Jacques Derrida: Section 1

Jacques Derrida, the French philosopher credited with launching the Deconstructionist movement, argues his theories in this program. Derrida begins with a frank discussion on the ethical problems of Deconstruction, especially in relation to human rights. He argues that Deconstruction is not a disillusion of the subject, it is first and foremost a historical or genealogical analysis of that subject and an attempt to focus on a universal translation of it. Derrida points out that Deconstruction is mainly an affirmation—and it goes further and changes the nature of the subject—and is neither "reconstruction" nor "destruction."

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Jacques
• Derrida
• Philosophy
• Deconstructionism
• Ethics

[CommunistWarrior1917]

This is definitely relevent. I'm glad that I stumbled upon this.

[mikelheron20]

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

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@MrNomadologist

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

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

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

[MrNomadologist]

@suddenlyitsobvious

You're mad, bro.

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@MrNomadologist

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

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

NO content = fail.

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@MrNomadologist

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

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@MrNomadologist

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

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

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

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

[MrNomadologist]

@suddenlyitsobvious

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

[MrNomadologist]

@suddenlyitsobvious

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

[MrNomadologist]

@suddenlyitsobvious

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

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