I see a lot of similarities between Derrida and Deleuze in these pieces. First and foremost, the way Derrida present his thoughts seems semi-Avant Garde which is reminiscent of Deleuze in 1000 Plateaus. Consequently, I have similar difficulties in wanting to appreciate the philosophical work being done here, but not being able to get a good handle on the nuances and subtleties. Generally I get the sense that Derrida it critical of the unity and algorithmic notion that America makes of post-structural thought; that it goes against the very ideas post-structuralism represents.
I appreciate Derrida’s use of examples to attempt to explicate the possible and the impossible, however I had difficulty following them all the way to their conclusion. I’m failing to see how something like invention “may not be possible except as impossible and come from the other, indeed from the other irreducibly other than myself…[that it] can never present itself as such to a theoretical or observing judgement.” It Derrida critiquing Plato’s theory of the forms as well as Husserl’s objectivity here?
I found this writing pretty hard to follow. On page 24 when Derrida says "An invention must announce itself as the invention of what did not seem possible, without which it does nothing but make explicit a program of the possible, in the economy of the same" I can understand that an invention must be something that was impossible up to that point, but I don't understand why the polar idea of the impossible is needed to create the invention, as stated by the second half of the sentence.
I think his remarks about gift-giving are interesting in that the notion of giving and receiving presents is ruined once the conscious ascribes the action to the realm of exchange and reciprocity and I remember reading about a neuroscience study that showed how gifts that are seemingly random and unexpected are registered by the brain as far more rewarding than non-spontaneous gifts. I didn't quite follow the paralleled notions of the possible and impossible in this example, however.
I found it interesting that Derrida himself thought of deconstructionism as being a two pronged system of thought; one to first overturn the ideas/systems of ideas being critiqued and then to secondly engage in the process of inversion. According to Derrida It is in this second process that new ideas emerge.
All too often straw-man critiques of Derrida such as those by pseudo-intellectuals like Jordan Peterson accuse Derrida of attempting destroy ideas and never build new ones. When in actuality the process of deconstruction is essential to the generation of new content.
Derrida’s style is unusual, in that his written work feels more like speech than is typical, and his spoken interview feels a lot more similar to writing than another person’s. This is probably just a bias I have since the readings were provided with context, and it probably means that Derrida’s style of communicating ideas was fairly consistent between different media, never giving one preference over another.
Less than coincidentally what I wrote above seems to be his point in the interview reading. He seems to think that this balance between things doesn’t bring harmony, but conflict and confusion. If Derrida fits the label of poststructuralist and is consistent with its trends, I imagine that he revels in this and sees it as a more True way of understanding the world.
In dramatic theory there's a concept called "playing the other" in short, this involves looking at the text, the themes, and feeling invoked. And then, play the opposite. Often resulting in complicated and subtext rich performances. This sounds like a similar concept to what Derrida is suggesting with deconstruction.
Overall I found this reading very hard to follow. Derrida has an interesting style to say the leaset and I struggled to really pinpoint the points he was making.
I see a lot of similarities between Derrida and Deleuze in these pieces. First and foremost, the way Derrida present his thoughts seems semi-Avant Garde which is reminiscent of Deleuze in 1000 Plateaus. Consequently, I have similar difficulties in wanting to appreciate the philosophical work being done here, but not being able to get a good handle on the nuances and subtleties. Generally I get the sense that Derrida it critical of the unity and algorithmic notion that America makes of post-structural thought; that it goes against the very ideas post-structuralism represents.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate Derrida’s use of examples to attempt to explicate the possible and the impossible, however I had difficulty following them all the way to their conclusion. I’m failing to see how something like invention “may not be possible except as impossible and come from the other, indeed from the other irreducibly other than myself…[that it] can never present itself as such to a theoretical or observing judgement.” It Derrida critiquing Plato’s theory of the forms as well as Husserl’s objectivity here?
I found this writing pretty hard to follow. On page 24 when Derrida says "An invention must announce itself as the invention of what did not seem possible, without which it does nothing but make explicit a program of the possible, in the economy of the same" I can understand that an invention must be something that was impossible up to that point, but I don't understand why the polar idea of the impossible is needed to create the invention, as stated by the second half of the sentence.
ReplyDeleteI think his remarks about gift-giving are interesting in that the notion of giving and receiving presents is ruined once the conscious ascribes the action to the realm of exchange and reciprocity and I remember reading about a neuroscience study that showed how gifts that are seemingly random and unexpected are registered by the brain as far more rewarding than non-spontaneous gifts. I didn't quite follow the paralleled notions of the possible and impossible in this example, however.
1. I was very confused throughout this whole reading. :)
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting that Derrida himself thought of deconstructionism as being a two pronged system of thought; one to first overturn the ideas/systems of ideas being critiqued and then to secondly engage in the process of inversion. According to Derrida It is in this second process that new ideas emerge.
ReplyDeleteAll too often straw-man critiques of Derrida such as those by pseudo-intellectuals like Jordan Peterson accuse Derrida of attempting destroy ideas and never build new ones. When in actuality the process of deconstruction is essential to the generation of new content.
Derrida’s style is unusual, in that his written work feels more like speech than is typical, and his spoken interview feels a lot more similar to writing than another person’s. This is probably just a bias I have since the readings were provided with context, and it probably means that Derrida’s style of communicating ideas was fairly consistent between different media, never giving one preference over another.
ReplyDeleteLess than coincidentally what I wrote above seems to be his point in the interview reading. He seems to think that this balance between things doesn’t bring harmony, but conflict and confusion. If Derrida fits the label of poststructuralist and is consistent with its trends, I imagine that he revels in this and sees it as a more True way of understanding the world.
In dramatic theory there's a concept called "playing the other" in short, this involves looking at the text, the themes, and feeling invoked. And then, play the opposite. Often resulting in complicated and subtext rich performances. This sounds like a similar concept to what Derrida is suggesting with deconstruction.
ReplyDeleteOverall I found this reading very hard to follow. Derrida has an interesting style to say the leaset and I struggled to really pinpoint the points he was making.
I found this reading to be one of the most difficult reading of the semester.
ReplyDeleteAn idea I thought was somewhat intriguing is Derrida idea about gift giving.