• Joshs
    Have you read Jean Francois Lyotard, or Jean Luc Nancy? They are closer to Derrida's ideas than are Deleuze or Foucault. (I dont see Badiou and Henry as post-Heideggerian in their thinking).
    I'd love to hear your take on the key ideas of Derrida's thought, so that I can compare my Derrida with your Derrida. I would like to build you a 'Derrida machine', a kind of subpersonal architecture.
    One of the reasons Derrida may be so difficult for you is that his ideas challenger your assumptions in ways that the others don't. That might lead to the impression of incoherence on the part of the writer when in fact the incoherence is in the reading. i also find his writing to be more theory-dense than that of Foucault, with his long-winded genealogies, and Deleuze's semi-literary style.
    It would help for me to have a sense of what family of ideas and writers are most relrevant to your own thinking. Since individual philosophers are interpreted in so many often contradictory ways, I like to understand another's idea via a network of philosophers. That would help me situate your orientation to Derrida. Consider it a kind of genealogical triangulating. I do know that those most hostile to his ideas havent yet made it into Husserlian territory and so cant make to jump from Husserl to Heidegger to Derrida..
  • Dzung
    I'm actually most interested in why people choose to believe one or the other,Janus
    Do you think most have a chance to choose what to believe in? I know you didn't intend to say so.

    So, it may be that we often say things are not physical ( when we really mean 'material') simply because they are not immediate objects of the senses.Janus
    I think this has roots in an open question: what is matter? hasn't been resolved completely because Quantum and string theories and so on ...have not merged.

    To me now - in a multiverse belief - any imaginable is matter. Furthermore, that may be just a trivial subset of what matters constitute. I will explain if any aspect has a question.
  • Janus

    Apologies for the late reply: I just saw your post now. I don't have time to respond in detail, but let me just say that I have not made a really consistently concerted effort to persist with reading Derrida, because every time I have tried reading him (The gift of Death, On Grammatology are the two I can right now remember attempting) I have gotten the impression that the reward will not justify the investment of time and energy.

    I also read along with this thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/23390#Post_23390 ( although I didn't actively participate) and it seemed that none of the participants could make much sense of Derrida's 'arguments' in his critique of Husserl's philosophy. On the other hand I certainly see Henry as a post-Husserlian thinker (See Material Phenomenology).

    I am not saying my view of Derrida is definitive, but it is the view I have; and I'm not interested enough, due, amongst other things, to already not having enough time to study what I really am interested in, to engage with anyone wanting to 'educate' me as to Derrida's significance.
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.