Understanding Derrida, Deconstruction & Of Grammatology
Video Statistics and Information
Channel: Then & Now
Views: 329,789
Rating: 4.8843145 out of 5
Keywords: Jacques Derrida, Understanding Derrida, Explain Derrida, Deconstruction, Derrida Lecture, Deconstruction Lecture, Derrida Begginers, Deconstruction Beginners, Of Grammatology, Derrida Rousseau, Derrida Saussure, How to Understand Derrida, Philosophy
Id: HKJlSY0DBBA
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 17min 15sec (1035 seconds)
Published: Fri Aug 25 2017
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.
I'd like to take a moment to remind everyone of our first commenting rule:
This sub is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed.
I am a bot. Please do not reply to this message, as it will go unread. Instead, contact the moderators with questions or comments.
I hope this isn't against the rules, as this is my video. It's an introduction to Derrida's thought that tries to contextualize him and defend him against the most obvious attacks on postmodern thought. It looks at his relationship with Saussure and his deconstruction of Rousseau, albeit necessarily cursorily as its only 17 minutes long. I'd really appreciate any feedback and criticism.
This is not the best introduction to Derrida. Especially because of the way it opens, the video presents deconstruction as a method within philosophy of dismantling or delegitimising political structures; this isn't quite the case. It is true that Derrida wrote "deconstruction is justice", but you will find within his text many other assertions of what deconstruction is. In actual fact, a broad reading and understanding of Derrida will reveal that deconstruction is something more or less impossible to define, because of its deconstructing of logocentrism – its true "target", if it can be said to have one, rather than political tradition. That is to say: deconstruction renders deconstruction as undefinable. Consequently, we must read Derrida's text and watch him work, as it were, to see how deconstruction applies to its objects.
"Deconstruction is not a method and cannot be made into one," wrote Derrida. This is because it is not a set of predefined, preordered processes which a philosopher must follow to reach understanding. Instead, deconstruction looks upon a maxim, a belief, or a claim, and disturbs the tranquility of its definition and meaning, upon the basis of its definition's structural opposite ... undermining meaning is the meaning of deconstruction. Here we are immediately left with a difficulty and a paradox: what Derrida calls aporia. It is this aporia, which is an inherent part of the world, that provokes deconstruction to rise to its task.
Lastly, on tradition: as you said in the video, Derrida wasn't a nihilist. It should be made very clear that he wasn't trying to simply prove all traditions wrong, or something like this – in fact, he was insistent that readers of his work first familiarise themselves thoroughly with the western philosophical tradition beforehand. Regardless of how it leaves the aspects of the logocentric heritage, deconstruction primarily gives us a new way of looking at them. Rather than going through historical beliefs, one by one, and proving them wrong, deconstruction in fact shows something broader, concerning the impossibility of meaning in the world.
Excellent video. My only possible criticism is that your visuals are so interesting that I forget to listen to what you are saying :)
What a helpful video! It's very well thought out.
Dare I dare the reader deride Derrida?
Amazing video, let's hope Jordan Peterson fans watch this to get a more sympathetic view of postmodenism, whether one agrees with the philosophy or not
Derrida, to me, was a contemporary teacher of the Buddha dharma. Teaching disillusionment with conceptual proliferation (papanca). That our attempts to reify concepts, figurative symbolism, or make a structured "Self" or ground in a groundless, impermanent field of sensation is ultimately delusional although conventionally useful, to an extent. His philosophy, to me, liberates from identification (reification of individual and collective "Selves" or conceptual reified structures).
So far I have liked the video, haven't finished it yet but you called the US army and the soviet union both the 2nd biggest institution.