Hot answers tagged

8

The question is based on a common misunderstanding of Derrida's work-- one he addresses repeatedly. For example, in "Toward an Ethics of Discussion", he writes: "[L]et it be said in passing how surprised I have often been, how amused or discouraged, depending on my humor, by the user or abuse of the following argument: Since the deconstructionist (which ...


7

My understanding is that the key to understanding the phrase is surprisingly simple. According to Michael Wood in the London Review of Books: "It did not hold, as many of its detractors thought it did, that there was no reality apart from language, and it’s wrong to translate Derrida’s famous ‘Il n’y a pas de hors-texte’ as ‘there is nothing outside ...


6

You may be referring to the motto extracted from Spinoza: Omnis determinatio est negatio, every determination is negation. As applied to knowledge, it means that we know something by knowing what it is not, what it differs from. Spinoza's wording is not as succinct: "...he who says that he apprehends a figure, thereby means to indicate simply this, that ...


6

Derrida generally resisted labels, and in particular he resisted the label of post-structuralism because his ideas were derived from structuralism—différance arising from Ferdinand de Saussure's linguistics—and, in point of fact, deconstruction only makes sense as long as it forms an extension of the structuralist approach, i.e. is within the bounds of a ...


6

I know that Derrida writes on dissemination and has an original theory of it I think he uses the term in a reasonably conventional way; AFAIK it would be a bit of a red herring to say he has a distinct theory of it. Note that the book Dissemination is actually a compendium of ostensibly unrelated material, but much of it is an examination of Plato's ...


5

Derrida originally used the word deconstruction in Of Grammatology as a way of translating Heidegger’s term Destruktion. Nevertheless Derrida’s deconstruction can definitely be distinguished from Heidegger’s. In both cases, the first idea one must dismiss is the facile notion which has nonetheless become prevalent that either thinker was attempting to “...


5

As User10383 pointed out, Dissemination in Derrida should be contrasted with polysemy (among other things). An interpretation is constrained by polysemy if it considers only the various possible discrete meanings a text could have. For example, the two or more meanings of a pun. An interpretation recognizes the possibility of dissemination if it acknowledges ...


5

Derrida once explained that this assertion [means] there is nothing outside context. source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida#Philosophy So inasmuch as literary criticism and philosophy are different contexts one might suppose the phrase could be taken and developed differently. However, the original context is Derridean and quite specific....


4

I agree with Ben that calling work "obscurantism" is not ad hominem. Academic obscurantism seems to me at least a problem and possibly an important phenomenon which needs understanding. Warning: I'm not a Deleuze expert; I'm at best an amateur epistemologiost. I do understand, however, that obscurantism and difficulty of topic are two entirely different ...


4

In order to wait for the other at this meeting place, one must, on the contrary, arrive there late, not early. This is tied into the French pronominal verb, s'attendre (to expect) which Derrida is making much of here. "one expects it" - "on s'y attend" - one self-awaits it One awaits one's late self : one expects death. Further, one's manifest non-...


3

As is typical for Derrida-related concepts, the short answer would be something like both yet neither. "Metaphysics of presence" refers to the way in which our thought privileges what is present over that which is absent. "Presence" in this sense can be a physical presence, a temporal duration, a presence in thought, a presence in speech—any mode of being-...


3

I know Derrida better than I know formal logic, but i'll do my best to incorporate that perspective. What I think this author leaves unmentioned, which is most important to understanding this configuration Derrida's thought, is the concept of a system's center, as it is called in "Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences", or the ...


3

You must read : Claude Lévi-Strauss, 1958, Anthropologie structurale, Engl. Structural Anthropology and Anthropologie structurale deux, 1973, Engl. Structural Anthropology. Volume II; it is mainly dedicated to the structural analysis of myth; Roland Barthes, Éléments de sémiologie, 1964 - Engl : Elements of Semiology; it is quite short, but it is mainly ...


3

As Mauro points out, you'd want to find the central works of thinkers like Ferdinand de Saussure, Roman Jakobson, Claude Levi-Strauss, and Roland Barthes. The best text around summarizing what they all have in common and the major contributions of this school would be Deleuze's "How do we Recognize Structuralism?".


3

1 A. Quinton, 'Political Philosophy' (Oxford Readings in Philosophy), was published in 1967 and showed how political philosophy, which in the years leadng up to its publication, had been much neglected in mainstream philosophy was a proper and respectable part of the subject. 2 Mary Warnock, 'Existentialist Ethics', London : Macmillan, 1967, gave me a ...


2

A detailed analysis of the quote’s origin in various Greek manuscripts of Diogenes Laertius’s Lives is available here. It starts with Agamben’s remarks and expand from it. Mostly philological, though it refers to Derrida and Sloterdijk as well.


2

The quote appears in Greek, unattributed to Aristotle, with the aspiration, in the first Sermon in Samuel Johnsons' Collected Works, Sermons, vol. 14 (the edition published by Yale). In this case, of course, it is interpreted as He who has friends is no friend. The subject of the sermon is marriage, oddly. It is worth checking out.


2

The question is a powerful one. You might consider the possibility that Derrida never achieves what you suggest he should, and that he is in fact most of the time playing the sort of intra-disciplinary game described in Chip Morningstar's classic How To Deconstruct Anything. Morningstar argues that because some academics do not need to communicate or test ...


2

I love your question but as far as I know, Freud was potentially a “political pessimist” who believed that politics was only a road to suppression of a healthy internal debate–possibly an anarchist? Or he could have been promoting a view that the only positive political path was an uncomfortable one rife with disagreement, conflict, and debate–pro-Democracy? ...


2

Words are often overloaded with meaning in philosophy. A "gift" in philosophy may be a far more pure concept than a "gift" given in modern culture. They could have given it a new name (I'm partial to "a gift freely given," myself, but that's a longer phrasing), but they chose to call the concept they were exploring "gift" to associate it just enough with ...


2

There is this: Philosophy in a Time of Terror: Dialogues With Jurgen Habermas And Jacques Derrida.


2

In the early 60's, Derrida reads Heidegger and Levinas carefully. Then in 1964, Derrida publishes a long two part essay on Levinas, “Violence and Metaphysics.” SEP Entry on Derrida So yes.


2

I do not think his defense can be made with pure logic. The leap from "I am trying to understand how to live my life" to "I owe these detractors no duty of explanation" and, more generally paraphrasing, "they are wrong to detract from me," is not a straight forward logical one. Many accept the idea that what you do in isolation, without interacting with ...


2

I think Derrida means more than just actuality when he refers to "presence." Presence in the sense of formal essence stipulates a functionality as placeholder but only in the generic sense of being indexical, or pointing to. This is presence in the more localized sense, what Deleuze associates with territorial reason. If we take logos in the sense of ...


2

"Using against the edifice the instruments or stones available in the house" means developing or progressing a problem by analysis rather than contrarian argument. For a simplistic example, in tacking the problematic stance: "God exists", the reactive contrarian argument is to (attempt to) grasp the opponent's concept and deny its existence with arguments ...


2

There's perhaps something of hint of a meta-joke lurking in this demand for the original author of "otherness". Very generally speaking, the idea of the other (sometimes called alterity) is: (a) phenomenologically disruptive of our self-assurance and authority to "legislate" our own words/writing (Derrida, Levinas), and (b) epistemologically confounding, ...


2

For Foucault, truth is historical and perspective. See C.G. Prado, Searle and Foucault on Truth, Cambridge University Press (2005), page 81 : Foucault seeks to unmask the historicity of truth, to show that truth is not how things are, but is instead the highest-order value in a discourse and set of practices. Knowledge, then, is not the learning of ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible