What I took away from the Derrida and Foucault readings is that they are generally concerned with the importance of language and its utility. I found Derrida’s claim that “the medium of the conditions for discovery is always the history of language, the history of sign systems” somewhat compelling. As someone majoring in Physics it is difficult for me to see how discoveries could be made without a well-developed, agreed upon, mathematical language. However, I’m having difficulty seeing how this fits into the context of existentialism. How is this a critique/extension of phenomenology and existentialism?
I have some familiarity with Nietzsche and his conception of the eternal return. However, Deleuze’s piece is still unclear to me and how it entirely relates to what we’ve been talking about. Parts of it does remind me of Sartre, especially when Deleuze talks about the being of becoming. This sounds familiar to when Sartre talks about the being of phenomenon and the phenomenon of being in the introduction of Being and Nothingness. Nevertheless, I’m still having trouble understanding the Deleuze’s whole piece in general.
Referring to “chance” as an object when it is an ideology is interesting. Showing the significance “chance” has on language. It is also interesting how meticulous deleuze is about the overall concept and act of language. (how it works, what it is and how it is produced). I find it bizarre the relevance of language as a form of communication amongst people hasn’t been asserted to be as relevant as it before.
What I find interesting in The Cushions is the idea that a word could have two definitions at the same time. Of course this is obvious, as we see it all the time across languages. But I thought to myself (while reading the French), how can the last word in the sentence influence the meaning of all the other words prior to it, since their translations change based on (a single letter of) the last word in the sentence. But I realized I was reading French like an English speaker, not like a French speaker, which admittedly I am not. To anyone fluent in French the meaning of the words do not change as the last word is spoken or written, the truth of the sentence simply narrows down what they mean. Until that final word, the previous words literally mean both of their definitions/translations at the same time. I can see how the excerpts from Hume and Foucault relate to each other, focusing on the way ideas become and the way they are transferred or communicated. But I have a harder time parsing out what Deleuze and Derrida are saying on this subject of the manifestation of ideas. There is something familiar about the dialectical development of ideas Deleuze cited from Nietzsche and the pre-Socratic Greeks, but the similarity is to a sort of phenomenological interpretation of experience that I don’t necessarily (at least immediately) pick up in the Hume of Foucault.
I found it intresting reading about the conceptions of language and its impact especially as a double major (the second being communication). In communication classes define language as being, arbutraty, abstract and ambiguous. I see the connection to this when we see how words can have multiple definitions and be effected by what the word prior to this. It also shows me the importance of studying lamguage when we see how to discover new ideas we first need a shared language to begin with.
The Foucault reading reminds me of Orwell's newspeak in 1984. The manipulation of language into a form in which certian "problematic" feelings or concepts aren't capable of being of being expressed verbally in order for mass control over the population. Deluze also touched on this by suggesting we have yet to establish a force capable of interpreting existence, vastly limiting our potential intelligence. I recognize the significance of language and it's fluidity to express and convert meaning but I'm a little unsure how Foucault's reading is relating to existentialism and finding meaning in a more personal, life altering sense?
I'm afraid the Deluxe reading played with my head a little bit. The dice throw segment seems to point towards chance becoming something we have to take as a factor of all parts of life. But I feel I'm slightly missing the point
The idea of eternal recurrence has fascinated me since I had first interacted with it. However the more I reflect on the idea the more problematic I find it. If all knowledge has a political implication within it, and the implications of its application are troubling. Today we live in an “post-ideological” world, this is absolutely false, we live in a globalized localism. Eternal recurrence breeds thoughts of the end of history. It is this toxic notion that is leading to the profound regression we are seeing in Europe and the United States; stagnation leads to regression through the creation of an ideological void. As for the Foucault piece it sounds like he is making the claim that language is a game we play with one and other, and that we can not hope to capture a totality of understanding with its limited scope. I have a feeling this may be a misreading however.
Deleuze take on chance is interesting. As I read that section, I felt like there was an implied, yet unreachable, way to increase the probability of something to happen. Unreachable because there is an uncountable number of things outside our control but we can pretend we do. "The bad player doesn't know how to play."
What I took away from the Derrida and Foucault readings is that they are generally concerned with the importance of language and its utility. I found Derrida’s claim that “the medium of the conditions for discovery is always the history of language, the history of sign systems” somewhat compelling. As someone majoring in Physics it is difficult for me to see how discoveries could be made without a well-developed, agreed upon, mathematical language. However, I’m having difficulty seeing how this fits into the context of existentialism. How is this a critique/extension of phenomenology and existentialism?
ReplyDeleteI have some familiarity with Nietzsche and his conception of the eternal return. However, Deleuze’s piece is still unclear to me and how it entirely relates to what we’ve been talking about. Parts of it does remind me of Sartre, especially when Deleuze talks about the being of becoming. This sounds familiar to when Sartre talks about the being of phenomenon and the phenomenon of being in the introduction of Being and Nothingness. Nevertheless, I’m still having trouble understanding the Deleuze’s whole piece in general.
Referring to “chance” as an object when it is an ideology is interesting. Showing the significance “chance” has on language. It is also interesting how meticulous deleuze is about the overall concept and act of language. (how it works, what it is and how it is produced).
ReplyDeleteI find it bizarre the relevance of language as a form of communication amongst people hasn’t been asserted to be as relevant as it before.
What I find interesting in The Cushions is the idea that a word could have two definitions at the same time. Of course this is obvious, as we see it all the time across languages. But I thought to myself (while reading the French), how can the last word in the sentence influence the meaning of all the other words prior to it, since their translations change based on (a single letter of) the last word in the sentence. But I realized I was reading French like an English speaker, not like a French speaker, which admittedly I am not. To anyone fluent in French the meaning of the words do not change as the last word is spoken or written, the truth of the sentence simply narrows down what they mean. Until that final word, the previous words literally mean both of their definitions/translations at the same time.
ReplyDeleteI can see how the excerpts from Hume and Foucault relate to each other, focusing on the way ideas become and the way they are transferred or communicated. But I have a harder time parsing out what Deleuze and Derrida are saying on this subject of the manifestation of ideas. There is something familiar about the dialectical development of ideas Deleuze cited from Nietzsche and the pre-Socratic Greeks, but the similarity is to a sort of phenomenological interpretation of experience that I don’t necessarily (at least immediately) pick up in the Hume of Foucault.
I found it intresting reading about the conceptions of language and its impact especially as a double major (the second being communication). In communication classes define language as being, arbutraty, abstract and ambiguous. I see the connection to this when we see how words can have multiple definitions and be effected by what the word prior to this. It also shows me the importance of studying lamguage when we see how to discover new ideas we first need a shared language to begin with.
ReplyDeleteThe Foucault reading reminds me of Orwell's newspeak in 1984. The manipulation of language into a form in which certian "problematic" feelings or concepts aren't capable of being of being expressed verbally in order for mass control over the population. Deluze also touched on this by suggesting we have yet to establish a force capable of interpreting existence, vastly limiting our potential intelligence. I recognize the significance of language and it's fluidity to express and convert meaning but I'm a little unsure how Foucault's reading is relating to existentialism and finding meaning in a more personal, life altering sense?
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid the Deluxe reading played with my head a little bit. The dice throw segment seems to point towards chance becoming something we have to take as a factor of all parts of life. But I feel I'm slightly missing the point
The idea of eternal recurrence has fascinated me since I had first interacted with it. However the more I reflect on the idea the more problematic I find it. If all knowledge has a political implication within it, and the implications of its application are troubling. Today we live in an “post-ideological” world, this is absolutely false, we live in a globalized localism. Eternal recurrence breeds thoughts of the end of history. It is this toxic notion that is leading to the profound regression we are seeing in Europe and the United States; stagnation leads to regression through the creation of an ideological void.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Foucault piece it sounds like he is making the claim that language is a game we play with one and other, and that we can not hope to capture a totality of understanding with its limited scope. I have a feeling this may be a misreading however.
Deleuze take on chance is interesting. As I read that section, I felt like there was an implied, yet unreachable, way to increase the probability of something to happen. Unreachable because there is an uncountable number of things outside our control but we can pretend we do. "The bad player doesn't know how to play."
ReplyDelete