Hexbear

1 point

2 years ago

True, personally I find Habermas celebration of Hannah Arendt far more damning, but I’ll let Derrida off the hook, with his general ignorance about politics he probably didn’t know what her deal was

report

[ - ]

10 points

2 years ago

I guess “Knew someone who liked someone who was bad” just doesn’t have quite the same punch as “rehabilitated unrepentant Nazis.” Like tbh in your shoes I’d just delete the post.

report

Pisha [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.net

[ - ]

9 points

2 years ago

I did like the image of a life-long friendship between a Jewish boy in Algeria and a university rector in Nazi Germany. It’s like an absurdist comedy.

report

[ - ]

11 points

2 years ago

Jaques Derrida once walked into an animal shelter and murdered all the puppies. Who the fuck are the leftists who like this fucker?

Ok, well, technically, he didn’t actually do that, but he did once say that he hated dogs, which is still pretty bad.

I mean, I guess it was only really this one dog he didn’t like. Anyway, my point still stands.

report

[ - ]

2 points

2 years ago

“Had a fifteen-year-long professional and personal friendship with an avowed anti-marxist who is famous for advancing and building upon the racist totalitarian concepts proposed by Hannah Arendt” still packs quite a punch for someone who is supposed to be a “genius of the left”

Also “rehabilitated" in the sense he is the principle medium thru which Heidegger’s thoughts persist in western intellectual circles, despite his long-winded supposed critique of him, I mean if you consider whatever the hell this is to be a critique

report

[ - ]

11 points

2 years ago

I can’t take any of your criticisms seriously because you’re just looking for reasons to own him. If I refute one thing you’ll come up with something else, and it doesn’t matter how spurious it is because you have an axe to grind. I’m not interested in playing whack-a-mole.

report

[ - ]

2 points

2 years ago

I’m not looking for reasons, I found two or three and I’m sticking with them, cause all your “refutions” are just naive nonsense or convenient excuses for what was obviously a famous clique of anti-marxists, whose reputations are not based on the rigor of their work but by the politically friendly conclusions of their “critiques” and “analyses”

report

[ - ]

6 points

2 years ago

I’m not looking for reasons, I found two or three and I’m sticking with them

Sure you are dude

cause all your “refutions” are just naive nonsense or convenient excuses

Which of those categories does the fact that Derrida did not rehabilitate Heidegger fall under?

report

[ - ]

2 points

2 years ago

As is well known, Derrida’s first works – The Problem of Genesis in Husserl’s Philosophy, the Introduction to Husserl’s Origin of Geometry, and Speech and Phenomenon – were dedicated to Husserl’s phenomenology which, together with Heidegger’s analysis of existence, had been since the 1930s the major reference for most important French philosophers of this period: Lévinas, Ricœur, Sartre, and Merleau-Ponty. Derrida found in Husserl the main themes of thought (the role of writing in science in Origin of Geometry and the conception of soliloquy and voice as self-presence in the first Logical Investigation) that constituted the basis of his project of deconstructing logocentrism and phonocentrism, as expounded in the fundamental book published in 1967 under the title Of Grammatology. But if it is clear that Derrida discovered these themes in Husserl, it is nevertheless Heidegger’s thinking that constitutes not only his major reference, but the very milieu, the “element” of his philosophical enterprise. From the middle of the 1960s, with the text dedicated to Lévinas under the title “Violence and Metaphysics,” in which we find his first reading of Heidegger, until the very end of the 1990s, with “L’animal que donc je suis,” where Heidegger’s conception of animality is once more analyzed, Derrida never ceased to be engaged in a critical dialogue with Heidegger’s thinking. As he explained in an interview in 1967, nothing of what he attempted in this period, which was the most decisive for his entire work, “would have been possible without the opening of the Heideggerian questions,” and especially without the attention given to what Heidegger names the ontological difference, in spite of the fact that this difference seems to him to be still retained in metaphysics.

Yeah, that’s not simply critique, that is incorporation, I said previously I was deconstructing Derrida, at first I was joking…now

Also what was it another commenter said in terms of how to use Derrida properly “But undoing, decomposing and de-sedimenting of structures was not a negative operation.”

Yes I’m using the word rehabilitation, maybe it was a little too strong, but because Heidegger was crucial to Derrida’s works I’m sticking with it, but hey there’s no “negative operation” just decomposition of a structure of analysis

report