The Library of Borges, Austin, Derrida
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ต.ค. 2024
- An exploration of Jorge Luis Borges's "The Library of Babel," and its relevance to a (proxy) debate about language between John Austin and Jacques Derrida. In addition to Borges's story, the video looks at Austin's "How to Do Things with Words" and Derrida's "Limited, Inc."
I didnt even realize this video only has 1k views and your channel only has 2k subs because it was made so well. Definitely subbed right away
thank you!
I’m mindblown with the quality of this video, narration and script!
I’m so glad it was recommended on TH-cam, loved the video. Hope you keep creating!
Thanks very much, welcome!
When dealing with infinity: “If it can happen, it *must* happen.”
It's a true event when you release a new video, Brian: I loved every second of this. Your series on Kafka was a game-changer for me that I think about often. Hope you are well!
thanks so much!
hm, I can't see my original reply, but I'll say thanks again for your kind words!
Incredible video. I love it. Style, script, images. Everything. Keep going, please! With Borges you catch me because he's my favorite writer of all time
Thank you! I'm glad to hear it because my next one is going to be on "The Lottery in Babylon" and its connection to Kafka
Sorry, I think I had misinterpreted the coin flip analogy in my comment before. Also, I was trying to reference the Law of Large Numbers but in the wrong context.
2:58. Anyone know what her name is? Swear I've seen her from somewhere
Djdjjwv. Aj ooa w. nwixuhw rnrkei q? e hs, hwhhabw 2729 ehb kegak a nu!
debatable
"For the algo" also exists in the books of Baghdad 👍
give it a few years. The internet shall become like The Library of Babel
The Library of Babel is already a thing on the Internet.
@@dexter111344 i mean the whole internet
An objection to your objection about the HMS Elizabeth’s Christening not being a speech event because “It just shows how far the official name is from reality.”:
This is a fair objection, but let’s imagine what would’ve happened if Queen Kate or whatever her name was misspoke during the christening (or had been told the wrong name, etc.) and christened the ship “The Queen Victoria.” Which name would’ve superseded the other?
I’m not sure which name they would’ve gone with myself, but knowing how Brits love their traditions, I think they would’ve had to go with “Victoria,” the *Official* name, even if it was “incorrect.”
In that case, and assuming the majority of people agreed to use it, the “official name” would’ve _retroactively changed reality,_ in the sense that all the previous utterances of the ship by the name of “Elizabeth” would’ve been in error. Lacan (borrowing from Freud) called this phenomenon “Nachträglichkeit,” roughly meaning “Retroactivity,” or closer still, “Afterwardness.”
Anyway, I believe the christening is therefore a Speech Event after all. It may not _change_ anything from practical to official, but it _reifies_ that thing in language (like a dictionary does). What do you think? 😊
I like your challenging example, and thanks for your thoughts. Before the christening there existed a civil, military, and bureaucratic archive that was already so vast and established -- and which had confirmed the ship will be named "the queen elizabeth" -- that I think a slip of the tongue on the queen's part could not have changed anything. All the letterhead had already been printed, as it were. But! If somehow her slip had caused a popular outcry -- some national insistence that the name ought to be Victoria -- I could see a scenario where the bureaucracy might be ordered to go through the process of changing the ship's official name. And that moment of transition would be interesting, since the community consensus would now be that there are two possible names for the ship. I can imagine that situation has arisen countless times for babies as well: some of the family heard from someone that the name would be Gabe, whereas other family and neighbors were sure the mother said Joseph. Each "faction" has heard about the controversy -- but the parents are sleeping away, inaccessible -- and so now the community consensus is that the name is uncertain, with two possibilities. Total consensus doesn't always exist. It's the same with words. In some enclaves of the English-speaking world, "bet" will most likely refer only to a wager, whereas other enclaves know the term might mean "excellent!" as well.
That there are multiple practical means (state bureaucracy designations, media assertions, word of mouth use) by which one refers to The Queen Elizabeth apart from its official christening does not strike me as a counter-argument to Austin’s notion of a performative in this case, as it can be a stipulation that it was not officially named, despite the aforementioned practical conventions. The christening remains an official naming act and it’s still a performative-just one that did not occur.
They can refer to it by name all they want but it was still not officially named.
True, the reality of a marriage is not brought about by a single speech act; but not is it brought about by a mere community recognition or single bureaucrat’s ledger.
“You’re under arrest!” at the time of utterance lacks any prior naming conventions (all things being equal-police corruption aside).
I suppose this is partly why David Lewis wrote Conventions.
What am I getting wrong? Are you just claiming that the performative is categorically superfluous?
Thanks!
Yes, I see what you're saying. But remember that Austin is not making a merely circular argument of definition. If his point were simply that the ship doesn't have an official name until the ceremonial utterance takes place, that would just be a definitional tautology. (The ship is not officially named until the official naming ceremony takes place.) But that's not his argument. He is claiming, rather, that some "reality" is changed or brought about by the speech act -- a reality beyond mere definition, beyond the fact that an official box has been checked somewhere. He means some reality in the world, beyond mere words and definitions. But what Austin does not do, unfortunately, is explain exactly what that "reality" is. He just expects us to recognize it. My argument about the ship is that every possible "reality" that could pertain to a name -- its legal registry *as* the name of the entity, and its use by every single person in the community as a reference to that particular object (the ship) -- all of those were in place before the christening took place. The functional and legal "reality" of the name was established before the christening.
In a marriage, you can say "I do" in the ceremony, but if you don't turn in the right paperwork and you are not *registered* as married anywhere, you're not really married, at least in the eyes of the law -- although the *community* may or may not affirm the marriage in that case; but presumably the "reality" of a marriage should require both, I would think. More importantly: the paperwork and the registry are *required* to achieve that legal status of marriage -- whereas a ceremonial "I do" is *not* required! It's legally optional. So clearly we can't say it's the ceremonial statement that brings about the reality. Conversely, among the vast numbers of forced marriages around the world, we know there are some that have taken place without the "key" words or gesture that is normally expected of the bride -- and still the entire community (and whatever system of registry it has) confirm the reality of the marriage. The mere fact that it is *possible* to conduct and establish these ceremonies, procedures and registries *without* the "performative" words ever being uttered is yet another demonstration, I would think, that the "reality" of a marriage is not brought about by the "performative" utterance.