Dr. Sadler. I am currently writing on Derrida's discussion in 'Différance' of Heidegger's ontico-ontological distinction. There, Derrida argues that différance precedes, "is older," than the ontico-ontological distinction . However, in 'Basic Problems,' Heidegger explains that "the distinction between being and beings is preontologically there, without an explicit concept of being, latent in the Dasein's existence. As such, it can become an explicitly understood difference" (22. Being and beings). It seems to me that it is this particular move when Derrida takes différance one step too far. The ontological distinction is pre-linguistically understood by Dasein by virtue of the kind of being that it is. What are your thoughts on this? I don't know much more about Derrida--is there something I am completely misinterpreting? I know you must be busy and I thank you in advance for any feedback. Right now I am not in contact with anyone who is well versed in both Heidegger and Derrida. Thank you, sir!
Derrida, dressing up banalities in obscurantist language and asserting all sorts of arbitrary political truths - will be remembered as a clown more than anything else.
I’ve been dabbling in Derrida lately. Very interesting take on things. Hard AF to get a grasp on sometimes. Helps to study semiotics first. Ultimately though, and I may think differently as I understand him more, but I feel his ultimate goal was similar to Socrates. He wants to pull the rug out from everything. Maybe being the outsider in Algeria while not being Catholic shaped his goal. A kind of intellectual bomb to bring the whole house down with. The French value their language maybe more than any other culture. This is where he plants his bomb.
Well, Socrates' goal wasn't the "pull the rug out from everything", and neither is Derrida's. I'd say that the place to start is Speech and Phenomena and then On Gramatology - the early stuff
Aha, just as you were getting into Derrida's "nothing outside the text" the old Therevadan in me popped his head up...then you mentioned "mystics" and he retreated into his lotus-flower...
I'd really love to hear what you think about the works of Jean Baudrillard. Personally, I find him exemplary of the elements of Nietzsche (resentment) and Marx (exchange value) worth preserving and the only thinker who is pointing towards what we might expect to happen in a society where both death is optional and cloning is the norm.
Well, I never went through a Baudrillard phase myself, though there were a lot of people - not in philosophy but other departments - who were really into him (and Deleuze) at SIUC when I was a student there.
I'm not an academic but having read Derrida's early publications it seems to me that he was a proponent of play - I bet you'd have jumped at a party invite!
Interesting thanks, I never really got a lot out of Derrida when I read a little, though I didn't persevere with it at all. I got the general idea but couldn't comprehend the details of what he was saying. I'll definitely have a look at Blondel and try reading something though, he sounds very interesting. Strange you mentioned Voyage au bout de la nuit, as I'm reading it at the moment, trying to improve my French, really impressed so far.
I am currently (and have been for the better part of two years now) on a Lacanian phase - which, is leading into a Girardian phase. There's a lot of correlation between the two, regarding *desire* - which is rarely talked about it seems. Jumping back and forth between the them has been enjoyable. Girard, obviously being more comprehensible and straightforward but I digress. Anyways, I thought I had read somewhere that Girard and Derrida were acquaintances at one point.? Have you studied much on Lacan and/or Girard?
Lacan seems to be picking up steam, at least through a Žižekian lens among young academics. But yea, I've been really influenced by Lacan as well. Unfortunately, he's quite often "written off" because of his opaqueness and obscurantism - which I guess is not for everybody. Ironically though, that's what attracted me to his corpus. The more someone's 'demeaned' amongst the general academic milieu (so to speak), the more I think - "there must be something to this!" lol
Me too! About 2 years into Lacan with underpinnings in Kierkegaard Hegel Heidegger Badiou Zizek Sartre Nietzsche. But yes once you think you have come along to a degree in precedence you come to know you perpetually know nothing. But Language or lalangue is a very powerful modality of being. For lacan some of Bruce Finks work is really straightforward yet it retains the Lacanian witticism. There is something about speaking around or allusion which helps an ideas be conveyed much easier.
Hello. I am a Graduate student of literature and I quite like Derrida, but I also get the feeling that sometimes more popular in departments of literature than in departments of philosophy (would you say that this is a fair assertion?). I am interested in reading Blondel and was wondering if you could suggest some introductory reading with regard to his work.
Yes, Derrida is more popular among literature departments than philosophy departments - the exception being philosophy departments that focus primarily upon continental philosophy. I suppose if you wanted an introduction to Blondel, you could read Bouillard's Blondel and Christianity. I'm not much of an advisor on secondary or introductory lit - I focus on the texts and thinkers themselves
Hey, you have read, or known, the work of Peter Sloterdijk? If you have, could you do a video on him? I'm looking forward to know your thoghts on his books, mainly on the Spheres triology. If you don't know him could you make a video on contemporaries you`ve been reading? Thanks for the videos fella! Shouts from Brazil here.
I am a novice in acknowledging Jackque Derrida. i wish to learn some more by reading and listening to lectures. I hope that I will not be turned off by Dr. Jordan Peterson. I admire his point of views as well.
Any thoughts on Levinas Greg? Starting to go down that pathway after having visited phenomenology as a whole, as well as considering my direction for grad school. Have you read him at all? He was a huge influence on Derrida.
Dr Sadler, do you have any tips on how to go about choosing translations for Derrida (and non-anglophone philosophers in general) besides learning to speak French? I know it's a daunting question, but it is a big obstacle for people like myself who are interested in reading these people but are overwhelmed by the seemingly big differences in translations. Thanks
It’s funny that you say he’s the guy at the party that would take it too far. From other’s reports it’s said he was quite a charismatic man at parties.
I guess you're mixing up my metaphor about what Derrida did to philosophy with the literal level of how the guy was at parties. Derrida would probably get a kick out of that mix-up on your part
Gregory B. Sadler Haha. Indeed. This sort of duality (perhaps the wrong word) between his philosophy and his persona reminds me of another duality he had described within himself about his conscious and subconscious. I’m not sure he used the words ‘conscious’ or ‘subconscious’ but that’s what it seemed to me at least. He described that when he would be drifting off to sleep, into his subconscious, he would become overwhelmed by doubt about his writing as to whether or not he should even be questioning the likes of Plato and the other great authors he attempted to deconstruct. This reminds me of how most people I know feel this during their waking conscious; they’d like to do something profound but doubt gets in the way. I often hear my friends say that it’s when they’re falling asleep and resting when they feel compelled to do the unthinkable. But it was just the opposite for Derrida. He described when he was awake (conscious) he would feel an overwhelming compulsion to write the thoughts that were coming to him. He described it that way as well; as though the thoughts came to him rather than him producing the thoughts. He just produced the signifiers that corresponded to his feeling/thought. It’s this sort of backwards way of operating that reminds me of his backward career/personal life. He was fun to have at parties but a drag for philosopher’s careers, where the stereotype is usually geared the other way around.
I thought, Plato's Pharmikon, contained an extremely simplistic and uncharitable reading of The Pheadrus. If anything that part of Derrida was useful for showing that Derrida's reading couldn't be the best way to read The Pheadrus.
Side note: Girard also plays off the ambiguity of the word pharmakon when talking about the relationship between victimization and sacrifice. The idea being, (in the Girardian sense) that sacrifice is used for restoring order in a society that's beginning to unravel and is full of antagonisms. So... the victim (i.e. the scapegoat) is not only seen as the cause of the society's "problem," but also functions and is seen as the cure. *If we just get rid of X, then proper order will be restored* Perfect example of this is obviously the Jew - in reference to WWII and the Holocaust.
I wouldn't. I spend very little time with introductory literature, and most of it with primary (as opposed to secondary) texts. So, I don't have useful advice about that.
Dmitry Muravyov I would advise just reading Derrida himself, which isn't that hard, although there are a few people that are put off by long or complex sentences. I have read a few introductory texts which might seem helpful, but usually misrepresents or misunderstands his texts. ""Writing and Difference" id a decent place to start.
What irks me about the video is the way that when praising works such as “Of Grammatology”, “Voice and Phenomenon”, and “Writing and Difference” about 14 minutes through, you don’t actually explain why those works are insightful.
Greg, I'm sure you've heard of a Dr. Jordan Peterson. What do you think of his criticism of postmodernism? Also, how would you define postmodernism? Peterson thinks postmodernism is a school championed very much by Derrida and Foucault and that "we must stop it now." I expect to hear a different answer from you and I hope to better understand postmodernism, the isolated writings of Derrida, as well as Peterson's critique in context
I think anyone who thinks that "post-modernism" is some short of coherent school or movement either is ignorant (either partly or wholly) about the term, its variety of meanings, and the thinkers rightly or wrongly associated with it, or (since they're not ignorant) is engaging in some deceptive practices. I haven't read or watched what Peterson has to say with any of the attentiveness needed to be very precise about this - my time is in pretty short supply - so I wouldn't know where he fits. I don't "define" post-modernism.
Thank you very much, this is really helpful. It is really confusing the way Peterson is so militant about stopping what he sees as a contiguous movement, especially with his background being in Psychology rather than Philosophy
Well, he's apparently just one of my many people - on both left and right - who lump a lot of different things into convenient catch-all baskets. That's been going on for a long time, and it is quite appealing to mass audiences. I don't think that not having a degree in Philosophy really has anything to do with it. There's plenty of philosophy profs who do exactly that sort of thing. And there's plenty of people outside of philosophy who understand philosophy and its history quite well
I would absolutely love to see a substantial exchange of ideas between the two of you. I say this as a great admirer of the capacity to analyse and explain complex ideas that I believe you both possess.
What phase did you finally end up at? Word on the street is, you might be a Christian, which would be awesome if it’s true. Not too many of you left in the universities, besides in Italy or Notre Damme
Exactly! I should’ve specified hahaha many as in like 4 or 5 professors, DB hart, alasdair mcyntire, and the other guys who are into monism, or scholasticism, or good ole metaphysics, but yeah it’s gone way down hill, they’re basically non existent at this point. It’s a very small small clique, if even that
@@matthewmayuiers If your goal is to find Christian professors, you just have to do a bit of research. They're all over, but not necessarily in institutions that are affiliated with any church. And you'll also find a lot of fake Christians in Christian programs and institutions (I always ask people: how are you doing with that Sermon on the Mount stuff?)
![เบิ้ล ปทุมราช - สาวสอง ( มีมี่ของอ้าย ) ft. ตาต้า,ต้องเต [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mqlMjnP08XI/mqdefault.jpg)
enjoy these videos very much. thanks a lot
You're welcome. I'll be doing more of these in the coming months
Can you do a whole video series on Of Grammatology at some point?
I'd be open to doing that as commissioned work, since that would be a pretty big project
Dr. Sadler. I am currently writing on Derrida's discussion in 'Différance' of Heidegger's ontico-ontological distinction. There, Derrida argues that différance precedes, "is older," than the ontico-ontological distinction . However, in 'Basic Problems,' Heidegger explains that "the distinction between being and beings is preontologically there, without an explicit concept of being, latent in the Dasein's existence. As such, it can become an explicitly understood difference" (22. Being and beings). It seems to me that it is this particular move when Derrida takes différance one step too far. The ontological distinction is pre-linguistically understood by Dasein by virtue of the kind of being that it is. What are your thoughts on this? I don't know much more about Derrida--is there something I am completely misinterpreting? I know you must be busy and I thank you in advance for any feedback. Right now I am not in contact with anyone who is well versed in both Heidegger and Derrida. Thank you, sir!
In my undergrad and grad years I spent great deal of time reading Derrida, one of the most important and misunderstood philosophers in history.
Well, I have the first part in common with you. Not so much the second
Derrida, dressing up banalities in obscurantist language and asserting all sorts of arbitrary political truths - will be remembered as a clown more than anything else.
@@tonefilter9480 You proved my point.
@@Anarcath the fact you think that’s a clever retort proves your love of banality
I’ve been dabbling in Derrida lately. Very interesting take on things. Hard AF to get a grasp on sometimes. Helps to study semiotics first. Ultimately though, and I may think differently as I understand him more, but I feel his ultimate goal was similar to Socrates. He wants to pull the rug out from everything. Maybe being the outsider in Algeria while not being Catholic shaped his goal. A kind of intellectual bomb to bring the whole house down with. The French value their language maybe more than any other culture. This is where he plants his bomb.
Well, Socrates' goal wasn't the "pull the rug out from everything", and neither is Derrida's. I'd say that the place to start is Speech and Phenomena and then On Gramatology - the early stuff
Aha, just as you were getting into Derrida's "nothing outside the text" the old Therevadan in me popped his head up...then you mentioned "mystics" and he retreated into his lotus-flower...
I just want to thank you for all you do on this channel. Fantastic video as always
You're very welcome!
I'd really love to hear what you think about the works of Jean Baudrillard. Personally, I find him exemplary of the elements of Nietzsche (resentment) and Marx (exchange value) worth preserving and the only thinker who is pointing towards what we might expect to happen in a society where both death is optional and cloning is the norm.
Well, I never went through a Baudrillard phase myself, though there were a lot of people - not in philosophy but other departments - who were really into him (and Deleuze) at SIUC when I was a student there.
I'm not an academic but having read Derrida's early publications it seems to me that he was a proponent of play - I bet you'd have jumped at a party invite!
Maybe back then. There’s good reasons I got over Derrida
@@GregoryBSadler Is that an axe I hear grinding?! Thanks for responding btw, a pleasant surprise. Sincerely.
@@paulawakefield7869 Nope. You want to think about how much time has passed
Interesting thanks, I never really got a lot out of Derrida when I read a little, though I didn't persevere with it at all. I got the general idea but couldn't comprehend the details of what he was saying. I'll definitely have a look at Blondel and try reading something though, he sounds very interesting.
Strange you mentioned Voyage au bout de la nuit, as I'm reading it at the moment, trying to improve my French, really impressed so far.
It's quite good. I wasn't able to get in to much else of Celine, unfortunately
I am currently (and have been for the better part of two years now) on a Lacanian phase - which, is leading into a Girardian phase. There's a lot of correlation between the two, regarding *desire* - which is rarely talked about it seems. Jumping back and forth between the them has been enjoyable. Girard, obviously being more comprehensible and straightforward but I digress. Anyways, I thought I had read somewhere that Girard and Derrida were acquaintances at one point.?
Have you studied much on Lacan and/or Girard?
I've studied - and written on - Lacan a good bit. I've read just bits of Girard. I'm a big fan of Lacan.
Lacan seems to be picking up steam, at least through a Žižekian lens among young academics. But yea, I've been really influenced by Lacan as well. Unfortunately, he's quite often "written off" because of his opaqueness and obscurantism - which I guess is not for everybody. Ironically though, that's what attracted me to his corpus. The more someone's 'demeaned' amongst the general academic milieu (so to speak), the more I think - "there must be something to this!" lol
Well, the seminars are a lot more straightforward than his deliberately, and unnecessarily difficult Ecrits
Me too! About 2 years into Lacan with underpinnings in Kierkegaard Hegel Heidegger Badiou Zizek Sartre Nietzsche.
But yes once you think you have come along to a degree in precedence you come to know you perpetually know nothing. But Language or lalangue is a very powerful modality of being. For lacan some of Bruce Finks work is really straightforward yet it retains the Lacanian witticism. There is something about speaking around or allusion which helps an ideas be conveyed much easier.
Gregory B. Sadler Do you have an opinion on Girard? Thanks for your time.
Hello. I am a Graduate student of literature and I quite like Derrida, but I also get the feeling that sometimes more popular in departments of literature than in departments of philosophy (would you say that this is a fair assertion?). I am interested in reading Blondel and was wondering if you could suggest some introductory reading with regard to his work.
Yes, Derrida is more popular among literature departments than philosophy departments - the exception being philosophy departments that focus primarily upon continental philosophy.
I suppose if you wanted an introduction to Blondel, you could read Bouillard's Blondel and Christianity. I'm not much of an advisor on secondary or introductory lit - I focus on the texts and thinkers themselves
There's absolutely nothing wrong with "sticking it to the Anglos" :P
There's absolutely no need! At least the Anglos believe in a reality that exists beyond all observers.
@Jim Kastrup being the most prominent recently
Hey, you have read, or known, the work of Peter Sloterdijk? If you have, could you do a video on him? I'm looking forward to know your thoghts on his books, mainly on the Spheres triology. If you don't know him could you make a video on contemporaries you`ve been reading? Thanks for the videos fella! Shouts from Brazil here.
I know of him, but haven't read him. There's only so much time.
Here's my standard response to requests: th-cam.com/video/vkXKtxleGA8/w-d-xo.html
I am a novice in acknowledging Jackque Derrida. i wish to learn some more by reading and listening to lectures. I hope that I will not be turned off by Dr. Jordan Peterson. I admire his point of views as well.
Well, at some point, you'll need to decide between them
You should create explaining postmodernism videos
th-cam.com/video/vkXKtxleGA8/w-d-xo.html
@@GregoryBSadler nice
Any thoughts on Levinas Greg? Starting to go down that pathway after having visited phenomenology as a whole, as well as considering my direction for grad school. Have you read him at all? He was a huge influence on Derrida.
He was one of many influences on Derrida. I like Levinas, and yes, have read quite a bit of his work. I have disliked most Levinasians I've run across
Dr Sadler, do you have any tips on how to go about choosing translations for Derrida (and non-anglophone philosophers in general) besides learning to speak French? I know it's a daunting question, but it is a big obstacle for people like myself who are interested in reading these people but are overwhelmed by the seemingly big differences in translations. Thanks
th-cam.com/video/tCyjm58NUos/w-d-xo.html
wonderful, thank you!
It’s funny that you say he’s the guy at the party that would take it too far. From other’s reports it’s said he was quite a charismatic man at parties.
I guess you're mixing up my metaphor about what Derrida did to philosophy with the literal level of how the guy was at parties. Derrida would probably get a kick out of that mix-up on your part
Gregory B. Sadler Haha. Indeed. This sort of duality (perhaps the wrong word) between his philosophy and his persona reminds me of another duality he had described within himself about his conscious and subconscious. I’m not sure he used the words ‘conscious’ or ‘subconscious’ but that’s what it seemed to me at least. He described that when he would be drifting off to sleep, into his subconscious, he would become overwhelmed by doubt about his writing as to whether or not he should even be questioning the likes of Plato and the other great authors he attempted to deconstruct. This reminds me of how most people I know feel this during their waking conscious; they’d like to do something profound but doubt gets in the way. I often hear my friends say that it’s when they’re falling asleep and resting when they feel compelled to do the unthinkable. But it was just the opposite for Derrida. He described when he was awake (conscious) he would feel an overwhelming compulsion to write the thoughts that were coming to him. He described it that way as well; as though the thoughts came to him rather than him producing the thoughts. He just produced the signifiers that corresponded to his feeling/thought. It’s this sort of backwards way of operating that reminds me of his backward career/personal life. He was fun to have at parties but a drag for philosopher’s careers, where the stereotype is usually geared the other way around.
Gregory B. Sadler Also, thanks for responding and extra thanks for making all these videos. I appreciate it!
I thought, Plato's Pharmikon, contained an extremely simplistic and uncharitable reading of The Pheadrus. If anything that part of Derrida was useful for showing that Derrida's reading couldn't be the best way to read The Pheadrus.
Yes - a good example of what ended up making me cool in my enthusiasm towards Derrida
Side note: Girard also plays off the ambiguity of the word pharmakon when talking about the relationship between victimization and sacrifice. The idea being, (in the Girardian sense) that sacrifice is used for restoring order in a society that's beginning to unravel and is full of antagonisms. So... the victim (i.e. the scapegoat) is not only seen as the cause of the society's "problem," but also functions and is seen as the cure. *If we just get rid of X, then proper order will be restored*
Perfect example of this is obviously the Jew - in reference to WWII and the Holocaust.
What introductory book on Derrida would you advise?
I wouldn't. I spend very little time with introductory literature, and most of it with primary (as opposed to secondary) texts. So, I don't have useful advice about that.
Dmitry Muravyov I would advise just reading Derrida himself, which isn't that hard, although there are a few people that are put off by long or complex sentences. I have read a few introductory texts which might seem helpful, but usually misrepresents or misunderstands his texts. ""Writing and Difference" id a decent place to start.
What irks me about the video is the way that when praising works such as “Of Grammatology”, “Voice and Phenomenon”, and “Writing and Difference” about 14 minutes through, you don’t actually explain why those works are insightful.
I guess you'll have to be "irked" then.
Greg, I'm sure you've heard of a Dr. Jordan Peterson. What do you think of his criticism of postmodernism? Also, how would you define postmodernism? Peterson thinks postmodernism is a school championed very much by Derrida and Foucault and that "we must stop it now." I expect to hear a different answer from you and I hope to better understand postmodernism, the isolated writings of Derrida, as well as Peterson's critique in context
I think anyone who thinks that "post-modernism" is some short of coherent school or movement either is ignorant (either partly or wholly) about the term, its variety of meanings, and the thinkers rightly or wrongly associated with it, or (since they're not ignorant) is engaging in some deceptive practices.
I haven't read or watched what Peterson has to say with any of the attentiveness needed to be very precise about this - my time is in pretty short supply - so I wouldn't know where he fits.
I don't "define" post-modernism.
Thank you very much, this is really helpful. It is really confusing the way Peterson is so militant about stopping what he sees as a contiguous movement, especially with his background being in Psychology rather than Philosophy
Well, he's apparently just one of my many people - on both left and right - who lump a lot of different things into convenient catch-all baskets. That's been going on for a long time, and it is quite appealing to mass audiences.
I don't think that not having a degree in Philosophy really has anything to do with it. There's plenty of philosophy profs who do exactly that sort of thing. And there's plenty of people outside of philosophy who understand philosophy and its history quite well
I would absolutely love to see a substantial exchange of ideas between the two of you. I say this as a great admirer of the capacity to analyse and explain complex ideas that I believe you both possess.
Ricardo - Well, if someone wants to set it up, I would certainly be willing to do it. I wouldn't have very high expectations myself, though
Pleased to hear it was just a phase.
Indeed - I've had quite a few of those
Gregory B. Sadler Dry. Very dry. *lol* I'm still in Nietzsche & Wittgenstein-land. I've been told to read more Lewis. We'll see.
What phase did you finally end up at? Word on the street is, you might be a Christian, which would be awesome if it’s true. Not too many of you left in the universities, besides in Italy or Notre Damme
Hahaha! That's funny that you think there's many Christians at Notre Dame
Exactly! I should’ve specified hahaha many as in like 4 or 5 professors, DB hart, alasdair mcyntire, and the other guys who are into monism, or scholasticism, or good ole metaphysics, but yeah it’s gone way down hill, they’re basically non existent at this point. It’s a very small small clique, if even that
@@matthewmayuiers If your goal is to find Christian professors, you just have to do a bit of research. They're all over, but not necessarily in institutions that are affiliated with any church.
And you'll also find a lot of fake Christians in Christian programs and institutions (I always ask people: how are you doing with that Sermon on the Mount stuff?)
The Dude with glasses.
Simone Streeter it’s been said before, yes
How familiar are you with Karl Marx?
I'll bet you can answer that yourself by searching in my channel.
Gregory B. Sadler oh wow I didn't know you covered Marx
Alexx Just a few texts. Always better to search before asking
How much has this guy read? Jeez
A bit