17 Burst results for "Derrida"

"derrida" Discussed on Philosophy Bites

Philosophy Bites

04:01 min | 7 months ago

"derrida" Discussed on Philosophy Bites

"Was one of the best defenders and cycles. And as for any of us. If you find that you might done this stuff. It's incredibly complicated. And of course for their that he had to make a statement because all those people who deconstruction. We're able to say well. I got the heidegger finger. You know high they go by a nazi negga pulled a man. He's a nazi. You saying there's no truce so they're wrote a kind of good as a might but terrible as a philosopher pace defending demand basically saying but it must have been terrible for demand as well living with secrets. What's it likely with these quits invites. An explanation of what is likely with secrets. That's something that in a couple of hundred years time. Philosophy might wanna do must be really weird living with those secrets. Don't do it immediately after all. This stuff's come at you. Say i'm sorry. But he was busted he was my might bassetti was and they didn't do that and i think get costume. I admire him for this. It did make him really think about. He's ethical position because then he would like to claim the deconstruction was always doing type of ethics but he didn't have to go damage track he's then really explore ethics and what it meant to be good to tell lies sacred truths and all of these things and it was a fascinating part of the last fifteen twenty years of his writing life where he explored ethical issues. Roughly would you classify him as liberal. What sort of position can you adopt if your so aware of the possible. Alternatives readings of every announcement. Yea well something. You really grappled with by instinct leaves liberal. Here's a man of the left but his philosophy and there were people disagree with me but ultimately these fluffy doesn't take apolitical position for derrida. The question was always about doubt was always about the moment before decision was always a vacation. He found it quite difficult setting his personal life in nineteen sixty eight hundred on the marches. The felt incredibly uncomfortable about that. He felt incredibly uncomfortable joining anything. It's not an uncomfortableness. That any of us i think would be unfamiliar with joining the political party. Or you make a political statement or you sign a petition. You have to ignore a whole bunch of stuff that you disagree with in order to do that. They're incredibly difficult to do later. Quite strong on apartheid battles and so forth and various ethical things various political things philosophy in the university in school and so he did actually do more but ultimately his position was questioning. The spent a lot of time reading derrida reading about. They're talking to people who knew him. You must have seen the world through zoe's to some extent in writing that biography. Has he left. You change do you think. Do you see the world differently as a result of that absolutely what you've read derrida he's probably a toolkit in the like freud whether you agree with their not. He's now in the toolkit what i hadn't realized i. He's intense love philosophy and phenomenology and folsom but also the ethical stuff way he does treat all narratives very seriously and it really surprised me. Tickly stuff like religion where he would investigate the greg religion and treat them as valid expressions of human being and for me. That was really interesting that you don't have to sort of have very harsh positions where you draw lines between particular fields and particularly at a time now where there was this sort of heightened hostility around philosophical positions political positions. All of those positions. There was in many ways trying to make them talk to each other and philosophy ultimately is dialogue not monologue and more and more derrida would produce books by having dialogues with other people. That's the lesson. I keep learning from all the time to hear what the other says and to analyze what the other says and to try not to close things off..

nineteen sixty eight hundred one zoe derrida bassetti last fifteen twenty hundred years years apartheid
"derrida" Discussed on Philosophy Bites

Philosophy Bites

04:22 min | 7 months ago

"derrida" Discussed on Philosophy Bites

"Whereas thera was saying there's one way of looking at the load there's other ways of looking at the world the whole stuff about post truth which there it has now become so notorious saying there is no truth and therefore we have fake news. Though sourcing for me was was actually a gain trying to describe what it was like to be us. We have very different criteria of truth for very different things you know. If i'm reading a book by nigel warburton right. How true in the margins. When i say something i think philosophically apt. If i'm reading my love is like a red red rose on my right eye of true. If i'm doing maths quote rettig equations. I must say that's true. I didn't notice. I switch between those different versions of truth for derrida. He's saying okay. I'm trying to capture what it's like to be alive as all good phenomenal is through traditional. Analytic philosophy is one way of doing it. Poetry is one way of doing it. Fictions my legions one way of doing it conversations one way of doing it. I don't want to exclude all those other things in order to just go with the narrative for so i can appreciate what you're saying that but analytic philosophy does have the tools to describe what you've described this would be straightforward case of what we call equivocation using the same words mean different things in close proximity giving the illusion that you took them at the same thing but is a quick occasion. And that's recognizable tool of phosphine. When you come across that you can die sex. What's really going on with an argument which implies a read something really going on when somebody's communicating using words and what worries me sometimes is that this may not have been dared up some of his followers. How kind of smirk. On the face and think. Oh how stupid. You are thinking that a book has a a meaning that he meant something when he said the reason is there was a slave of the passions. He meant something by that. And it's a fixed meaning given by the historical context and the range of his work and you interpret it and understand it know how naive of you. It's just a policy ms texts. That can playfully be pulled apart. Also worryingly so removing his. From important things like ethics people make pronouncements and they mean things by the minute playing around with words. Usually i completely agree with you. I think one of the problems with derrida one of the things. I was desperate to either coming writing. The book was that he's had a lot of followers. Who do do that sort of thing. But i think derrida sort of become a code word for what he's done if you're someone hitting the bug if you spend too much time. Googling dariga putting derrida stem into twitter..

nigel warburton twitter one way derrida one phosphine dariga
"derrida" Discussed on Philosophy Bites

Philosophy Bites

03:46 min | 7 months ago

"derrida" Discussed on Philosophy Bites

"No chair if that balloon is being my family for years and so what's been called the chair. I had the right to call it that but there is limits to chain us and there doesn't dispute that nearly prove that you can call everything that but this whole thing where would go into a texan. Just come up with anything as what it means is just false basically. Let's stick with the chair for. Because i'm interested in if i start thinking about a modernist. Chair designed by architects the purports to exhibit function. It's a machine for sitting in peaceful design using the most modern materials streamlined. It looks like it's gonna be really good but accuracy preemies uncomfortable and you can't get out of it. Would i be doing deconstruction by points into those sort of tensions between the intended significance of the features of the chair and the actual practical impracticality of that. I think he would in many senses because ultimately is failing in one of its main functions. I don't think you've gotta say not a chair. It meets many of the criteria of china's about. It doesn't make one of the main things for you in terms of china's which is comfort now of course the designer of that chair could say we'll comforters. bourgeois notion. You've fallen four so i've actually taken apart. Bourgeois of chair and chair is is an object of beauty. All as many different things. And i don't care with you comfortable on it but if you're seeing sort of contradictions i've done if they did this for reasons of comfort and no comfort in there and then you found a real contradiction to what they're actually trying to do you making dorado sound very reasonable. But he had lots of philosophical critics as you mentioned earlier on including my phd. The humira he famously stood up in cambridge and said nonplussed. Cats doesn't please me when there was a proposal that he received an honorary doctorate in philosophy at cambridge university. And the argument was. He's not really prosper. He doesn't even embrace the law of non contradiction. This is the university where frank ramsey him vic and stein bertram rosso g move came from not somebody playfully mocking certain. Kind of rereading a couple of that yes. He was incredibly controversial. He did arrive with very strange views for traditional philosophy. Although i have to say that for me the peps closest to is late victim stein. Light they can sign is very similar languages. socially constructed also religion victim..

frank ramsey stein bertram rosso g stein cambridge cambridge university one china years four
"derrida" Discussed on Philosophy Bites

Philosophy Bites

05:18 min | 7 months ago

"derrida" Discussed on Philosophy Bites

"You know what is going to do is going to try to answer that question successfully not there because he's books out simultaneously. He sort of arrived in toto there. He didn't want to go okay. This is what they construction is. I'm going to tell you what is again. Because he doesn't like to assign solid meaning but in a sense. Construction is a term where you take an object or concept truth so on god and you look at how it's being constructed. If anything's being constructed can be deconstructed now deconstruction is not destruction and he was very very firm on that point. And there's a mistake. Many people make the thing that you'll deconstruction is still there at the end however you have taken it to pieces and seeing what what is made up of so. He had no great views on whether truthful not but he wanted to take the word truth and very like vick stein. He says to see what a word means. See how it's used. You wanted to take that would deconstruct to take it to paces. The see how it was built up the other thing about. Deconstruction is deconstruction. Don't impose from the outside of the concept. They construction happens within a concept so in a sense they is always already happening. And perhaps the best way to look at that. If you deconstruct a novel or short story or something like that as many people not just derrida you have many different voices going into you have instabilities already there. It's pointing out. That is the construction but the takes his already saints deconstructing itself. This connects presumably with his. There's nothing beyond the text in a sense. It's a bit like close reading. You go for such weird interpretations and run with them and show that they can be sustained from the same text has often oaks me. That's correct and dare was an incredibly close reader. I mean he actually often solely as reading and writing and there are some of his critics who would agree with that but he said. I only deconstruct the books..

vick stein
"derrida" Discussed on Philosophy Bites

Philosophy Bites

04:22 min | 7 months ago

"derrida" Discussed on Philosophy Bites

"S j. C. dot e. d. slash. Podcast in the anglo american world. The algerian born french philosopher. Jacques derrida is probably studied more in literary than in philosophy departments indeed many british and american analytic philosophers a sneer about his books which are notoriously difficult when he received an honorary degree at cambridge. In one thousand nine hundred to civil leading philosophers objected as his bhargava pita salmon explains their best known for his theory of deconstruction piece. Salmon workings conspiracy bites. Thanks very much lovely to be here. The topic we're going to focus on today is derrida and deconstruction. So who was jack derrida. Well there's a lot of different versions of who've jacques derrida was depending if you'll one of these acolytes so he's defenders or one of your enemies and i just did the quotation marks in the air when i sit that which is very deviant but the basic facts. He's a french philosopher who was born in algeria. He shot to fame in nineteen sixty seven with three incredible books of grandma technology writing in different speech and phenomena which saw all came out simultaneously virtually and gave birth to deconstruction a method of philosophy which ever since then as wound its way into many many discourses including philosophy literary theory cinema studies gender studies and so forth which looked at truth and what truth means and meaning and all the good things was look at with a somewhat different. Take on them. So i'll confess. I was a student in the early eighties through to late eighties as a graduate student. I spent a lot of time. Trying to get to grips with dariga because various commentators at said how important he was but reading. The original tax was fiendishly difficult. I will confess. I had a similar experience. I was one of those. People had a copy of grandma g copywriting difference which i carry it around with me and when occasionally stare at sorta balefully realizing my lack of intelligence and then pretending to read and you know managing to sound bite out of them particularly time there at a was was almost a pop star of philosophy..

Jacques derrida algeria jack derrida late eighties american algerian derrida today early eighties french jacques derrida three incredible books british one thousand nine hundred anglo american one nineteen sixty seven cambridge
"derrida" Discussed on The Philosopher's Zone

The Philosopher's Zone

06:22 min | 8 months ago

"derrida" Discussed on The Philosopher's Zone

"Accepted standards of clarity and rigour and i wonder if there's a sense in which they were onto something and it makes certainly as much sense if not more to see data as a literary figure than philosophical one because amid derrida himself was quite only had a very skeptical view of the business of philosophy. Didn't yeah absolutely. I mean i think one lamarcus things about darrow is that he thought that literature. Tallest truce about what it is to be given thought religion toiletries about one of these human way. Actually again we do this on life that we all sit down with some of the of the show often. We read books. We we have conversation with friends that revealed truths about the world And there it is a very victory writer because he thinks that writing in literary style can tell things. Arriving in a dry sort of style can't he treats narratives as things that revealed truths about the world. I mean the bible and other religious texts live exist for very long time. Despite anyone saying there's no gold berry stories. They exist because they tell the truth about what it needs to be alive and dare to was very unto that those feet doesn't in one way. Religion doesn't otherwise they bleeding to each other and he's not going to say religion. Philosophy is at the truth is he. Doesn't he always had a great love of james joyce and um ulysses and finnegans wake very important text for him. Why did he identify so strongly with these works. And what are these works. Maybe tell us about dara's work. Yeah i mean joyce was huge volume. Joyce for him was condie's emplo. All of the flurry vocal. Now he he. He said the phosphine struggle. Because it was trying to have a unique vocal. This means this thing. That was what i was trying to do. With ciller truce freedom was on. That's what philosophy was doing doses the opposite of that joyce in finnegans white transit. Every word is just completely created instructed thing series. He's putting together. Tamala these woods. Fully out of different languages this plea vo keleti to it. The disrupts normal meaning. And that's exactly what i was doing. So it was very very unprinted at your. I work on his show. Joyce suddenly appears and saas play rec- so and so with work with like glove which is in two combs on one columbia. You have hegel and on the other columbia have john. Jay disrupting each other news very interested in this way that literature disrupts philosophy and philosophy tries to pin down which that was really interesting and important. Thing vm just finally derrida as a political philosopher. He was in paris during the uprisings of may nineteen sixty eight. He did participate in the demonstrations but he he was hesitant to commit to any sort of political movement or strong political. Why was that the case and to what extent did he overcome this reticence later in his life i think that's personal and philosophical reasons if we just separate them from a moment which it wouldn't particularly like doing i mean the personal thing is what we talked about before with identity. You know once you take on an identity. You'll having to put aside alleged dispute side. You and i think we all do do this. Don't if we join a political party or rejoining movement going to protest much or any of those things we're having to make compromises in our thinking. No political party can capture all of what we think about and doda found that very very uncomfortable philosophically. I mean it does come down to very much that identity thing and also comes down to one of the things about there you mentioned as the program that you're violence as soon as you say would soon find something as soon as you try to now. Dan concept you doing sort of violence to that you are excluding over the possibilities and where there exists in these philosophical thinking. Is that my before you decide. And interestingly alone but you Who is a very committed political philosopher complemented by saying he was a brave man of peace. You know we do need able or at the barricades it's tearing stuff down jousting and making the compromise into saying this is wrong. I'm going here. Euro was bravely. Epiphany cape analyzing analyzing cape any nato people now later in life he had of an ethical turn describes the as he said it just comes out of us is based a lot of it today with eleven s the idea of the other that we are constructed by relationship to the having recognized that we then have an ethical to the other care for the other two mccarthy and certainly in the ninety s really became much more politically engaged articulating like south africa and so forth where he could his body on the line as it were at least philosophically by offering that they was good and bad moments that we need would set movements. That was a difficult decision for him. And he grappled with a constantly but he was not the sort of person who would go yes. I think this amazon because that is anticipated with thought. By the savvy said declarative sentences. Whatever they are even political ones suspect suspicious he held on our in. You've been listening to the philosopher's zone with london-based author peter salmon. His latest book is an event. Perhaps a biography of jacques derrida and we'll put publication details on the website. That's the philosophy zone you can find to the rn website or the abc app. Thanks so much for your company this week next week. i'm going to be talking with lhasa. Who would like to reintroduce the eighteenth century european tradition of the salom as a means of getting people interested in not just discussing ideas but also simply talking to each other. He believes that the salon is a quintessentially civilized and civilizing pursuit at a time when civilization is looking a little rough around the edges. I'm david rutledge. Join me next week for that one. And in the meantime you can find me on twitter at david. Ps.

jacques derrida peter salmon amazon next week eighteenth century london paris may nineteen sixty eight james joyce Dan twitter david david rutledge two combs this week next week john today bible columbia Joyce
"derrida" Discussed on The Philosopher's Zone

The Philosopher's Zone

07:43 min | 8 months ago

"derrida" Discussed on The Philosopher's Zone

"Dare. There is often lumped in with the post modern relativists quote unquote who supposedly deny any possibility of any kind of truth and regularly accused of having precipitated the crisis of morality in the contemporary west. What do you make of this hue and cry against the evils of postmodernism. And of darod is being situated. There's a solo arch post modernist. Maybe the post modernist. I mean there's this thing that's happening at the maryland. It's a little bit scary actually becoming garrett or as i said staff i kind of being shackled together by the anti work prepaid vehicle themselves And basically say it's stuff like that. The donald trump kellyanne conway alternative facts is the fulton dariga That he came along. There are no no truth whatsoever. Now there there was always incredibly careful not decided in fact he wrote a lot about. He wasn't relativist decided. We know if truth big truth philosophy exists is not to say that we don't use truth and side we can take instructor. Truth is not decided doesn't exist To take an example. I can call something a chair. I can call innocent chair. I can call a balloon a chair. But there's a certain truths tested over. Carry out on that balloon the find out if it works as a chair. I can sit on if i cease on. I can still as i plunged ground site. It's a chair. I promise it's a chair not gonna get a lot of coherence from that. I'm looking to get a love agreements on that. And that's what they're designed. Ecg conscious taika poem yelled were jj. That's a valid analysis of the poem. You still need to stick to the text. So he's words being completely taken and turned into this this team. On that the reason i choose an answering goes yeah but this word deconstruction it. It did become something of a of a of an albatross around his neck. Didn't and i think sometimes for good reason if if deconstruction is so often caricatured as this activity of gleefully taking a wrecking ball. To any sort of truth clamp end sort of posing triumphantly and taking a selfie over the ruins. I mean that that's not what derrida was doing. But they have been derek some of his fans and follow us have been guilty of that sort of theoretical guy implying heavenly. Yeah absolutely i seal j hillis miller and i apologize to him if it wasn't. We said something like you know you take takes and you look for the trade. That snuck top new. Pull on that thread hopefuls. Visas which i think is the character version of what they construction does. It wasn't what does occasionally when he got a bit snarky. These critics did it a bit but there it was very very very careful again and again say what i'm doing is a very close reading basing looking a little problems with them looking for words at the changing their meaning the thing because once he says a text completely tight here it. He's looking for the contradictions. He's not looking for the contradictions together. Yabu sucks announcing contradictions. He's going would justices. Use this way by hegel in progress. Slavers us that way different. People haven't picked up on this but that's important. Yeah and it's i think it's also often miss. The dairy does readings of well. Pretty well any philosophy uk dimension but particularly plato. This arch played in this. But he's reading is so scrupulous respectful and he. He's the closest radio. You could possibly want to have taking apart. Your work isn't it. yeah yeah. He saw rating as a form of hostility and he wrote a lot about hospitality. It's taking text into your life loved philosophy. You'd love philosophy. Love the philosophical idea of truth because it kept generating philosophy kept making these incredibly interesting ways of looking at the world and he does really wants a very close reading now. When you get that close to a text you start to see the problems that text. But he's not inventing problems he's not this place Let's have a look at that doesn't make sense. I'm going gonna far off at him. He's getting incredibly close to the text and taking it up again. Mexican difficult to read because he will focus on a paragraph victories. He's taking one part of your which looks data and saying you just go wrong. So as as derrida says the start of the text book six hundred pages long. But i found is one was a problem. And i'm going to analyze that. And in food co. Fill out over family. But he said. I've found a contradiction here and put your home project in the air And that's what he would do. He would really focused deeply on a particular part of the loss of his work. And say hang on. There's a problem here. I mean we still. He said whenever he still kind of panicked they. Schemes wasn't working out so would mentioned god so never wrote about religion dot was no particular interest is some. Oh look after this and philosophies down that a lot of course so in deir. Let's look at the relationship with the word god in his cell which known had written about before but that was at a saw. This little contradiction revealed a lot about his that. A lot of the criticism of does work involves not just philosophical disagreement but a deeply rooted conviction. The data was actually a fraud. And you hint in your biography. That data himself suffered from a certain imposter syndrome. What was the nature of that self doubt. Was it in part of philosophical position to have to do something to do with his background his upbringing. Can we speculated about that. He was born in algeria in one thousand nine hundred eighty which was an French colony He grew up speaking french. You're surrounded by an hour population. And in a sense he never really fitted in So he's french in algeria. he's also quite dark skin so he's often mistaken front arab so the french a suspicious of him but then a major event happened when he was paintings also jewish and when he was thirteen so nine hundred and forty-three under vichy france. He was excluded from school. And this had a profound effect on him vesey because until then he hadn't really thought of himself as jewish so dishonestly given this label that you are now jewish and that defines everything in your life. You now go to jewish school. Jewish teaches also being chucked out. This is for you on now and this was profoundly. Shocked is complete arbitrary. Nature of identity is now is that even was allowed back in the school which is also arbitrary again. Now you're just normal again you. You're not this special category so throughout this is very interesting identity and was very attentive to the fact that everyone has these labels they move around. Their identity is kind of fixed made up imposed on site falls and fahim therefore who you were was a disputed topic and so he has the great french philosopher of the deconstructionist's was liable and something that he really struggled quite often. Well he did say didn't heed that you never really have identity at all. You only have identification. Which is a process not a fixed state absolutely changing so is this complete mishmash of things and one of the ways. He's criticized by that and he woke people is he does attack his ideas that there is a fixed identity all got on the agenda to do six to do with allah. All of those things. He puts them under question. He says that's invented where constantly inventing identity all time and having imposed from the outside. And sometimes that's fine often. It's not fine. What about dairy Identity as a philosopher because he's routinely described as such an celebrated than denounced in philosophical terms. But it makes me think about deras nomination for an honorary degree at cambridge in nineteen ninety two and a throng of philosophers from all over the will write a protest letter to the times. They claim the derek does work does not meet the.

algeria thirteen six hundred pages Jewish derrida jewish maryland nine hundred allah one j hillis miller Yabu darod six donald trump kellyanne one thousand nine hundred eigh forty-three an hour arab france
"derrida" Discussed on The Philosopher's Zone

The Philosopher's Zone

06:07 min | 8 months ago

"derrida" Discussed on The Philosopher's Zone

"You can't reading and enjoying the novel told you. That's kind of the way to do it to reach through. And let these ideas emerge and having done so then you can move onto the other texts or whatever so there will be getting an entry point very difficult but once you're there the idea starts to sleeping well. The entry point into data in your biography comes with his relationship with phenomenology as you mentioned just a few minutes ago. Let's talk a bit about that. Mean what why was phenomenology so important derrida and what did he do. It wasn't the first thing to say is phenomenology was very important for a whole generation of fringe thinkers and german thinkers and hasn't been such a had had such an impact in the anglosphere as it were suddenly when island erin and i'm sure with many able dared or university. I'm sure it still happens. Tends to comes through semiotics so through language through socio it you know the signifier and the signified relationship. That's conventional relationship metric. Because by the time derek became well known he'd moved onto language and politics because of i think an analytical an anglo loss v released interesting language. It's always funny. When people accused derrida of company in about language when emily philosophy russell and and dickinson stifles are about language but phenomenology was stanford literally started by edmund who sale and he made the best he said okay. One of the great problems of philosophy is exists. Now let's just put that to one. Side that idealist real estate battle will be played out for ever and ever and ever. Let's forget about that. That's bracket that. What we need to decide is how we received the world when we look at table. Let's forget the dispute about whether the table exists or not. It's how it affects us that we think of it. How or taste or will sound our actually affects us as humans and nominal. Jeez description describe it. Describe it describe it now for about ten years on his cell and his ticon on was is a problem here and it's not a problem that it was exclusive finding but it was a problem that he found an related to the rest of law. Sophy he said okay. That's great. i'm looking at the table. I'm going to describe it. But what is this vantage point. I'm standing at you. Can you have that vantage point. You have to basically stand outside. The system enrolled advantage on and this is what philosophy is done. It's taking truth as vantage point stood outside the system and looked what's going on religion take god's vantage point now said we all of these. We can't prove. Can facing god facing truce facing this original point. We can't prove there's a lot of flux happening and so this herself in a very difficult dealing with time for instance time is a really difficult to deal with their to said look at the whole history philosophy we have this idea of equal the metaphysics of presence that we have is truth certainty that stays somewhere and we're just working towards it and we kind of fight that we've already got in order to describe things it's not bad. And when he took apart structuralism he said you have structure. The structure is over. Letting stuff the thing that guarantees that structure is outside of the structure if it arrives in the structure. If god arrives tomorrow religion ends if justice is lower ends if true thrive smart philosophy ends. So that's what he's doing with knowledge. He's he's saying bike agree with you. So do we need to describe what's going on. We can't say that there's this imaginary origin report. Is you want to get even close phenomenology in describing what's going on. I want to describe how it feels to be made at this moment and treating dorados a philosopher. Us himself is a phenomenology. And i think that's what doing he's actually describing how we relate to the world and of course language plays into this dozen language being another another system outside of which philosophers tend to place themselves. Or at least there's this. This will to clarify which is so characteristic of a lot of analytic philosophy and carry certain assumptions about language that you know the the idea that language is a transparent medium that if you use it with with careful precision. It's going to provide a window onto certain fix truths about the world but for derrida. The relationship between language and truth is very different. I think a lot more interesting. Can we talk about that. How would you describe that relationship between language and truth. That is one of the things as you as you say we see language as a transparent thing that we can we can try and force away through it and there's the meaning and this is what philosophy done throughout history. They've said i'm really sorry that i have to put it in a way words but it's going to try and get the meaning there says that's not the case you're generating meaning by doing these. I'm in a sense. Quite place to vince. Stein's late like the language. That's a look at the meaning of a word. Could house used. So this is what they're saying he's saying if you're looking for that meaning behind everything in their retirement proves the philosophy for instance has side is guide to find that meaning. And that's a problem with your grandma told is very good old days. It looks at pictographic language. Where if you look at pictographic language. You're very aware there's a representation of the reality. We tend to see words on a page as transparent as i did exist is that we can move them. In fact words written on page out that they're also like graphs and invented series of concepts which rebel rouse load. And we'll know this kind of naively and commonsensical you know my way of in the world is quite often different from a french way of viewing the world or german way of doing what we do that and that's because of language and concepts here in the philosophy. I'm david rutledge my guest. This week is paid. He's an australian author. Living in london and his latest book is an excellent new biography.

edmund dickinson first david rutledge Stein tomorrow about ten years london german One vince few minutes ago stanford This week australian language one russell french emily
"derrida" Discussed on The Philosopher's Zone

The Philosopher's Zone

07:57 min | 8 months ago

"derrida" Discussed on The Philosopher's Zone

"This is david leach with you once again for the philosopher's zone welcome to the program. A lot of philosophical writing strives for clarity. They're complex thoughts to be expressed and the best way to do that is to use language. That's as precise and unambiguous as possible. But what if the thing that you're exploring is the radical indeterminately of meaning and the ways in which it's impossible to use language as a tool for pinning meaning down. Because what you're doing when you use language is creating more and more meaning more and more interpretive possibilities more and more ambiguity it'd be a bit weird. Try to get that point across by appealing to those traditional philosophical values of clarity and precision. It'd be like me saying here. Let me explain to you clearly and unambiguously why. It's impossible to speak clearly unbeatable early. This is the problem that confronts anyone wanting to get to grips with the work of jacques. Derrida the jiri inborn french philosopher who died in two thousand and four at the age of seventy four derrida is famous or perhaps notorious for writing in a way that doesn't explain or describe the indeterminately of meaning. It enacts it. He's early works. Texts such as of gremaldi and dissemination which both appeared in the late nineteen sixties are incredibly difficult to find a way into because they're dense layered and full of riddles obscure references and word games and because data has these maddening way of never quite landing point. Which of course is his whole point. So what you need is an introduction. And if you're looking for a good introduction to it is thought. I can recommend a book that i read over the summer. Break that offers far and away. The most elegant and lucid exposition of dara's major themes that i can remember reading it's titled an event. Perhaps and its authoress peter salmon and stralia writer currently living in london and peter. Salmon joins me now paid-up. Welcome to the program. Thank you very much now paige. There's a nice anecdote in your book. Where data submits his undergraduate dissertation to be graded and it gets passed along to none other than michelle fukuda who reads the dissertation and comes back and says well as either an f. or an a plus and right there you have an anticipation of what will later become the broad philosophical consensus on derrida in his body of work among those who give it up and if and there are plenty of them. What are the main objections has had quite an effect throughout philosophy film studies quiz literature and so forth and for many people that affect hasn't been great. I mean they're the day construction which is taking part of texts. He did that start with him philosophy but he very quickly moved across all these different fields and there are some very bad to radiance you too badly as their every philosopher and there is a feeling with derrida that those who don't like he's worked in some sort of trickster or charlton so the people who don't like i think that he is complete relatives that innocent can be true at the whole history. Philosophy is ally on derrida and he's writing is very very difficult impenetrable sometimes occasionally. He does go off on one where he uses many puns and liberally rights difficult stuff and this is treated with a great deal of suspicion by those who don't like him and often those like him agreed him well. Let's talk about that notorious difficulty. I mean he's a tough read to put it mildly. How would you describe data's star. And what's the point of that difficulty because there is a point isn't it. there is yeah. His style is very very difficult. There's there's no getting around that. Fidel manning could not be now down anytime anyone who's listening has actually put their fingers in the air and dumber quotation marks. They're basically doing derrida near derrida takes all meaning and says well you being ironic. I using this agents that way a doing all these things having established at that means any declarative sentence becomes suspect. So it's very hard to their in his style and he's thinking to make simple declarative statements. Now that can be incredibly annoying when you try to read him and the other thing about that. Snow is once established it. He went with it. Unlike someone like heidegger for instance. I mean heidegger is very difficult to read. But heidi greta style. Being in time says no questions. The mania bang has been forgotten. You know that the book is going to spend time trying to answer the question of the meaning of being when idaho introduces a new word. He explains at some length. A tourist links of eric doesn't do that he emerges fully formed. He says this is what i've discovered and now i'm going to ride in that style so those coming in for the first time. He's a bit of a sort of hominid sick of trying to find a why in i. I myself in writing the book frisbee difficult to try and work out a white insincerity derrida. We'll we'll get onto the substance of dentists work in a minute. But i just keep circling around a little bit longer and the thing that really struck me reading. Your book was was how tricky it must be to write an intellectual biography about think of who is so resistant to being paraphrased or summarized or conceptualized. Was that a problem for you. In writing the book that the the feeling that to explain dare does work is to misrepresent it even as he might have put it to do a certain violence to it. Absolutely yes i mean. There's a couple of answers that one is just the practical part of it. And i wanted to explain him in a way that could be understandable but without cutting corners. Now obviously i've had to cut some extent but the thing for me that was really important was to get back to their that as a philosopher and i think i was. I was lucky in the sense. That i'm not a dirty and i like anyone who studied philosophy anyway The ninety s. You have there during your tool kids. But i really want to go back and back and back and back and try and find the philosophy. Try and find where he came from an familiar with the breakthrough looking at. He's relationship phenomenology. Which i'm sure we'll come to in a moment seventy soil. What he was trying to do with very different to the way people said he was trying to do things. We've really in the english language in particularly come to him. As a theorist of language he was actually doing philosophy and treat him as a philosopher. A felt was a tremendous help and there are bits of derrida wear. I'm sure an an arched radian would say you've got wrong bob. The me i think basically managed to find a through line for him which was incredibly difficult. Yeah one of the problems. I found in talking with professional. Derrida scholars is that they can't leave anything out. You know if you want to do just two days. If you want to talk about a text like off gremaldi you almost have to recite the text of grimala because the crib the the paraphrase the commentary is already losing the sense of what derek wants to convey right. Yeah absolutely and i think he's a great example. Because i mean that's the great book is now i think that's one simple hundred years they'll still be talking about as the kind of attacks deconstruction derrida familial actually described of gremaldi in my book as bonkers. It is in many ways a crazy book. You know it is out of a couple of as it is there. It is thirty seven when he writes it. Been struggling along not getting any sort of publicity. Having few essays scifo was published and basically put everything he knows into gremaldi. Everything thing that he's come up with this book and from the are together like frankenstein. Frankenstein-style doesn't make sense. But i think if you approach the book in that way and certainly i was never told to approach that way. It's been quite gratifying. Hearing apl fading back on the book saying oh if we do it like that we. I think we used to doing it. With novels. you can have bits in novels that you don't quite understand feel.

peter salmon london michelle fukuda Derrida two days paige four peter thirty seven two thousand late nineteen sixties english charlton derek derrida Frankenstein grimala Fidel first time french
"derrida" Discussed on Sean Carroll's Mindscape: Science, Society, Philosophy, Culture, Arts, and Ideas

Sean Carroll's Mindscape: Science, Society, Philosophy, Culture, Arts, and Ideas

05:01 min | 10 months ago

"derrida" Discussed on Sean Carroll's Mindscape: Science, Society, Philosophy, Culture, Arts, and Ideas

"That's just a single carbon atom with free hydrogens attached and said their enzymes that can attach methyl grapes to scientists and enzymes that can remove that and ensuring dan. I replication. There is also a process by which the daughter cells inherit the inherit the pattern of scientists say menthylatim from the parental. Scroll and so now. You've got all the molecular tools for putting mocks onto the stapley transmitted for many cell divisions even from parent to offspring but then you also have by chemical processes that can remove those remarks and raise reset them. So this is the example. Giving of a banana patient flew genetic tex. Well it leads us directly into something you mentioned in the book also which is this idea of the selfishness of Not just people are organisms but of different substructures. Richard dawkins very famously suggested that we think of genes as being selfish so I don't wanna put words in your mouth but you think there is a sense in which that's a good way of thinking about even individual genes. Yes no i think that. The adaptation of genes for the benefit of thighs genes so in that sense the gene. Sabine metaphorically selfish. I think the genes of the Direct targets of Natural selection they of a selfish agents that does not mean the change may not to construct individual organisms that achieve propagate achieve selfish genes. The selfish ends of their genes by cooperative behaviors. So i'm thinking of Individual organisms or as interpreters dislike cold them later in the book is being different kinds of entities than Genes so genes. In tolkien's tensai are selfish. That does not necessarily mean that the organisms they Construct need be self. They sometimes are selfish but they can also pay on cooperative. Well this i mean maybe this is a good place to ask a confusion or fuzziness. I've had for a long time about this because jeans In some sense wall street some collection of dna. That does some function are the things that are passed down through evolution through sexual reproduction etcetera but traits of organisms..

Richard dawkins dan Sabine tolkien confusion
"derrida" Discussed on Sean Carroll's Mindscape: Science, Society, Philosophy, Culture, Arts, and Ideas

Sean Carroll's Mindscape: Science, Society, Philosophy, Culture, Arts, and Ideas

05:06 min | 10 months ago

"derrida" Discussed on Sean Carroll's Mindscape: Science, Society, Philosophy, Culture, Arts, and Ideas

"Carroll and today we're going to dive once again into the meaning of life in fact the meaning of many things. What is meaning what our purposes that we have out there in the world. But we're going to do this in a much. More grounded scientific way we usually do or than people usually do and talking about these things which is appropriate for the modern world back in the day before the scientific revolution before darwin and his friends. You could imagine that purposes and meanings or simply part of the fundamental furniture of reality if you were aristotle or one of his successors you that a final purpose of final causes was one of the things you needed to explain how things work final cause was the thing to which you ain't your ultimate future goal was a teleological way of thinking about the world but then along comes physics of course but mostly along comes darwin and one is able to explain all of the species all the biology. We have around us in ways that don't refer to future goals at all right. This is one of the secrets of evolution that even though individual species can be very very well adapted to their environments it doesn't come from p- recognition doesn't come from planning for the future individual parts of our genomes shake about randomly or recombine to sexual reproduction and so forth and they just figure out through trial and error which ones worked for the situations. They're in right now. There's no forward-looking nece at all. So here's the puzzle. Then if that's true witness right and there is no forward-looking nece in the process of biology. Why is it that so many things in the world in the natural world seem to have purposes seem to be existing for reasons right. This is what drives people to intelligent design and things like that. Why is the neck of the draft so long well it seems to have the purpose of reaching the leaves up there in the tree right and on a piecemeal basis you can account for these things using non teleological evolutionary biology. But maybe you want a bigger picture. View an idea of how purposes and meanings come to exist through the non teleological or st logical as technical word Operation of ordinary natural selection. So today's guest is david haig who is a professor at harvard of organised. Make an evolutionary biology. He's a theorist so he thinks widely about many many things and he has a new book out called from darwin to derrida selfish genes social selves and the meanings of life. And i'm not gonna give away too much talk about on the podcast but the basic idea is exactly this to sort of figure out how purposes can evolve..

darwin Carroll david haig harvard of organised
"derrida" Discussed on The Philosopher's Zone

The Philosopher's Zone

04:24 min | 1 year ago

"derrida" Discussed on The Philosopher's Zone

"So dairy diaries a in some ways you could argue that he's a feminist in his attentiveness to the the six hierarchies that are entrenched in the western metaphysical tradition and in his problem. Of those hierarchies. Through his De Constructions. But. When we say that data's work provides a useful strategy for feminism but would it be decided that we're talking about a particular kind of feminism and what one that's predicated on the the undecided ability of concepts like sexual difference. A feminist that that is okay with there being no outside the text because not all feminism's go along with that do they. Look it's true. I'll. I'll agree with you think an essential EST feminism has trouble with dairy Dr because he wants to say. Sexual difference is a fact and I want to assert that in a way that would struggle to function alongside of his argument around this idea of of the text this. If this China of differential mocks. So certain of feminism because there are a lot of feminists who actually I think would partly disagree with him and yet they still found his work extraordinarily useful. There's an interview with him in. In the ear of the other with. Another feminist critic Christie MacDonald from the nineteen s with they talk about sexual difference and he says, he has these dream of an incalculable chain of sexual differences beyond the number of two. So he a very compelling sinker for a lot of feminist engaged. Thought his think very seriously about difference. Bit I guess for the. Philosophies of sexual difference yes. You're right. Conception of text in Derrida poses problems if we want to insist on the irreducible sexual difference. Yeah. Because I I have in mind is that trajectory of feminist discourse that says? Women are undervalued in Patriarchal Society because female identity is undervalued and we need to reclaim the qualities or attributes that underpin female. nurturing identification with embodiment, and the the the idea that all these things are intrinsically female and we need to assert their intrinsic worth..

Christie MacDonald De Constructions Patriarchal Society Derrida China
"derrida" Discussed on The Philosopher's Zone

The Philosopher's Zone

02:39 min | 1 year ago

"derrida" Discussed on The Philosopher's Zone

"Derek Carr's point about language doesn't just refer to text and language in the narrow sense of words and books but to all systems of signification where every concept every word in some sense gestures toward or even embodies the traces of other concepts. In other words, some meaning becomes very uncertain very unstable. Can you be large on there? Yeah. Yeah. Sure. So I mean the temp concept mean strictly, it implies the idea that you could speak about a concept in separation from its inscription. Dariga would say. That while philosophy is marked by a powerful, even irrepressible desire when so philosophy I mean western philosophy I mean particularly the philosophy that is said to be inaugurated with Plato why powerful irrepressible desire for pure meaning that could exist independently of any specific inscription but in any context, the Dariga or concepts. Attached to their material inscription and indeed materiality of their inscription in a specific context you asked me about this idea that the concept is always in relation to other signs. The meaning of the sign is only given through its negative difference from all of the other signs in a science eastern embarrassed terms. The value of a concept comes through its negative difference from all of the other concepts in the system. So cad is cat because it's not bad not met not read not said not etc, and that means that the value is never present in the sign itself. It's only in the play of differences in relation to all of the other signs that it gets its value. So. That's the sensing, which as you say, meaning is never present in assign or in a concept because it's it's it's value comes from its relations with all of the other signs right and so deconstruction as I understand it is the process of demonstrating how those other signs can never be completely excluded or bracketed off. There's always a way in which the excluded other looks within our constructions of meaning and deconstruction is a process of revealing that exclusion is that how you understand. That's part of it. I mean. Derrida, of course, he's the thinker who would side..

Derek Carr Derrida Dariga
"derrida" Discussed on The Philosopher's Zone

The Philosopher's Zone

04:39 min | 1 year ago

"derrida" Discussed on The Philosopher's Zone

"Namely, the confessions where he decides to tell in intimate detail the story of his life he says in that text that the best way for him to share himself is through writing and that people don't really know him in face to face interactions which decisively speaking and I mean to read the. Fact that he has recorded to writing in order to share the truth of himself in the confessions. In relationship to the essay on the origin of languages where he is. Asserting the primacy of speech. As something that is invented before writing and precedes writing is to find a what it at I would seem to be. A kind of contradiction in Rousseau's arguments that what Derrida does and they're actually there's many aspects to the argument that to just to speak about the speech and writing. Opposition and in dated a hierarchy binary opposition in which speech is associated with with presence and the presence of the consciousness of a speaker of a human being articulating thoughts to another person who is understood to be conscious and understanding what the other is saying to them. Whereas writing is associated with absence. and distance what he's doing in pointing out this opposition, and then this apparent contradiction in actually having recourse to riding in the confessions is showing that actually. It's to have records to writing to take another aspect of his arguments. So in the essay of on the origin of languages, is that speeches primary its invented in the sale of writing is invented lighter in the north. This is according to Rousseau and again. So you have this primacy of speech and writing comes afterwards the derrida suggests in nights that in Russo there's. References to the use of gestures by people as a way of communicating and these gestures is something that comes before speaking and Derrida suggests then that speech isn't primary toll because actually this is something that comes before, which is gesture Durda read gesture as a kind of writing, and then this would suggest that writing is no longer secondary to speech that actually precedes it..

Derrida Rousseau Durda Russo
"derrida" Discussed on The Philosopher's Zone

The Philosopher's Zone

02:13 min | 1 year ago

"derrida" Discussed on The Philosopher's Zone

"An ABC. PODCAST. Hi David roughly this is the philosophy zone and welcome to the program. Once again, if you're a regular listener, you'll know that I'm currently running a series which I've called philosophy in a nutshell because philosophy sometimes precedes in little tiny pieces rather than big extended theses everyone knows a famous philosophical atheism and each week through October into November may be taking one of those and putting it under a microscope. This week's thought by it is somewhat notorious pronouncement from the somewhat notorious French philosopher shock derrida. There is nothing outside the text. is taken from his nineteen, sixty seven work of Gremaldi in which Derrida first argues that Western philosophy has traditionally privileged speech over writing. According to that Western philosophical tradition speech delivers presence and immediacy while writing is derivative subject to the endless play of interpretation. But then Derek goes to deconstruct that opposition. He argues that speech can just as easily be seen as a derivative form of writing and not just speech but all systems of signification, all of our languages, all the ways in which we try to make meaning none of them delivers that meaning in full in the way that speech is traditionally thought to do everything is writing and if that's the case, well, then there is nothing outside the text. At this point, I should immediately say that nice need. Of Dairy. Work Wildlife just often are always tragically lacking in some form or another. So I'm going to bring in this week's guest who can do a much better job of nailing what Derrida was on about the I can her name is Rebecca Hill. She's a senior lecturer in the School of Media and communication at our mit university and Melbourne shall. So one of the convenors of philosophies of difference which is a really wonderful seminar series devoted to discussing issues that have been marginal to the dominant traditions of Western thought and is linked to philosophies of difference on our website. Anyway to get US started. It's worth noting that while there is nothing outside the text is certainly.

Derrida senior lecturer Derek US ABC David Work Wildlife Gremaldi School of Media mit university Melbourne
"derrida" Discussed on Philosophize This!

Philosophize This!

10:58 min | 3 years ago

"derrida" Discussed on Philosophize This!

"Construct meaningful statements to talk to the people around me. But what if words are not as stable and simple as that put it this way? How do you think the way you. View words would change if it was your job to sit around all day, studying them, part of the job of a linguist part of the job of a semi Titian. What happens when you look at words under a microscope, what are they exactly we'll just to continue the visual of the microscope at a macro level. We may just see the word justices squiggly lines on a piece of paper. That means something to us. But when you look at that word under a microscope, when you see it through the lens of semiotics, what you might see a are, you know, tons of related terms sort of sort of orbiting around the word and branching off into countless different directions. And these terms are as crucial as the word itself when it comes to what the word means within the structure of the language, the synchronic, meaning of the word, but then you'd also see a long almost like an asteroid tail spanning off into the horizon of all the different meanings. That word is carried throughout history that are potentially brought to bear. Whenever the word is used. The diachronic meaning of the word. Now, maybe I'm taking too much creative license, putting a visual on it like this. But the important part here is to consider just how strange and complex of thing words really are. When you take a closer look at them. Consider if you other strange and complex things about language that structural linguists and post structuralist are noticing throughout the twentieth century. First of all that words and signs for that matter are generative words naturally produce and rely on more words to be able to exist signs always produce more signs. For example, if you wanted to know the definition of a word and you went to Google or the dictionary to look it up, what are you giving at that point? Well, more words to explain what that word means. If you don't understand the words in the definition, you look up those words and are given more words to describe what they mean. The definition of a word is always other words. Think about what we're doing there to describe the meaning of a word. We use words that themselves only have meaning because the meaning of other words justify them and in the meaning of other words, justify those. And so on. Second of all, let's consider the synchronic, meaning of a word, a little deeper. I second the risk of being completely redundant. Remember the the synchronic meaning of a word refers to the meaning of a word at a particular point in time, it's position within a particular system only way we can know what a free throw is also understand tons of other things backboard who basketball game, etc. Okay. Don't all of those related terms themselves require other related terms for them to have meaning so that they've been capable of giving the original word. It's meaning. So wouldn't that imply that if you looked at these related terms with an even more powerful microscope, you'd see tons of related terms to each of the related terms, each of them with countless branches spanning off in every direction further. Wouldn't this also have to be the case when it came to the related terms to those related terms and and even deeper than that and look, I'm sorry, this is become super abstract like this is a word inception or something. But the point here is to illustrate words when you step outside of how normalize they are to us and how easily we just throw them around words are truly bizarre and complex things. They clearly are not as simple as they're just being a word and then an obvious stable meaning that we can access. And again, this is clear to a post structuralist in the same way. It's clear to them that what we have access to is not an obvious stable reality and what we are is not an obvious stable self-identity. Penny. Down the meaning of words like we've tried to do so often in the past starts to seem like an extremely chaotic enterprise if not impossible. I mean to some some mutations out there, the the meaning of a word must actually at some level include the meanings of every other word in the language, all of which are constantly changing. Now completely aside from how crazy it is that the human brain is capable participating in a game like this, even the tremendously flawed way. We do consider the fact that this game of language that we're playing is not a necessary aspect of being a human being. In fact, if you think about it, it was a pretty arduous process. You went through for years with tons of specialized books and TV shows and professional teachers and parents guiding you along the way supporting you just to get to a place where you're capable of the most basic articulation of what you're thinking all throughout your life as an adult, improving the skill as well to jock Derrida. If you were trying to locate where the meaning of a word lies. The meaning of a word is always what he calls non present or deferred and what he's referring to. There is something he thinks it's a giant mistake. Philosophers have been making since they first started trying to find the meanings of words, a mistaken thinking there it is going to refer to as the philosophy of presence. Now, understanding this mistake throughout the entire history of philosophy is going to be crucial when it comes to understanding the post structuralist post modernist critique of modernity. We're going to return to. An and talk about in more detail in a couple of associates, but the single sentence not doing it. Justice version of it is that for a long time, we have assumed that there is a level of immediacy between words and their meanings that just doesn't exist. And the only way this has been made possible over the years to Derrida is because philosophers throughout history, have almost solely focused on speech language rather than writing. He calls his tendency in the history of human thought phone centrism there, things about the nature of language and words that become much easier to see when you analyze writing rather than speech. And once again, philosopher strut, history of privileged speech overriding because when a person speaks more so than writing, which can sometimes feel like just ideas on a page with no real human being present and can feel a little disconnected when a person speaks, it feels more like it's a human being particularly ideas with the very clear intention behind them and Derrida. This phone Centric approach has allowed thinkers throughout history to persistent delusion that the intention of an author somehow grounds the ultimate meanings of the words. Once again, we're gonna talk about an a couple episodes, but there things we need to talk. About before that, so that this makes sense. So given the complex and strange nature of words that there's obviously a lot more to talk about the reality of what language is, leads Derrida to certain conclusions. The best way I've ever seen it put is in the analysis of Derrida by Lawrence Cahoon recess to data. Every statement is ally. And the reason this is the case is because when you consider just how chaotic the process of pinning down the meaning of words, when you realize how many historical meanings, the baggage that anyone word carries with it from the past, when you realize the the ever-evolving shifting, synchronic, meaning of words, you start to see that because we want to communicate as human beings. And these crazy things called words are the primary tools. We have to do it with by necessity. We have to participate in this crazy chaotic game called language, and an essential part of playing that game is to always be someone who has to repress all of the other potential meanings of the words they're using simply to be able to speak. Week we have to do this. This process is a big part of a concept he refers to as logo centrism to dare it up as speakers. We can never escape this logo centrism with every sentence we utter, we have to speak, pretending as though the words were using have stable concrete meanings as though the words you're saying are actually easily and clearly understood. We have to pretend as of the words were saying are connected to what he calls a transcendental signified. We talked about signifier signifies he's referring to us speaking as though our words are connected to some ultimate concept of what that word means. We have to pretend like this if we want to communicate anything at all to anyone. Because the reality is that what philosophers have been trying to do from Alenia is impossible to Derrida. It is impossible to provide an immediacy between speaker writer and the object that they're referring to. That's just not how words work. When you look at them under a microscope, they're far more complex than that. It is impossible to use words to reference the full meaning. Of something. And so what happens is words always go beyond what we intend for them to do. These building blocks called words, don't have clear stable meanings, but we have to use them as though they do now also consider the fact that we do tons of other things that sabotage communication. We say things when we really mean something else, we say things just to get a certain reaction. We outright lie and misrepresent the truth, and it's a wonder how anyone could be surprised by the fact that misunderstandings and misinterpretations happen all the time. And here's the thing. Many of these misunderstandings happen without either party even being aware of it. I mean, a lot of misunderstandings happen with both people thinking the other one got exactly what they were meaning to say. Now it's inconsideration of this point. The Derrida drops a pretty big bombshell. By far the most famous line he ever wrote and it goes like this. There is nothing outside the text and what he means when he says that is that there is nothing about your experience at all of reality of the world, the universe, whatever you wanna call it. There's nothing about your experience that isn't mediated governed affected by ores in some cases, entirely controlled by language. Think about the philosophical implications of that. If that is true and we just got done laying the foundation for making a case that language is this crazy chaotic game where we're all desperately trying to repress the true extent of the meaning of words, so that we can wield them very own selfish narrow purposes. What if everything about your entire existence? It's filtered through that game. Let's talk about hypothetical for a second. Not that this is even possible at this point for us to do fully, but try to imagine yourself it's the only being in existence. Now, in this example, you have no language or concepts to chop up the universe and make sense of things. And and let's say in this existence, he came across something that an hour world with our language, we would refer to it as a tree staring at a tree. Okay. Without the mediation of language, there would be absolutely no necessary reason for you to delineate between this green and Brown thing in front of you and the ground beneath it or the sky behind it or the trees next week, or even you really, if you're the only being in existence, the tree quite simply wouldn't mean you'd still be looking at something, but it wouldn't mean anything. Meaning itself doesn't exist until it's introduced by language. The tendency for us to look for meaning and things as a byproduct of the fact that practically every second of our existence, we've just been immersed in language no matter what it is. Everything you think you know about anything, everything about your entire experience of reality. You understand only through the context of language and how one word or concept relates to other words and concepts. You know, you can never say anything about the way reality is without ultimately expressing it through a language and simply by doing that to Derrida, you have limited yourself to describing reality through metaphors between symbols for all intents and purposes. There is nothing outside the text because there's nothing about your existence that's outside the context of language. Now, some of you may be saying, well, that sounds like a big suction. I mean, clearly there's something outside in existence mediated by language. I, I was born I was existing and I didn't have a language jock area would say, yeah, that's absolutely true. But there's no going back at this point and a totally reasonable reply to that might be really is there is a really no going back is it really impossible to peel back the layers of this language game that we're playing. Couldn't someone hypothetically

jock Derrida Google basketball Alenia writer Lawrence Cahoon
"derrida" Discussed on The Michael Knowles Show

The Michael Knowles Show

02:01 min | 3 years ago

"derrida" Discussed on The Michael Knowles Show

"But that's not the deepest possible level of conceptualization being our cultures predicated on the idea that each human being this is the this is the source of the idea of natural right let's say or of individual sovereignty there's an idea that each person is a is touched by divinity let's say it is made in the image of god that actually means something in the context of the story within which it's to be interpreted so the word of god which was active at the beginning of time in the judeo christian account of creation used truthful language to extract habitable order from chaos and i think that is what human beings do i don't think we've ever formulated a more accurate representation of the nature of human consciousness because we confront potential we call that the future we confront an infinite landscape of potential and we choose how we're going to make it manifest itself in concrete reality like that is really what are seems to do and and that brings new being into being and our legal systems are predicated on the idea that that capacity should be given all due respect right as the generator and recreate or of culture itself and like you can't just throw away that idea it's ideal on our which our society roasts and the post modern neo marxist types are after that idea hammer and tongs they hate everything about it and so that's why i think it's a theological battle that's why derrida said you know he called western culture fellow fellow go centric fellow p h a l l o and he meant male dominated logo centered which is well it certainly logo centered it's going to criticize that while yeah you're gonna criticize the idea of the of the sovereign individual and that's certainly what the post modern types do then dairy upon them i say didn't you say there's nothing outside of the text or it's all everything is.

derrida