Open Yale lecture: Derrida critique of structuralism structurality (deconstruction)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- This video is a portion of an open-access (CC BY-NC-SA) Yale lecture from the course Introduction to Theory of Literature (ENGL 300). In this lecture on Derrida and the origins of deconstruction, Professor Paul Fry explores two central Derridian works: "Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of Human Sciences" and "Différance." In this segment, Derrida's treatment of structuralism and structurality are discussed.
Complete course materials are available at the Open Yale Courses website: open.yale.edu/c... .
Cite Open Yale Courses in attribution for repurposed materials.
This is an amazing lecture. I grokked the concept of deconstruction at a Bob Dylan concert last November and am happy to say that it has changed my life. One can methodically break down reality into nothing and, at the same time, build right back up. What is reality? What is language?.. It's been a privilege to have been a fly on the wall during this lecture!
THANK YOU SO MUCH! It has been a struggle to understand concepts in my literary criticism class and this is helping immensely. Way more informative than my class and I now feel prepared for my lit crit support group tonight! Professor Fry is lovely. :)
Isn't it odd that we make very bland use of intentionality in order to undermine intentionality. This irony to me is the strongest proof of intentionality.
SO it turns out it is very hard to uncover the intentional structure or meanings if at all. What I've always found strange is that even to say such a thing has itself an intentional structure which we believe we are accessing, and we do this when we read Derrida.
Chris Yoshi yeah but every individual interprets what derrida is saying in a different way. idk if that's even a challenge to what you said but i can imagine him saying something along those lines.
Language is a concrete form of thought. So it is actually thought that will always remain radically at the center.
It is intellectual arrogance of Derrida to reason as if he is not situated inside "men", inside consciousness. We are not capable of formless thought, because thought itself is a form. Man, God, language, consciousness - all residing in human thought. Our own thought is the neccessary absolute.
Instead of using language, can we not just deny the existence of "genesis" in the first place? That seems to work without harming the western-scientific metaphysics we have, while also addressing the inside-outside dilemma. A substitute might look something like "continuous transformations/translations of an existing landscape" or something.
The Ladder of Abstraction and the Public Speaker
by Andrew Dlugan
Published: Sep 15th, 2013
The Ladder of Abstraction“Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play.”
- Immanuel Kant
There are many types of bad speakers, and this article is about two of them:
1, Speakers who bury audiences in an avalanche of data without providing the significance.
2. Speakers who discuss theories and ideals, completely detached from real-world practicalities.
I'd love to see the complete lecture. Is there a place where I can find it?
Gustavo, see oyc.yale.edu/english/engl-300#sessions -- Deconstruction I and II
Thanks for uploading!
Respect the game.
But why abide by its rules?
If one drew a line between things or beings that are FIRST!-oriented, or of the eschatological realm, and things/beings that are of the teleological realm, one might find "The Woman With One Point Five Hands" exactly in the middle of these 2 extremes. Folded in half at the mid-point, and then pressed together, so that the former ends would align with each other, and the new "end" would be the middle of the 10th video in the series, 10.5 being half of 21, and there existing 21 vids in the series.
Awesome
deconstruction = destruction + con
destruction = The action or process of causing so much damage to something that it no longer exists or cannot be repaired.
con = Persuade (someone) to do or believe something, typically by use of a deception.
Humanities:noun a fifth-level-meta-analysis that makes no progressive advancements towards rational questions.