Derrida On Animals

[djs259]

I have a one year old tuxedo cat named Bubbles.

She agrees that Derrida was an unmitigated disaster for Philosophy, and just generally full of the stuff she deposits in her litter box.

[universalsailor]

No slaughterhouses? Does that mean we have a vegetarian Frenchman here? So who's grouping all these animals together as if they were the same? This guy has all the hallmaks of an intellectual charlatan.

[GnomesAmok]

Derrida's hair made him think he was a philosopher

[N73B60]

@GnomesAmok LMFAO

[loughrey101]

I'd really love to hear the full version of this part on the animal. where can I find it as it's not on the official DVD?

[loughrey101]

This hasn't been included in the DVD version.

[MoralNihilism]

He needs to read some biology. Animals are not defined as "all living things that aren't human", they are defined as a specific type of eukaryotic organism, and they include humans.

Derrida's lack of interest in science reveals him to be just a typical Continental obscurantist.

[cvvemuri]

@MoralNihilism

He's talking about western philosophy, not science. Pay attention dumbfuck!

[cvvemuri]

The man-animal distinction is well covered in the human cultural record by anthropologists.

[felooosailing957]

@MoralNihilism Derrida does not neglect biology as you portray He just implies the natural characteristics of such a symbol like the word "animal" which means "able to move" In early definitions of life movement was the most important aspect to define life When peope made that symbol they tried to say "This beings are similar to us but they arent just like us" This in Derridas perception allowed men to be violent on amimals without feeling some form of guilt after that

[animalliberation0961]

Brilliant man!



[artregeous]

nice

[gj7l1O0ij49gq1l00O0l]

I just fucked Casey Anthony again!

She was on her back, all comfy on the bed, and her knees were bent as she rested her feet on the mattress. She made herself really comfortable. I crawled up between her knees, and slid my pickle into her wet, smooth cunt hole. There was this 'shlurp' sound as it went in.

It felt good, like "aaaahhhhhh....."

Then I pumped my Johnson in and out of her Love Canal until I blasted cum on her cervix.

Then I went and watched TV.

[analyticaa]

Surprisingly when he speaks in person, he is very clear. Too bad he didn't adopt this convention in his writing. The language in his texts is impenetrable. I imagine this is out of some sort of academic insecurity. Ideas can be groundbreaking and written in crystal clear language: Kripke for example!

[delameu]

il n'y a pas de distinction à faire entre l'homme et l'animal, plutôt une hiérarchisation

[spurious]

Derrida here claims that we classify germs, plants, and fungi as animals as well. I see his point, but that mistake was silly.

[lusomarga]

arthropods, not anthropods! : )))

[Scrumpilump2000]

From a certain viewpoint this sounds like E-Prime!

[oelefantexadrez]

Second, on a more pragmatic issue, If you realize that a certain concept may lead to violent behaviours (and so you call the concept itself a violent treatment), it seems logical that your major concern should be opposing the violent action (since this is the one that affects the subject matter, in this case the pig) and not only the conceptual treatment that may lead to this action (again, since this conceptual treatment alone doesnt harm animals in the least).

[oelefantexadrez]

First, i do not agree that this particular concept (of animal), is a diagnostic of any possible violence, or even a violence in the treatment itself. As other users pointed out before, its not like we have no concepts that will unite human and non-human animals in a same group, but for many purpouses including that of more efficient communication in certain contexts, this is a very useful concept.

[MsYperite]

@oelefantexadrez language can be a very violent tool. when you realize that a concept might lead to violence, you don't endlessly fight the violent act, which is consequence, you fight concept - the cause.

a good historical analogy is women rights. at the beginning the topic was most seriously approached in nations that did not have words 'he' and 'she' but had one term for both genders, such as 'hun'. you can't stop viewing the world in x manner if you use language that supports this worldview

[oelefante]

"To put all living things that aren`t human into one category is, first of all, a stupid gesture, theoretically ridiculous, and partakes in the very real violence that humans exercise towards animals"

I sincerely doubt the pig is worried about the way he is being conceptually treated by humans. I do suspect hes a little more preocuppied with the man that will kill him so he can feed Mr Derrida before he proclaims another of his (inumerous) nonsenses.

[mintatious]

@oelefante it's not about the pig, that the concept is violent towards to pig. Derrida's statement is a diagnostic of our own shortcoming, that this very concept leads to the pig's suffering. If I think a negative thought about you, provided you aren't Silvia Brown it will not do you harm; but if this thought leads me to want to harm you then, yes, I am committing the totalized violence against you.

[Bramboterhamm]

@oelefante It is not about the language itself, but about the influence it has and how it shapes the mind of humans. It makes allusions to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and therefore it cannot be explained all that easily in a one-to-one correspondence between language and the actual suffering. The logic would be; if you can collect ants in a jar, why can't you put pigs in a small pen? We can do so, logically, because they are all part of this big non-human group; the animal.

[Elbownian]

Does he not understand that animal is a distinguishing term used to denote certain types of organisms from others? FFS we need these conceptual definitions we call words in order to have anything like meaningful communication with one another, and they mean what they mean and not something else. You can't just go around trying to redifine everything that already has a meaning, you should simply try to educate people that people are animals too, specifically members of a species of African Ape.

[KrutoyPostowoy]

@Elbownian

wht he means is an ant diffrers from a monkey as much as a wooden door differs from the same monkey. To enclose all the species in one term serves the ultimate purpose of enslaving them even if it gappens without our notion.

[Elbownian]

@KrutoyPostowoy

I see. In that case he's wrong, because an ant most definitely does NOT differ from a monkey as much as a wooden door differs from a monkey. For one thing, ants have legs, and a head, and so do monkeys. Less facetiously, an ant and a monkey are more closely genetically related than a monkey and any species of tree you care to name, even a Monkey Puzzle.

[Elbownian]

@KrutoyPostowoy

"To enclose all species in one term" serves the purpose of distinguishing them from entities that are less similar to them than they are to each other, such as plants from animals, or organisms from rocks, nothing more. Anything else is misinterpretation and misapplication.

[vincentbm1]

In other words, if Derrida were an animal, he'd be a wooly mammoth.

[Sinn575]

If I were to resume the whole project of Derrida, I would say his entire work is a Critique of Pure Authority. In other words, it is a tenacious intellectual exploration of the conditions of possibility of the most basic forms of authority (e.g., the unconscious authority of PRESENCE in metaphysics, the unconscious authority of PHALUS in social discourse, the unconscious authority of QUESTION in speculative exercise etc.).

[monstermagic]

anyone hears the airplane?

[fagmike]

to understand what derrida is saying you must first understand deconstruction. a good step is to view life from the point of eternity, to continually ask yourself the question, why? language no doubt shapes our everyday lives and our childrens. so i ask, why is it that the language we speak mentally seperates us from other organisms. why are we humans and they animals. we all have to breathe. let us reinvent ourselves or better when did we stop evolving.

[sshuck]

He asserted many times that grouping together many organisms into the term "animal" is connected with the actual caging of animals, but he didn't explain or prove the connection. I don't think it's an obvious connection. In fact, I don't see it. Would someone care to explain it to me?

I'd hate to be stuck at "not understanding anything".

P.S. Can I say "organisms"?

[ringawing]

@sshuck when you say 'actual caging' are you referring to what Derrida here terms the 'slaughterhouses and industrial treatment' ? I think the connection between that sort of practice and an all encompassing definition of the animal--one that equates monkeys and ants--is implied. You'd kill a fly or mosquito without hesitation, and if they're in the same category as a cow or sheep. . . you get it. I think thats all it is. sort of a shallow point but at least you can see where he's coming from.

[Krelianx]

There are considerable differences between states of matter; that doesn't dissuade us from referring to things as material in general. The same argument can be made about every general term. It takes a lot more to establish that the 'violence' implied here is directly the result of such conceptual simplification. In itself, I see no 'theoretical ridiculity' in the general scientific ascription of animality: it is not as if we do not have the resources to be more specific if needed.

[fagmike]

@Krelianx as a result of "conceptually simplifying" other living organisms we seperate ourselves from the fact that we (all living organisms) are here together. very subtle conditioning that has led people to truly believe that all other organisms are around for our viewing pleasures or consumption.

[Krelianx]

@fagmike Derrida here is arguing against the generalization of 'animal', but it's not clear how specification leads to 'realizing all living organisms live together' and thus avoids the industrial treatment of animals. If anything, it seems that Derrida would need to call for a greater SIMPLIFICATION whereby all living organisms are indistinguished, rather than specified. It's a really slothful speculative move to attribute the industrial treatment of animals to the appeal to 'animality'.

[emphaticapathy]

According to his logic, it would be impossible to even ask him a question about animals without commiting an act of conceptual 'violence'. Isn't the distinction between humans and other animals more of a semantic necessity, rather than a moral justifcation of exploitation of monkeys, cats, rabbits, dogs, fish etc etc.

[natmanprime]

@emphaticapathy 'humans and other animals' - ok

'humans and animals' - a no-no

of course, you could just say they're all distant cousins

lol

I'm sure that would make a difference to culinary attitudes

[DoJaenin]

hmm... what if I include humans in the animal category? When I talk about what is commonly referred to as "animals", I usually say "nonhuman animals".

[Endagr8]

I hate Derrida's roundabout political answers to any and all questions.

[papasmurfdrummer]

I don't think Derrida has a very firm grasp on taxonomy.

[gen6k]

i dont think you have a good grasp on derrida or rather hiedegger. maybe lacan. the spherical component "animal" is "already" starting make the distinction. in the use of language, this can only alienate the groups from each other. obviously, what is in writing or speech mutates the structure of existence for humans. when there are multiple meanings, and the characterization is "violent" enough, it plays a lasting influence on the participants. especially in writing, which has a hold on speech.

[gen6k]

all while an "animal" doesnt actually exist. the distinction is superficial and hypocritical, but plays a vastly important role in our culture.

[papasmurfdrummer]

It was a joke. He says that he doesn't see why we should group together monkeys, bees, snakes, dogs, horses, anthropods and microbes. One, there are very good scientific and practical reasons to do so, and two, microbes aren't animals :P

[gen6k]

okay right, i missed that part. he might mean that it ruptured into a cliche. also derrida usually starts from an ontic-ontological-esque state of egocentrism, phonocentrism, enthnocentrism to logocentrism. so he would assume that the priority of "animal" would immediatly get detached in the "same" way.

[Marenqo]

microbes are animals, ever heard of plankton and planarian?

[AutocracyOnline]

@papasmurfdrummer

Listen again. He's criticising the distinction between human and animal; the categories he mentioned were used to emphasise the differences within the category 'animal' and exhibit the lack of congruence between its parts.

[TheObnubilators]

I second that.

[Marenqo]

think you missed the point, as he was not technical in his groupings, but conceptual - "has" should be "had" btw

[gratex]

When we call "them" animals and "us" humans, as Derrida does here, we make the same "caging" error Derrida discusses.

[NEDM1991]

Was Derrida a vegetarian then?

[oaiee5]

it seems the full film (DERRIDA) is on youtube; i've seen it around. but i highly recommend buying the dvd because it has some great extras (this interview being one of them). there are some who call the film pretentious, and some parts of it can be, but overall, derrida makes up for it.

[Xakryn]

I would not use this as an argument for vegetarianism in any sense. Because they are complex and diverse, and we are NOT separate from that complexity, then our actions, when in instances of categorical similarity (carnivore/herbivore). We can then judge our consuming of other species through the same Amoral lens that we regard the snake eating the toad. Perhaps though we could use that which does make us different to treat them with more respect and not be so wasteful. Non industrial farming.

[philtecturophy]

I agree on Derrida, and often do ^^, basicly, we human alwast tend to make judging on things we dont even perceive so clearly, including the act of simply categorized somethings into somewhat. ITs just like modern philosphy always tend to do, finding a point of generalization and centralize things into something.

[jagatic1]

The art of speaking without saying anything! Is that a new philosophical move?

[dnboyce]

The art of listening without actually hearing or reflecting upon the significance of what is said! An interesting move as well.

[zxrug]

As for my Jewish example, my thinking is not "wholly"--I only used it to show how Your failure to see any connection between "actual violence" and theoretical violence is very problematic. Putting jews in a category is NOT NECCESSARILY an act of violence, but the way in which you critique Derrida for thinking of "thought" and "actual violence" apart needs to be worked through a little better. Human violence is rarely just physical; it always has a condition of possibility.

[zxrug]

You DO miss the point because you assume that Derrida's issue is with putting things into categories which it is not. The issue is ASSUMING an ontological basis for those categories, for failing to trouble categories which have a lot of at stake. One of those catagories that has very much at stake is maintaining a difference between what counts as a human and what counts as an animal. Western metaphysics has much stake in maintaining the difference between human and nonhuman.

[mikealx68]

Nonsense, M. Derrida, and very careless of you. 'Animal' is a group of things distinguished in characteristics from those which are 'vegetable' or 'mineral'. It's completely in line with the Saussurian linguistics you built a career on! And classifying things isn't an act of violence. Punching them, killing them or eating them might be. Of course humans are also animals.

[zxrug]

You miss the point: making animals into a general category is an act of violence because it reduces singularity into a general "thing." This thing is defined in opposition to the being "Human" and allows us to treat them and consume them in any way we wish. Classifying things is an act of violence. Try wearing "JUDEN" on your arm before going to a camp and you will see this and believe it.

[mikealx68]

I don't miss the point at all; I just don't agree with it. By that logic, thinking in categories at all is an act of violence. Useful thinking depends on categorisation, and is the only reason our species wasn't wiped out millions of years ago.

Putting Jews in a category isn't an act of violence. Exposing them to public ridicule, robbing them, and sending them to their deaths, on the other hand, is. To equate one with the other is just woolly thinking.

[Adrian101882]

The problem here is purely linguistic and semantical, I think. First and foremost: what falls under the rubric 'violence'? What can be considered violent? I think Derrida trips himself up with his own use of the word 'violence', something which probably could be more safely explained by substituting the word 'power' instead, perhaps. For instance, categorizing all animals into the same 'class' is, to me, less an 'act of violence' and more a mere 'testament of man's power over animals'.

[bigdaddydylan]

I think that when he speaks of violence he references "harmful" treatment. It is harmful to use a category system when the differnces are so vast within the category. However, he is talking about two different things. His 'Man in relation to animal' discussion ought to be avoided because animals are too vastly different to be considered as one category. Although he also hints at this being an unsettled dispute for him.

[YoloMike]

Derrida's major philosophical project early in his career was simply to point out the lack of an ontological basis for some of Western philosophy's favorite structuring concepts. He never denied that these were useful; rather he simply demonstrated in incredible detail that their utility did not depend on their logical coherence or reasonableness. The obvious next step in the thought process--outside "philosophy proper"--is to ask: what are the actual effects of these structures?

[rumbleshorts]

germicide -- do you have the rest of this? I'd love to see it. This from one of the most brilliant minds of past century -- I wish people were smart enough to figure this out. "An Act of Violence." And it is.

[phmfthacim]

I don't think he's necessarily using this as a justification for anything though, as I sense you may be doing. On the contrary, it seems that he is questioning the notion that these discontinuous categorizations we find ourselves making are necessarily reflective of any truth, as we tend to suppose in our use of them. He eludes to that hypocrisy which is found in the misuse of such categories as justification for our various treatments of 'animals', who we tend to distinguish ourselves from.

[rumbleshorts]

I would appreciate it if you tell me what you "sense" I am using this as a justification for. You have a very developed sense of "sense."

[phmfthacim]

Well, I apologize if I'm wrong here. Derrida is not a vegetarian. He is not making an argument for 'animal rights', he is calling to attention a misuse of language which invites and turns a blind eye from the awful treatment of certain living creatures.

Now, I think we need to be careful in saying things like "see, look what Derrida said" because while I don't think you necessarily missed his point, his point wasn't that we shouldn't eat meat or kill 'animals'.

[quasimong]

saying 'this particular animal' is still classifying it as an animal?

[gierschlunt]

jadore quand il parle anglais. ca me fais beaucoup rire. il ne pronunce pas bien, mais il essaie toujours a nouveau!^^

[meshie3]

Derrida and Peter Singer should have hung out.