Brilliant! It appears quite firmly that the reality we perceive on a daily basis is a manifestation of our experience with our language. This may also explain why most brilliant works shed their brilliance when translated to another language: it is as if they are forced to become visible in another reality or dimension altogether. Or perhaps a better analogy would be of colors, for example, let's say each language has its own specific set of colors and to translate a work that is infested, not just with those colors but also with their combinations, would be like taking an attempt at explaining colors to a color-blind person. However, do you think this idea of a logocentric reality is relevant in the Indian civilization?
Sir, Derrida is criticizing Logocentrism, the structure of logic, reason and value? I mean what he want to establish by dismantling this. Chaos. Waiting for you response
That's indeed a brilliant response! It might appear that as a result of the operation of Foucauldian applications, chaos would result. But we should not fear uncertainty. The chaos need not be everlasting. We should try to metamorphose the chaos and see what emerges out of it.
no derrida just sees that speech is limited by similar limitations of writing. Words can have different meanings to different people. that doesnt suggest chaos. it could suggest we need to do extra work to ensure we are on the same page as speech alone cant do that.
![Eminem - Fuel (Shady Edition) feat. Westside Boogie & GRIP [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/k1OquBida9s/mqdefault.jpg)
Unsurpassable charm in teaching....Thank you 👏🏻👏🏻
Thank you very,very much, dear!
Brilliant! It appears quite firmly that the reality we perceive on a daily basis is a manifestation of our experience with our language. This may also explain why most brilliant works shed their brilliance when translated to another language: it is as if they are forced to become visible in another reality or dimension altogether. Or perhaps a better analogy would be of colors, for example, let's say each language has its own specific set of colors and to translate a work that is infested, not just with those colors but also with their combinations, would be like taking an attempt at explaining colors to a color-blind person. However, do you think this idea of a logocentric reality is relevant in the Indian civilization?
Brilliant comment! Thank you. A discussion of logocentrism and Indian philosophy is on the cards.
very nice
Thank you!!!
Perfect simplistic explanation
Thank you!!!
Good explanation sir..helpful knowledge....
Thank you very,very much!
Lots of thanks guruji. It was of utmost help before my elt exam.
Grateful for your kind words. They mean much to me. Thank you! God bless you!
Sir, Derrida is criticizing Logocentrism, the structure of logic, reason and value? I mean what he want to establish by dismantling this. Chaos. Waiting for you response
That's indeed a brilliant response! It might appear that as a result of the operation of Foucauldian applications, chaos would result. But we should not fear uncertainty. The chaos need not be everlasting. We should try to metamorphose the chaos and see what emerges out of it.
no derrida just sees that speech is limited by similar limitations of writing. Words can have different meanings to different people. that doesnt suggest chaos. it could suggest we need to do extra work to ensure we are on the same page as speech alone cant do that.
often people mistake intersubjectivity with objectivity. and intersubjectivity with subjectivity.
Thank you for your input. It deserves a video! I shall work on it.
informative 😊
Thank you!!!!!
Good
Thank you!