconstructs your path*

[Anonymous No.11354200]

haha nice one my man

[Anonymous No.11354209]

I wanna deconstruct your skull you nigger faggot beggar

[Anonymous No.11354218]

>>11354199
more rare derrida pic

[Anonymous No.11354221]

>>11354199
PUT IT BACK!!!!!
LET ME GOOOOOOOOOO

[Anonymous No.11354226]

another evil french communist jew whose only goal is to destroy western civilization
marxism is the root of all evil in this world

join peterson defense force

[Anonymous No.11354252]

*Deconstructs your deconstruction*

[Anonymous No.11354261]

>Derrida

[Anonymous No.11354263]

>>11354261
deconstruction doesn't leave things meaningless

[Anonymous No.11354270]

>>11354263
It leaves things ambiguous and uncertain. Which is practically the same as nihilism where humans are concerned.

[Anonymous No.11354278]

>>11354270
no it doesn't. it clarifies the position further

[Anonymous No.11354288]

>>11354278
>Hermeneutic circles of language
>clarifying anything

bitch please

[Anonymous No.11354289]

>>11354270
it's the reversing of platonism, it's the principle that ideality is founded on possible iterability, and iterability is the product of empirical instance of acertain "thing". A thing that only looks ambiguous and uncertain because you see it through the lens of an essence that isn't really there per se.

[Anonymous No.11354316]

>>11354199
Can someone please explain to me what he meant by archi-writing, I can't wrap my mind around the idea of deconstruction since he describes it as not a method nor a system, it's as if I need to be on LSD to grasp it

[Anonymous No.11354328]

>>11354288
P A R A L L A X V I E W

[Anonymous No.11354329]

>>11354226
>Peterson and his followers don't have any self-aggrandizing ideas about what they're doing

[Anonymous No.11354360]

>>11354316
Deconstruction is in fact neither a method nor a system, it's a radical possibility within a given text. Every reading is in some way a decostruction because ther'se no point of reference trascendent to the text. Every context is subject itself to codification eand textual interpretation. That's why writing is seen as lesser in regards to speech, because speech always helps himself with presence of live intention, or so it's supposed.

Arch-writing is the system of traces (that's why it's called "writing", as like writing it has never a full grasp on presence, on the sthing, or concept) These are signs of signs, a system of differentiation that's presupposed by every language written or oral. It's also a mostly marginal concept imo in Derrida.

[Anonymous No.11354387]

>>11354226
go away PIDF

[Anonymous No.11354586]

>>11354218

[Anonymous No.11354740]

>>11354218
> tfw Derrida deconstructs your boipucci

[Anonymous No.11355100]

>>11354199
your mother can deconstruct my cock