Jacques Derrida: Section 2

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:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Jacques
• Derrida
• Philosophy
• Deconstructionism
• Ethics

[kraemer1962]

"Not to rely on slogans!" I must say, Derrida is far more "accessible" via lectures and interviews - like this very good example shows - than via his (often rather hermetical) books. What he states in this interview, so far, seems quite plausible, rather in contrary to what some "deconstructionist" adepts teach. Very challenging ... Thanks indeed!

[aries1403]

hello

[8bobthebuilder]

I don't quite understand. In the first 2:34 minutes, Derrida continues explaining [from Part 1] but there's nothing new in what he says. The point he's getting at in the beginning of this clip has already been covered in depth by Nietzsche.There's nothing new here.

[signeponge]

@antipostmodernist : (hence the quasi-definitions of desconsturction as the relation to the other or the experience of the impossible). The texts on Husserl (mainly "Speech and Phenomena" help to understand this and why Derrida can be regarded as a unorthodox phenomenologist.

[signeponge]

@antipostmodernist : Yes, the ready-made term is just youtube talk, it was certainly never used by Derrida. Now, the openess to possibilities is, according to Derrida, still an economic way to evaluate within a closed horizon; deconstruction deals with a temporal synthesis - the unconditional condition of all experience - to which the "subject" and the "horizon of possibilities" would be derivatives

[antipostmodernist]

@signeponge Interesting. I, too, would be weary of accepting any presuppositions about subjectivity; however, I do not see why a subject that is self-identical would also have to be closed (in the sense of not being "open" to possibilities). Then again, the atemporal synthesis of experience does not trouble me, as it might Derrida. I am not sure I understand what you mean by "ready-made," but I suppose that is an effect of talking about philosophy via youtube. Thanks for the clarification.

[signeponge]

@antipostmodernist : he never denied the existence of the subject (or of subjects, to be more precise): he merely denies the presupposition of any pure hermetic, closed, immediate, ready-made, absolutely self-identical and self-present subject.

[zfouchard]

affirmation!

[Norm1011616]

@aries1403 hi



[antipostmodernist]

I would have liked to hear his thoughts as to why he doubts the subject's existence. The genealogy of the term is interesting, but it would be more interesting to hear why, outside of mere conceptual clarification and development, he actually denies the existence of a subject.

[Elekias]

He is obviously nervous talking from the spot, as it can also be difficult to speak in other language than his own in front of the audience unprepared. Still, if I wouldnt bear in mind his concept of "deconstruction" like I read it somewhere else, his lecture (speech) would be really a boring description of a few terms.

[myrealnamehere]

@jose881000 I'm not sure there are many "Yankees" in the crowd. This is part of the Oxford series of lectures, which would lead one to believe that this interview is taking place in the UK. We "Yankees" have a word for what you've just done. FAIL