[PassatAmnesiac]

Is anyone familiar with him. I have to write a a 4 page paper on a concentrated topic and talk about my views of that topic. Plus I am just interested in him after watching the DVD on him.

[Guille]

HI. I'm not an expert but I do know some things. But before I tell you anything I want to ask you if you know the title of the dvd? I would really like to have it.

By the way, there is a lot of pages around the internet with philosophy, just google search derrida and lots will come.

Now. I haven't read directly his works, but I've read things about him. First, he proposed the idea of deconstruction. This is complex, not to understand hwo it works, but to understand why he says it's needed in cotnrast to structuralism. The problem with reading such a recent philosopher is that he obtained many things from other philosphers: Heidegger, Hegel, Husserl, Freud... So actually do understand him, it's quite neccesary to understand the preivous ones. Now, deconstruction basically is that instead of building up knowledge, in each area, we should get the knowledges of each are, and take them out of the pyramids of each area, into the whole pyramid, that is, put it into othe rpyramids and confirm that it works: because for him, they will work in all pyramids. This is definatelly related to the theory of everything.

[PassatAmnesiac]

HI Guille,

The name of the Derrida DVD is just that Derrida.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00011V872/qid=1133894121/sr=8-2/ref=pd_bbs_2/104-0649290-8226365?n=507846&s=dvd&v=glance

Well from my understanding of what I have gathered thus far, is that decontruction tries to eliminate "centers". Centers make everything else marginalized. Decontruction tries to bring the marginilized to the forefront so there is no center.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by PassatAmnesiac HI Guille, The name of the Derrida DVD is just that Derrida. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00011V872/qid=1133894121/sr=8-2/ref=pd_bbs_2/104-0649290-8226365?n=507846&s=dvd&v=glance Well from my understanding of what I have gathered thus far, is that decontruction tries to eliminate "centers". Centers make everything else marginalized. Decontruction tries to bring the marginilized to the forefront so there is no center.

Thanks for the link. Yes, I agree with you view of deconstructionsim. But it is more than just de-centring: it is also about polivalent centres, and that those should be the centres. And also that the centre, the start of each study, each area of knowledge, is so general that it is not onyl applyable to any other subject, but also that it is probably wrong.

[PassatAmnesiac]

Originally Posted by <<>> Thanks for the link. Yes, I agree with you view of deconstructionsim. But it is more than just de-centring: it is also about polivalent centres, and that those should be the centres. And also that the centre, the start of each study, each area of knowledge, is so general that it is not onyl applyable to any other subject, but also that it is probably wrong.

I don't follow what you mean by polyvalent centers. I believe I have only heard that term used in chemistry.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by PassatAmnesiac I don't follow what you mean by polyvalent centers. I believe I have only heard that term used in chemistry.

Maybe in english is not that used as spanish.... What I mean is that the centres have several uses and values, different ones.

[PassatAmnesiac]

Centers guarantee meaning if the center changes it changes the meaning and is no longer the same structure. A center limits the amount of play that can happen withing a structure but also makes play possible to begin with. All centers have binary opposite.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by PassatAmnesiac Centers guarantee meaning if the center changes it changes the meaning and is no longer the same structure. A center limits the amount of play that can happen withing a structure but also makes play possible to begin with. All centers have binary opposite.

Another thing about Deconstruction is that "a text can't be comprehensible". This is derived from the older Wittgenstein and is part of the basis of all postmodernist philosophy. By text they don't neccesarilly mean a writting, an essay, it can mean a film, a song....any piece of thought or of expression of thought. Because those were only in relation to the world when they were thought, and exposed, and it was only for the creator. Whiles for the othe people it cannot mantain the same meaning, and neither can it for the same person ina different time (past or future). This was a very fundamental change: the went from the analytical philosopher's idea that language is/is not logical (depending on who), to the idea that the error is not language itself but TIME.

Today I've started t read a book by Jean Baudrillard, "The Illusion of the End", a great work, specially it's entertaining to read this philosohper, he is compeltely different to all the frnech philosohpers of the 20th century. He was influenced by Derrida, but doesn't agree with deconstruction.