Reading Peter's book now, and loving it. Thanks so much to Peter and Verso for this work and great insight into the mind and life of this highly interesting man.
I think you overlooked the most important thing about deconstruction : the "scars" in the text you mention are, as far as I understood Derrida, the binary oppositions that tend to marginalize a term in favor of its opposite. Deconstruction questions the very basis of these oppositions and the hierarchy they beget. Ultimately, deconstruction tends to show that the marginalized term can be equally favored by shifting one's way of reading and that, in fact, the favorization of a term can only occur by admitting the centrality of its opposite. Thus, at the end of the day, the main point of deconstruction is to deny the idea of a center in any system or any text : any term can be a center and thus no term is ACTUALLY the center. Stability is shaken and thus claims to truth inside a text in an absolute sense is nullified.
And, your last sentence is why Hegel remained, remains and will remain the Derrida's primary opponent. Where the infinite collapse of limits opens upwards towards absolute truth for Hegel, for Derrida the collapse is abyssal. One thing I would point out is deconstruction does not "deny the idea of a centre in any system or any text", but rather denies the organic or natural claim about the centre. A system or text requires a centre, but it is a construct-it is artificial; it is, as Derrida would later call it, a prosthetic, or a supplement. For me, the most important thing about deconstruction is that it is not an activity. It is not an act, an action, a method and so on; one can go on at length by way of a quasi-negative-theological description of deconstruction, as Derrida did in "A Letter to Japanese Friend", but the point is that deconstruction is always already part of construction. One could say they supplement each other. Texts already deconstruct themselves, they don't wait for the subject to come along later and act upon them with a deconstructive method. In fact, in so far as the idea of a method, methodology, is concerned, it too is already undergoing deconstruction. When I see people online say how they're undergoing 'a deconstruction of their faith', I think they are using the word as a synonym for analysis or criticism, but in so far as analysis belongs to the binary of analysis and synthesis, and criticisms employs, deploys, methods, and is itself a method of engagement, these are already undergoing deconstruction. Derrida's claims around deconstruction are in a certain sense transcendental. But, where Kant's transcendental inquiry concerned the conditions of possibility, Derrida is concerned with impossibility, how conditions of impossibility and possibility supplement each other. The conditions of a text that make it possible make it simultaneously impossible and vice versa. There is no pure condition under which a system does not include its own impossibility.
![Lil Uzi Vert - We Good [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DrSfBULAsek/mqdefault.jpg)
Great explanation of deconstruction. I’m excited to read Peter’s biography of Derrida.
Reading Peter's book now, and loving it. Thanks so much to Peter and Verso for this work and great insight into the mind and life of this highly interesting man.
amazing explanation! after reading tones of Derrida´s summaries, finally I have found the perfect video which explains everything clear.
I think you overlooked the most important thing about deconstruction : the "scars" in the text you mention are, as far as I understood Derrida, the binary oppositions that tend to marginalize a term in favor of its opposite. Deconstruction questions the very basis of these oppositions and the hierarchy they beget. Ultimately, deconstruction tends to show that the marginalized term can be equally favored by shifting one's way of reading and that, in fact, the favorization of a term can only occur by admitting the centrality of its opposite. Thus, at the end of the day, the main point of deconstruction is to deny the idea of a center in any system or any text : any term can be a center and thus no term is ACTUALLY the center. Stability is shaken and thus claims to truth inside a text in an absolute sense is nullified.
And, your last sentence is why Hegel remained, remains and will remain the Derrida's primary opponent. Where the infinite collapse of limits opens upwards towards absolute truth for Hegel, for Derrida the collapse is abyssal.
One thing I would point out is deconstruction does not "deny the idea of a centre in any system or any text", but rather denies the organic or natural claim about the centre. A system or text requires a centre, but it is a construct-it is artificial; it is, as Derrida would later call it, a prosthetic, or a supplement.
For me, the most important thing about deconstruction is that it is not an activity. It is not an act, an action, a method and so on; one can go on at length by way of a quasi-negative-theological description of deconstruction, as Derrida did in "A Letter to Japanese Friend", but the point is that deconstruction is always already part of construction. One could say they supplement each other. Texts already deconstruct themselves, they don't wait for the subject to come along later and act upon them with a deconstructive method. In fact, in so far as the idea of a method, methodology, is concerned, it too is already undergoing deconstruction.
When I see people online say how they're undergoing 'a deconstruction of their faith', I think they are using the word as a synonym for analysis or criticism, but in so far as analysis belongs to the binary of analysis and synthesis, and criticisms employs, deploys, methods, and is itself a method of engagement, these are already undergoing deconstruction. Derrida's claims around deconstruction are in a certain sense transcendental. But, where Kant's transcendental inquiry concerned the conditions of possibility, Derrida is concerned with impossibility, how conditions of impossibility and possibility supplement each other. The conditions of a text that make it possible make it simultaneously impossible and vice versa. There is no pure condition under which a system does not include its own impossibility.
"Jacques......Derrida" sighs "...no binaries"
1:45min He has influenced Socrates (the guy that drunk poison) and "Beckett" and Tariq Ali.
Dekonstrukcioniste ne zanima istina več samo kako je riječ istina konstruirana?
Fali li svim dekonstrukcionistima daska u glavi?
Ili samo nekima?
19sec-25thsec: Objectively doing so.
Sounds like conceptual Satipathana