This is very interesting. I’m thinking about psychoanalytic interpretations. Thanks for your insightful explanations and hard work! Not too many channels go to this depth of knowledge.
Hello, in the text named “ For the love of Lacan “ , Derrida talks about “ Of grammatology “ and says that this book never had the purpose to build a science called grammatology… ( But maybe one of its destiny was to be understood upside down… 🤣) He says that the purpose of this book was exactly the opposite, to prove that such a science was impossible… That being said, i didn’t read “ of grammatology “… 😉
Derrida seems to be pretty difficult. Does he hold writing in higher regard than speech? What's exactly the 'difference' that leads writing to emerge? What origins does writing efface?
Oh jeez haha. Insofar as writing is a displacement of meaning (in a logocentric world), and Derrida demonstrates that speech is itself a displacement of meaning, then all speech is firstly a writing. The thing is....I'm not sure if he lionises writing for this or if he sees himself only doing the work of illustrating logocentrism's intractable appreciation of speech.
Derridah seems to spout a bunch of nonsense over and over again, which makes listening to this extremely laborious. I think his point is very clear though: there is no meaning centralized. Everything is imagined by us, and never to be found trufull to the nature of reality itself. True nature is beyond language and perceptions, and that is somerhing I dont know if derridah understood.
I think that’s precisely what he spends all his time jabbering “nonsense” about. And it’s quite elementary to hold a philosophical viewpoint and point down on those that actually contributed to its creation
This is very interesting. I’m thinking about psychoanalytic interpretations. Thanks for your insightful explanations and hard work! Not too many channels go to this depth of knowledge.
Hello, in the text named “ For the love of Lacan “ , Derrida talks about “ Of grammatology “ and says that this book never had the purpose to build a science called grammatology… ( But maybe one of its destiny was to be understood upside down… 🤣)
He says that the purpose of this book was exactly the opposite, to prove that such a science was impossible…
That being said, i didn’t read “ of grammatology “… 😉
Thank you so much for breaking this down for me. I needed the help!
Thank you very much for this podcast.
This book really is a tough nut - your great work helps to crack it!
Hy How are you. I just need to ask I have to find foucault's concept of resistance, power and knowledge in fiction. Can you name something new ?
Derrida seems to be pretty difficult. Does he hold writing in higher regard than speech? What's exactly the 'difference' that leads writing to emerge? What origins does writing efface?
Oh jeez haha. Insofar as writing is a displacement of meaning (in a logocentric world), and Derrida demonstrates that speech is itself a displacement of meaning, then all speech is firstly a writing. The thing is....I'm not sure if he lionises writing for this or if he sees himself only doing the work of illustrating logocentrism's intractable appreciation of speech.
Good job this is awesome 👍
what is this 'signifier passion' exactly? I don't follow.
I don't recall :/ where did I say that?
30:00
Derridah seems to spout a bunch of nonsense over and over again, which makes listening to this extremely laborious. I think his point is very clear though: there is no meaning centralized. Everything is imagined by us, and never to be found trufull to the nature of reality itself. True nature is beyond language and perceptions, and that is somerhing I dont know if derridah understood.
I think that’s precisely what he spends all his time jabbering “nonsense” about. And it’s quite elementary to hold a philosophical viewpoint and point down on those that actually contributed to its creation