Jacques Derrida: Section 1

[mikelheron20]

I was expecting this to be impenetrable and abstruse but, unlike his written prose, perfectly lucid.

[deadlyduface]

Thanks, I had to give a speech about deconstructionism and this really helped. Thank you.

[olliemoore11]

Complete fucking fraudster.

[wahyubnindonesia]

deconstruction is unresponsible method.

[verwoestijning]

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

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

A must see.

/watch?v=jxQ7rONF5iE

[kitchenaut]

Derrida and Foucault should not be confused with the likes of Baudrillard and Lacan. They are analysts, and do not go so far to disregard logic or embrace anti-realist claptrap.

[QuotidianPerfection]

@kitchenaut Hi kitchenaut, I just was curious to know whether or not you agree with Bahktin's theories. (I am specifically refering to Bahktin's conception of Carnival, or the "unofficial culture," when read in juxtaposition to Foucault's notion of "Discourse," or the "official culture." In my opinion, both theories are necessary: Foucault's theory is geared toward explaining cultural norms whereas Bahktin's model is meant to explain cultural abnormalities. Take care. Best Wishes, QP

[QuotidianPerfection]

@QuotidianPerfection Hi kitchenaut, Unfortunately, my computer eliminated the parenthetical mark that follows my second sentence above. Realistically, though, I am only mentioning that so I can ask you another question: who, in your opinion, is a better psychoanalyst, Lacan or Freud (or maybe both), and why? Take care. Best Wishes, QuotidianPerfection

[iwpoe]

This is the best interview of Derrida I've yet heard. His technical English is superb, and he's quite clear here (as he usually is in interviews).

[dodeiale]

i like how he went 'jargon free' then 'sugar free'

interesting

[friendsofbrookpark]

he says right off.. they told me you cant ask questions, and that is that start if the violation of human rights... and they just applause, rather than intervene...he puts it in their hans to shift that, or not... as smart as he is, actually rather sad, glad for the greek philosophy nowadays

[MisterSimnock]

@chazwyman. Can you give me a concrete example of what you are talking about? I mean, one that does not involve speaking in metaphors.

[chazwyman]

He's making no sense at all. His definition of subject is unwieldy, unverifiable and incoherent.

What he defines is not what anyone can understand by that word. He actually defines "substance" - requires nothing but itself to exist in which its essence defines its existence. And further what is commonly deconstructed is not a thing which can be characterised by the Classical view of Substance at all!!

No one is taking to task the idea of substance or of a substance to a thing or concept.

[signeponge]

@chazwyman : he's talking about Aristotle (which is part of the "trajectory of the concept" of subject) and not of his own notion! Please listen before shooting, ok?

[MisterSimnock]

Seems to me that "deconstruction" is just another word for etymology. If so, why does he see fit to invent a new word for it, whose overtones of dissolution/destruction etc. he then has to waste our time dispelling, when a perfectly good one -- etymology -- already exists? Is this deliberate obfuscation a trait of philosophers generally, or just French philosophers, or just Derrida?

[chazwyman]

@MisterSimnock

No it snot etymology but the study of the accretion of assumptions , not the basic underlying historical definition.

Etymology traced the roots, Derrida is interested in the tree and its branches

[signeponge]

@MisterSimnock : Derrida speaks here of “genealogy” (actually a Nietzschian/Foucaultian term), which, for many reasons, is not reducible to etymology. Among these reasons which are the fact that: (i) as he explicitly states, it is not intra-idiomatic; and (ii) it is not even intra-linguistic, in the sense that it deals with both discursive and non-discursive elements: “the trajectory of the concept”, as he puts it, is never merely dependent on the signifier, nor is it separable from it.

[signeponge]

@MisterSimnock : Still, deconstruction is not equal to genealogy, since it also regards non-historical and non-ontological factors, in what Derrida usually names the "affirmation of the alterity of the other" (which is not, of course, an other subject or even an other thing).

[appleadvert]

i didn't like him before this, thank you very much! he seems much friendly here

[1982CFD]

It would be good if some of these philosophers made their own T.V. shows about their ideas and save their message getting messed around with by attention hungry media trying to generate some kind of hyped conflict. Deconstruction is just a thorough way of understanding different phenomenon, I think Derrida clears that up pretty well here.

[alneubauer]

Jesus, it took him like 5 minutes just to say that the subject is one thing and is central to identity. Wow, Derrida, you're so fancy.

[Matthysable]

Derrida has “been accused of undermining western values”

So, what’s new? Marx? Freud? Frankfurt School? Boas? Hollywood? The MSM? You name it.

The intellectual sheeple in academia think it's ever chic to 'deconstruct’ (or whatever other distorting approach is the fad of the day) themselves and never the tribe perpetrating of this hoax! In today’s upside down world, committing suicide is considered intellectually avant garde!

[peterfdrucker]

@GL2R I put a relatively large amount of effort into understanding Of Grammatology. I could not get it to make much sense, and to the extent I thought I could understand certain things, they appeared to me to be transparently wrong. Further, I gave up asking people who find Derrida meaningful to explain his idea b/c I consistently got some variation of : 1 you aren't trained well enough, 2. you need to try harder, 3. you're a jerk who resorts to ad hom.s - but no explanation of substance.

[hedones]

the girl at 00:13 has been the girl friend of derrida. It's a newest part of the next JK Rolling novel. Trust me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[smokutusofborg]

That's what she said

[smokutusofborg]

SEGA

[analyticaa]

@GL2R It isn't ad hominem; it is an accurate designation. He wrote fluff. And Spivak? Her introduction is fluff on steroids; both just float from sentence to sentence, leaving in their path non sequitur after non sequitur, deliberately cloaking trivial ideas behind impenetrable language. Try reading Russell, Quine or Rawls. Simple language and yet, extraordinarily dense material. Derrida apparently thought that intellect meant inserting a flurry of ambiguous words into trivial assertions.

[mit181]

@analyticaa The issues the analytic tradition has with him are simple. 1. He has been very badly represented in Humanities departments by SOME staff members who have no formal training in philosophy. 2. Derrida is steeped in Husserl and Heidegger, as well as Saussure and Levi-Strauss...i.e. structuralism and phenomenology. These aren't familiar to the analytic/pragmatist tradition 3. His writing style performs his ideas like Hegel, Hei., Plato and as such is tough to grasp for Anglo-Americans.

[plato2014]

i honestly don't like deconstruction as a literary lens of analysis, who finds it frustrating? or is it just me?

Only new historicism, to me, is a more frustrating way of literary analysis. 

[omniscientescape]

mp3iffy works again wooohoooo awesome - google mp3iffy

[ArtMusicRepeat]

is there a transcription of this anywhere?? i need one...

[WAYTOPLUTO]

If you shit therefore you are.

[wingedstatue]

how the world of literature has now fallen apart thanks Derrida

[MrClipper23]

@wingedstatue That's a tired argument, that deconstruction has corrupted the hermeneutics of literary studies. The premise upon which that assertion is made is filled with numerous logical fallacies.

[ExistentialExistent]

test

[GolumTR]

Boy, I was expecting an ignorant egotistical jackass (like Baudrillard), but I am actually very impressed by his simplicity and honesty!

I have many disagreements with many of his ideas, but I must admit that I have much more respect for him. Thank you for this video!

[dantean]

Continental philosophy was all I cared about in graduate school. Now I see in it a displaced religiosity my agnosticism finds impossible to countenance. They all seem unable to get away from a need for an unmoved mover or uncaused cause to explain the existence of the world & end up resorting to "Being-as-such" "Absolute Being" "genius" "superman" or "poet" to stop their reductio ad absurdum. Note the way the genius Derrida is here trotted out w a holy reverence akin to that of a Pope.

[eganbarry]

joe pesci

[podfunaug30]

the difference between a philosopher and a mystic is that the mystic sees himself at one with the philosopher, but the philosopher sees himself as something separate

[asiguere]

i don't know why the bad comments... perhaps you should all go and deconstruct yourselves!

[qwer4o]

Deconstruction is a steaming pile of postmodernist bullshit.

[JukeboxSavage]

@qwer4o don't be afraid of losing your values. think with no restrictions.

[dantean]

Well argued.

[frogbuster20]

Deconstruction started with Plato

[lambrotheodoros1]

Oh yes, it did; thanks for your comment.

[remistofeles]

@frogbuster20 more like "everything that eventually went wrong in philosophy started with Plato"

[frogbuster20]

I guess youre right (seriously)

[redetrigan]

@frogbuster20

How do you mean?

[frogbuster20]

@redetrigan - about Plato deconstructing or Plato ruining everything?

[bluepianopoet]

@frogbuster20 Deconstruction starts with a deconstruction of Plato

[achgeewells]

What a hero of thought and "culture", open minded, openhearted, generous and admirable person was Derrida.

[comradeharpomarxist]

knocked you undermine yourself in assuming you have a better understanding of Heidegger or anyone else in your post. why are you so venomous about the ideas of another person and their interpretation by yet another individual.. Did too many teachers fail you because you just wanted to express yourself.. in such a meaningless, aggressive, and 'thin' manner ?

[eyeland420]

The thing is, Philosophy does not have the same internal structure of many other sciences making them prone to simplifications which - however incomplete - still has way of getting ideas across to a non-specialized audience. To make a similar crude example: I need not know how cars, laserpointers or electricity works in order to utilize them. There is a certain pragmatic aspect inherrent to much science. We must, however, be vary of how far this way of thinking extends.(...)

[XTAZZ13]

Knocked is so funny to read. He probably spent a day writing out his response. He is so pathetic.

[TESOblivion4]

this is fun

[dingbatcharlie1]

what a prick

[soursourapples]

poor Derrida, his interesting and original ideas have been hijacked by academics who write papers so boring that they make me want to paper cut my piss hole.

he needs a soft spoken and unpretentious person to champion him, much like Heidegger has with Hubert Dreyfus.

[knocked44]

Dreyfus' exegesis of Heidegger is elementary, pathetic, emaciated, bankrupt of depth or understanding... the true pity is the American students of his who sat through decades of his proud, loopy, utterly off the mark and water thin analysis.

[soursourapples]

he isn't proud, he changes his lectures if he thinks a student has understood a text better than him. he is always eager to learn more. and i don't pity his students who have gone on to work at harvard or have popular texts available about philosophy, i am proud of them.

if you think he has a grave misunderstanding of heidegger maybe take that up with him and give your reasons.

[knocked44]

@soursourapples: almost all publications in academic philosophy are worthless, at best touching on half-truths, often misunderstanding or misrepresenting arguments, shadowboxing and confusing all who read them. Dreyfus, having laid waste to all Heidegger's craft and subtlety, does not belong in any pantheon of great philosophers, perhaps in the pantheon of philosophasters and student-appeasing, doting, bird-brained American pedagogues.

Your pride in Dreyfus is a fool's flattery of a fool.

[soursourapples]

As a person of average intelligence i enjoy reading clear interpretations of interesting philosophers like Derrida and Heidegger, and then trying to make out what I can of their original writings.

I agree with you that academic philosophy is boring and confusing so I like people like Bryan Magee, Peter Singer and your hero Hubert Dreyfus who give interesting interpretations of great philosophers.

I am not flattering anyone. It seems you however are trying to flatter your self.

[knocked44]

By all means, read on. Just save the praise. Your praising undermines your thinking.

[Bassmaster86]

Getting Derrida to explain anything in "simple terms" is impossible.

[jbenettable]

I'm brilliant too. I wonder why I continue to go on without notice?

[bgilles]

does anyone realize that it takes him about 8 minutes to basically summarize the classical definition of the subject?

i think that's very funny. he's actually an amazingly talented performance "artist/philosopher"

in regards to derrida's connection to wittgenstein I can only say that yes derrida was inspired by him and most likely wittgenstein would have thought derrida's dada like use of language entertaining.

to equate there intellects however is completely nuts.

[TheZachadoodle]

Why so butthurt? The man is speaking in a second language and providing a "jargon-free" explanation of an extremely complex subject.

Have a little bit of understanding of the surroundings he's in.

[hyperseauton]

pwhhh, though art smart. I lost concentration after 3 and a half minutes.

Seems I don't manage to get over the average sxephil video attention span.

Seriously, all is semiotics so I don't see no qualitative differance between philosophers and performance artists.

[gen6k]

spectropoetics . com

[Xenostrobe]

05:20 analyse historically, genealogical way concept of subject, very long heavy complex history.

But subject/s manifest usually usually as consumer object/s.

for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes Laplace.

But the closest well get is LCA, discussed on youtube by Bill Moyers and Daniel Goleman

[IRBucephalus]

(cont'd) part 3

All the issues he (and all continental thinkers) raise are very genuine, but the solution they all propose is reductio ad absurdum, and lead only to relativism and negation of an absolute thruth.

Ok, that was a long comment.

[RationalEmotive]

Ahm, partly correct.

reductio ad absurdum is but one formal form of deductive reasoning.

"Leading "only" to relativism and negation of an absolute truth" (my inserted inverted commas) Not all denominations of what you call "continental" thinking leads to this epist., onto., and metaphysics.

Sounds more like to me you are some kind of scientismistic thinker, trying to affirm yourself by the opinions of others that your foundations of science are irrevocable. Sorry, can't do.

[IRBucephalus]

(cont'd) part 2

In fact, I think he is reducing a question on ethics (the one of human rights) to the level of linguistics, which is absolutely uncalled for, and in my opinion the only think he is achieving is dodging the question.

And then he doesn't really answers the question of post modernist thinking being relativist or not.

(cont'd)

[IRBucephalus]

I think the problem with Derrida is the fact that he is addressing very basic paradigms in the philosophy of language, and simply ignores all the advances that analyctical philosophy have made at resolving them, embracing his very subjective thinking and fringe logics to explain these problems on his own particular descontructivist/post-modernis­t fashion.

(cont'd)

[YmoArt]

@IRBucephalus Bruce just go willies or th right purpose of denying!!!!

[PallaAurinkoon]

If Philosophy is the creation of new concepts and the rigorous testing of the coherence of these concepts, then it would be quite clear that Derrida earns the label "philosopher" that people deny him.

People that accuse him of "nihilism" either have not read his works, or have read his works and are unable to understand them.

[Ontologistics]

Very slow explanation. 'Human rights' are obviously a western delusion.

[Metamorphines]

And dear DocteurLariviere why would anyone wish to read that cocksucker Leo Strauss?

[28g34ajbsd]

LOL!

[Wilbur665]

Deconstruction is nonsense. If you want to have a wank to this, go ahead. I prefer to have a wank to dirty pictures. But then, I'm just old-fashioned that way.

[lambrotheodoros1]

Would perhaps 'non-sense' refer to your inability, or unwillingness, to understand rather than to D's perceived inadequacies? And where's the wank coming from? And "dirty" pictures? ... dear... If you had met D, if you had heard him lecture, if you really wanted to understand him then you wouldn't have come up with the above. He was not only the most important philosopher since early western modernity but also a kind and tolerant teacher. I'm saddened by sweeping comments such as yours.

[ItsOnlyHuman]

derrida is talking common sense. Why can't Analytic philosophers see it? I guess its his followers that have taken him on uncritically and as some sort of high priest. He is simply saying, analysing genealogical descent of a term like "Subject" reveals the way it is used in a manner so as to conceal certain playingfields, or conceptual space, rejected implicitly by the author.

PS.I am analytically trained. Derrida is similar to some of the thoughts of Wittgenstein IMHO.

[remistofeles]

indeed it is, to the later Wittgenstein, though. (I prefer the early, the one of the Tractatus). Also, the fact you people marked Searle's quote as spam disgusts me... even Foucault agreed with Searle about the "obscurantisme terroriste" thing..

[JaffarDS]

@ItsOnlyHuman Wittgenstein said that there are rules to language though, and that language is indeed a public matter.

Does not Derrida deny this?

[ben23m]

@ItsOnlyHuman not to forget about Quine. Quines attack on mentalistic meaning and Derrida's attack on the metaphysic of presence, appear quite similar to me

[QuotidianPerfection]

@ItsOnlyHuman Hi itsOnlyHuman, I agree with your commentary. I would like to add, though, that some of the modern Deconstructionists, such as J. Hillis Miller, treat Derrida's complex critical instrument in an utterly reductive matter. Derrida's concept of "deconstructing a subject" involves the explication of the tiers of a given concept "built" up over "history" in a "geneological" fashion. Unfortunately, Miller has reduced Derrida's study to linguistic parasitism. Take care. Best, QP

[QuotidianPerfection]

@QuotidianPerfection Hi ItsOnlyHuman, I meant "manner," not "matter." I wish that YouTube had an Edit feature for posts. Take care. Best Wishes, QuotidianPerfection

[Manwithcam]

@ItsOnlyHuman I'm not trained in anything but it seems to me that Wittgenstein's, Heidegger's, and Derrida's philosophies can be combined to create a sort of cohesive picture behind their individual versions. They seem, when they aren't diverging from their main paths of thought, to be getting at the same, always unexpressed point. They suggest more than they're actually saying. Heidegger drops the most hints, Wittgenstein is sparse and abstract about it, and Derrida circles around it all day

[4gelassenheit]

@Manwithcam agreed.

[suddenlyitsobvious]

(2)

What deconstruction is is summarized in the intro:

'Deconstruction is an approach to reading & listening which rather than,trying to uncover a author's central argument or underlying intention attends instead to the shifting & contradictory patterns that play on the surface of the text.'

In other words, tons of verbiage designed to get nowhere. U may of course presume that this utter lack of substance, this DENIAL of substance is in fact 'suggestive' of substance but is it really?

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@Manwithcam

(1)

'They suggest more than they're actually saying.'

Why such a positive approach? This way of 'thinking' never attempts to uncover and retrieve ESSENCE, the absolute, truth, because these people

have no investments in such things.

It is an exercice that aims to void everything of meaning, which is why it is so promoted in society by guided PUPPETS most of whom have a few things in common. Did you notice?

[MrNomadologist]

@suddenlyitsobvious

Cool story bro

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@MrNomadologist

Those who always tip their hats at all the big names can rarely actually even process any kind of argument THEMSELVES, wherefore they must of necessity resort to the kind of insipid cynicism you're displaying.

Why waste time and space with such a passive-aggressive comment that shows no sign whatsoever of any intellectual activity taking place?

[MrNomadologist]

@suddenlyitsobvious

I'd type up a long, well-worded response, but instead of wasting my time on an internet blowhard such as yourself, I'll make 3 succinct points:

1. I prefer cynicism to hubristic, self-assured windbaggery

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@MrNomadologist

'1. I prefer cynicism to hubristic, self-assured windbaggery'

No actual relevant content is provided here showing you can address an argument or produce an actual thought.

'Your argument reeks of paranoia, ressentiment, half-baked opinions based on pure emotional reaction'

A shame you couldn't substantiate this claim with some actual content. Apparently all you can just about manage in processing 'unauthorized discourse' is categorizing it...

[MrNomadologist]

@suddenlyitsobvious

2. Your argument reeks of paranoia, ressentiment, half-baked opinions based on pure emotional reaction rather than any kind of balanced, logical thinking, making you sound like a tinfoil-hat wearing continental theory conspiracy theorist hiding in Alan Sokal's closet



[suddenlyitsobvious]

@MrNomadologist

...with a few of the labels existing ALL OVER THE PUBLIC ARENA to provide the mass-man with the necessary reassurences and means to deal with DISSENT. Obsessively repeating such categories like a parrot is of course not an ACTUAL alternative to provision of content, nor does the prose presenting these 'categories' -or should we simply say, 'slurs'?- reveal anything of particular interest but an intellectual sterility compensated by self-inflationary drivel.

[MrNomadologist]

@suddenlyitsobvious

3. I do not care what you think of the previous 2 statements, because you're the type of person to get bent out of shape over a meaningless little jab, and such people never make good conversationalists. Welcome to the internet, you all be posting in a troll thread, etc. Good day, sir.

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@MrNomadologist

'I do not care what you think of the previous 2 statements'

And how fast did we get to the evidence of your fragmentary 'thinking'? Why send statements if you don't care about their reception and processing? Is that your idea of being a 'good conversationist'? NOT mine.

NO content = fail.

[MrNomadologist]

@suddenlyitsobvious

You're mad, bro.

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@MrNomadologist

Thanks for your admission of complete defeat, as it will without fail be interpreted by anyone with at least the bare minimum of literacy.

Note how I'd already gotten your number by the very first post: intellectually passive, unequipped to produce a thought or process an observation. How frustrated you must feel to have only slogans and slurs in your 'argumentarium'.

He he he. I win, you lose, don't try again, it's a confirmed walkover.

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@Manwithcam

(3)

Note people like Judith Butler, or Sedgwick, massive academic stars use the same

principles in pushing the RELATIVITY of all sexual identities, nullifying the relevance of ethics, standards, values by focusing on what they term 'sexual performances', each being as acceptable as another, social constructs completely desolidarized from biological bases or any kind of inner essence, of course ...

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@Manwithcam

(4)

...opening the way for necrophilia, coprophilia or whatever aberration as intrinsically equivalent 'performances'.

It is important to realize that these 'philosophies' are not merely intellectual exercices & the impact of philosophical currents isn't merely 'academic' or theoretical. Ultimately dominant philosophies generate mindframes in society, become implicit in society's institutions, shape consciousness of the masses.

The ONLY reference that remains available...

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@Manwithcam

(5)

...to masses stripped of all essence and references is of course the LAW, the dictates of authority.

Just look at the corrupt faces of these people, they are DOING SOMETHING to society. See?

[Jitpring]

Cheap nihilism. A masquerade.

[Jitpring]

That is, this charlatan is not a philosopher at all, but an anti-philosopher. He's a dime a dozen in this rotting age.

[Rosabeth06]

I agree with you for the most part. Which philosophers, if any, do you find to be non anti-philosophers or have something worthy of listening to that you apply to your own philosophy? Just curious.

[TESOblivion4]

I suppose he would say Rawls

[codadilupo83]

Haha. Is always funny read an analitic writing of philosophy (and maybe he had not read the Wissenschaft der Logik of Hegel - that about the genesis - Logik of essence - speaks as Derrida... this is only an example of the grandeur of Derrida...) The charlatan are Searle and co. (that think "the thought is a bone", as Hegel writes).

[stevestevejam]

Deconstruction, Regression, Annihilation...

[stevestevejam]

Church Going

[symbolajimbo]

edwards1003 "if we accept Derrida's formula, we forestall the possibility of animal righhts. " He is talking specifically about Human rights. Now perhaps this has implications for animal rights and he has written a book on humanity's relation to animals but the point is that as language-using animals it makes sense to have rights which are supposedly human to also use language. One might also argue that animal rights could be, if anything, an extension or abstraction of human rights.

[claitontesch]

fine!!!!!!!!!

[edwards1003]

At 6.53, Derrida says that if rights are to be 'universal' and 'valid', they must be understood by all language-users. This is just another Reinholdian conflation of universal validity and universal acknowledgment. And it is problematic because, if we accept Derrida's formula, we forestall the possibility of animal righhts.

[edwards1003]

At 6.53 Derrida says that for human rights to be 'universal' and possess 'validity', they should be accessible to any language user. This seems problematic: firstly, isn't Derrida simply falling into the Reinholdian conflation of universal validity and universal acknowledgment? Secondly (and relatedly), where does this equation of validity and acknowledgement leave the possibility of animal rights?

[mitohistoriador]

Once again, I can't get over how squeamish D appears here: he should have hit these people head on with the deconstruction of the Western ego and its monomaniacal drive toward "progress" and certain doom; he should have deconstructed the American [and British] ego and its desire for expansion and world-dominion. If only Derrida had read a little Chomsky he could have deconstructed the subject of Americanism, deconstructed the subject of our "wealth and prosperity",...

[iaeruo]

oh that is a very good comment. although, on a kitsch level, perhaps it was 'meant to be' that he failed to deconstruct American and British ego? one must deconstruct their own baggage.

[ReelChange]

He's got a great haircut though. Jon Pertwee would've been jealous of a bouffant like that.

[mitohistoriador]

I will follow your lead Herr DocteurLariviere and take up Strauss on this shallow academic existentialism, which I also very much hear in Heidegger's ontologism, which does, however odious, contain a strand of fascism. But I of course take a more Jasperean approach to H's work, Jaspers being someone who actually knew H, rather than dogmatic one of the academic appropriation of H's work.

[mitohistoriador]

It is interesting how squeamish Derrida appears here, rather than affirming over against the questioner that the deconstruction of the subject, just as the death of God, is something that has already happened-"we are the ones who have killed God"-he waters himself down!

[fgjk234]

In 1970, Derrida said of general relativity: "The Einsteinian constant is not a constant, is not a center. It is the very concept of variability -- it is, finally, the concept of the game. In other words, it is not the concept of something -- of a center starting from which an observer could master the field -- but the very concept of the game..." If only he removed his head from his arse...

[tiamattiamatre]

loool, it is so funny reading derrida and hegel. sometimes I almost respect them. (sincerely)

[paparodendro1]

There is an immense difference a) between deconstructing the subject and deconstructing 'the subject', and b) between the latter as a philosophical as opposed to everyday concept.

[DocteurLariviere]

Heidegger has had a very unfortunate fate in the hands of the French, Americans, and now (those famous flat-heads) the British. If one wants to understand the roots of this shallow and academical existentialism, fashionable existentialism - one must read some Leo Strauss. Find his essays on Heidegger & Husserl at internet archive[dot]org, & search for "Strauss and Heidegger". The texts are free.

[rabmunch]

I will here deconstruct Derrida. Let us take Heidegger & translate him into an effeminate, snobbish, & academical French atmosphere. Let us flaunt our familiarity with a few profound sounding Greek terms, or heavy words drawn from the depths of German Idealism. Transform that atmosphere with a touch of a polite & shallow society of vain egalitarian bourgeoisie. Et voila! There you have the "historical" genealogy of Derridian existentialism. Snobbery for the last man.

Nietzsche predicted it.

[mitohistoriador]

But I think that there is indeed an important difference you can level out, as everything is leveled out in the sublationist operation of the Notion, without getting the very different hermeneutic situation D is in contrast to Hegel

[rumbleshorts]

Yes, thank you so very much flame0430! This made my evening. After a master's in English, Derrida is still amazing me and giving me hope. It is too bad he is so badly misread by so many. This lecture is such a beautiful example of how humane and lovely even the most rigorous and scrutinizing people can be. Thanks so much!

[kantimmanuel05]

he should set up a donation link

[anujdasgupta]

I totally agree with u. You are a gem of a person:) Thank u from the bottom of my heart!

[snowtrot]

i agree: a gem! but i have to disagree with a donation: i'm broke! however, i could donate some 'units of utility'.

[ensufuerointernoexul]

flame0430, you are truly doing us all a great service. Thank you so much.

[fmajor3]

Surprise!

--After so many hardcore analytic figures.

[idiley]

thanks!!!

[flame0430]

You are quite welcome, there are 4 total sections, the 2nd and 3rd are processing and the 4th will be up in a little while.