Jacques Derrida | Nicholas Royle

[thetrizzard]

Yes, Derrida is very Heideggarian


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[atreestump]

Have you any thoughts so far? Anything to guide us with?;)
[hr]
I see it opens with the problem of how to respond to a question, 'Why Derrida?' and it immediately focuses on the presupposition that we know Derrida is not an energy drink, or a prospective location for the Olympic games. Then 'Why Derrida?' is in quotes, but it already was.

So already there's deontic demands, presuppostions and the review of time, how a text appears present, but is in the past. Reflecting on Being and Time, which was like reading an experience 'horizon', where objects pop up and then we magnify them, zoom in and take a really close look at them. In this text, it is focusing on sentences, the structure of the sentences. The question of deciding comes in, how do we decide what goes in quotes?

My impression is that there are two processes at work at any moment, but the one we experience is not actually 'the present', quotation seems to be used whenever something is not the whole fact, it's never complete, there's always something to add on to it. Quotes are always 'past'.

I'm trying to bear in mind that Derrida is a process philosopher and that the text is all that is the case.

[thetrizzard]

I'm just at Chapter 4, my only advice at this moment would be to read and digest


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[atreestump]

I'm just at Chapter 4, my only advice at this moment would be to read and digest


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Oh, ok. I thought we were going to discuss each chapter, so I was holding back on chapter 1.

I will resume.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[atreestump]

I'm nearly at the end of Chapter Four, as i re-read everything.

[atreestump]

I'm on Chapter 6 of the Derrida Critical Reader....Chapter 4 I found a little difficult if I'm honest, all that talk of the spectre and 'the experience of the impossible'...hopefully this will make more sense as I progress....Chapter 5 is where I think it gets interesting when he tackles Derrida's investigation of 'the supplement' in Rousseau and how it relates it to the on-going construction of the 'l' and formation of identity....as 'we are (always) (still) to be invented'.....Chapter 6 addresses that often misunderstood comment by Derrida that 'there is nothing outside of the text' which has been touched on earlier in your forum...here it looks at Derrida's criticism of the linguistic turn in Structuralism, and concentrates more on what he calls the 'other of language' which is the true focus of deconstruction...this is where he employs the use of 'the mark' rather than the text or language...which is prelinguistic, I think this links in with what he is trying to tease out in Chapter 4

[Socrates]

The supplement reminds me of what I refer to as a placeholder, or more precisely, meta syntactic variables.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metasyntactic_variable?wprov=sfsi1

[atreestump]

Think I will pick this up again this week. I just ploughed through the fascinating Judith Butler book 'Gender Trouble'. Tried reading some Wittgenstein and Derrida but the writing style is incredibly tame compared to Butlers style!

@"thetrizzard"

How are you getting on with this?

[Socrates]

On chapter 7 Differance.

[thetrizzard]

Took a break myself, I'm on Chapter 11....there's an interesting comment in Chapter 10 on page 133...'Deconstruction, Derrida suggests, has to do with ‘the opening of the future itself’


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk