Can someone explain Derrida to me?

[VALIS]

Could someone just please sum up his philosophy?

I think I can sort of piece a little bit together - a main point was that language and words are full of contradictions and so much of language has no 'real' truth to it - and that is the main basis of 'deconstruction'? Is that correct? Many of his critics have said that he was a nihlist and believed in no such thing as the truth?

IS what I just typed correct at all?

Would love someone to explain this to me, I tried wikipedia but it just went over my head.

[DaniCatBurger]

I can't. Derrida should be read together with the texts, he discusses.
If you have a specific Derrida quote or passage that interests you, post it.

Over the thumb:
Deconstructivism is a methodical notion and nihilism relates to Heidegger's Time and Being.
Time and Being is one of the works that precedes Hermeneutical Philosophy.
Derrida's deconstruction tries to overcome hermeneutic positions.
It is about literature and the problems that can occur when you want to understand literary texts.

[VALIS]

Huh? I just want someone to sum up his philosophical thought, y'know his main ideas and diaologue.

[DaniCatBurger]

Mmh, then I am probably the wrong one. I read a bit in the early works L'Écriture et la différence and De la Grammatologie.
These may not be so important for what he later has written. I remember in L'Écriture et la différence he writes about poem collections of Edmond Jabès that had been published until then and there is larger essay about Lévinas' philosophy and violence, one essay is about Claude Lévis-Strauss anthropological methodology. He basically writes commentaries about the approaches of these authors. The commentaries in relation to Jabès concern his Mishnic style, those in relation to Lévinas' works Phenomenology and those in relation to Lévis-Strauss Structuralism. You have to excuse but I would not know to say more for the moment.

You could say, probably. Derrida wrote philosophical commentaries about the effects of reflexive processes on philosophical texts. It's something that can be said about most authors that write about philosophical texts. The remark may be therefore not specific enough. I guess there are posters on this site who know to tell you better what Derrida meant.

[DaniCatBurger]

Standford has quite reliable articles.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/derrida/

This is the text, I have been periodically reading: Writing and Difference, tr., Alan Bass, Chicago: University of Chicago, 1978.

- about animals with subtitles:

[Justice and Mercy]

"There is no reason one should group into one and the same category -- monkeys, bees, snakes, dogs, horses, anthropods, and microbes."

Good point, Derrida. It's better to just say: "Monkeys, bees, snakes, dogs, horses, anthropods, and microbes," but don't forget: "Spiders, flies, alligators, birds, etc."

Or is "bird" too general? Should we actually distinguish between: "Swan, eagle, falcon, parrot..."

Does anyone else hate this guy as much as I do? But it takes a nice turn for hypocrisy at the end, where he said that he speaks of "this certain kind of animal".

Yeah Detective, and in doing so you invoke the concept "animal", thereby grouping into the same category -- monkeys, bees, snakes, dogs, horses, anthropods, and microbes.

[AdamWeishaupt]

Does anyone else hate this guy as much as I do?

I would not underestimate him. The kind of thoughts may just appear banal.

[Denny Crane!]

"There is no reason one should group into one and the same category -- monkeys, bees, snakes, dogs, horses, anthropods, and microbes."

Good point, Derrida. It's better to just say: "Monkeys, bees, snakes, dogs, horses, anthropods, and microbes," but don't forget: "Spiders, flies, alligators, birds, etc."

Or is "bird" too general? Should we actually distinguish between: "Swan, eagle, falcon, parrot..."

Does anyone else hate this guy as much as I do? But it takes a nice turn for hypocrisy at the end, where he said that he speaks of "this certain kind of animal".

Yeah Detective, and in doing so you invoke the concept "animal", thereby grouping into the same category -- monkeys, bees, snakes, dogs, horses, anthropods, and microbes.

For once we agree ing post modernism.

Michel Foucault once characterized Derrida's prose style to me as "obscurantisme terroriste." The text is written so obscurely that you can't figure out exactly what the thesis is (hence "obscurantisme") and when one criticizes it, the author says, "Vous m'avez mal compris; vous êtes idiot' (hence "terroriste")

Which is why the post modernist generator exists because you can say anything in their lingo and still make it look legible to anyone who can't think critically.

[AdamWeishaupt]

Michel Foucault once characterized Derrida's prose style to me as "obscurantisme terroriste." The text is written so obscurely that you can't figure out exactly what the thesis is (hence "obscurantisme") and when one criticizes it, the author says, "Vous m'avez mal compris; vous êtes idiot' (hence "terroriste")

Who by the way is the "me" in your quote? I'm just curious.

[Denny Crane!]

Who by the way is the "me" in your quote? I'm just curious.

I think you need to reread the quote a few times.

[AdamWeishaupt]

I have read it as a rather self-ironic statement and I think it contains an allusion to a text written by Roland Barthes about the disappearance of the author behind the text in the process of the writing (the obscurance of the original intentions).

[Denny Crane!]

I have read it as a rather self-ironic statement and I think it contains an allusion to a text written by Roland Barthes about the disappearance of the author behind the text in the process of the writing (the obscurance of the original intentions).

It is a criticism of Derridas and others obscure use of language, not sure where you are getting everthing else from?

[AdamWeishaupt]

Well, I think the "me" could refer to Derrida himself if it was a self-critical and ironical text. I remember I was reading years back a study by Roland Barthes about the relation of Oedipus complex and writing and it appeared to me there were some structural similarities between the thoughts in your quote and the text by Roland Barthes which was certainly known to Derrida and Foucault. It may only appear to me so. That's why I have been curious who the actual author of this critic of Derrida's language was.

The critic is probably correct if you measure his language by the language authors use which are more interested in presenting complete and coherent arguments than by creating and playing with allusions and references to other texts. I think they differ in the form of how they do philosophy. Their point of view of what philosophy should be concerned with, may not be so far from each other in fact. I must say that to me as for a non-philosopher and as an individual of rather limited intellectual abilities an analytical language is in any case closer to my own not very elaborated writing style and I normally fall on my nose when I try out the synthetic approach which requires a literacy I simply do not have.

[Denny Crane!]

The critic was Russel if it helps.

[AdamWeishaupt]

It helps of course.

I am surprised that Bertrand Russell took notice of Derrida and Foucault.

That's an interesting remark.

It's not impossible as Derrida's main writings appeared a few years before Russell's death.

Russell and Foucault - a not completely strange connection, although politically one supposedly not without tensions.

H. Putnam may have agreed with B. Russell here. There are hints in his work that at least could lead to such a conclusion.

[VALIS]

I think I now understand Derrida thanks to this video:



Basically sums up his thought in 30 minutes. Recommended for anyone who wants to get to grips with what he was trying to say.

[Denny Crane!]

Why would you? Guy was an idiot.

[VALIS]

Do youe even understand his philosophy or viewpoints? Because earlier on in this thread I got the sense you had no idea. Maybe you should understand what he was trying to say and constructively criticise it if you don't agree with it instead of ignorantly labelling someone/something as idiotic.

You used to be a fairly good poster.

[Denny Crane!]

Do youe even understand his philosophy or viewpoints? Because earlier on in this thread I got the sense you had no idea. Maybe you should understand what he was trying to say and constructively criticise it if you don't agree with it instead of ignorantly labelling someone/something as idiotic.

You used to be a fairly good poster.

How earlier on did I have no idea because instead of ignorantly labelling someone as ignorant maybe you should try and understand what he was trying to say.

You used to be a fairly good poster.

Amazing how an adhominem can be turned around.

As I quoted earlier Derrida took a trend of verbosity and obscure use of language so as to make their texts unreadable and that finding a point like sifting for gold through a stream.

Michel Foucault once characterized Derrida's prose style to me as "obscurantisme terroriste." The text is written so obscurely that you can't figure out exactly what the thesis is (hence "obscurantisme") and then when one criticizes it, the author says, "Vous m'avez mal compris; vous êtes idiot" (you have misunderstood me; you are a fool) (hence "terroriste") (Searle also called Derrida a pseudo philosopher)

There is a sense that Derrida was intentionally obfuscating his work with a purpose but I've never understood that purpose despite people trying to explain it to me, perhaps you can?

Further the idea that meanings are generative seems to confuse contextual with indefinable. That context is pretence which it clearly isn't and the rejection of objectivity in language and meaning on this predicate.

Oh and read the Sokal Affair sometime, a somewhat amusing satire on what is to me and many others the ridiculous nature of postmodernist tradition and deconstructionism.

[VALIS]

Errr yeah, my case rests. You do not have a clue what you're talking about.