Видео

Thank you a lot for such a great conversation!

Subjectivity Activities Reproduction or Transformation Relationships Means Clive Burgess

Is someone going to die really still part of our species Should we invest in be symbiotic with someone going to die Must we allow our stellar competitors feed in its agony

Thank you for this interview. Spivak part made me lol. Also, i see similarities in Chibber's identity politics critique with Olufemi Taiwo's Elite Capture.

When can a thinker be called a charlatan? I know when a car salesman or a property dealer or a politician can be called a charlatan. If people (or some people) are able to converge on derrida's ideas, then he has ideas to offer. And irrespective of whether his ideas are true or false or relevant or irrelevant or useful or useless, that still makes him a thinker. This is quite a 21st century use of the word "charlatan".

Hello! can you mention which part of Timothy Brennan's biography of Said you found his criticism of Postcolonial theorist who as you said "disliked" concepts like modernity.

thousands of careers that are staked on this nonsensical theory....so true!!

Thank you so much for posting this. It’s helped me think back on my own flawed statements on colonialism as well as when I wanted to win arguments fast, I grabbed concepts I never new were from this post colonialist thought because i thought I could win debates fast with these harsher/hardline positions about the west. But I was wrong. this all helped me make those connections with where I went wrong. 👌🏻

I think the the arguments against post-modernism are valid. It's not just Jordan Peterson types. it's people like Noam Chompsky, people who have read Wittgenstein and understand the dangers of bad metaphysics. Derrida's entire conception of language is wrong from the VERY GET-GO. He is indeed a charlatan or intellectual--not a philosopher.

Really great interview! I love the explanations and examples. Ready to delve deeper into affect!

This helped me with my essay thank you!

Salmon’s book surely indicates that he doesn’t understand Derrida … It’s not a competent introduction to Derrida’s contribution to philosophy.

derrida said there is no truth only interpretations of texts and there are multiple interpretation of any text, when asked if all of them are equally valuable he said no, when asked how to tell which interpretation is better he shit himself, he is a fraud like you guys defending his bullshit self-contradictory so called philosophy

Socialism leads to totalitarian tyranny, the way to the socialist eutopia is always across an ocean of blood and because it’s a fiction you never arrive….

France itself is ersatz.

Ironic all the ads I listened to on this video. Super capitalistic scams, like investments from home, all kinds of b.s. Ha ha. I hope, at least, the uploader of this vid got some money out of these bastard ads.

Derrida - what a legend. Even his name screams about being deconstructed on the run: der err rerrer ida viva la vida jesus man what a legend indeed! I have lost faith in this thing called philosophy a long time ago. It is so impotent against reality it makes me feel sick. Heidegger was fun, Wittgenstein was hilarious. This strange coup d'etat by French decadents stealing the corpus of German thought is nothing but a papery epilogue to what was once a great tradition of thinking.

@38:12 right, now you are going to tell me how to enjoy Of Gramatology. I've had two shots at it and you can fek off ! As Foucault himself pointed out (somewhere I cant be bothered to remember), in order to get published by the Academy you had to write esoteric gibberish.

@31:00 " .. and we never notice that we are moving between them [registers of truth]..." oh yes we do. Oh Yes We (perhaps not you) Do.

Congratulations. Thank you for sharing. 👏

Derrida came up with some great stuff, but he was not a good writer, and it wasn't the Frenchness. Barthes wrote beautifully, much like E.B. White.

He looked just like a famous French philosopher.

Derrida would say, yes, I am a charlatan, and then he would go on to deconstruct the concept of charlatanry in a way that is to his advantage

I just wished the professor would clarify his understanding of the concept of “truth” which he touches on. I do not think he himself sufficiently grasp it.

Derrida is not a charlatan. He is only such to academia, who reads deconstruction like someone who does not understand German and read German as if German is English, thus - after reading German text as if he reads English - he concludes that German is a meaningless language. This is my way of explaining how modernity conditioned the West (and its hangers-on) according to a notion of reality which the West adopted since the Western European Enlightenment, whereas modernity is just a notion of reality amongst many.

I haven't thought about these political objections to this kind of philosophy in a long time. I think it is almost needless to say that these kinds of controversies don't come from the same place if there is an academic philosopher on the one side and these political pundits on the other, especially if it is someone with a grilled mind like Peterson is. Not that him or Pluckrose aren't academics, but they aren't philosophers, they are in it for something political and their audiences wouldn't even appreciate them for being clever about it. At some point, Helen Pluckrose partially defended Marx on the basis that he stands for "dialectics, i.e. dialogue". One simply has to notice how silly this is and move on.

This video was a terribly unconvincing apologia of the obscurantist musing of Derrida. Except for postmodern lit.crit. academics, I suspect only people force to read Derrida are students in college. Does anyone really understand what he wrote? Derrida's claim that philosophy's emphasis on striving for 'clarity' is itself a particualr method no more important that his approach is self-serving. The most embarrassing approach by destructionists and postmodernists is there comical use of hard science's technical terms.

When you mentioned your dog as an example, everything suddenly clicked for me, as a dog lover and someone who is interested in the concept of companion species.

14:00 and 39:15

When it all comes down to it Derrida was all about the young pussy. I don't mean to sound derogatory to him, this guy was a rock star. ..I can completely see how young women were attracted to him. ..But can you see Jacque Derrida taking care of a woman for life? ..Did he?

Perhaps the philosopher is responsible for the ideas he or she puts out into the world. Especially since they know their ideas will be misinterpreted and perhaps used for Evil. Much like the scientists who build weapons of mass destruction "because they can".

I deconstructed your words and realized that they actually indicate the opposite. They mean that he was a charlatan. Thank you for saying so.

Jorden Peterson would definitely not call Derrida a Charlatan. Peterson does analysis, which is different then way Derrida did analysis, because they live in different times.

Derrida took from Heidegger Heidegger took from John Duns Scotus Everyone took from Plato

The thoughts on Derrida and CRT were a bit... vapid, in my view. Salmon recovered a bit toward the last part but, overall, seems to miss his own biases. These biases are clear when he says the typical Leftist trope of, "yada yada which is a cover for their [i.e. conservative political enemies'] own racism." Then the interviewer says something about how conservatives couldn't define what CRT is in a poll. The massive blindspot is that, while the average joe conservative can't give you a detailed intellectual account of CRT, they are using the label to put words to the bizarre activist movement they are encountering which, yes, stems directly from CRT. Meanwhile, the average joe Leftist didn't even know what CRT was until conservatives started talking about it, but, and this is important, they have been deeply influenced by it, in spite of not knowing it by name, and promulgating it. It's at best out of touch to call this out in the direction you did. Both of you in this interview typified this phenomenon in your comments on CRT. The reality is that CRT doesn't merely teach that racism can be "institutionalized". It creates false analyses of reality based on extremely suspect criteria, and this generates propoganda which creates foot soldiers for activist movements through fear and bitterness such that those who are influenced by it don't ever slow down to ask whether the propaganda might be an actual representation of reality. This might be a Marxist channel, and, if so, that seems to be par for the course, but I'm going to at least call that incoherency out. In the spirit of fairness, I appreciate that there is at least a recognition for the need for individuation, where CRT, though it seems to claim to be comprehensive in its analysis, does not have a category for that. That leads to a lot of people, like say, poor whites, or successful non-whites, to be at odds with the current activist zeitgeist.

to answer shortly - no, Derrida wasn't a charlatan. He was without any doubt one of the greatest and most influential minds of the 20 c.

Boiled down - People who dare to criticise Derrida are white supremacists.

Very useful, thank you.

Derrida was an idealist

Derrida was not even wrong.

Oh, deride not Derrida, lest in grief he surely die. For the deconstructed philosopher. In the midnight gloom, can be so vary cheerless as he wanders round the room. 😅😊

Overrated wise, it was deleuze

Thanks for this great content. Great help for my study.

Derrida has been attacked from the left, notably by Noam Chomsky. You fail to make clear that Alan Sokal considers himself a leftist, BTW.

Point of intensity, line of variation, plane of potential. Heavy stuff!

Thank you so much for this.

Yes Marxism was distorted by the subaltern .. whereby the mode and relations of production are no longer center stage, , but this western obsession of sticking to Marx is its obsession with sticking to messsiahs. You are pithy and correct in your analysis , in being aware of a matrix, beyond economic relations.” Surplus labor” still rules. The problem is that none of this going back to Marx solves the “ problem” of capitalism.the quantum leap into socialism is not within any necessity of inductive reasoning. By accentuating some ethereal “ socialism” . You have ignored the quest for “ being qua being” pursed by the phenomenologists . It is not East vs west , as Islam is itself not an Eastern theology it is more western than Christianity . Chibber, the problem with Marx is not necessarily the cultural differences between east and west but more so that Aristotle was adapted by the theoretical Popes of the west, the popes meaning theoretical doyens of the west.You are also correct in analyzing Chomsky The rejection of Parmenides in the west and to a degree of rejection of advice in the east. Of course Vivek, you have assumed that this monism is not worth your time. Spinoza Hegel and then Marx are eulogized but none of this monism of theirs has ontological reduction , despite the attempted try by Heidegger and Husserl. Veridicality happens only through the subject, as quantum physics knows well that Kantian antinomies are an issue only because if the necessity of the subject and the object. Russia failed because it is Judeo Christian looking for solutions in Marx, Lenin or Bukharin .The Chinese being les theocratic decided to debunk socialism and sent capitalist . This happens because of a cultural difference . Purva paksha is theme unknown in the west. Materialism was the wrong term used by Marx in his zeal to defy theocracy .oppression seen from the point of the subject is not restricted to economic stress. You have not offered one reason as to how socialism can come , and of the incentive to bring it about. Marx deviated , he did not go into the ontological reduction of alienation .

No he wasn’t next stupid question

48:52 Derrida might have disavowed relativism and claimed not to be a relativist, but it’s entirely inconsistent with his elaborately expressed philosophical views, especially the deconstruction of unified self and the denial of all fixed meaning. He might talk the talk … but his books don’t back him up … and his political activity, like Foucault’s were … minimal and idiosyncratic.