Jacques Derrida On Religion 1/2
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 июн 2012
- Jacques Derrida was one of the most well known twentieth century philosophers. He was also one of the most prolific. Distancing himself from the various philosophical movements and traditions that preceded him on the French intellectual scene (phenomenology, existentialism, and structuralism), he developed a strategy called "deconstruction" in the mid 1960s. Although not purely negative, deconstruction is primarily concerned with something tantamount to a critique of the Western philosophical tradition. Deconstruction is generally presented via an analysis of specific texts. It seeks to expose, and then to subvert, the various binary oppositions that undergird our dominant ways of thinking-presence/absence, speech/writing, and so forth. (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy )
I would say he's precise, rather than slippery. From what I've seen on youtube, he loves to clarify himself. This is a sign of profundity, if we listen to Nietzsche: "he who wants to appear deep obscures himself, he who IS deep seeks to clarify himself."
I don’t feel deconstruction is here to subvert people. It’s not inherently political. It’s a philosophical debate and dialogue and what we thought was pre conceived notions. Heidegger starts this with the Pre Socratic’s and after and so does Nietzsche on Christianity and Morality. But they were never trying to subvert but first understand the genealogy of said thing and you could say poke holes and challenge it. This is all of philosophy in a sense. A critique. A questioning, without solid answers.
05:46
Thank you for disseminating this here audio. It's wonderful to hear Derrida speaking this, minus video, especially considering that he has died.
"He is here, present with us, right before our very eyes and ears." - From Ivon Sherwood's intro.
(Derrida speaks?! He doesn't only write?)
The introduction was brilliant...
Deconstruction is a religious service, whose end is the clarification of the unknowable, that is, the revelation of the unknowable as unknowable, as opposed to netted in by any theory or ideology. I like to think of deconstruction as a kind of idol-demolition in the service of an apophatic G-d, the "unknown god" of the Athenians. Socrates would be proud of Derrida.
Good comment
@@mitchellmcgill138 Cheers.
Astute
Definitely agree. Not only deconstruction but I think the whole post-structuralist philosophy. Also think kant planted the seeds with his epistemological ideas
Thank you so much for sharing
The most fascinating account of JD is talking about 'love.'
Derrida does not appear to know if he is in fact Derrida. He seems to argue that he is not himself in any given moment.
Excellent, the whole thing
Is there any chance Mr Bratsoni that you could add the DATE, VENUE and CITY that this address took place, please? Given that Mr Derrida died in October 2004 it would be nice to know at what stage of his career this address was given. Thanking you in anticipation...
I think I found the reference, it was a conference of the Society of Biblical Literature and the American Academy of Religion in 2002 in Toronto. I found a reference to Yvonne Sherwood's article "Jacques Derrida and Biblical Studies" here sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleID=332#sthash.HuzZDmu3.dpuf. The MP3 files of the talk are on the bottom of the page.
I see it is also published in Derrida and Religion: Other Testaments, Yvonne Sherwood and Kevin Hart eds (New York: Routledge, 2005).
The transcription isn't very good. E.g. "edges" for "ages," along with changed wording sometimes.
For Derrida a prayer originates every instant through an aporia. As he notes, when I say I pray, who is the one who prays? When I say I pray to God, who or what is that name that we call God, and what is it that it names? And that is the aporia that Derrida puts in motion when he prays, in every instant.
I love Derrida!
When was this?
Deconstruction, from my limited experience has the potential for finding a clear path to truth, objective truth as hard as that sounds to believe. I have not found anything that even comes close or gives a better chance.
James Potts Explain please?
@@furtherback6131 in short, Deconstructing a socially determined binary, such as light being better than darkness, darkness as a signifier of evil, light its opposite, as well gender roles, which domesticate women then places men as the primary "breadwinners", Materialism over Minimalism, the pursuit of monetary gain over other interests, like interest in the Humanities. Wealth as a source of importance, not selflessness as a goal. I could go on for a much longer list. Basically Deconstructing social constructs and seeing their "true roots", so to speak. Deconstruction offers a person a chance to ask; "why one thing is considered better" than its opposite with more realistic, unbiased clarity, in other words, just because you were told by peers, the media....etc, that one entity or object is of more importance, that, that conclusion is reality. It also draws attention to that fact of words, how they were named is totally arbitrary, look up any word in the dictionary, such as "joy", more or less it will give a definition for joy with another like term, "joy is happiness", well what is happiness? Look up happiness, happiness is a state of being blissful, now what is blissful? Looking up blissful will produce the same results, blissful is another word, so on and so on until, as Derrida posits; you'll end up back at the original word never finding a root or beginning, or you could even look at it as trying to seek an end to defining a word but never can come to an "ending word". There is no single ending source for a word. Derrida also attacks racism by trying to underpin root causes for the hatred of specific groups of people. If there is anything I'm forgetting, it is because Deconstruction is such a broad all encompassing tool for finding that most things, concepts, ideologies, words, rarely if ever are based on some natural truth that humanity discovered, rather than how we've built our realities based on, mostly ideas that are handed down to us, and at times without questioning it's subsequent validity or usefulness as well any harm that these truths may bring within themselves.
I think a great powerful system could be constructed from a little Derrida, a little Deleuze, a little Leibniz, and, surprisingly and incongruously, a great deal of Aristotle.
@@jamespotts8197 to me the best deconstruction destroys the binary, but leaves its terms in a new unity. This inevatibly reveals new ways forward.
@@lukehall8151 do share how you incorporate Aristotle into that quirky triad! I've been feeling a calling towards him lately too -- particularly, due to teleological leanings. (4th cause and all that iirc, my Aristotle is a bit rusty.)
no script. but the voice is quite clear.
What year is this from?
It’s always tickled me that his critics insist he’s obscuring himself.
interesting as hell
German - Poe und Derrida ruclips.net/video/f0V5wLnZ3cI/видео.html
It's like a philosophy of paralysis by indecision.
We suspend expectation in effective faith. It seems to require non-attachment.
Yes. Nishkama karma of Bhagavadgita
A great description of the nature of prayer
Nvm it's Yvonne...but Yvonne who??
45:42 Krishna issues a similar command to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita when He commands him to slaughter his own family who is on the opposing army
Yes, I agree, Derrida is quite deep. I love his work and just published a paper on his critique of Husserl. Still, I maintain that he was a slippery fellow with slippery ideas. If he/we could really get a grasp of them, could hold them for a prolonged period, they probably would lose their appeal for me, as well as their meaning in general. (Or should I say, as well as what made them meaningful in the first place?)
I agree and he is horrible to read.
There's nothing to grasp, that's the point. Not in a derogatory way, the whole technique is to break is down into smaller and smaller pieces, constantly taking rabbit trails, and finally answering one fragment of the question in a way that didn't actually answer it at all. It's a great form of storytelling and the technique itself is what makes it so interesting, but the answer.
Mithaokhta 😂 this is the type of comment I expect from those who romanticize knowledge. It’s as though knowledge loses its charm once it’s understood. “Can this be worth my time if it can be understood by a fool such as I” 😂😂😂
Mark Swedberg I think that’s how we understand things though- via simple reference. Deconstructions is done sub/unconsciously in all our engagements IMHO
Another Derrida idea- the best way of explaining something is by making an analogy, a story of some sort like you said and allow the listener/reader the freedom to extract the abstract from it. According to the D, words in itself may carry their own prejudices when communicated by separate agents and are therefore ineffective in communicating ideas.
For example if I said prayer- to the east it would be aligned more with meditation, to the west it would be a wish list to a man in the sky, to Derrida it is neither- hence he has to “elaborate” according to a story via deconstructions
the most flattering intro would have been: hey! heres jack!
is he saying that he prays but not because he is religious but because it is a childish irrational thing all people regardless of their beliefs automatically do?
Nope lol
I would love to see his expression to the introduction done by a brilliant women.
Indeed that was a great introduction.
Derrida was so slippery.
-So, Jacques, do you pray?
-Yes, I pray all the time, but praying isn't this or that, and I may not even be the person who just admitted to praying. Since I can't say, let me say something else, which I also do not intend to be held to...
My next paper: Jesus as deconstructionist.
… or does it?
Inside baseball.
rip headphone users
smh Kevin Hart bombed
Whaaaaat????
He's praying to his higher self. He is an apophatic contemplative .... end of story . I don't know why he just didn't say that.. why the big run around trying to define something so honest and simple
Because it's not simply just a "higher self". Since The Language that claims that the Members of The Church are part of the Higher Body of Christ implies that one is "essential" to the very Body. To realize that we are One in Many....
This One *is* Christ, and beyond that The Ineffable is Christ and the reality where we are that (or the reality of whatever) is Christ.
We are Ones shining among the Many, and that Many is what Ones shine upon. Nothing is neglected of that Many.
@@dhdhebeb1780 Apophatic is no image or concept as in the cloud of unknowing.Thats what he is clearly talking about.No we are shining ones or christ blah blah necessary.
Those are just idea, opinions . You know nothing. You believe crap that's all@@dhdhebeb1780
you could just as well refer to the dharmakaya or ground of being or god above god s ayn soph , big mind, no mind. We do not need to make a christ thing out of this. The word christ has brought up a lot of crap.
He farted at 24:06
That's what you find most interesting about this lecture. One of the greatest Philosophers of antiquity and you can only summon up enough insight from him and this lecture to comment on a everyday bodily function. I would like to see you 'raise the bar', so to speak, in your ability, or lack of, to focus on the message of this lecture and the overall Philosophic theories of Derrida. Derrida's Deconstruction is pivotal to literature, Philosophy and can be applied to every aspect of the search for truth and or a clear understanding of reality.
It's a mic cord noise, it happens throughout the lecture
this is precisely the kind of thing Derrida *would* point out. heck read him on nietzsche. you get him more than anything
@@jamespotts8197 Consider how much time and mental power you wasted over a potential fart.
@@theuberman7170 consider how much time and mental power you wasted asking a stranger to consider how much time and mental energy they wasted. You may find it is not much, no more energy than it takes to fart.
lmao
I can see how this demagoguery can appear profound to an average mind.
I take it that yours is a gifted mind, then?
@@peepoclown1 you got it, bud
@@mentalitydesignvideo Right. May I ask for your analysis of Derrida’s contributions to Postmodernism?
@@peepoclown1he certainly made it even more welcoming to charlatans and demagogues than it was before and contributed to an image of an intellectual as an irrelevant clown (a complete success, really), whose words should be ignored by the society at large. Which is, when we talk about French "Theory", is actually a good thing. It's gradually being forgotten, supplanted by Critical Theory, Race, Gender, everything and everyone clawing at diminishing funding, slowly sliding into abyss.
It's a thing of beauty, really.
@@mentalitydesignvideo This is just a character-rip. What of the substance of his work? Do you understand what he’s saying?
Truly embarrassing by Derrida in his introductory bracketing and eliding/eluding accountability for his answer up to 15.20. This is thoroughly typical though.