File Name: derrida writing and difference .zip
Philosophy: General Philosophy. You may purchase this title at these fine bookstores.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution. Rent this article via DeepDyve. Adorno TW Negative Dialektik. Suhrkamp, Fankfurt a. Routledge, London.
But even more than the re-conception of difference, and perhaps more importantly, deconstruction attempts to render justice. Indeed, deconstruction is relentless in this pursuit since justice is impossible to achieve.
Derrida failed his first attempt at this exam, but passed it in his second try in The s is a decade of great achievement for this generation of French thinkers. In the early 60s, Derrida reads Heidegger and Levinas carefully. The recently published lecture course from —, Heidegger: The Question of Being and History , allows us to see how Derrida developed his questions to Heidegger. From then on up to the present, the word is bandied about, especially in the Anglophone world.
It comes to be associated with a form of writing and thinking that is illogical and imprecise. His style is frequently more literary than philosophical and therefore more evocative than argumentative. In the same speech from at the time of him being awarded a doctorate, Derrida tells us that, in the Seventies, he devoted himself to developing a style of writing.
Another example would be his Postcard from Socrates to Freud and Beyond ; the opening two hundred pages of this book consist of love letters addressed to no one in particular. It seems that sometime around this time , Derrida reverted back to the more linear and somewhat argumentative style, the very style that defined his texts from the Sixties.
He never however renounced a kind of evocation, a calling forth that truly defines deconstruction. Derrida takes the idea of a call from Heidegger.
But, it is really with the publication of The Truth in Painting , and then throughout the s, that Derrida intensified his reading of Heidegger. While Derrida's intensive work on Husserl and phenomenology was primarily limited to the late s, and to the publication of Voice and Phenomenon in , this one book produced many criticisms of his reading of Husserl. Most notable is J. Although throughout his career Derrida would mention Husserl in passing, he surprisingly wrote a chapter on Husserl in his Touching: Jean-Luc Nancy.
The connection Derrida makes between Husserl's phenomenology and Austin's speech act theory is that both reject citations from the realm of meaningfulness Husserl or of the performative Austin.
His frustration must have culminated when he was offered an honorary degree at Cambridge University in A group of analytic philosophers wrote an open letter available online to the Times of London , in which they objected to Derrida receiving this honorary degree. Despite the letter, Cambridge University awarded Derrida the degree. From , Derrida taught one semester a year at the University of California at Irvine.
As its name suggests, this group investigated how philosophy is taught in the high schools and universities in France. Right to Philosophy 2. We see this interest in life also in Derrida's lectures on the death penalty, where he questions the meaning of cruelty which is more cruel, the death penalty or life in prison? Sometime in , Derrida was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. He died on October 8, Since his death two biographies have appeared Powell and Peeters As we noted, Derrida became famous at the end of the s, with the publication of three books in It is hard to deny that the philosophy publications of this epoch indicate that we have before us a kind of philosophical moment a moment perhaps comparable to the moment of German Idealism at the beginning of the 19 th century.
Hence the strict taste for refinement, paradox, and aporia. Will we one day be able to, and in a single gesture, to join the thinking of the event to the thinking of the machine? Will we be able to think, what is called thinking, at one and the same time, both what is happening we call that an event and the calculable programming of an automatic repetition we call that a machine.
For that, it would be necessary in the future but there will be no future except on this condition to think both the event and the machine as two compatible or even in-dissociable concepts.
These two concepts appear to us to be antinomic because we conceive an event as something singular and non-repeatable. Moreover, Derrida associates this singularity to the living. The living being undergoes a sensation and this sensation an affect or feeling for example gets inscribed in organic material.
The idea of an inscription leads Derrida to the other pole. The automatic nature of the inorganic machine is not the spontaneity attributed to organic life. It is easy to see the incompatibility of the two concepts: organic, living singularity the event and inorganic, dead universality mechanical repetition. In truth, against the background and at the horizon of our present possibilities, this new figure would resemble a monster.
Instead, the relation is one in which the elements are internal to one another and yet remain heterogeneous. This generation will remain pure. But, the term is particularly appropriate for Derrida, since his thought concerns precisely the idea of purity and therefore contamination.
Contamination, in Derrida, implies that an opposition consisting in two pure poles separated by an indivisible line never exists. Nevertheless, for Derrida, a kind of purity remains as a value. It does not inspire any judgment in me. It simply exposes me to suffering when someone, who can be myself, happens to fall short of it. Anything but a purism.
The idioms of a language are what make the language singular. An idiom is so pure that we seem unable to translate it out of that language. This idiom seems to belong alone to French; it seems as though it cannot be shared; so far, there is no babble of several languages in the one sole French language. And yet, even within one language, an idiom can be shared. In other words, the taste for purity in Derrida is a taste for impropriety and therefore impurity. The value of purity in Derrida means that anyone who conceives language in terms of proper or pure meanings must be criticized.
Machine-like repeatability and irreplaceable singularity, for Derrida, are like two forces that attract one another across a limit that is indeterminate and divisible. These conditions would function as a foundation for all experience. Following Kant but also Husserl and Heidegger , Derrida then is always interested in necessary and foundational conditions of experience.
So, let us start with the simplest argument that we can formulate. If we reflect on experience in general, what we cannot deny is that experience is conditioned by time. Every experience, necessarily, takes place in the present. In the present experience, there is the kernel or point of the now.
What is happening right now is a kind of event, different from every other now I have ever experienced. Yet, also in the present, I remember the recent past and I anticipate what is about to happen. The memory and the anticipation consist in repeatability.
Because what I experience now can be immediately recalled, it is repeatable and that repeatability therefore motivates me to anticipate the same thing happening again.
Therefore, what is happening right now is also not different from every other now I have ever experienced. At the same time , the present experience is an event and it is not an event because it is repeatable. The conclusion is that we can have no experience that does not essentially and inseparably contain these two agencies of event and repeatability.
This basic argument contains four important implications. First , experience as the experience of the present is never a simple experience of something present over and against me, right before my eyes as in an intuition; there is always another agency there. Repeatability contains what has passed away and is no longer present and what is about to come and is not yet present. The present therefore is always complicated by non-presence. Second , the argument has disturbed the traditional structure of transcendental philosophy, which consists in a linear relation between foundational conditions and founded experience.
In traditional transcendental philosophy as in Kant for example , an empirical event such as what is happening right now is supposed to be derivative from or founded upon conditions which are not empirical. Or, in traditional transcendental philosophy, the empirical event is supposed to be an accident that overcomes an essential structure.
We can describe this second implication in still another way. In traditional philosophy we always speak of a kind of first principle or origin and that origin is always conceived as self-identical again something like a Garden of Eden principle.
Third , if the origin is always heterogeneous, then nothing is ever given as such in certainty. Whatever is given is given as other than itself, as already past or as still to come. Faith, perjury, and language are already there in the origin. Fourth , if something like a fall has always already taken place, has taken place essentially or necessarily, then every experience contains an aspect of lateness.
It seems as though I am always late for the origin since it seems to have always already disappeared. So far, we can say that the argument is quite simple although it has wide-ranging implications. As we said above, Derrida will frequently write about autobiography as a form of auto-affection or self-relation. Always, Derrida tries to show that auto-affection is hetero-affection; the experience of the same I am thinking about myself is the experience of the other insofar as I think about myself I am thinking of someone or something else at the same time.
In Voice and Phenomenon Derrida recognizes that perception, for Husserl, is that of adumbrations, with an intentional meaning unifying the different profiles. However, Derrida sees in the principle of all principles and in Husserl's introduction of an Idea in the Kantian sense Husserl , —, paragraph the imposition of a telos for perception towards a pure intuition, pure presence or givenness, uncontaminated by signification.
More specifically, Derrida argues that, when Husserl describes lived-experience Erlebnis , even absolute subjectivity, he is speaking of an interior monologue, auto-affection as hearing-oneself-speak. It is unique because there seems to be no external detour from the hearing to the speaking; in hearing-oneself-speak there is self-proximity.
It seems therefore that I hear myself speak immediately in the very moment that I am speaking. As is well known, Derrida focuses on the status of retention in Voice and Phenomenon. Retention in Husserl has a strange status since Husserl wants to include it in the present as a kind of perception and at the same time he recognizes that it is different from the present as a kind of non-perception.
In other words, in the very moment, when silently I speak to myself, it must be the case that there is a miniscule hiatus differentiating me into the speaker and into the hearer. There must be a hiatus that differentiates me from myself, a hiatus or gap without which I would not be a hearer as well as a speaker.
This hiatus also defines the trace, a minimal repeatability. And this hiatus, this fold of repetition, is found in the very moment of hearing-myself-speak. I must be distanced from myself so that I am able to be both seer and seen.
But even more than the re-conception of difference, and perhaps more importantly, deconstruction attempts to render justice. Indeed, deconstruction is relentless in this pursuit since justice is impossible to achieve. Derrida failed his first attempt at this exam, but passed it in his second try in The s is a decade of great achievement for this generation of French thinkers. In the early 60s, Derrida reads Heidegger and Levinas carefully. The recently published lecture course from —, Heidegger: The Question of Being and History , allows us to see how Derrida developed his questions to Heidegger.
Access options available:. The remaining chapters, even the final one, are devoted to summaries of various superior and inferior works, and to discussions sometimes relevant to his point about proper balance in the best writings only. No systematic conclusions are duly worked out anywhere.
The work, which collects some of the early lectures and essays that established his fame, was published in alongside Of Grammatology and Speech and Phenomena. He honors Levinas for his ethical philosophy of openness to the Other. Indeed, he goes along with the idea that to live for the Other is the highest good. But he challenges the idea that only face-to-face interaction can be ethical. Whereas Levinas sees written communication as dead and unresponsive, Derrida argues that writing can be just as valuable a space for ethical encounter.
Итальянец засмеялся. Он явно не верил своим ушам. - Dov'ela plata. Где деньги. Беккер достал из кармана пять ассигнаций по десять тысяч песет и протянул мотоциклисту. Итальянец посмотрел на деньги, потом на свою спутницу.
У меня чутье. У нее чутье. Ну вот, на Мидж снова что-то нашло. - Если Стратмор не забил тревогу, то зачем тревожиться. - Да в шифровалке темно как в аду, черт тебя дери. - Может быть, Стратмор решил посмотреть на звезды.
В центре помещения из пола торчала, подобно носу исполинской торпеды, верхняя часть машины, ради которой было возведено все здание. Ее черный лоснящийся верх поднимался на двадцать три фута, а сама она уходила далеко вниз, под пол. Своей гладкой окружной формой она напоминала дельфина-косатку, застывшего от холода в схваченном морозом море.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *