Post-Modernism: Deconstruction and Derrida Pt. 1

[thesuikerlounge]

before you go into postmodernism make sure you really read hegel... that's all i can say.

[lloplop]

man the music really messes me up! i cant hear anything!!!!!! stupid

[CannabisZenMaster]

Amazing! Thanks so much!

[jsumteri]

Buddhism and personal forms of contemplation are extremely valid --- but the author's read of Postmodernism is really missing some MAJOR points: namely, the idea developed out of an extremist group in Germany called the Frankfurt School. This "school" developed the notion of "Critical Theory" as a manner of luring people (and especially the defenseless minorities) into helping them destroy Western culture. Don't simply believe me - please do your own research.

[SonytoBratsoni]

@jsumteri I did the research , you are deeply mistaken . Jurgen Habermas , the current head of the Frankfurt School, is one the leading critics of postmodernism .

[jsumteri]

@SonytoBratsoni Habermas did some major back-pedaling... but he stands on the toxic deception of Critical Theory, which means he's part of the problem. The deceptive practices of the Frankfurt school are unfortunately all too alive and well.

[SonytoBratsoni]

@jsumteri By back-pedaling , I suppose you're referring to his turning away from marxism .That was more of a revision in light of new evidence. What's your problem with critical theory ?

[kokopelli314]

I've found it best to spend some time alone, away from active structures, to quiet the chatter of mind. Perception expands and becomes participatory. Some days, the whole world is like a babbling stream. Other days, well...

[DJFNB]

I REALLY liked this video, but like many people I found the "background" music to be distracting, a little too loud at times. I really hope you re-record this; please speak up, the hiss from the microphone is also distracting. Say it loud, with the trim/level on the mic a little lower. I am in the audio engineering field and I realize that this type of thing can be difficult, time-consuming, and frustrating. THIS IS A GREAT AND WORTHWHILE PROJECT!! I would help if I could. Thank you.

[opensourcebuddhism]

@DJFNB You certainly could help...please feel free to edit the volume in more nicely. I get very busy just teaching and accumulating new ones, but may just revisit a few in the near future.

[bananian]

I don't get it.

[GandhiandKing]

Thanks for the post. Very interesting. Is is posted anywhere without the music?

It is atmospheric but I found it distracting.

[imgonnaletyoutellit]

Derrida has a few haters huh? Busters.

[Longlivethe4th]

They were leftists, rightfully scandallised by dictators, big corporations doing wharever they wanted, and religious biggotry. But they had no genuine feeling for the mass of the people, so they ended up criticising dictators and corporations on the solve basis of their own propaganda (that they were acting rationally), and then attactked rational thinking itself, ending up as defenders of bigottry as long as it was of the non-mainstream kind. instead of showing what was irrational in capitalism

[nihilistarchitect]

THE MUSIC SUCKS ON THIS.

[persephonesky]

I would have loved to watch this but the music was really distracting and annoying. it's also kind of cheesy and turns me off, it's a shame

[LNP20]

If you have in mind hegelian dialectics, then you are mistaken. Derridian mutual constitution does not have in mind resolving the tension through synthesis.

[torasclaat]

If you are going to explain something why must you use loud music and speak under your voice? It is almost as though you think allowing the matter to seem complicated and difficult to hear makes it more interesting. That is very very sad.

[mortizmortiz]

music is too damn loud!

[ciaranppp]

Thumbs up if you noticed the Smashing Pumpkins song played at the end

[BTinHD]

What alot of mumbo jumbo

[Chessmasteroo]

@MrErrunus Your statements hold no value, because you are using language which is a set of values or definition assigned to a word. True post-modernist should not even try to do anything they should just exist in silence and enjoy the decay of their objective truth.

[Manusturbo]

@Chessmasteroo "post-modernists should not even try to do anything they should just exist in silence and enjoy the decay of their objective truth."

Nice misrepresentation of Wittgenstein there, Chessmasteroo:)

Value is created through differentiation, and an assumption of coherence between what is being differentiated from another is required for this value. This coherence can be further deconstructed, as objective truth is itself a construct that doesn't escape context.

[Chessmasteroo]

@Manusturbo Could you elaborate on how it is a misrepresentation of Wittgenstein. In language it is through differentiation that we define, what about mathematics? Could you explain is logic objective truth? Thanks

[Fray2221]

@MrErrunus Well Derrida doesn't believe that words have fixed meanings anyway, so its pretty pointless to argue about such things. Its also a pretty convenient excuse for him not to define his terms. 'Structure' could mean anything in this context, and anyone even attempting to define what it means is going to be accused of getting it wrong and missing the point. I havent read that much of Derrida, but if you can give some definition of 'structure' that goes beyond 'thing' then lets hear it.

[S2Cents]

How much have you read? You're schooled in continental philosophy? Read much in modern linguistics and in phenomenology (etc. etc.)?

[imgonnaletyoutellit]

I am Derida

[istprain]

i wish someone would tell the piano player to shut the fuck up

[AndrewStergiou]

Geez how to describe what is presented or what deconstructionism is? I don't know if this accurately presents deconstructionism but I find it as presented as micromanagement solipsist relativist nonsense that takes to world out of context and represents a traditional bourgeois method of thinking via the German Ideologies and essential garbage. Methodology which is the main emphasis is tactic without a strategic goal mindless it drifts.

[shmiggen]

what a crock of shit. there is an 'objective' reality. gravity is real. planes fly. if you don't believe this, you are quite free to leap from a ten story building.

[Manusturbo]

@shmiggen I think you'll find that there's a difference between an EMPERICAL reality and OBJECTIVE reality.

[shmiggen]

@Manusturbo Well, empirical means that which is derived from experiment and observation rather than theory. Objective is that which is based on observable phenomena. What's the difference?

[shmiggen]

@Manusturbo But how is that which is empirical be open to interpretation? For example, 2 + 2 = 4. How else can this be interpreted? Is this not an immutable law of the universe? Or are you saying, no, this is a social construct?

[Manusturbo]

@shmiggen in Kantian epistemology a statement like "2+2=4" is knowable apriori, meaning that you know it is true through reason alone. But empirical knowledge is obtained aposteriori, which means that it is dependent on observation of phenomena. The argument against an 'objective reality" is not to say that what is empirical is "open" to interpretation, but that it can't exist independently from it. When a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it make a sound?

[shmiggen]

@Manusturbo But even this question is easy to answer. No, it does not make a sound, as no one hears it. On the other hand, if someone were to hear it, then yes, it would make a sound. The point is, postmodern deconstructionism is a laughable bag of pseudo-intellectualism. How can anyone take it seriously?

[Manusturbo]

@shmiggen I'm sorry, I don't get you... are you saying Kant is postmodern? What you think of deconstruction is subject for another debate, I was just responding to your questioning the difference between empirical and objective reality, which is a philosophical distinction.

[shmiggen]

@Manusturbo Deconstruction...is what this video is about. Why are you discussing an entirely different subject? My main concern is postmodern deconstructionism, which is a pseudo-intellectual pursuit, in my opinion. Was there a reason you mentioned empirical reality vs objective reality, or did you feel like exploring a completely different topic?

[Manusturbo]

@shmiggen If you recall, I was responding to your statement: "there is an 'objective' reality. gravity is real. planes fly.", which describes an empirical reality rather than objective. (You're talking more about epistemology rather than deconstruction, hence the digression from the topic.)

Deconstruction doesn't question an empirical reality at all, Derrida, in fact, is a radical empiricist in opposition to Heidegger's metaphysical questioning of ontology.

[shmiggen]

@Manusturbo And this is my disagreement: I don't believe Derrida is a radical empiricist. Empirical reality and objective reality do indeed depend upon each other, but so what? Is that truly radical? Name one development that sprang from this understanding, if you will. I can be persuaded, but you would have to name something which benefited humankind from this knowledge.

[Manusturbo]

@shmiggen You're misunderstanding my use of the word 'radical'. Derrida's project was centered around vigorous hermeneutical practice, not writing so as to assume a transcendent signified. It's a radical rejection of metaphysics. His writing has made a wide and varied impact on Human Sciences, in literary theory, politics, architecture among others. Of course you have the right to your opinion whether this impact is good or bad, but it would be naive, to say the least, to ignore his influence.

[Manusturbo]

@shmiggen You seem to have very strong opinions about Derrida. What texts about him or by him have you read to provoke such dislike?

[shmiggen]

@Manusturbo It's what is justified in his name which I find detestable. The man and himself are fine; I'm certain his intentions were noble. It's relativism and the notion that nothing is truly knowable which I find deplorable.  This may be true, but it cannot be used as an excuse to commit heinous crimes.

[Manusturbo]

@shmiggen No, Derrida wasn't a relativist at all. Derrida himself said 'Justice is undeconstructible'. For example, he condemned the september 11 attacks - I place emphasis to this - "unconditionally".

You have to understand that many people have misintepreted Derrida over the years because many of his detractors been eager to misrepresent his writing. Many academics found his ideas threathening to institutional authority and attacked him without even reading his work.

[shmiggen]

@Manusturbo I don't deny he was a well-intentioned man, even a good man. And it heartens me that he said 'justice is undeconstructible'. I am thinking of what others have poached off of him. I actually stole the 2+2=4 analogy from 1984, when O'Brien insists to Winston Smith that 2+2= whatever O'Brien decides it means, as 2+2=4 is a 'social construction'. Winston's reply is 'surely freedom means the insistence that 2+2=4. Still, what benefit has deconstructionism brought to the world? 

[Manusturbo]

@shmiggen Ah, I see the Orwellian reference now.

A widespread misrepresentation of Derrida is that there is such a thing as 'deconstruction-ism'. Derrida stressed that deconstruction isn't a strategy, or a formula. It's hard to explain in brief, it but it'd help to think of it as an event that occurs, rather than being premeditated.

As for the benefits of his writing, I can do no better than point you towards Simon Critchley's book "the ethics of deconstructionism".

[Manusturbo]

Also, as I'm sure you know, the Tree metaphor was a Zen koan, I would hardly call it postmodern.

[tisiaan]

bla bla bla bla bla

[Ponezorg]

This guy is tripping on shrooms like no offense to people who trip on shrooms but damn this guy goes way past the point of losing me

[mediattackrecords]

without doing a test on an animal i think we can conclude that an animal intellect cannot progress without a human just like a human intellect cannot progress without a computer - an operator or second brain so to speak

[mediattackrecords]

all postmodernism is saying is that the origin of mans intellect has progress to it. some women may have different intellects that dont progress.

[mediattackrecords]

human prejudices ill behaviors and phobias definitely get in the way of a postmodern functional world if you think about it this is why punk is not really going anywhere for people

[mediattackrecords]

harhar har how is postmodern destroying the world? youre clueless about philosophy. could you imgine a world with no perpetual motion? 

[mediattackrecords]

postmodernism is entertaining its definitely govt liberal conservative and socialist ego

[Conail23]

postmodernists are ruining the world! It is intellectual sucide! it is social deconstruction and thus the fall of western civilization! Peace.

[tjttzcspplt]

The problem is that, within the chaos, the state, or anyone with the upper hand will oppress the weaker. That cannot be tolerated.

[azaroch]

The background music sucks - why don't you produce a simple video?

[Diosibundo]

Typical Postmodernist.

Takes forever to figure out what he's saying, and when you finally get it you think

(A) "That's totally obvious" and

(B) "So what?"

This is mysticism and religion for intellectuals

[Manusturbo]

@Diosibundo Well, some postmodernsist do sound mystified, but the point is to open up something that was previously assumed to be obvious so as to introduce it to progress and re-definition. It would be hard to imagine the technological or social change we all take for granted these days without the postmodern epoch.

[Portboy]

I feel like less of a person after watching this, but I am fascinated.

[JesNazRexJud]

@Portboy I'm not strong in English, so I'm not sure if my 'interpretation' of the video is correct. I Feel like more of a person after watching. I mean, all the things we percieve as tools to define ourselves, all the 'differences' could very well lead us away from another and possible deeper answer. That life is nothing but existence, we are all unique yet all the same. I am me, you are you. But our essence is the same, and therefore, if I truely love myself, I can't hate you or others. :)

[hudsonpeachfarmer]

Is Rev, Dr. James Kenneth Powell the same guy that wrote "Postmodernism: for Beginners" (Danbury, CT; For Begginners LLC 1998).

[opensourcebuddhism]

@hudsonpeachfarmer nope, i am not...james powell

[hudsonpeachfarmer]

Is Rev, Dr. James Kenneth Powell the same guy that wrote "Postmodernism: for Beginners" (Danbury, CT; For Begginners LLC 1998).

[jill198751]

the unique false point about this interpretation of deconstruction is that it missed out the large half of the world civilization, the eastern philosophies and its language. It also misses out the effect of globalization on tracing the origin within the mixed-up structure.

[jill198751]

And I also find a lot of overlaps between traditional buddhism and post-modernism

[jill198751]

I agree with Jacobins3000 downstairs!! The belief of "everything having a cause" is originated from the grammar of the language... (every action has a subject). The language predetermine people's way of thinking.

[wwjj2255]

what's the song on piano?

[andybarone1984]

Drop the piano next time. Or mix it VERY LOW.

[utopianconstruction]

Oh my God you guys are dicks

[jacobins3000]

Derrida is a fraud, All he is saying in the first quote is that every "structure" has a "genesis", which is another "structure", In other words every "thing" has a "cause", which is another "thing". Except he wont use the word 'thing' and 'cause' because that would reveal how simpistic and obvious his "ideas" really are.

[opensourcebuddhism]

i tend to agree with you. actually, the buddha was the first historical personage to formalize causation into a rational theory. the mahayana buddhist theory of language is far more sophisticated than that of derrida too.

james

[BrianTheMusicMan]

Where can I find information about Mahayana theory of language?

[opensourcebuddhism]

try the nagarjuna clips on my site - lots there, and one on wittgenstein, heideggar, nishitani, descartes, and the illustrious yogacara brothers vasubandhu and asanga.

you will know much if you watch all those!

james

[NearVSMello]

@opensourcebuddhism I disagree with jacobins3000. I don't think Derrida was "saying" anything in that first quote. I think he was SHOWING us something.

[NearVSMello]

@opensourcebuddhism What I mean is that when reading Derrida you have to THINK like a postmodernist. If you read that quote like jacobins with the mindset that he's trying to say something or define something, of course you're gonna think he's a fraud.

[Manusturbo]

@opensourcebuddhism Deconstruction and the Mahayana are apples and oranges. Of course Derrida isn't 'profound', his project is anti-metaphysical and and anti-teleological. His form of negative theology is the opposite Mahayana's theory of negative language. Derrida isn't 'saying' anything, he is merely demonstrating the limits of Western reason via Husserl by showing how diachronically occuring language is always caught up with the synchronic. That he CAN'T be profound is the point

[LNP20]

Actually, using your terminology, he would say that there cannot be established something like a "thing" and a "cause" without one refering to the other. So, the point would be that no thing is simply present, but that its existence relies on something also not simply absent.Every word/concept/idea/perception etc. requires a definition, which yet call for more definition(s) ad infinitum, showing that word is not simply present in its meaning like metaphysics especially from Plato onwards thought

[jacobins3000]

Of course the claim 'everything has a cause', is very problematic philosophically. Causation itself has repeatedly come under attack by the likes of Nietzsche, also its been pretty well established by the existentialists, and earlier the Buddhists, that we as subjects impose essence onto things, essence is not inherent within that thing. Youre not going to find many modern philosophers willing to call themselves Platonists. Im not sure what new ideas Derrida is bringing to this discussion.

[jacobins3000]

My point was that if 'cause' and 'thing' are problematic philosophically, then why are 'structure' and 'genesis' any better? What is a structure if not a thing, what difference could there possibly be? As for genesis, its actually a far more primitive and discredited notion than cause. Its a biblical term that basically means 'magical creation'. Its really not a word that even worthy of philosophical discussion.

[LNP20]

Derrida is bringing into discussion the questioning of the idea of thinking in binary terms at all, like cause/effect, subject/object, transcendent/imanent etc. Nietzsche`s way of inverting Plato`s ontology by saying that the world is not the reflex of ever unchanging ideas, but the other way around - only represents the inversion of Plato`s system, still remaining caught inside the metaphysical way of thinking inside binary oppositions,

[LNP20]

where one term is thought as present, pure, in access of meaning, while other is presented as less valuable derivative term ("material form" as derived from "idea", hence less valuable), or absence of first (e.g. "bad" as absence of "good", as in neoplatonistic accounts). Speaking in a more simplified way, Derrida breaks this binary way of thinking by showing that one term could not even be established without another, where their mutual constitution present as a condition of existence for both.

[Nellsing]

@LNP20 "...where their mutual constitution present as a condition of existence for both." Sounds like dialectical monism. How unoriginal.

[Manusturbo]

@jacobins3000 you haven't read any Derrida at all apart from a summary of Structure, Sign and Play, have you? Reducing Derrida to formula is akin to reducing dialectic to rhetorics, the fact that this rhetoric can be opened up from its linear, appearance of modified presense, and that this the very condition of meaning, is a point that seems to elude you. Being simplistic and obvious is kind of the point, really. As Spivak said, Derrida is when you consider the limitations of deconstruction.

[andyelgrand0]

@jacobins3000 all ideas are simple since they are based on your own comprehention, and if someone else can understand it it means someone else could have come up with it.. Its how you present it that makes it "good" or "bad".

[kasuskasus]

Haha, the trumpet guy!