I used to not understand Derrida's though at all, until I made a conscious decision to not only read his work, but many works by others about him. The cross-section of different viewpoints is very useful. Even if others don't agree with his the whole of his philosophy, his ideas of differance and undecidability have given us powerful tools of critique.
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.
@Jotaro97 Those creations might stop others in that way. But if you instead think about how that statement relates to the authors themselves, it says that when you feel you have nothing to lose, and suicide is an truly an alternative in your mind, you are at your most honest. You'll spill your guts over pages; instead of killing yourself. Instead of killing yourself, you'll write something. And you don't care how much it reveals about you, because your reputation is secondary to channeling true experience. It's like when you have that thought that everyone has where you say: "I could do anything I really wanted to do, no matter how horrible, no matter how forbidden, and then just kill myself." You're suicidal in that moment, whether you do it or not, and you imagine exposing yourself to everyone--to the world--as the author of that act. Writing--if it is seen as postponing suicide--is the same: you can say whatever you want, in a moment of complete disclosure and honesty, because you just don't give a shit about the consequences. And you don't care about what anyone else thinks. Writing, if it's sincere, should be exposure of your secrets, who you REALLY are. And damn the consequences. And whether Andrej agrees with my reply, I believe the connection he makes with Derrida's statement about writing without censors while in a wakened state is on the mark.
@@kent6619 I'm sure Derrida wouldn't acquiesce to who anyone 'really is,' I think he's talking the fear of being ridiculed. It's like getting naked in front of a partner for the first time---you're exposed. And with writing, you're constantly exposing yourself.
Kind of - he mentions how his deconstruction of other philosophers places him in the firing line of attack - people say he's crazy etc. and then he talks about the difference between being half asleep and self censoring but how when he's writing he has no fear. It's so inspiring!
It's all about nudity. Writing (good writing) rips your clothes off. It's an expression. Your soul has spoken, and perhaps somebody has listened. Taking your (actual) clothes off, letting the dreams and thoughts overwhelm you - how could you possibly avoid anxiety?
When you are about to fall asleep, it is quite common for fears to appear that have been latent during the day and to which you have not paid attention. Your will relaxes, other voices begin to speak, and many times, what they say can be frightening.
I love how crystal clear and good natured he is when speaking and how that contrasts starkly with his writing. A very unique, and great, philosopher, really.
I feel the same way. There are things that bother me about myself before I fall asleep, adn before I wake up, that don't faze me when I am awake, I can ignore them, deal with them, etc. But in these states before and after sleep they are more prevelant.
Many have this feeling, it is simply proof that each man by its singularity is able to write something new. Also, the philosopher Maria Zambrano said that the writing is always a new secret, but does not belong to writer. This video is particulary fantastic.
This is the old paradox about knowledge put forth by Socrates in the Meno. You don't come to actually know anything for the "first" time. Everything is a process of recollection of what has always already been known.
A forma como o autor expõe suas idéias demonstra uma inquietude e necessidade da nossa época, que é aquela de desbravar novos campos com intuito de sermos mais coerentes com o devir humano!
@theUnlimited1 There certainly was an antagonism but also a friendship. Derrida wrote a wonderful obituary of sorts after Foucault died in which he acknowledges the difficult relationship with Foucault while at the same time demonstrating a great ammount of respect. It is included in the beautiful and painful book 'The Work of Mourning'.
In psychiatry, in respect to certain personality disorders, especially borderline personality disorders, one often finds the hybrid term 'solution avoidant' and Derrida seems here and elsewhere helplessly expressive of this concept, not because he suffers from this pathology, precisely, but because he well understands a moving, always dematerializing target is harder to hit.
@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.
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.
@xpressivist do you have a reference for the statement you referenced by Foucault? Agreed, there were differences, but I'd argue both fundamentally would agree on far more than not - they were hardly bitterly opposed allies.
@theUnlimited1 Which reminds me -- Derrida wrote a very moving and worthwhile reflection on Deleuze's death called 'I'll Have to Wander All Alone' that I recommend looking up if you've never read it.
That something that tells writers to write no one has been able to describe what it is, there are no words for it, it just is, some things are better left alone, without explaining them, if we knew everything, the world would be a very boring world
I feel like this about my own thoughts sometimes. What good does it brings exactly? Regardless, there is no way out of this kind of thinking, but sometimes to be happy in ordinary life, you need to be able to stop this mechanism of "torture of questions", a violence on that what is.
@theUnlimited1 I haven't read any biographies of Foucault, but if you read 'My Body, This Paper, This Fire' you can see exactly how hostile he was toward Derrida. There are also a number of interviews in various collected volumes in which he makes offhanded disparaging remarks about deconstruction. I get the impression that Foucault didn't have much interest in Derrida's work after their initial exchange. Perhaps there is something to be excavated from their shared affinity for Deleuze...
I feel like his subconscious when he's half asleep is a deeply rooted unconscious reaction to behave and not disobey the state/institutions. His philosophy goes against everything the state/institutions stand for. But when he's a awake and "conscious" his desire is to get to truth.
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.
@meshzzizk I know they were intellectual antagonists up to a point, but other than that Searle quote that's been repeatedly cited (most likely because it's on Wikipedia), what substantive evidence do you have that Foucault never respected Derrida's work on a philosophical level? I see it more as, different strategies, somewhat different loyalties, but many close affinities and shared sympathies. In any case, I'd like another source on this besides Searle. Have you read the Foucault bio?
@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)
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'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.
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.
free: my comments were directed at 3 different posts to show the item in each, but for some reason they appeared all clumped together. anyway, its been a long time since i've read plato and i don't think that i could give a good summary of that position anymore. i remember that socrates had a slave boy draw a diagram, and through a very suspicious dialectical manuever, was made to solve the problem by "remembering" it.
However, Sartre's existentialism is different from Heidegger's ontology. It's "less spacious" in a way... Derrida, of course, goes even beyond Heidegger in 'Ousia and Grammé" when he problematises the concept of par-ousia as "possession". Of course, he may read too much Husserl into Heidegger, some say. BTW: I never knew there was a movie about Derrida, have to see it!
the point is probably something along the line that nothing utterly new (read alien)to the human mind could really be understood. my final comment was a remark about atemporality, which the logos supposedly was the gateway to and Derrida tried to point out was never our condition.
@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).
@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.
that said, it is important to understand that we are not dealing here with Science, which is its own domain and is concerned only with what works. going into the distinctions would take dozens of pages, so of course i will not, etc.
Such agony, living as he does, as the divine instrument of great cosmic philosophical forces: the danger, the sense of mission, the posturing and hairstyling.. The vanity is overwhelming.
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
Foucault, at least, deserves to be looked into. In my opinion Sartre's existentialism is a mere extension of already existent societal tendencies of the time. But then again, I'm no philosophy major.
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.
cc: deconstruction could never constitute a program like that. it's really only a way of reading that emphasizes the dialectical morphing of positions into thier opposites, and tries to show how positions are often parasitical upon what they define as their oppositions. as a way of reading it is primarily informed by a blend of psychoanalysis and Hegelianism.
@theUnlimited1 "Michel Foucault...was more hostile to Derrida even than I am...Foucault said that Derrida practiced the method of obscurantisme terroriste (terrorism of obscurantism). We were speaking French. And I said, "What the hell do you mean by that?" And he said, "He writes so obscurely you can't tell what he's saying, that's the obscurantism part, and then when you criticize him, he can always say, 'You didn't understand me; you're an idiot.' That's the terrorism part." --John Searle
i don't know what you mean by not referring to another "sample of text". this is the point of Derrida and others: there is no getting away from the fact that we are a composite of the texts we have read. language both constitutes us and defines our thinking. the dream of propositional logic that we could ever arrive at a crystalline web of yes/no answers for Everything does not square with evolutionary theory, common sense, or (of course) the perverse trajectories of "fiction" (literature).
in desconstructionism Derrida is doing something more terrible to himself than you can imagine he is working on the forbidden place of fears that deeply rooted in human nature.
I find it amusing that TH-cam 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....
@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.
The cryto-Oedipal valorization of Pharmakonical sub-indices by no means depriveleges the variant performances of haunted absences. The absence of a signified presence simulataneously de-couples the latent grammatology of the collapsing 'insight', thus creating a safe counter-space for the priapic professor.
sometimes the difficulty lies in confusion on the part of a writer, otherwise it points to the real philosophical difficulty. there is no reason you attriubute less intelligence to philosophical giants of all time. it's just that they haven't had as good a tool as they do now to handle some of the problems. when reading someone like descartes, spinoza, leibniz, kant, the moral is to read them in the most generous ways. that's what every philosopher of history does.
free: Heraclitus becasue, claiming that everything was in flux, threw together contradictions into single statements ("man both is and is not", "one never steps into the same river twice", etc.) Hegel because he declared "absolute spirit" to reach its culmination in the philosopher (namely him and his society)which is rather insane. Derrida in contrast is pretty straigtforward in his critques of univocity and the use of metaphor in philosophical discourse.
Actually, Sartre almost singlehandedly initiated a wave of awakening of human freedom admist the ideological encroachment from both communist left and Catholic right in postwar era of France
I used to not understand Derrida's though at all, until I made a conscious decision to not only read his work, but many works by others about him. The cross-section of different viewpoints is very useful. Even if others don't agree with his the whole of his philosophy, his ideas of differance and undecidability have given us powerful tools of critique.
He's describing the fear I have in the middle of the night that I said something inadmissable on Facebook.
Now it's fine
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.
Beautifully said.
'Every work of art is an uncommitted crime.' - Adorno.
'A book is a suicide postponed'
-Cioran
@Jotaro97 Those creations might stop others in that way. But if you instead think about how that statement relates to the authors themselves, it says that when you feel you have nothing to lose, and suicide is an truly an alternative in your mind, you are at your most honest. You'll spill your guts over pages; instead of killing yourself. Instead of killing yourself, you'll write something. And you don't care how much it reveals about you, because your reputation is secondary to channeling true experience. It's like when you have that thought that everyone has where you say: "I could do anything I really wanted to do, no matter how horrible, no matter how forbidden, and then just kill myself." You're suicidal in that moment, whether you do it or not, and you imagine exposing yourself to everyone--to the world--as the author of that act. Writing--if it is seen as postponing suicide--is the same: you can say whatever you want, in a moment of complete disclosure and honesty, because you just don't give a shit about the consequences. And you don't care about what anyone else thinks. Writing, if it's sincere, should be exposure of your secrets, who you REALLY are. And damn the consequences. And whether Andrej agrees with my reply, I believe the connection he makes with Derrida's statement about writing without censors while in a wakened state is on the mark.
@Zed is dead After the holocaust specifically. Paul Celan's Death Fugue is a strong counter argument.
@@kent6619 I'm sure Derrida wouldn't acquiesce to who anyone 'really is,' I think he's talking the fear of being ridiculed. It's like getting naked in front of a partner for the first time---you're exposed. And with writing, you're constantly exposing yourself.
Adorno is nothing in the scope of Neitzsche
Kind of - he mentions how his deconstruction of other philosophers places him in the firing line of attack - people say he's crazy etc. and then he talks about the difference between being half asleep and self censoring but how when he's writing he has no fear. It's so inspiring!
I know what he's saying exactly. I think it's what anyone feels who has an unorthodox nature and is aware of it.
It's all about nudity. Writing (good writing) rips your clothes off. It's an expression. Your soul has spoken, and perhaps somebody has listened. Taking your (actual) clothes off, letting the dreams and thoughts overwhelm you - how could you possibly avoid anxiety?
I like that expression, Oddnejm. I feel like I know just what you mean.
Be the free spirit you write about, go to neked beach even, you need to be the kind of person who is not afried to show his truth
Yeah and i think thats the price you have to pay to be truly great and unique. Its terrifying
When you are about to fall asleep, it is quite common for fears to appear that have been latent during the day and to which you have not paid attention. Your will relaxes, other voices begin to speak, and many times, what they say can be frightening.
He sounds like a kind hearted person. This made me wonder his works. And the feeling he described in this video is somewhat so familiar.
I love how crystal clear and good natured he is when speaking and how that contrasts starkly with his writing. A very unique, and great, philosopher, really.
Thanks for posting this. I haven't seen Derrida talk about himself so personally before.
Wow. I should definitely sleep more. So I can know my true modes of consciousness.
I'm writing my paper on Derrida's theory if Deconstruction and feel exactly like this.
I feel the same way. There are things that bother me about myself before I fall asleep, adn before I wake up, that don't faze me when I am awake, I can ignore them, deal with them, etc. But in these states before and after sleep they are more prevelant.
"When I'm awake, my vigilance is asleep". He does love his paradoxes:)
Many have this feeling, it is simply proof that each man by its singularity is able to write something new. Also, the philosopher Maria Zambrano said that the writing is always a new secret, but does not belong to writer. This video is particulary fantastic.
This is the old paradox about knowledge put forth by Socrates in the Meno. You don't come to actually know anything for the "first" time. Everything is a process of recollection of what has always already been known.
Favourite TH-cam post of the Year
The same feeling was happened to myself. I think this is an universal phenomena.
A forma como o autor expõe suas idéias demonstra uma inquietude e necessidade da nossa época, que é aquela de desbravar novos campos com intuito de sermos mais coerentes com o devir humano!
I love this so much.
I can relate to exactly what he is talking about here. Thanks for uploading this footage.
Do you write?
I think this is a fearlessness of writing when and as one writes.
I always recall to this video when I am in position to describe my usual posture and personality
Fascinating.
Foucault,Derrida et même Zizek attestent que si l'homme est mort le philosophe est lui bien vivant...
You're right. The stench will remain.
The funny thing about philosophy was that it was over before it began.
Mr. Derrida, how often do you have this 'dream' ?
@theUnlimited1 There certainly was an antagonism but also a friendship. Derrida wrote a wonderful obituary of sorts after Foucault died in which he acknowledges the difficult relationship with Foucault while at the same time demonstrating a great ammount of respect. It is included in the beautiful and painful book 'The Work of Mourning'.
That thing about being half asleep and getting anxiety must/should have a name (like the hour of the wolf). It's such a particular sensation.
Yes, it's a relatively common experience.
In psychiatry, in respect to certain personality disorders, especially borderline personality disorders, one often finds the hybrid term 'solution avoidant' and Derrida seems here and elsewhere helplessly expressive of this concept, not because he suffers from this pathology, precisely, but because he well understands a moving, always dematerializing target is harder to hit.
Your parody is even funnier than the real thing. I didn't think it was possible. You should do this for a living!
yes
He is not talking about an experience each of us has! He's talking about writing his own philosophy - and none of us will do that.
@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.
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.
@xpressivist do you have a reference for the statement you referenced by Foucault? Agreed, there were differences, but I'd argue both fundamentally would agree on far more than not - they were hardly bitterly opposed allies.
@suddenlyitsobvious Is there anything wrong with being reductive of the whole as long as we're aware of it?
@bryngOneOn For Derrida, You must read between the lines to understand his gestures.
the panic in the subconscious ... oh my
@theUnlimited1 Which reminds me -- Derrida wrote a very moving and worthwhile reflection on Deleuze's death called 'I'll Have to Wander All Alone' that I recommend looking up if you've never read it.
That's pretty good
Derrida has done great work on philosophy so i like him.
i would recommend to see Derrida and Lov
Amazing that the psyche corrects. Jung would have a lot to say about this.
Intelligent and to be respected.
Wow yeah i know that fear he is describing before he goes to sleep, often happens to me about my projects
🌹🌹
Agreed!
That something that tells writers to write no one has been able to describe what it is, there are no words for it, it just is, some things are better left alone, without explaining them, if we knew everything, the world would be a very boring world
Grande uomo
I feel like this about my own thoughts sometimes. What good does it brings exactly? Regardless, there is no way out of this kind of thinking, but sometimes to be happy in ordinary life, you need to be able to stop this mechanism of "torture of questions", a violence on that what is.
Is this one of the behind the scenes of Derrida 2002 ? Because i never seen this in the movie
The game is bigger. It is not only what you say, but what you dare say.
@8bobthebuilder Hi, why do you say that? I mean he is confessing his fears, is not a humble thing?
@theUnlimited1 I haven't read any biographies of Foucault, but if you read 'My Body, This Paper, This Fire' you can see exactly how hostile he was toward Derrida. There are also a number of interviews in various collected volumes in which he makes offhanded disparaging remarks about deconstruction. I get the impression that Foucault didn't have much interest in Derrida's work after their initial exchange. Perhaps there is something to be excavated from their shared affinity for Deleuze...
Derrida has great hair in this video clip
I feel like his subconscious when he's half asleep is a deeply rooted unconscious reaction to behave and not disobey the state/institutions. His philosophy goes against everything the state/institutions stand for. But when he's a awake and "conscious" his desire is to get to truth.
I've just read the book of ''Of Grammatology'' I agree with you sir,writing has been considered as merely a derivative form of speech.
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.
@imthemac420 -lolz.."advancing into new territory"...me too...wonder how the examiner feels!!!
Yea.
@meshzzizk I know they were intellectual antagonists up to a point, but other than that Searle quote that's been repeatedly cited (most likely because it's on Wikipedia), what substantive evidence do you have that Foucault never respected Derrida's work on a philosophical level? I see it more as, different strategies, somewhat different loyalties, but many close affinities and shared sympathies. In any case, I'd like another source on this besides Searle. Have you read the Foucault bio?
@brothamouzoune What, exactly, did Sokal's prank prove about Derrida? Sokal himself eventually admitted he couldn't criticize any of Derrida's work...
@JMAdvocatusD
I agree, though we'll never know why a comment was thumbed.
@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)
Ok, y disculpa mi tono, a veces me excedo en mis sarcasmos o en mis reproches, saludos a ti, que de verdad eres pensante ;)
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'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.
je sais, sens, *exactement* ce qu'il dit..
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.
free: my comments were directed at 3 different posts to show the item in each, but for some reason they appeared all clumped together. anyway, its been a long time since i've read plato and i don't think that i could give a good summary of that position anymore. i remember that socrates had a slave boy draw a diagram, and through a very suspicious dialectical manuever, was made to solve the problem by "remembering" it.
the fear of loathing...
However, Sartre's existentialism is different from Heidegger's ontology.
It's "less spacious" in a way... Derrida, of course, goes even beyond Heidegger in 'Ousia and Grammé" when he problematises the concept of par-ousia as "possession". Of course, he may read too much Husserl into Heidegger, some say.
BTW: I never knew there was a movie about Derrida, have to see it!
@cvvemuri yes- a jew who grew up in French colonial Algeria
the point is probably something along the line that nothing utterly new (read alien)to the human mind could really be understood. my final comment was a remark about atemporality, which the logos supposedly was the gateway to and Derrida tried to point out was never our condition.
@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).
@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.
such as ?
by the way, this choline500 is my alternate ID. sorry to confuse you.
that said, it is important to understand that we are not dealing here with Science, which is its own domain and is concerned only with what works. going into the distinctions would take dozens of pages, so of course i will not, etc.
Why does he break into English at 1:47?
Such agony, living as he does, as the divine instrument of great cosmic philosophical forces: the danger, the sense of mission, the posturing and hairstyling.. The vanity is overwhelming.
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 guess this is his way of saying he too has dealt with the imposter syndrome so common in academia.
For very good reasons.
So I guess that it is what Freud called the _Super-ego..._
Foucault, at least, deserves to be looked into.
In my opinion Sartre's existentialism is a mere extension of already existent societal tendencies of the time. But then again, I'm no philosophy major.
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.
cc: deconstruction could never constitute a program like that. it's really only a way of reading that emphasizes the dialectical morphing of positions into thier opposites, and tries to show how positions are often parasitical upon what they define as their oppositions. as a way of reading it is primarily informed by a blend of psychoanalysis and Hegelianism.
@theUnlimited1 "Michel Foucault...was more hostile to Derrida even than I am...Foucault said that Derrida practiced the method of obscurantisme terroriste (terrorism of obscurantism). We were speaking French. And I said, "What the hell do you mean by that?" And he said, "He writes so obscurely you can't tell what he's saying, that's the obscurantism part, and then when you criticize him, he can always say, 'You didn't understand me; you're an idiot.' That's the terrorism part."
--John Searle
i don't know what you mean by not referring to another "sample of text". this is the point of Derrida and others: there is no getting away from the fact that we are a composite of the texts we have read. language both constitutes us and defines our thinking. the dream of propositional logic that we could ever arrive at a crystalline web of yes/no answers for Everything does not square with evolutionary theory, common sense, or (of course) the perverse trajectories of "fiction" (literature).
in desconstructionism Derrida is doing something more terrible to himself than you can imagine he is working on the forbidden place of fears that deeply rooted in human nature.
I find it amusing that TH-cam 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....
@fdesouchecom yes
No, please put its wealth of knowledge into 500 well chosen characters and I might get an idea of whether it's worth reading it.
@carlpope Catholic? He was Sephardi.
@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.
The cryto-Oedipal valorization of Pharmakonical sub-indices by no means depriveleges the variant performances of haunted absences. The absence of a signified presence simulataneously de-couples the latent grammatology of the collapsing 'insight', thus creating a safe counter-space for the priapic professor.
sometimes the difficulty lies in confusion on the part of a writer, otherwise it points to the real philosophical difficulty. there is no reason you attriubute less intelligence to philosophical giants of all time. it's just that they haven't had as good a tool as they do now to handle some of the problems. when reading someone like descartes, spinoza, leibniz, kant, the moral is to read them in the most generous ways. that's what every philosopher of history does.
free: Heraclitus becasue, claiming that everything was in flux, threw together contradictions into single statements ("man both is and is not", "one never steps into the same river twice", etc.) Hegel because he declared "absolute spirit" to reach its culmination in the philosopher (namely him and his society)which is rather insane. Derrida in contrast is pretty straigtforward in his critques of univocity and the use of metaphor in philosophical discourse.
@mourningization
I think you are too harsh on him.
Actually, Sartre almost singlehandedly initiated a wave of awakening of human freedom admist the ideological encroachment from both communist left and Catholic right in postwar era of France