Jacques Derrida: Section 3

[featheon]

Stupid people need to think postmodernism is confusing.

[verwoestijning]

The Postmodernism Generator is a computer program that automatically generates postmodern essays. Gramatically correct but meaningless.

It was mentioned by Richard Dawkins in his article Postmodernism Disrobed for the scientific journal Nature and in his book A Devil's Chaplain.

Now watch a college language student reviewing a computer generated essay. He has no clue of its true origin.

/watch?v=jxQ7rONF5iE

[animesuxxxx]

Fresh from listening to several Bryan Magee sessions, this interview is striking for the hostility from the presenter and his questions. However, Derrida explicates his work brilliantly.

[superymp]

If one understand the act of deconstruction as implied by Derrrida, it is the positive act that creates the necessary praxis that is the ingredient to the development of an idea while considering its other as the necessary component involved in any development. By including the other in our attempts at socio-philosphical creating of ideas through nuanced analysis reflecting the dissordinance within ordinate clarity of interactive realties, we reflect the realty that makes up life-world

[superymp]

If one understand the act of deconstruction as implied by Derrrida, it is the positive act that creates the necessary praxis that is the ingredient to the development of an idea while considering its other as the necessary component involved in any development. By including the other in our attempts at socio-philosphical creating of ideas through nuanced analysis reflecting the dissordinance within ordinate clarity of interactive realties, we reflect the realty that makes up our life-world

[Elekias]

Old Bilbo Baggins talking about his book on Deconstruction xD (dont get this wrong, I like Derrida)

[macsm]

This sounds like jibber-jabber.

[stupid2utube]

"Deconstruction" has a traditional meaning that is inherently negative, and here Derrida is trying to counteract that inherent negativity. When deconstruction occurs the purpose is not to render a framework meaningless or incorrect, it is to understand the logical/theoretical construction behind the framework, and find a correlation between other frameworks.

[Aedox1]

to deconstruct I must begin to be estructuralist, the first step is to find opositions, second see the process that makes a term of the oposition privileged, that is become a center, naturalized a s the most important, invented as auto suficient

third, to cuestion that arbritariety, which means to restore the diference.

[hyperseauton]

Did not Dennett pwn Derrida?

[hyperseauton]

I am jokingly asking, of course. Dennett is a deep thinker but not even in the same post structuralist ballpark as Derrida.

[albionrafe]

In truth, does anyone consider themselves fully and completely able to understand and comprehend Derrida's theory? Many, I'm sure, perceive themselves as capable of USING deconstructionism, but does anyone really fully comprehend the entirety of the theory?

[genesisplan]

I honestly can't really see a complete world that is "deconstructed" because for that reason I think a person would go nuts. But I think the theory or perhaps the concept of deconstruction is rather not the "what" but the "how" of forming prejudice. In this way I think it is a precursor to a philosophical interpretation on decision-making.

[utopianconstruction]

I know everything.

[MJRockX]

Apparently, Derrida seems uncertain that deconstruction as he explains it even exists, his qualifying comments, "if deconstruction exists," are indicitive of only a possible tip to an abstractual iceberg.

[mrfatd]

his biggest inspirations are nitzsche, freud and heidegger, all of whom are known to be the bigest pseudo-philosophers

[Krelianx]

'known to be'? By whom? If you have anything concrete to argue against these important figures of our intellectual history at least have the decency of being specific. To call Nietzsche and Heidegger pseudo-philosophers as if it were obvious to anyone with a brain is just a slothful, discriminatory act of obscurantism and should not be tolerated. To call Freud a philosopher, let alone a pseudo-philosopher, just goes to show your stature next to the men you disqualify.

[mrfatd]

by bertrand russel, quine, every single logical positivist. karl popper in his open society and its enemies classifies freud as a pseudo-philosopher, and so does erick fromm in his "On Marx and Freud". please get acquanted with those and let me know what you think! and hell, i love heidegger, but some of his claims that humans are somehow intrinsically different from animals made me question his genius

[Krelianx]

First of all, Russell never called any of these men pseudo-philosophers, he expressed he found Heidegger's views obscure. That's rather natural, since most people think reading Being and Time can be done without the historical preparation Heidegger makes in his lecture courses. Quine never said anything against Nietzsche or Heidegger, or Freud. And besides Carnap's rather innocent misreading of 'What is Metaphysics?' the logical positivists did not care much for these men either. Stop trying.

[Krelianx]

Then, appealing to an alleged authority to disavow a thinker is fallacious. Just like many find these thinkers' views untenable, the latter also raise objections against views alike of the thinkers you mentioned. Appealing to the logical positivists as if they had intellectual authority to discredit other traditions in principle is dogmatics. Please refrain from making an opinion if you don't know what you're talking about. There's enough blather going around about these men. Read, then post.

[mrfatd]

yeah, you are right and i was wrong. you understand philosophy much deeper than i do and i did commit a fallacy. still don't you think of derrida as a bunch of obscure nonsence, just castles in the air? i do

[Krelianx]

No, I don't. I do think he is often obscure, and sacrifices clarity for style. But it is not nonsense. What have you read by him? How can you attempt to understand him if you haven't read the tradition he sets to criticize? Do you think that if someone without formation in physics grabbed a booked on quantum physics it wouldn't appear obscure to them? You talk as if Derrida should be understandable without any prior formative reading. Don't blame his thinking because of your slothfulness.

[mrfatd]

havent read a thing, but i have read a lot of quantum physics cuz im a physics student. also i read a bunch of plato's dialogues, listened to a course on heidegger and read 1 book by freud. how do you suggest i start reading derrida?

[Krelianx]

I can't understand quantum physics, but it would be ridiculous to assume it is nonsense, right? Anyhow, you have probably listened to Dreyfus' course on Being and Time, am I correct? That is not helpful in my opinion. To get a grip on deconstruction I would recommend beginning by Heidegger's lecture course 'The Basic Problems of Phenomenology', which introduces the historical deconstructive process Derrida develops. I don't know what you have read, but the Grammatology is fairly clear.

[mrfatd]

yes indeed it was by dreyfus. also i read somewhere that you cannot understand derrida without having a good understanding of hegel,do u agree? and what about husserl. also i'm really confused when it comes to hegel, i really dont even know what to think of him. i read a bunch of his lectured on history of philosophy, it was somewhat vague, he is of huge influence,but now im reading schopenhauer's WWI and he talks trash bout hegel in every chapter, same goes for fichte and schelling, as you know

[Krelianx]

Hegel poses immense difficulties, and implies above all a deep understanding of Kant. I wouldn't worry too much about Hegel at this poin; Derrida's texts on Hegel are tremendously challenging. They are also some of his best.

[WagnerNietzsche]

Respect for saying you where wrong. Most poeple would keep arguing, even if they know the opponent has more knowlege of a specific topic. By the way: you have the luck to read Hegel in fairly plane English. Me, being Austrian, have to do so in German and thats truely hell. Regards from Vienna

[mrfatd]

regards from canada! im a pretty chills guy, i wouldnt keep on arguing if i see im wrong. your name suggests that you are into nietzsche. right now im reading deleuze's 'nietzsche and philosophy' and nietzsche's metaphysics is damn complicated, do you understand it? especially i dont get what he exactly means by will to power

[WagnerNietzsche]

Will to power was in its first draw a biological concept. Afterwards it was transformed into social-ethical aspects. To understand this term you would have to read Schopenhauer very carefully. The interpretations of "will to power" are very different. In my opinion it is a concept, that isn´t related with political or financial power, but a call to live your potential to the fullest. But I think the clue about Nietzsche is that you have to find out for yourself

[WagnerNietzsche]

But you have to say that hobbes seems to have great influence in this specific subject. Maybe you can read it as an acception of Hobbes "Bellum omnia contra omnes" or Plautus "Homo homini lupus" and its link to Schopenhauers "Affirmation of the will to life" (don´t know the correct English translation). Nietzsches optimistic views always seem to come from a deep pessimistic attitude to life in general. Hope I spoke clearly, but my English isn´t that well developed

[code933k]

"Will of living". Nevertheless, the institutional translation remains "will-to-life". Cheers.

[gen6k]

i would single-handedly attribute Nietzsche for the entry into postmodernism.

[hyperseauton]

The linguitic turn is missing from Nietzsche. Apart from that, whatever a world without the turn might look like, you could be correct.

[MJRockX]

Guys like Rorty & Putnam departed from the pragmatic method with the linguistic turn in the 40's & 50's and seems to have fallen to the wayside and on it's way into obscurity. Could it be that Peirc, James and Dewy were right in calling experiance a trump over reality?