He is talking about a real expereince every one of us has. It isn't too good advertising for his work, but exactly because of this, I respect it much. It shows, that he is honets in his pursuit, and this is the most what we can expect from anyone. We can't excpect people to be absolutely right. Rather, we can count on them being wrong most of the time. A philosopher is just a human who knowing this, still dares to aim for thr truth.
@HubertTheBeardless I agree with you. I've thought about it a lot actually. I've had precisely the same feelings about what I stated as Derrida himself express about his statements here. The feelings of anxiety and regret. I like him, I want to apologize, I just have to study him more to be able also to understand and appreciate his philosophy.
The man is not very intelligent, but he shows that he has conscience. That counts, it speaks in his favour. It's a pathetic tragedy though that the helpless rubbish of his nearly all over the world has been acknowledged as great thinking.
Who is this joker? Look at his rhetoric. He is awake and working and analyzing what happens when he is awake and working. But why trust this Derrida and not the nearly sleeping Derrida? This is the Derrida who channels hidden and mysterious forces. He writes with the authority of a missionary. After the interview I am sure he placed his head on the pillow and thought - I need to get that video reel and destroy the interview... the fact that I admitted to inadmissible truths is inadmissible.
@jmburkow You obviously have absolutely no clue who Jacques Derrida is do you? He is a french philosopher who developed the critical theory known as deconstruction. It has become associated with the attempt to expose and undermine the oppositions and paradoxes on which particular contexts, philosophical and otherwise, are founded.
@jmburkow His strategy involved explicating the historical roots of philosophical ideas, questioning the "metaphysics of presence" that he sees as having dominated philosophy and attempting to undermine and subvert the paradoxes themselves.
"Quand j'ecris... quand j'ecris... y a une espece de ... de necessite... ou de... de... je sais pas comment dire... de force... plus forte que moi qui fait que ce que je dois ecrire je l'ecris.... n'importe... quelles que soient les consequences"
Elle est pas belle la French Theory, la French Flu, la philo made in Paris ?
The translation in the subtitles is close, but not quite right in spots. Very interesting video, on how we are more alive to the implications of what we write when we are asleep. When we write, it's full steam ahead, damn the torpedoes.
Thanks for the excerpt. D's citation of Freud and nakedness made me wonder if language itself has an unconscious for D (if so a nice resonance with Lacan's Symbolic and the Real). Does anyone know when exactly this interview was held? D suggests that L is deconstructive in his 1/23/2002 lecture reprinted in the Beast and the Sovereign.
When one is writing a phenomenological text, often times one needs to chose A or B. One can not chose both, or at lest A or B will come first. So, one must make a choice of how to describe A or B. Is there a true choice? When a person decides to walk. Does he start with the left leg or the right leg. Is this meaningless? But maybe there is a symbolic consequence. Everything has symbolic consenquence. And because our experience is stringed together with time, we must make choice when writing.
@Israe5l Wow I was feeling/thinking that very thing today when trying to write an outline. I had to choose A or B. It was a strong battle within myself that I actually very much enjoyed.
Derrida has an inflated sense of himself, (the way he feels when he writes is not unique), overly self-analytical, takes himself and his work way too seriously.
I think the subtitle at 1:28 is wrong and should be "That said, / However, / On the other hand," rather than "That is to say", because he says "Cela dit".
Derrida is overrated. Have any of you even read one of his works? Do you need your intellectual food handed to you through the easy-to-swallow medium of a youtube video before you'll pay attention? Have you even read ANYTHING other than anime fan-fiction?
I despise this new breed of faggy pseudo-intellectuals the internet is churning out - people who haven't read a book in their lives, yet fancy themselves philosophers. Go and namedrop Derrida to your hipster friends you failures.
@Intelectual95@Intelectual95, Oh is he? I didn't know that was the objective conclusion of mankind! You do realize that you are exactly what you described right? Why would you take the time to pontificate to the users who want to watch a video on an intellectual that had an interesting approach to language and literary criticism. Your intended desire collapses because you demonstrate historical western trends in language that I oppose such as homophobia and fascism. People are curious. "Is"?
@Intelectual95@Intelectual95, Oh is he? I didn't know that was the objective conclusion of mankind! You do realize that you are exactly what you described right? Why would you take the time to pontificate to the users who want to watch a video on an intellectual that had an interesting approach to language and literary criticism. Your intended desire collapses because you demonstrate historical western trends in language that I oppose such as homophobia and fascism. People are curious. "Is"?
@Intelectual95 I"ve read a good deal of Derrida's works. Why do you believe "Derrida (I'm assuming you are referring to his writing and not to "he") is overrated?" Could you be specific?
@Intelectual95 How can you even rate a philosopher? He's not like some kind of product or car on the market.... What are you going to say, Derrida is overrated because he is unclear. Ok, he lacks a little bit of clarity at times, but whereas most have the propensity to understand his work in english, the primary language of his work is in french! thats the reason!
@Intelectual95 I haven't seen a reasonable dialogue stemming from the comments you made on youtube. Therefore, I would consider you unreasonable, and viable to be excluded from further discussion on the matter of Derrida.
when we say something is overrated, we mean that other people like it and we don't.
to think reading is superior to listening to someone speak, to think you can't think on your own without reading a bunch of books, you are namedropping without saying the names my friend, and calling yourself "intelectual95", now that's faggy.
@brothamouzoune What, exactly, did Sokal's prank prove about Derrida? Sokal himself eventually admitted he couldn't criticize any of Derrida's work...
Truly a great thinker- in Derrida one gets the chance to see what a real philosopher looks like. Nothing contrived here, this is simply the way the man thought. I'm quite confident that Plato or Kierkegaard would have carried themselves in much the same way.
Let's put it this way: in processing information and especially authoritative information, an important and even crucial dimension is typically overlooked:
the underlying intention.
Why are Freud, Einstein, Derrida, Foucault etc so big in society? Becos what they say is true? Or becos what they say modifies society in certain desired directions?
Once their productions are assimilated into the social body, we are transformed by them and it becomes hard to assess the world without them.
I think if we're being totally honest about it, science has succeeded in producing clever machines but has miserably failed in understanding living processes.
Psychiatry can basically cure nothing and decretes that 99,9% of our mind is unknowable, a "dark pool of horrors".
Taking the consequences, and looking at the shape of society, it seems to me
no constructive or sane understanding of all the crucial issues has been developed at all.
The problem with this type of "philosopher" is that people get impressed by his supergrandiose verbiage and social stature while failing to realize he's not producing or even approaching an absolute reference frame. In fact he's moving away from it into total relativism not so say nihilism. Not the way to find anything worthwile...
@suddenlyitsobvious How else would we approach all systems with the fairness they deserve?Since Godel, we know that a single absolute system can't provide complete, correct answers for all our needs.Modern epistemology goes:objective mathematics and logic, then a sudden divide:intersubjectively falsifiable empiricism, gradually sloping away towards subjectivity in disciplines like medicine and law. Google "analogical reasoning".(link 1) It's impossible to construct a coherent ontology from this.
I don't think it's possible at all to construct a "system" explaining reality, and if it would be, we certainly wouldn't hear it from mainstream philosophers, since that would inform us.
Reality or life is more than a "system".
Derrida got nowhere, and even he knows it, but most of his fans don't.
Reason and intellect are only a part of the equation, and its metastasis in the last few hundred years has shown to be reductive of and antagonistic with life.
@suddenlyitsobvious Considering his purpose was to lead people who thought they had found solid ground back out into the wilderness of nowhere, I dare say he succeeded, overall.
Of course life is a system. Everything is. That's how "system" is defined a priori. I don't understand what you mean by "reason and intellect are only a part of the equation", but if you're talking about the end of western idealism, then I agree, although personally, I don't quite see it your way.
@suddenlyitsobvious Godel showed that a system including mathematics and first-order logic can't be inclusive and coherent at the same time. No doubt the same relation holds for the system embracing all existence, since it obviously includes maths and logic. Derrida wanted to show this to phenomenologists and other objectivists. The only way out is to find a way to describe mathematics using higher order logic. This may be doable, but we seem to have left this work up to future generations.
@suddenlyitsobvious No really, "Reason and intellect are only a part of the equation, and its metastasis in the last few hundred years has shown to be reductive of and antagonistic with life." sounds like postmodernist crap and is annoying the hell out of me, TBH. So vague, flawed, circular, irrational... Argh! :P
SOUNDS LIKE? Why does something always need to sound like something else to some people? Becos they can regurgigate authority's crap, but cannot think.
It seems you are a child of your time and perhaps my statement was simply too
evident 4 u. Picture a scientist in a lab in a white coat looking at a tortured mouse, and you'll catch my drift. It's the ultimate consequence of looking at life in terms of "systems" that we can process and analyze with our reason. It's psychotic.
yes, things must necessarily sound like something to someone else because that's how natural languages function. google "the package metaphor" with quotes and click the first link. also try "relevance theory".
and mind that wayward superiority complex in public :P
I was referring to the fact that my sentence, that is simply a phrasing of my own assessment, is immediately interpreted it as a reproduction of some full blown system designed by others like postmodernism.
It happens often. If I make some point about Darwin, many people go: Oh, you're a creationist etc.
I think it reflects on a reliance on "authoritative" others to make sense of things, rather than on a personal processing of what is simply an individual piece of info.
@suddenlyitsobvious dude, they allow, like, 500 characters per comment. how much unambiguous info do you think that can hold? i disagreed with u and your view sounded like postmodernism to me. i had to employ guesswork, true, but it definitely did. still does.
that's where relevance theory comes in. you aren't conveying pure information to me. rather, your words are inspiring thoughts in my head. in this short space, it's not easy to convey the meaning floating around in your own head.
The big picture as I see it is that society having drifted so far from "nature", man being so disconnected from the bigger whole, his biology, his mind etc, the effort to understand, quantify, categorize and explain "life" has become quite insane,
and Derrida perfectly exemplifies whereto it is going: as u said: to NOWHERE.
And yet in a feat of what -in my humble opinion- is disconnected thinking, you
chose to RATIONALIZE that voyage towards the void.
Just listen to this video: I, I, I, I, dozens of I, me, me. Egotistical, vain, shallow, lost, completely useless. He doesn't understand anything.
You actually state that he succeeded in his purpose of leading people into the
wilderness to nowhere?
What an easy position, rendering everything senseless. Doesn't this show we really agree: he has found nothing and is empty handed. So no reason to idolize him.
Using your logic, u might as well say it's great leading people to destruction
It seems to me that you are ignoring how what people think, how consciousness ultimately shapes society.
When people accept everything is meaningless and senseless, don't you think it affects society? Do you think the only implications pertain to the realm of "philosophy", of abstract thinking?
no really, search for "the package metaphor". relevance theory is an interesting topic.
there's no way you could be more critical than I am. i'm so skeptical, i'm a buddhist! i don't even believe in the existence of a reifiable monistic reality (or in nihilist unreality for that matter; both r extremes) but all existence is nevertheless a system if you define it as such.
what philosophical school are you coming from? or wouldn't that be individualistic enough for u? ;)
@suddenlyitsobvious you sure represent a bizarre combo. u vehemently oppose phenomenology and rationalistic systems, (quite emo over it too) but u despise derrida as well! lol
i just hope you haven't decided to embrace irrationality in all its glory. you know, just to be unique. our mental health facilities are overflowing as it is....
I interpret Derrida's thing as being awake when he's awake and half asleep when he's half asleep. Why? Because his fear comes from subconscious fear of authority instilled by academia. This subconscious fear is more fully accessed in half sleep.
academia and it's hierarchical, coercive, intimidating, fascistic nature is the problem that is taboo to criticize because we are supposed to believe that we need it for education.
David Whyte the poet describes this more clearly as one of the really striking things that every artist goes through, the prospect of their own imminent demise, 'writers block' – you actually feel as if you’re going to die, you're giving yourself over to a much larger pattern, your personality will not survive the next line you might write and your going to die, and in a way the intuition is correct, because you won't recognize the person who emerges over the horizon
He is half a Buddha, he gained access to enlightenment when he was writing, but he is after all a lay person so he got the bad dream due to his internalized consciousness. I guess
I'm not much of a story writer but do enjoy to read. I had an idea to write a story but couldn't finish it, so I started a webstie called STORYJOIN It allows you to create stories with other members. You start a story and others finish it for you, it's fun to see how the story ends.
1.28 : he says "cela dit", and not "c'est-à-dire" as it is translated (that is to say), which almost means the contrary. Derrida says : I'm not afraid when I'm writing but I'm afraid when I dream about what I wrote.
I love this disclosure. Reminds me of my attempts when painting. The sort of fear of what i've done, when I awake.
I recently found myself telling myself not that what I was doing was necessary or serious nor that it was True, but that the against the authority the Righteousness is somehow an obvious opposite from my dreamless state, like our biological recapitulation, coming out of a dream is like moving beyond my lizard brain into the forebrain of awakened thought. Un-recession in vital.
Seems like everyone who disagrees with Derrida in the comments is getting ranked down. This is sad.
Listen. The comment ranking system is not to indicate whether or not you agree with a comment. That's just silly. The ranks are to determine the QUALITY of the comment. Thoughtless babble you agree with should be ranked lower than intelligent, provocative, well-written comments you disagree with completely.
@bryngOneOn You've summed up the anguish I'm going through right now. I'm trying to write an exposition on his deconstruction of Plato's 'Khora' I'm simply unable to articulate the thoughts that i know make sense.
@bryngOneOn I'm not sure what he means by "gesture" either but I think it has something to do not with what his writing is "saying" perse but what it is "doing" (as a gesture) deconstructively within philosophy- like when he writes in a way that is outside the straight polemical manner in which most philosophers write... instead of proving or disproving what a writer has written, he uncovers what the writer may not realize he has said (or what he has had to hide in order to say what he said)
@margheritazevecke im just replyin to ur comment, at this time i havnt time to get my head aroundwhat the guy is saying and i cant remember from b4. but at some point i will listen carefully again, but next time and i hope u dont mind ,i will be asking YOU specific questions regarding, as from ur words it looks like u get it. or if u feel inclined could u explain it or point me in the right direction, thx. If u cant b arsed thats fine too.
@bryngOneOn feel almost exactly the same. When that moment comes, I also fear that I will not be able to put my words in the best or even proper order to express this idea (sometimes, I even question my ability to put this idea in the right order with the right words, without the presence of this fear).
IMO, his philosophy, deconstruction, is just a regurgitation of Platonic Metaphysical Duality, in that something is nothing and that nothing is something. i.e. something=materialism and nothing=idealism. He just took it a little further by taking more elaborate materials that exist because of our current age, and break them back into a more primordial state.
And Adorno was alright. He saw the future, not saying that other people didn't see it, but he put it into an easy way to understand.
I do not think he meant nothing in the sense of emptiness, but rather of collective devaluation of meaning or simply an encouragement towards subjectivation (sic). I believe however that it is more complex then that, since subjectivity is rather a melange of collectively taught instrumentalised objectivity and erratic (yes schizophrenic) subjectivity. The point where Marx and Nietzche meet say. I share your love for Adorno btw.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I think derrida's night guilt is not about "trascending" into new territory or "destabilizing" stablished traditions. I think his guilt was about HOW CAN YOU WRITE SO MUCH BULLSHIT for a lifetime, and pretend to convince others that you have even a slightest idea of what you are saying. HOW CAN YOU BE SO DISHONEST and pretend to believe you have given any original thought
@carlpope If guilt were guilt, then there would not be a need to specify or differentiate between one kind and another kind of "guilt". Removing this particularity, one would be left with just "the unconscious guilt of Derrida";so, I wonder what guilt would be in that sense, for if there is an unconscious guilt, there must be a conscious one as well (differentiation); also, I wonder if "guilt" is even some "thing" that could ever be attached to some "one" as a subjection object (ownership).
You can talk about guilt all day along and write tomes about it but will fail because of the limits of language. And who are you to correct me since you don't know what kind of guilt he experienced. For the sake of this youtube chat, I will call it "Judeo-Christian" guilt or Western or White male guiilt... How about that?
In my years as a rhetoric major, i learned that with Derrida u either love him or you hate him- he's difficult.. everyone called us the branch Derrideans at my uni lol... I love his work!
Im not fan of po' mo' philosophy, but i think its stretching it abit far to say 'reading' science/philosophy as literature is a mistake. Wherein lies the mistake? What prevents this 'other' point of view from being valid?
estoy hablando de mi gusto, desde mi gusto, si a ti te gustan los filósofos que para decir algo "profundo" tienen que poner mirada en el vacío y cara de idiotas, pues bueno, es tu gusto, no voy tampoco a convencerte de lo contrario, igual el que comete el prejuicio es Derrida, tomando esa actitud, como si así tuvieran que ser los filósofos, como si esa fuera la imagen del filosofo, está imitando a Heidegger en los gestos y en lo que dice, por si no te das cuenta.
Ah, que bueno que lo aclaras. Porque de lo contrario parecería casi una máxima: "un filósofo que no sabe reír no merece ser leído". Ahora que sé que es una opinión más y nada más, entonces dejemos el problemita del lado. No me había dado cuenta, sorprendentemente, de que imita a Heidegger; siendo éste un filósofo importantísimo en mi vida. Me sorprende que digas que además lo imita en lo que dice... como sea. Saludos pensante ;)
Derrida had one single moment of real genius in his life: his reading of Husserl, which lead him to a new metaphysical concept of presence. All his subsequent work, increasingly baroque and derivative, stems from there. Don't get me wrong. He is very important, but he doesn't carry his era on his shoulders, like Heidegger or Wittgenstein did. When I hear him talking, I never have the impression of being before a truly great spirit. Maybe his lack of sense of humour has something to do with it.
I think is obvious that for men that don't understand what is philosophical exercise Derrida appears obscure. From ist birth philosophy is against common sense. Thinking with common sense is thinking against philosophy.
If you don't know that contemporaneous philosophy thematizes alafabetic writing, you don't know contemporaneous philosophy. If you think that in a real philosophy the problem of politics or ethics can be separated from the problem of logic, you don't know what philosophy means
(1) i don't think philosophy is always against common sense even though sometimes philosophical precision may require one to depart from common sense, but that hardly is a motivation for philosophizing. also, philosophizing is not the same as concatenating philosophic jargons.(2) contemporary philosophy "thematizes" alphabetic writing. whether true or not, thats irrelavant to your claim about truth (3) "real philosophy" whats that? one theory which do well in one domain may not do so in another.
2 the law of non-contradiction isn't the law of the truth. The contraddiction is the law of the trouth. The formal logic is a important limitated instrument, but it isn't the only strument and certainly isn't the most important instrument in philosophy.
what is law of the trouth? logic has been the most successful branch of philosophy for the past 100 years, and it is also one that has been radically advanced.
in an environment in which the clarity of argument is requisite, Hegel's writing isn't a premier example to be repsected. it's rather something one must avoid at all costs. so he is hardly popular amongst any serious philosophers of mind, of language, of logic. on the other hand, he is still quite popular among political philosophers or among those who work in normative ethics. so it's a mistake to think that all philosophers in the english speaking world are indifferent to him.
1 the first language of philosophy il ancient Greek. If you read Plato in Greek you will see that he creates a new language with ancient words changing meaning. His language is very hard.
Logic has to be explanaited with the life, and not the life with the logic. This is Nietzsche. And is paradigmatic that philosophy, after Hegel, can have only three results: Marx (hegelism in the materiality) Nietzsche, Husserl (phenomenology as the gaze about the how and not about the why). You have to read the philosophers, a manual or a teacher can't give you a philosophy: philosophy wants untiring readers. Philosphy is not an opinion or a theory, philosophy is a "posture".
i respect Hegel. but i think his time is over. its time for common sense philosophy now. the names you mentioned are all great luminaries, but their ideas have to be refined. in saying that historicity is trivial, i mean no disrespect against your hero. i respect your opinion, but i think the early wittgenstein, frege, russell, carnap, quine, armstrong, lewis, and kripke are better philosophers than the old timers you mentioned.
Wittgestein is a great philosopher (and He could not be in accord with you). But your theacher says a thing that I can't share. Logic after Hegel isn't the same. Luckily, My master (Carlo Sini) is one of the most important philosopher living today. You speak about logic, but you don't think that logic is an effect of alfabetic writing. Logic is not the truth, but an effect of the sense of the truth. And truth is not adequatio intellectus et rei.
See what I'm talking about? What you say might be true. But you have to use logic to be easily understood even by ordinary people who don't understand Latin or any obscure language that you know. Logic might be just an accident of history, but that fact does not make logic useless. A given system of logic becomes useless (like Hegel's) by inventing a better one (like modern mathematical logic which is pioneered by Frege, Russell, and Whitehead).
I think that my language isn't "obscure language": only the language of philosophy, as mathematics and geology have his history and his language. The language of philosophy includes words in ancient Greek, Latin and German. Anyway, I afford to suggest you a book translated in english: "Ethics of Writing" by Carlo Sini.
I suggest you read a couple of better books: (1) Reasons and Persons by Derek Parfit from Oxford University and New York University, (2) Naming and Necessity by Saul Kripke of Princeton University and the City University of New York.
let us allow there is such a thing as "language of philosophy" comparable to language of mathematics and that of physics. and to regard your favorite latin expression "adequatio intellectus et rei" to be included in the "language of philosophy". to be sure, the obscurity doesn't lie in the employment of that latin expression (every philosophy student knows what that means), but what you do with it. it lies in what you say in using that expression.
no philosopher has ever said that logic is an effect of alphabetic writing. (i don't know what "an effect of alphabetic writing" means in the first place) logic can be expressed in many different languages either artificial or natural. the truth of logical laws such as law of non-contradiction and law of the excluded middle isn't dependent on a particular language.
name some contemporary logicians who are influenced by Hegel's logic. I am pretty sure his influence on contemporary logic is little to none. many logicians acknowledge the fact that Frege completely changes the scenary of logic, but Hegel? which logic ? an effect of the sense of the truth? what does that mean?
3 All great philosophers read and studied Wissenschaft der Logik with respect. If you aren't be able to do it, it isn't a reason to mock Wissenschaft withouth knowing it. "It is the apex of the history of metaphysics. After it, philosophy can't think in the same way".
so you can't name any logicians. thank you, thats the sole thing i wanted to ask you about. i remind you that the common trend of contemporary philosophy at least from the dawn of analytic philosophy to the present is to avoid lapsing into absolute idealism of the hegelian stripe which enjoyed notorious popularity in britain at the end of 19th century. i'm also pretty sure that your favorite Wittgenstein hasn't read Hegel, so he isn't one of those great philosophers from your definition.
Yes, W. didn't read Hegel. And he didn't read Aristotele. Happen that a great philosopher thinks great thoughts being in a fruitful ignorance. But us common mortals need to read the great philosophers. Tinking logic and metaphysics separate is the mistake of the history of metaphysics. Aristotele thinks logic and metaphysics still as the two sides of same medal. The gesture of Hegel has the target to reunite that be separated with error.
Because in the truth form and substance are united with indissolubility. So, this union culminates in the disjunctive syllogism. Here the western "logos" culminates. In fact, formal logic is a abstraction from the Greek "logos", that is the reason of the being: the law of the world. Hegel says that formal logic is a great operation, but it has to be emended in its separation from the substance
He is talking about a real expereince every one of us has. It isn't too good advertising for his work, but exactly because of this, I respect it much. It shows, that he is honets in his pursuit, and this is the most what we can expect from anyone. We can't excpect people to be absolutely right. Rather, we can count on them being wrong most of the time. A philosopher is just a human who knowing this, still dares to aim for thr truth.
HubertTheBeardless 6 days ago
@HubertTheBeardless I agree with you. I've thought about it a lot actually. I've had precisely the same feelings about what I stated as Derrida himself express about his statements here. The feelings of anxiety and regret. I like him, I want to apologize, I just have to study him more to be able also to understand and appreciate his philosophy.
mourningization 6 days ago
The man is not very intelligent, but he shows that he has conscience. That counts, it speaks in his favour. It's a pathetic tragedy though that the helpless rubbish of his nearly all over the world has been acknowledged as great thinking.
mourningization 2 weeks ago
@mourningization
I think you are too harsh on him.
HubertTheBeardless 6 days ago
i hate academic blokes so much...
martimtavares 1 month ago
Holy shit this is exactly how i felt writing my term paper
imthemac420 3 months ago
@imthemac420 -lolz.."advancing into new territory"...me too...wonder how the examiner feels!!!
combatobacco 1 month ago in playlist ADM MEN
Typical "french" social thinker : saying much that ends up saying nothing at all. The kind of guy described in the book "intellectual impostures".
fdesouchecom 3 months ago
@fdesouchecom typical "youtube" comment
peemuss 3 months ago
@peemuss You seem to have a lot of experience recognizing it, are you a pioneer in that field?
fdesouchecom 3 months ago
@fdesouchecom yes
peemuss 1 month ago
So he is deconstructing himself while he is asleep.. how original, though i wonder what his views are on conscience and guilt.
rodneydiola 4 months ago
So he is deconstructing himself while he is asleep.. how original, though i wonder what his views are on conscience and guilt.
rodneydiola 4 months ago
Revelations can't be trusted and fame is a disaster to anyone who tries to Think.
fosterch 5 months ago
Who is this joker? Look at his rhetoric. He is awake and working and analyzing what happens when he is awake and working. But why trust this Derrida and not the nearly sleeping Derrida? This is the Derrida who channels hidden and mysterious forces. He writes with the authority of a missionary. After the interview I am sure he placed his head on the pillow and thought - I need to get that video reel and destroy the interview... the fact that I admitted to inadmissible truths is inadmissible.
jmburkow 6 months ago
@jmburkow You obviously have absolutely no clue who Jacques Derrida is do you? He is a french philosopher who developed the critical theory known as deconstruction. It has become associated with the attempt to expose and undermine the oppositions and paradoxes on which particular contexts, philosophical and otherwise, are founded.
rot10peaches 5 months ago
@jmburkow His strategy involved explicating the historical roots of philosophical ideas, questioning the "metaphysics of presence" that he sees as having dominated philosophy and attempting to undermine and subvert the paradoxes themselves.
rot10peaches 5 months ago
Crttfggg
gj7l1O0ij49gq1l00O0l 6 months ago
"When I have a NAP or some-thinge"
makerofjam 7 months ago 2
"Quand j'ecris... quand j'ecris... y a une espece de ... de necessite... ou de... de... je sais pas comment dire... de force... plus forte que moi qui fait que ce que je dois ecrire je l'ecris.... n'importe... quelles que soient les consequences"
Elle est pas belle la French Theory, la French Flu, la philo made in Paris ?
YunaBonbeurre 7 months ago
Jacques !
Pourquoi as-tu ecrit ?!
YunaBonbeurre 7 months ago
The translation in the subtitles is close, but not quite right in spots. Very interesting video, on how we are more alive to the implications of what we write when we are asleep. When we write, it's full steam ahead, damn the torpedoes.
digiwonk 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MDubBeezy When you make the decision of A or B you are spliting the parallel universe. So how did the outline work anyways?
Israe5l 10 months ago
Thanks for the excerpt. D's citation of Freud and nakedness made me wonder if language itself has an unconscious for D (if so a nice resonance with Lacan's Symbolic and the Real). Does anyone know when exactly this interview was held? D suggests that L is deconstructive in his 1/23/2002 lecture reprinted in the Beast and the Sovereign.
ARogueScholar 11 months ago
When one is writing a phenomenological text, often times one needs to chose A or B. One can not chose both, or at lest A or B will come first. So, one must make a choice of how to describe A or B. Is there a true choice? When a person decides to walk. Does he start with the left leg or the right leg. Is this meaningless? But maybe there is a symbolic consequence. Everything has symbolic consenquence. And because our experience is stringed together with time, we must make choice when writing.
Israe5l 11 months ago
@Israe5l Wow I was feeling/thinking that very thing today when trying to write an outline. I had to choose A or B. It was a strong battle within myself that I actually very much enjoyed.
MDubBeezy 10 months ago
Derrida has an inflated sense of himself, (the way he feels when he writes is not unique), overly self-analytical, takes himself and his work way too seriously.
8bobthebuilder 11 months ago
@8bobthebuilder Hi, why do you say that? I mean he is confessing his fears, is not a humble thing?
Paseosinperro 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When you feel chat with bbw come on anytime naneedj.info
sonika763 1 year ago
I think the subtitle at 1:28 is wrong and should be "That said, / However, / On the other hand," rather than "That is to say", because he says "Cela dit".
maxlees23 1 year ago
Derrida is overrated. Have any of you even read one of his works? Do you need your intellectual food handed to you through the easy-to-swallow medium of a youtube video before you'll pay attention? Have you even read ANYTHING other than anime fan-fiction?
I despise this new breed of faggy pseudo-intellectuals the internet is churning out - people who haven't read a book in their lives, yet fancy themselves philosophers. Go and namedrop Derrida to your hipster friends you failures.
Intelectual95 1 year ago
@Intelectual95 @Intelectual95, Oh is he? I didn't know that was the objective conclusion of mankind! You do realize that you are exactly what you described right? Why would you take the time to pontificate to the users who want to watch a video on an intellectual that had an interesting approach to language and literary criticism. Your intended desire collapses because you demonstrate historical western trends in language that I oppose such as homophobia and fascism. People are curious. "Is"?
Androidwebber 1 year ago
@Intelectual95 @Intelectual95, Oh is he? I didn't know that was the objective conclusion of mankind! You do realize that you are exactly what you described right? Why would you take the time to pontificate to the users who want to watch a video on an intellectual that had an interesting approach to language and literary criticism. Your intended desire collapses because you demonstrate historical western trends in language that I oppose such as homophobia and fascism. People are curious. "Is"?
Androidwebber 1 year ago
@Intelectual95 lol @ you saddling up on the high horse to judge everyone that chose, as you did, to watch this video. relax buddy. youre not special
SmashedUpFetus 1 year ago
@Intelectual95 I"ve read a good deal of Derrida's works. Why do you believe "Derrida (I'm assuming you are referring to his writing and not to "he") is overrated?" Could you be specific?
biblioagogo 1 year ago
@Intelectual95 = my education is the only legitimate education
uprooting 1 year ago
@Intelectual95 How can you even rate a philosopher? He's not like some kind of product or car on the market.... What are you going to say, Derrida is overrated because he is unclear. Ok, he lacks a little bit of clarity at times, but whereas most have the propensity to understand his work in english, the primary language of his work is in french! thats the reason!
coolkat144 11 months ago
@Intelectual95 I haven't seen a reasonable dialogue stemming from the comments you made on youtube. Therefore, I would consider you unreasonable, and viable to be excluded from further discussion on the matter of Derrida.
coolkat144 11 months ago 2
@Intelectual95
when we say something is overrated, we mean that other people like it and we don't.
to think reading is superior to listening to someone speak, to think you can't think on your own without reading a bunch of books, you are namedropping without saying the names my friend, and calling yourself "intelectual95", now that's faggy.
sleeperkickers 11 months ago
Don't lose time with this clown and the other dudes from the French Theory.
YunaBonbeurre 1 year ago
google "the sokal affair" and be enlightened.
brothamouzoune 1 year ago
@brothamouzoune buahahahahahahahah
opalescentdarkness 1 year ago
@opalescentdarkness it's true mais non?
brothamouzoune 1 year ago
@brothamouzoune What, exactly, did Sokal's prank prove about Derrida? Sokal himself eventually admitted he couldn't criticize any of Derrida's work...
BrianArtese 1 year ago
this guy is so confused that it is funny and he should learn English
kaligrs 1 year ago
@kaligrs English is too confusing; it would only confuse the Other.
zeppozerus 1 year ago
Absurd self-regarding twaddle.
zizek 1 year ago
sa culpabilite lui parle...c'est Socrate revisite ...!
douglasmacjames 1 year ago
Very deep feeling from a very experienced man.
christinawittelsbach 1 year ago
Derrida was on point, its surprising that he's very rarely brought up.
mach1man22 1 year ago
Truly a great thinker- in Derrida one gets the chance to see what a real philosopher looks like. Nothing contrived here, this is simply the way the man thought. I'm quite confident that Plato or Kierkegaard would have carried themselves in much the same way.
mathmatictruth 1 year ago
swag chef
TehHipstz0r 1 year ago
Let's put it this way: in processing information and especially authoritative information, an important and even crucial dimension is typically overlooked:
the underlying intention.
Why are Freud, Einstein, Derrida, Foucault etc so big in society? Becos what they say is true? Or becos what they say modifies society in certain desired directions?
Once their productions are assimilated into the social body, we are transformed by them and it becomes hard to assess the world without them.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
I think if we're being totally honest about it, science has succeeded in producing clever machines but has miserably failed in understanding living processes.
Psychiatry can basically cure nothing and decretes that 99,9% of our mind is unknowable, a "dark pool of horrors".
Taking the consequences, and looking at the shape of society, it seems to me
no constructive or sane understanding of all the crucial issues has been developed at all.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
I don't come from some philosophical school because I didn't find one that isn't completely confused in the observer observed predicament.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
The problem with this type of "philosopher" is that people get impressed by his supergrandiose verbiage and social stature while failing to realize he's not producing or even approaching an absolute reference frame. In fact he's moving away from it into total relativism not so say nihilism. Not the way to find anything worthwile...
The emperor's new clothes.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious How else would we approach all systems with the fairness they deserve?Since Godel, we know that a single absolute system can't provide complete, correct answers for all our needs.Modern epistemology goes:objective mathematics and logic, then a sudden divide:intersubjectively falsifiable empiricism, gradually sloping away towards subjectivity in disciplines like medicine and law. Google "analogical reasoning".(link 1) It's impossible to construct a coherent ontology from this.
nactan 1 year ago
@nactan
I don't think it's possible at all to construct a "system" explaining reality, and if it would be, we certainly wouldn't hear it from mainstream philosophers, since that would inform us.
Reality or life is more than a "system".
Derrida got nowhere, and even he knows it, but most of his fans don't.
Reason and intellect are only a part of the equation, and its metastasis in the last few hundred years has shown to be reductive of and antagonistic with life.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious Considering his purpose was to lead people who thought they had found solid ground back out into the wilderness of nowhere, I dare say he succeeded, overall.
Of course life is a system. Everything is. That's how "system" is defined a priori. I don't understand what you mean by "reason and intellect are only a part of the equation", but if you're talking about the end of western idealism, then I agree, although personally, I don't quite see it your way.
nactan 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious Godel showed that a system including mathematics and first-order logic can't be inclusive and coherent at the same time. No doubt the same relation holds for the system embracing all existence, since it obviously includes maths and logic. Derrida wanted to show this to phenomenologists and other objectivists. The only way out is to find a way to describe mathematics using higher order logic. This may be doable, but we seem to have left this work up to future generations.
nactan 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious No really, "Reason and intellect are only a part of the equation, and its metastasis in the last few hundred years has shown to be reductive of and antagonistic with life." sounds like postmodernist crap and is annoying the hell out of me, TBH. So vague, flawed, circular, irrational... Argh! :P
nactan 1 year ago
@nactan
SOUNDS LIKE? Why does something always need to sound like something else to some people? Becos they can regurgigate authority's crap, but cannot think.
It seems you are a child of your time and perhaps my statement was simply too
evident 4 u. Picture a scientist in a lab in a white coat looking at a tortured mouse, and you'll catch my drift. It's the ultimate consequence of looking at life in terms of "systems" that we can process and analyze with our reason. It's psychotic.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious lolwut?
you don't seem too clear on how definitions work
yes, things must necessarily sound like something to someone else because that's how natural languages function. google "the package metaphor" with quotes and click the first link. also try "relevance theory".
and mind that wayward superiority complex in public :P
nactan 1 year ago
@nactan
I was referring to the fact that my sentence, that is simply a phrasing of my own assessment, is immediately interpreted it as a reproduction of some full blown system designed by others like postmodernism.
It happens often. If I make some point about Darwin, many people go: Oh, you're a creationist etc.
I think it reflects on a reliance on "authoritative" others to make sense of things, rather than on a personal processing of what is simply an individual piece of info.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious dude, they allow, like, 500 characters per comment. how much unambiguous info do you think that can hold? i disagreed with u and your view sounded like postmodernism to me. i had to employ guesswork, true, but it definitely did. still does.
that's where relevance theory comes in. you aren't conveying pure information to me. rather, your words are inspiring thoughts in my head. in this short space, it's not easy to convey the meaning floating around in your own head.
nactan 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious don't forget that you are constantly orienting my words within your mental context and i'm doing the same with yours.
misunderstanding is going to occur. the challenge is to deal with it.
nactan 1 year ago
@nactan
In other words, I see productions such as Derrida's as operative forces with shaping power, not merely as some exercise of "rational thought".
And I think the shaping power is destructive, which explains my vigorous position.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@nactan
The big picture as I see it is that society having drifted so far from "nature", man being so disconnected from the bigger whole, his biology, his mind etc, the effort to understand, quantify, categorize and explain "life" has become quite insane,
and Derrida perfectly exemplifies whereto it is going: as u said: to NOWHERE.
And yet in a feat of what -in my humble opinion- is disconnected thinking, you
chose to RATIONALIZE that voyage towards the void.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@nactan
But I guess my phrasing was a bit harsh, no harm intended...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious Is there anything wrong with being reductive of the whole as long as we're aware of it?
nactan 1 year ago
@nactan
Just listen to this video: I, I, I, I, dozens of I, me, me. Egotistical, vain, shallow, lost, completely useless. He doesn't understand anything.
You actually state that he succeeded in his purpose of leading people into the
wilderness to nowhere?
What an easy position, rendering everything senseless. Doesn't this show we really agree: he has found nothing and is empty handed. So no reason to idolize him.
Using your logic, u might as well say it's great leading people to destruction
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@nactan
It seems to me that you are ignoring how what people think, how consciousness ultimately shapes society.
When people accept everything is meaningless and senseless, don't you think it affects society? Do you think the only implications pertain to the realm of "philosophy", of abstract thinking?
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@nactan
What's so amazing about Derrida is people now get rewarded with fame and laurels for deconstructing, destroying.
Of course, one can make an entire system out of "deconstruction", an entire philosophy or why not a religion.
But you know, there's really no need for all this high praise. Mere decadence suffices to destroy a civilization.
He is collateralizing a nihilistic, morally bankrupt traumatic psychology onto society and it only worked cos he got all the cooperation.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious haha
no really, search for "the package metaphor". relevance theory is an interesting topic.
there's no way you could be more critical than I am. i'm so skeptical, i'm a buddhist! i don't even believe in the existence of a reifiable monistic reality (or in nihilist unreality for that matter; both r extremes) but all existence is nevertheless a system if you define it as such.
what philosophical school are you coming from? or wouldn't that be individualistic enough for u? ;)
nactan 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious you sure represent a bizarre combo. u vehemently oppose phenomenology and rationalistic systems, (quite emo over it too) but u despise derrida as well! lol
i just hope you haven't decided to embrace irrationality in all its glory. you know, just to be unique. our mental health facilities are overflowing as it is....
j/k
don't take me too srsly :)
you can yo momma me back if u liek
nactan 1 year ago
I interpret Derrida's thing as being awake when he's awake and half asleep when he's half asleep. Why? Because his fear comes from subconscious fear of authority instilled by academia. This subconscious fear is more fully accessed in half sleep.
academia and it's hierarchical, coercive, intimidating, fascistic nature is the problem that is taboo to criticize because we are supposed to believe that we need it for education.
He even said "why criticize this authority?"
natmanprime 1 year ago
Derrida has great hair in this video clip
theUnlimited1 1 year ago
David Whyte the poet describes this more clearly as one of the really striking things that every artist goes through, the prospect of their own imminent demise, 'writers block' – you actually feel as if you’re going to die, you're giving yourself over to a much larger pattern, your personality will not survive the next line you might write and your going to die, and in a way the intuition is correct, because you won't recognize the person who emerges over the horizon
LovableChicken 1 year ago
You said it, Jacques : "tu es fou" [you're crazy]
But here comes Foucault : "WHAT'S CRAZYNESS ?"
- Hey, Michel, here is a nice fist in your nice nose !
- You just punched me !
- That's your opinion
YunaBonbeurre 1 year ago
Funnier than Benny Hill, can you believe it ?
YunaBonbeurre 1 year ago
the panic in the subconscious ... oh my
alndix 1 year ago
I wish the fear really scared you, poor boy...
YunaBonbeurre 1 year ago
His wife was jewish...
carlpope 1 year ago
Thx for the contribution
dr john
bangkok
Kingdom of Thailand
carsanookdotcom 1 year ago
i wonder if derrida has ever, EVER, laughed
louiecostello 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@louiecostello
"i wonder if derrida has ever, EVER, laughed "
I hope not. Life is no laughing matter.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
Thanks for posting this. I haven't seen Derrida talk about himself so personally before.
ThisSentenceIsFalse 1 year ago
he'es so hiariously narcicistic- I love it!!!
Algonkianist 1 year ago
He is half a Buddha, he gained access to enlightenment when he was writing, but he is after all a lay person so he got the bad dream due to his internalized consciousness. I guess
jill198751 1 year ago
Comment removed
jill198751 1 year ago
Comment removed
jill198751 1 year ago
Exactly my problem!!!
Marat9043 1 year ago
I'm not much of a story writer but do enjoy to read. I had an idea to write a story but couldn't finish it, so I started a webstie called STORYJOIN It allows you to create stories with other members. You start a story and others finish it for you, it's fun to see how the story ends.
storyjoin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1.28 : he says "cela dit", and not "c'est-à-dire" as it is translated (that is to say), which almost means the contrary. Derrida says : I'm not afraid when I'm writing but I'm afraid when I dream about what I wrote.
pierregirard13 1 year ago
Comment removed
pierregirard13 1 year ago
I love this disclosure. Reminds me of my attempts when painting. The sort of fear of what i've done, when I awake.
I recently found myself telling myself not that what I was doing was necessary or serious nor that it was True, but that the against the authority the Righteousness is somehow an obvious opposite from my dreamless state, like our biological recapitulation, coming out of a dream is like moving beyond my lizard brain into the forebrain of awakened thought. Un-recession in vital.
dospook 1 year ago
Seems like everyone who disagrees with Derrida in the comments is getting ranked down. This is sad.
Listen. The comment ranking system is not to indicate whether or not you agree with a comment. That's just silly. The ranks are to determine the QUALITY of the comment. Thoughtless babble you agree with should be ranked lower than intelligent, provocative, well-written comments you disagree with completely.
JMAdvocatusD 2 years ago
I would say that he's reacting, someone else can respond again.
maartjefolkeringa 2 years ago
I have no problem with people using the comments to agree or disagree, even if they never develop a thought beyond that.
What I was referring to is the thumbing up and down of posts. Thumbing posts based on agreement and disagreement is a waste.
JMAdvocatusD 2 years ago
@JMAdvocatusD
I agree, though we'll never know why a comment was thumbed.
soccom8341576 1 year ago
Comment removed
bryngOneOn 2 years ago 17
@bryngOneOn You've summed up the anguish I'm going through right now. I'm trying to write an exposition on his deconstruction of Plato's 'Khora' I'm simply unable to articulate the thoughts that i know make sense.
jesal21 1 year ago
@bryngOneOn I'm not sure what he means by "gesture" either but I think it has something to do not with what his writing is "saying" perse but what it is "doing" (as a gesture) deconstructively within philosophy- like when he writes in a way that is outside the straight polemical manner in which most philosophers write... instead of proving or disproving what a writer has written, he uncovers what the writer may not realize he has said (or what he has had to hide in order to say what he said)
obscenegrace2003 1 year ago
@bryngOneOn For Derrida, You must read between the lines to understand his gestures.
margheritazevecke 1 year ago
@margheritazevecke im just replyin to ur comment, at this time i havnt time to get my head aroundwhat the guy is saying and i cant remember from b4. but at some point i will listen carefully again, but next time and i hope u dont mind ,i will be asking YOU specific questions regarding, as from ur words it looks like u get it. or if u feel inclined could u explain it or point me in the right direction, thx. If u cant b arsed thats fine too.
bryngOneOn 1 year ago
@bryngOneOn feel almost exactly the same. When that moment comes, I also fear that I will not be able to put my words in the best or even proper order to express this idea (sometimes, I even question my ability to put this idea in the right order with the right words, without the presence of this fear).
MirandaMable 1 year ago
@bryngOneOn If 'u' write in this way all the time then 'u' perhaps have much to fear from writing.
raybradburywriter 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jacques Derrida and Pomo is for fucking fags. Do some real research and be a real man
dingbatcharlie1 2 years ago
Comment removed
VoiceintheNight 2 years ago
po'mo' says 'there is no absolute truth", and we can answer them by "shall i believe you". :))
kamote22 2 years ago
IMO, his philosophy, deconstruction, is just a regurgitation of Platonic Metaphysical Duality, in that something is nothing and that nothing is something. i.e. something=materialism and nothing=idealism. He just took it a little further by taking more elaborate materials that exist because of our current age, and break them back into a more primordial state.
And Adorno was alright. He saw the future, not saying that other people didn't see it, but he put it into an easy way to understand.
Aoishi2AL 2 years ago
I do not think he meant nothing in the sense of emptiness, but rather of collective devaluation of meaning or simply an encouragement towards subjectivation (sic). I believe however that it is more complex then that, since subjectivity is rather a melange of collectively taught instrumentalised objectivity and erratic (yes schizophrenic) subjectivity. The point where Marx and Nietzche meet say. I share your love for Adorno btw.
Marenqo 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I think derrida's night guilt is not about "trascending" into new territory or "destabilizing" stablished traditions. I think his guilt was about HOW CAN YOU WRITE SO MUCH BULLSHIT for a lifetime, and pretend to convince others that you have even a slightest idea of what you are saying. HOW CAN YOU BE SO DISHONEST and pretend to believe you have given any original thought
sirdelrio 2 years ago
Derrida found that no one could understand anything he said so he thought that this held true for everything that EVERYONE said.
soursourapples 2 years ago
Why does he break into English at 1:47?
Lovetricity 2 years ago
This half-sleep fear can only be overcome by the power which is called "entschlossenheit" by Heidegger.
Hitler surely had the same nightmares... Stalin was unable to sleep at night, as Solzhenitsyn wrote it in "The First Circle"...
The thinker alike is a kind of criminal, yes, it is true...
urbankheki 2 years ago
'Every work of art is an uncommitted crime.' - Adorno.
JohnMoseley 2 years ago
adorno is a dick head
soursourapples 2 years ago
He speaks very fondly of you.
JohnMoseley 2 years ago
he better do
soursourapples 2 years ago
No, yeah, he does. But he reckons your mum's a slag.
JohnMoseley 2 years ago
He shouldn't diss his Grandma
soursourapples 2 years ago
LOL... the unconscious Catholic guilt of Derrida!
carlpope 2 years ago 10
Jewish guilt, surely?
JohnMoseley 2 years ago
@carlpope He was Jewish?
cvvemuri 1 year ago
@cvvemuri No... His wife was Jewish
carlpope 1 year ago
@cvvemuri
Go read, he was born in Algeria to Sephardic Jews.
cvvemuri 1 year ago
@cvvemuri yes- a jew who grew up in French colonial Algeria
obscenegrace2003 1 year ago
@carlpope Catholic? He was Sephardi.
zeppozerus 1 year ago
@zeppozerus
Opps... I was thinking of Lacan.
carlpope 1 year ago
@zeppozerus Catholic guilt... Jewish guilt... guilt is guilt.
carlpope 1 year ago
@carlpope If guilt were guilt, then there would not be a need to specify or differentiate between one kind and another kind of "guilt". Removing this particularity, one would be left with just "the unconscious guilt of Derrida";so, I wonder what guilt would be in that sense, for if there is an unconscious guilt, there must be a conscious one as well (differentiation); also, I wonder if "guilt" is even some "thing" that could ever be attached to some "one" as a subjection object (ownership).
zeppozerus 1 year ago
@zeppozerus
You can talk about guilt all day along and write tomes about it but will fail because of the limits of language. And who are you to correct me since you don't know what kind of guilt he experienced. For the sake of this youtube chat, I will call it "Judeo-Christian" guilt or Western or White male guiilt... How about that?
carlpope 1 year ago
I find it amusing that Youtube comments are not more erudite on a video of Derrida that they are on just about any other video.
Derrida would have something to say about that....
Paxseko 2 years ago
In my years as a rhetoric major, i learned that with Derrida u either love him or you hate him- he's difficult.. everyone called us the branch Derrideans at my uni lol... I love his work!
RuqaiyyaNoor 2 years ago
That's pretty good
Derrida has done great work on philosophy so i like him.
i would recommend to see Derrida and Lov
satdeepsinghgill1 2 years ago
He's delightfully brilliant.
dubblewalker 2 years ago
I can relate to exactly what he is talking about here. Thanks for uploading this footage.
ZachClooney 2 years ago 2
Postmodernists heaven't got any intresting to say about the world. Theirs fundamental mistake is regarding philosophy and science like a literature.
krezus89 2 years ago
Im not fan of po' mo' philosophy, but i think its stretching it abit far to say 'reading' science/philosophy as literature is a mistake. Wherein lies the mistake? What prevents this 'other' point of view from being valid?
olywood9 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
que estupidez, un filosofo que no sabe reír no merece ser leído.
sedsoconarroz 2 years ago
Ese es un supuesto totalmente irrelevante. Un prejuicio más sobre "cómo deberíamos ser"...
:/
zkdesign 2 years ago
estoy hablando de mi gusto, desde mi gusto, si a ti te gustan los filósofos que para decir algo "profundo" tienen que poner mirada en el vacío y cara de idiotas, pues bueno, es tu gusto, no voy tampoco a convencerte de lo contrario, igual el que comete el prejuicio es Derrida, tomando esa actitud, como si así tuvieran que ser los filósofos, como si esa fuera la imagen del filosofo, está imitando a Heidegger en los gestos y en lo que dice, por si no te das cuenta.
sedsoconarroz 2 years ago
Ah, que bueno que lo aclaras. Porque de lo contrario parecería casi una máxima: "un filósofo que no sabe reír no merece ser leído". Ahora que sé que es una opinión más y nada más, entonces dejemos el problemita del lado. No me había dado cuenta, sorprendentemente, de que imita a Heidegger; siendo éste un filósofo importantísimo en mi vida. Me sorprende que digas que además lo imita en lo que dice... como sea. Saludos pensante ;)
zkdesign 2 years ago
Ok, y disculpa mi tono, a veces me excedo en mis sarcasmos o en mis reproches, saludos a ti, que de verdad eres pensante ;)
sedsoconarroz 2 years ago
Derrida had one single moment of real genius in his life: his reading of Husserl, which lead him to a new metaphysical concept of presence. All his subsequent work, increasingly baroque and derivative, stems from there. Don't get me wrong. He is very important, but he doesn't carry his era on his shoulders, like Heidegger or Wittgenstein did. When I hear him talking, I never have the impression of being before a truly great spirit. Maybe his lack of sense of humour has something to do with it.
kiasmus 2 years ago
this is not useful
like a person talking about the wonders of a toenail clipping
regresseur 2 years ago
Intelligent and to be respected.
khtervola 2 years ago 2
by the way, this choline500 is my alternate ID. sorry to confuse you.
pleiotropicaction 2 years ago
The philosophical level of analithics, to an ear that is philosophical fine, is a level of second grate.
codadilupo83 2 years ago
I think is obvious that for men that don't understand what is philosophical exercise Derrida appears obscure. From ist birth philosophy is against common sense. Thinking with common sense is thinking against philosophy.
If you don't know that contemporaneous philosophy thematizes alafabetic writing, you don't know contemporaneous philosophy. If you think that in a real philosophy the problem of politics or ethics can be separated from the problem of logic, you don't know what philosophy means
codadilupo83 2 years ago
(1) i don't think philosophy is always against common sense even though sometimes philosophical precision may require one to depart from common sense, but that hardly is a motivation for philosophizing. also, philosophizing is not the same as concatenating philosophic jargons.(2) contemporary philosophy "thematizes" alphabetic writing. whether true or not, thats irrelavant to your claim about truth (3) "real philosophy" whats that? one theory which do well in one domain may not do so in another.
choline500 2 years ago
Comment removed
codadilupo83 2 years ago
2 the law of non-contradiction isn't the law of the truth. The contraddiction is the law of the trouth. The formal logic is a important limitated instrument, but it isn't the only strument and certainly isn't the most important instrument in philosophy.
codadilupo83 2 years ago
what is law of the trouth? logic has been the most successful branch of philosophy for the past 100 years, and it is also one that has been radically advanced.
pleiotropicaction 2 years ago
in an environment in which the clarity of argument is requisite, Hegel's writing isn't a premier example to be repsected. it's rather something one must avoid at all costs. so he is hardly popular amongst any serious philosophers of mind, of language, of logic. on the other hand, he is still quite popular among political philosophers or among those who work in normative ethics. so it's a mistake to think that all philosophers in the english speaking world are indifferent to him.
pleiotropicaction 2 years ago 2
1 the first language of philosophy il ancient Greek. If you read Plato in Greek you will see that he creates a new language with ancient words changing meaning. His language is very hard.
codadilupo83 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Logic has to be explanaited with the life, and not the life with the logic. This is Nietzsche. And is paradigmatic that philosophy, after Hegel, can have only three results: Marx (hegelism in the materiality) Nietzsche, Husserl (phenomenology as the gaze about the how and not about the why). You have to read the philosophers, a manual or a teacher can't give you a philosophy: philosophy wants untiring readers. Philosphy is not an opinion or a theory, philosophy is a "posture".
codadilupo83 2 years ago
Comment removed
codadilupo83 2 years ago
i respect Hegel. but i think his time is over. its time for common sense philosophy now. the names you mentioned are all great luminaries, but their ideas have to be refined. in saying that historicity is trivial, i mean no disrespect against your hero. i respect your opinion, but i think the early wittgenstein, frege, russell, carnap, quine, armstrong, lewis, and kripke are better philosophers than the old timers you mentioned.
xpressivist 2 years ago
Wittgestein is a great philosopher (and He could not be in accord with you). But your theacher says a thing that I can't share. Logic after Hegel isn't the same. Luckily, My master (Carlo Sini) is one of the most important philosopher living today. You speak about logic, but you don't think that logic is an effect of alfabetic writing. Logic is not the truth, but an effect of the sense of the truth. And truth is not adequatio intellectus et rei.
codadilupo83 2 years ago
See what I'm talking about? What you say might be true. But you have to use logic to be easily understood even by ordinary people who don't understand Latin or any obscure language that you know. Logic might be just an accident of history, but that fact does not make logic useless. A given system of logic becomes useless (like Hegel's) by inventing a better one (like modern mathematical logic which is pioneered by Frege, Russell, and Whitehead).
xpressivist 2 years ago
Comment removed
codadilupo83 2 years ago
I think that my language isn't "obscure language": only the language of philosophy, as mathematics and geology have his history and his language. The language of philosophy includes words in ancient Greek, Latin and German. Anyway, I afford to suggest you a book translated in english: "Ethics of Writing" by Carlo Sini.
codadilupo83 2 years ago
I suggest you read a couple of better books: (1) Reasons and Persons by Derek Parfit from Oxford University and New York University, (2) Naming and Necessity by Saul Kripke of Princeton University and the City University of New York.
xpressivist 2 years ago
let us allow there is such a thing as "language of philosophy" comparable to language of mathematics and that of physics. and to regard your favorite latin expression "adequatio intellectus et rei" to be included in the "language of philosophy". to be sure, the obscurity doesn't lie in the employment of that latin expression (every philosophy student knows what that means), but what you do with it. it lies in what you say in using that expression.
pleiotropicaction 2 years ago
no philosopher has ever said that logic is an effect of alphabetic writing. (i don't know what "an effect of alphabetic writing" means in the first place) logic can be expressed in many different languages either artificial or natural. the truth of logical laws such as law of non-contradiction and law of the excluded middle isn't dependent on a particular language.
pleiotropicaction 2 years ago
name some contemporary logicians who are influenced by Hegel's logic. I am pretty sure his influence on contemporary logic is little to none. many logicians acknowledge the fact that Frege completely changes the scenary of logic, but Hegel? which logic ? an effect of the sense of the truth? what does that mean?
pleiotropicaction 2 years ago
3 All great philosophers read and studied Wissenschaft der Logik with respect. If you aren't be able to do it, it isn't a reason to mock Wissenschaft withouth knowing it. "It is the apex of the history of metaphysics. After it, philosophy can't think in the same way".
codadilupo83 2 years ago
so you can't name any logicians. thank you, thats the sole thing i wanted to ask you about. i remind you that the common trend of contemporary philosophy at least from the dawn of analytic philosophy to the present is to avoid lapsing into absolute idealism of the hegelian stripe which enjoyed notorious popularity in britain at the end of 19th century. i'm also pretty sure that your favorite Wittgenstein hasn't read Hegel, so he isn't one of those great philosophers from your definition.
choline500 2 years ago
Yes, W. didn't read Hegel. And he didn't read Aristotele. Happen that a great philosopher thinks great thoughts being in a fruitful ignorance. But us common mortals need to read the great philosophers. Tinking logic and metaphysics separate is the mistake of the history of metaphysics. Aristotele thinks logic and metaphysics still as the two sides of same medal. The gesture of Hegel has the target to reunite that be separated with error.
codadilupo83 2 years ago
Comment removed
codadilupo83 2 years ago
Comment removed
codadilupo83 2 years ago
Because in the truth form and substance are united with indissolubility. So, this union culminates in the disjunctive syllogism. Here the western "logos" culminates. In fact, formal logic is a abstraction from the Greek "logos", that is the reason of the being: the law of the world. Hegel says that formal logic is a great operation, but it has to be emended in its separation from the substance