Indeed. Perhaps the phenomenological move and the common origin in Husserl that seems to me to draw Heidegger and Derrida closest. Not that Nietzsche wasn't an influence on them both, but Derrida has always seemed to me to steal Heidegger's thunder.
Derrida overestimates the extend to which a language can influence the truth of a statement, and he overestimates the influence a philosopher's nationality can have on their ideas. We remember the works of particular philosophers, writers and artists because they had it in them to transcend their particular political environments (which is why so many of them ran in to trouble of course!) as opposed to mediocrity we forget who often relied upon slogans, and established systems of belief.
"We" remember? Who are "we"? You are ofcourse referring to Western Civilization. So we are then simply dealing with concentric circles of culture here, Western languages being crafted out of common Latin and Greek roots. Aristotle will never be more popular than Confucius in China. The fact that there are larger circles does not negate the existence and impact of the smaller ones.
An amazing talk. I went from an understanding of his basic idioms in the words of his enemies do discovering that he agrees very much with my own better (that is to say, positive-result-producing) thoughts on the world's and life's workings.
I'd like to deconstruct that hegemonic neck-tie of his, you guys feel me?
xiuxiu12 3 months ago
How come he never mentions that he got it all from Heidegger? (except the move to questioning and deconstructing nationalism, of course)
waxinggrasshopper 5 months ago
@waxinggrasshopper
How much did he get from Heidegger here that Heidegger didn't get from Nietzsche?
Onieracraft 2 months ago
@Onieracraft
Indeed. Perhaps the phenomenological move and the common origin in Husserl that seems to me to draw Heidegger and Derrida closest. Not that Nietzsche wasn't an influence on them both, but Derrida has always seemed to me to steal Heidegger's thunder.
:)
waxinggrasshopper 2 months ago
Derrida overestimates the extend to which a language can influence the truth of a statement, and he overestimates the influence a philosopher's nationality can have on their ideas. We remember the works of particular philosophers, writers and artists because they had it in them to transcend their particular political environments (which is why so many of them ran in to trouble of course!) as opposed to mediocrity we forget who often relied upon slogans, and established systems of belief.
realitycheck888 1 year ago
Comment removed
brnpeter6 1 year ago
@realitycheck888 Derrida responds, "Who is we?"
animesuxxxx 7 months ago
@realitycheck888
"We" remember? Who are "we"? You are ofcourse referring to Western Civilization. So we are then simply dealing with concentric circles of culture here, Western languages being crafted out of common Latin and Greek roots. Aristotle will never be more popular than Confucius in China. The fact that there are larger circles does not negate the existence and impact of the smaller ones.
Onieracraft 2 months ago
good to hear derrida linking the "subject" to "universal declaration."
hindustantimesmedia 1 year ago
In actual world we see the crisis of the center, we see the explosion of a difference that was jammed by the metaphysics of presence .
Aedox1 1 year ago
An amazing talk. I went from an understanding of his basic idioms in the words of his enemies do discovering that he agrees very much with my own better (that is to say, positive-result-producing) thoughts on the world's and life's workings.
BlacknWhitesAlright 2 years ago 2
great talk . . .i like how at the end he mentions 'respect'
theinternetscholar 3 years ago 2
you must be playing playstation3
flap2323 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the hell is he talkin bout? i dont get this nationalism thing
mrfatd 3 years ago