• sign
    Hi, everyone. I'm trying to figure out the essence of Derrida lately, and I've recently read Speech and Phenomena. I plan on reading some more '67 Derrida, and I'm hoping some other readers of Derrida will want to discuss his initial, basic insights. While I feel that I've grasped what I've read fairly well, I can certainly do better, and I think the quality of the material justifies the effort. I'm also hoping that the conversation has a positive tone. I'm not inclined to bicker about the unintelligibility of 'pomo,' etc. I find Speech and Phenomena difficult, yes, but ultimately readable and rewarding. (There is a pdf available at the moment if you search with Google.) So I probably won't respond to vague attacks on Derrida. I'm looking for mutual interest and mutual illumination.

    Before I articulate what '67 Derrida means to me so far, I'd like to see whether anyone else is interested in such a conversation. Thanks for reading. For those who might want to pick up some Derrida just now, here's a passage from the intro comparing Derrida to Wittgenstein.

    Derrida falls squarely within the movement which regards the role of utterances in actual discourse as the essence of language and meaning, and which therefore regards logic as derivative from rhetorical considerations. His penetrating consideration and ultimate rejection of the basic principles of Husserl's philosophy of language is the historical analogue of Wittgenstein's later consideration and rejection of his own earlier work... In both cases a work belonging to the first historical movement in the philosophy of language of the twentieth century is examined and found unintelligible, at least partly on its own terms; and the alternative to the rejected theory is one that belongs to the second movement, according to which rhetoric and the context of actual communication are an essential and ineradicable feature of all linguistic meaning. — intro
Add a Comment