Jacques Derrida: Section 2
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 май 2008
- Jacques Derrida, the French philosopher credited with launching the Deconstructionist movement, argues his theories in this program. Derrida begins with a frank discussion on the ethical problems of Deconstruction, especially in relation to human rights. He argues that Deconstruction is not a disillusion of the subject, it is first and foremost a historical or genealogical analysis of that subject and an attempt to focus on a universal translation of it. Derrida points out that Deconstruction is mainly an affirmation-and it goes further and changes the nature of the subject-and is neither "reconstruction" nor "destruction."
![J.P., NLE Choppa - Bad Bitty (Remix) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/rBDa6BCvw10/mqdefault.jpg)
I always understood "deconstruction" to be based on the notion that each important notion taken for granted in any human society must be regarded, first and foremost, as a "construct." In other words, a culturally determined concept or entity. So for me deconstruction involves an attempt to analyze each construct by first of all demonstrating that it is indeed a construct, rather than a "given," and then attempting to understand how it was constructed, by literally taking it apart. In so doing, we often find that the "ground" (in every sense) falls away beneath our feet and we are forced to think everything afresh. This is what I believe to be at the heart of Derrida's accomplishment.
This sounds more like a description of Foucault's historical analysis of concepts than Derrida's deconstructive approach.
@@pharmakon7920 Well as it seems to me they are both very similar. Which came first I cannot say.
@antipostmodernist : he never denied the existence of the subject (or of subjects, to be more precise): he merely denies the presupposition of any pure hermetic, closed, immediate, ready-made, absolutely self-identical and self-present subject.
By indeterminacy of meaning I meant the impossibility of justifying the choice of one meaning over another in a (con)text where multiple meanings are in play (e.g. pharmakon). This is not the same as
"indifference between meanings." It is, though, a way of destabilizing fixed meanings, depicting them as effects of historical contingencies rather than products of rational assessment.
Le choix des mots est important. Ici Derrida s'explique sur la deconstrucion n'est pas destruction du passé, mais AD VENIR d'une réalité plus complète et actualisée.
@signeponge Interesting. I, too, would be weary of accepting any presuppositions about subjectivity; however, I do not see why a subject that is self-identical would also have to be closed (in the sense of not being "open" to possibilities). Then again, the atemporal synthesis of experience does not trouble me, as it might Derrida. I am not sure I understand what you mean by "ready-made," but I suppose that is an effect of talking about philosophy via youtube. Thanks for the clarification.
It's curious to talk of improvement and of the "unkown democracy" (almost as St. Paul preaching to the greeks in Athens about the Unkown God they praised without knowlege of his nature) if any previous idea of such things does not even exist. The fact that we did not reach something does not mean that this something is not existent. The fact that our concepts improve through history, an improvement based in our experience, and thus there is an enlargement in our knowledge of things (and this I take to be the so called improvement when it comes down to peoples relations in real life), do not absolutely mean that they are empty or ready made by us. If there's nothing to be found, it would be meaningless to do the search, in the first place. And if it's not a simpe construction, like Derrida himself says, what else those concepts could be?!
Is deconstruction indeed very one sided in comparison to Hegel? Is there not a dialectical relation between deconstruction and reconstruction, as it is between structuralism and poststructuralism?
@antipostmodernist : Yes, the ready-made term is just youtube talk, it was certainly never used by Derrida. Now, the openess to possibilities is, according to Derrida, still an economic way to evaluate within a closed horizon; deconstruction deals with a temporal synthesis - the unconditional condition of all experience - to which the "subject" and the "horizon of possibilities" would be derivatives
Hegelian philosophy doesn't take negation as a process of "destruction" but as a search for complement or, if you will, reconciliation of opposites by a synthesis: Negation is what provides rational dynamics to History, namely. However, what you want to say, perhaps, is that Hegel takes,
indeed, History as a "cumulative" process, not as a linear one. Unless you are talking about a spiral development of non-accountable self-improving permutations. The last been an over-simplification.
@antipostmodernist : (hence the quasi-definitions of desconsturction as the relation to the other or the experience of the impossible). The texts on Husserl (mainly "Speech and Phenomena" help to understand this and why Derrida can be regarded as a unorthodox phenomenologist.
jac darrida 2021😎✌
Derrida and Poe :ruclips.net/video/6Qb7Hi9VFNA/видео.html
Il faut aussi se rendre compte qu'en interrogeant le PASSE avec une vision actuelle, on peut être en dehors de l'histoire et A HISTORIQUE. LA DE CONSTRUCTION N'EST DONC PAS SI FACILE....et peut même entraîner une auto destruction au lieu d'une plus large compréhension.
Did you meant contemporary? Then, yes.
Which topic? If you mean the question of the validity of fundamental principles that have rooted philosophical inquiry for centuries, then the topic is not superficial. Maybe you mean the treatment (by Derrida) of the topic is superficial-- that he's an obscurantist with little insight. Perhaps you think he trades in equivocations and gimmicks. Searle, Chomsky and a host of others take this view. Maybe it's true. But the question of ontological and logical underpinnings is not itself shallow.
@jose881000
Yankees? What is a Yankee? If you mean American, he shouldn't have that hard a time since America made him rich and famous (for a philosophy professor) and he was employed by one of our universities.
I would have liked to hear his thoughts as to why he doubts the subject's existence. The genealogy of the term is interesting, but it would be more interesting to hear why, outside of mere conceptual clarification and development, he actually denies the existence of a subject.
He has written a lot of texts about the matter if you are truly interested.
@@phyll9599 Does he have any argument for that? I am not so much interested in Derrida and I do not understand what he writes, but I believe that there are subjects.
One thing I like about analytic philosophy is its use of correct syntax and logical arguments. One example: Do you wonder whether there are classes? Any set with n members has 2^n subsets. It is necessary that 2^n > n. If the universe contains n things, the number of all possible relations would be 2^n. But 2^n cannot be included in n. Either classes do not exist in the way objects do or the world is bigger than it is. The world cannot be bigger than itself, since "being bigger than" describes a non-reflexive relation. Thus classes do not have the same ontological status as ordinary objects.
Usually when I read continental philosophy, I stand under the impression of thinking while reading, but I am not so sure whether I encountered and understood even one single argument of a poststructuralist.
@aries1403 hi
"deconstruction of the subject" of our cult of technology, "deconstruction of the subject" of the Godlessness of Religion, "deconstruction of the subject" of Manifest Destiny, "deconstruction of the subject" of ego-centric consciousness, "deconstruction of the subject" of our ethnocentrism and nationalism, "deconstruction of the subject" of our so-called democracy, etc...
可爱的呀这老家伙, 还胖了感觉 06:22
I don't see why what he says implies 'indeterminate meanings' or an indifference between these meanings. If anything, the deconstructive process is meant to exhibit how certain pressupositions gain privlige in the use of concepts. Of course the problem is that there is no 'ontological legitimacy' granted to any concept, but this has only recently been overcome by Badiou. Until then, ontotheology determined philosophy and it was for Heidegger and Derrida to problematize it definitively.
Il faut toujours écouter le Maître, plutôt que ses interprètes
What is he talking about??? Goddddddd
Renaming it to "reconstruction"? How absurd!
He is obviously nervous talking from the spot, as it can also be difficult to speak in other language than his own in front of the audience unprepared. Still, if I wouldnt bear in mind his concept of "deconstruction" like I read it somewhere else, his lecture (speech) would be really a boring description of a few terms.
Agreed
If Derrida is right, Western philosophy as usually conceived, is in trouble. All ontological and logical foundations are seen, by him, as manifestations of a historical play of indeterminate meanings, none of which are fixed or privileged. From Platonism to Physicalism (and maybe some versions of anti-realism), philosophers have erroneously enjoyed the conceit of a-historical knowledge. He soft-pedals such implications at times, but the stakes are high if we take his views seriously.
Don't watch this if you haven't read his texts. It won't make much sense, and it will bore you.
This cannot be stated enough, especially with regard to someone who has recently been heavily criticized by JBP, among other public figures. Is it not ironic that precisely those who attempt to undermine Derrida's thought exercise a set of rhetorical devices, namely 'slogans' and 'one liners' aimed at a straw man, that are categorically rejected by Derrida himself (not only in his writing, but also in this fragment @5:30)?
For anyone who is seeking an oblique entry into Derrida's work a as consequence of watching this talk, both his _Force of Law_ and _Before the Law_ (a reading of Kafka's identically titled short story) can be read in an afternoon and provide additional material on the topic of Deconstruction in relation to rights, justice and the law. At the very least it will provide you with sufficient baggage to critically analyse the usual shtick (by the usual suspects) on Derrida and his postmodern consorts.
Is this one French man whining about how nobody understood him and his made up words correctly?