Deconstruction has frequently been the subject of some controversy. When Derrida was awarded an honorary doctorate at Cambridge in 1992, there were howls of protest from many 'analytic' philosophers. And if I had known I definitely would have been one of these analytic philosophers.
But let's give Derrida a chance. We must understand his theories in the social and intellectual context of his time. French philosophy in the 60s was dominated by the linguistics of the Swiss de Saussure.
To brush up our memory, according to Saussure was language a system, where the key to understanding were not the words themselves but the differences between the words.
Saussure was therefor interested in the deep structures which control the meaning of words. These ideas about lanuage were applied to other 'systems', like family relations and political structures by men like Levi-Strauss. Hence the name 'structuralism'.
It was this structuralism, which was the target of Derrida's criticism. And here I have reached the limits of my own philosophical understanding. For first of all I have always ignored structuralism, being just a contingent interpretation of something in my opinion.
And you can imagine that I can't do anything with a philosopher who spends all his energy on fighting structuralism.
The most prominent opposition with which Derrida's earlier work is concerned is that between speech and writing. According to Derrida, thinkers as different as Plato, Rousseau, Saussure, and Levi-Strauss, have all denigrated the written word and valorised speech, by contrast, as some type of pure conduit of meaning.
Their argument is that while spoken words are the symbols of mental experience, written words are the symbols of that already existing symbol. As representations of speech, they are doubly derivative and doubly far from a unity with one's own thought.
I never knew that this was a philosophical problem, but Derrida spent a lot of ink on it. And it seems that it can lead to a lot of metaphysics.
Derrida had the opinion that men like Rousseau and Levi-Strauss interpreted the world in terms of crude opposition like real/artificial, innocent/guilty and so on. I could be, that the authors themselves are not conscious of their way of thinking.
Derrida tries too reveil their hidden assumptions and intentions By detailed analysis of their texts. This activity he called deconstruction.
Let me give you a final example why I do not like this kind of philosophy, even think that it is at least for me a waste of time to read Derrida's work. Derrida invented another word "differance". It is something else than difference. Now, let me give you a quote from an article about Derrida
"Of course, différance cannot be exhaustively defined, and this is largely because of Derrida's insistence that it is "neither a word, nor a concept", as well as the fact that the meaning of the term changes depending upon the particular context in which it is being employed. "
I have nothing to add to that. It only confirms my howls of protest (^_^)
[13:17] Nick Cassavetes: :p [13:17] Andret Beck: :) [13:17] Nick Cassavetes: ;) [13:17] itsme Frederix: protest to which Derrida - in what context? [13:18] Herman Bergson: So much on Derrida [13:18] Mickorod Renard: have I missed something? [13:18] Alarice Beaumont: ;-) [13:18] Nick Cassavetes: well, you don't think every philospher has something un-thought which is the basis of his own philsophy Herman? [13:18] itsme Frederix: a protest Mick [13:18] Alarice Beaumont: in the german wiki derrida sounded very , very complicated [13:19] itsme Frederix: Aai try it in french then [13:19] Herman Bergson: Yes he is very complicated according to several sources [13:19] Nick Cassavetes: the view from where he's standing, and there being no view from nowhere ... [13:19] Herman Bergson: That is even more complicated Itsme...:-) [13:19] itsme Frederix: only because of the words prof. [13:19] Mickorod Renard: waste of time tryin to understand the french [13:20] Herman Bergson: Well not all Mickorod...but the structuralists and postmodern ones I agree [13:20] arabella Ella: I think Derrida was brilliant for having shook a number of established philosophers out of their 'deep slumber' by getting them to ask questions about deep rooted assumptions [13:21] Herman Bergson: that might be true indeed Arabella... [13:21] arabella Ella: he was a child of his times as his ideas on deconstruction are evident not only in philosophy but also in literature and art [13:21] Herman Bergson: do you know names? [13:21] Nick Cassavetes: there we go, love you for sayign that arabella :) [13:21] arabella Ella: ty [13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: ah [13:21] Nick Cassavetes: don't know much about Derrida himself [13:21] Nick Cassavetes: but he's influenced a lot of continantal philosphers I studied under [13:21] arabella Ella: are you asking me for names Herman ... if so Richard Rorty was greatly influenced by Derrida [13:22] Zen Arado: dont some words have different meanings n different contexts? [13:22] Nick Cassavetes: and it's about finding the un-thought basis of a philosphy [13:22] Herman Bergson: What my problem is, is that they have a bunch of interpretations and theories but hardly an epistemological justification [13:22] arabella Ella: exactly Nick [13:22] Nick Cassavetes: words ONLY have meaning in a context Zen [13:22] arabella Ella: but herman ...these are not theories but actually anti-theories [13:22] Zen Arado: yes but they change in different contexts [13:23] arabella Ella: postmodernism never presents theories, it de-constructs established theories [13:23] Nick Cassavetes: just asked Herman about Rorty Arabella :) [13:23] Andret Beck: interewsting this word: anti-theories [13:23] Mickorod Renard: in bible studies it is natural practice to deconstruct and recon to find the hidden meanings [13:23] Nick Cassavetes: postmodernism is about dealing with a slumbering trenscendant in a way [13:23] arabella Ella: ok good Rorty is another very interesting post modern philosopher from the USA [13:23] Herman Bergson: but what is called deconstruction is also an interpretation, a theory [13:23] Nick Cassavetes: recognising our limits of thinking [13:24] itsme Frederix: Herman what against interpretation? [13:24] arabella Ella: herman isnt it finding hidden assumptions and taking a text as a text with no authorial intensions or grand theory building? [13:24] Herman Bergson: nothing, except that it seems so contingent to me [13:24] Vladimir Apparatchik: What I'm unsure about is whether Derrida et al say there is no Truth or that there is but we cannot reach it [13:24] Zen Arado: but life is contingent? [13:25] Zen Arado: impermanent [13:25] Nick Cassavetes: philosphy is about asking the right questions [13:25] Zen Arado: so why shouldnt language be the same? [13:25] arabella Ella: yes Derrida's ideas are very contingent as they de-construct 'absolutist' theories but nothing is absolute [13:25] Nick Cassavetes: Truth can be a very wrong one [13:25] arabella Ella: exactly [13:25] itsme Frederix: these question change during time Nick [13:25] Nick Cassavetes: and many questions one to start out with [13:25] arabella Ella: even in philosophy of science we dont have absolute truth any longer [13:25] Andret Beck: philosophy could not exist without language [13:25] Siena Masala: how can truth be wrong? [13:26] Nick Cassavetes: no, we use pragmatic epistomological virtues [13:26] Nick Cassavetes: like explanatory power [13:26] arabella Ella: yes [13:26] Andret Beck: mmmmm [13:26] Nick Cassavetes: :) [13:26] Ze Novikov: umm [13:26] Herman Bergson: I agree with that [13:26] Siena Masala: if that is the case we need a different word to explain what it is you mean [13:26] itsme Frederix: arabella why even .... in phil. science ... what is the distinction [13:27] Vladimir Apparatchik: is 2+2=4 true? [13:27] arabella Ella: in philo of science you now get the idea of falsifiability and feyerabend with his book 'against method' [13:27] Nick Cassavetes: but, answer my previous question please Herman? don't you think there an un-thought at the base of every philosophy? [13:27] Andret Beck: no, it is not true [13:27] Zen Arado: but thats a constructed truth [13:27] Mickorod Renard: mathetmatical statements are nessesary [13:27] itsme Frederix: its a tautology [13:27] Siena Masala: is 2 an abosulte [13:27] arabella Ella: method [13:27] Herman Bergson: un-thought? [13:27] Andret Beck: it could be 2 for u but ot for me [13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)) [13:27] Nick Cassavetes: a viewpoint used [13:27] Herman Bergson: what kind of word is that [13:28] Andret Beck: the number "2" is very subjective [13:28] arabella Ella: i think we should use the concept of validity from a particular perspective rather than 'truth' [13:28] Nick Cassavetes: in continatal philosphy, I think it can serve us well such a word [13:28] Siena Masala: two can be a group of 2 [13:28] Herman Bergson: yes..validity or consitency [13:28] itsme Frederix: well 2+2=1 clock-calculated base 3 [13:28] arabella Ella: yes [13:28] Andret Beck: 2 is just a symbol [13:28] Seeker Schussel: Two is not subjective in the realm of Mathematics [13:28] Andret Beck: a design [13:29] Siena Masala: therefore mathematics has little relationship to reality or moral truth [13:29] Herman Bergson: Indeed Siena [13:29] Shanyra Ceriano: i think everything, we think that we know is only there like this becaus somteone says it is so [13:29] Vladimir Apparatchik: so why does reality appear to be mathematical? [13:29] Zen Arado: mathematics is invented by humans [13:29] Seeker Schussel: tell that to the bank [13:29] itsme Frederix: Siean I agree - and luckky we are, thats why math has grown so much [13:29] Andret Beck: right zen [13:29] Andret Beck: i agree [13:29] Andret Beck: it is a human language [13:29] Shanyra Ceriano: what tells us that a 2 means two [13:30] Seeker Schussel: count [13:30] Andret Beck: just that [13:30] Andret Beck: animals don't need math [13:30] Vladimir Apparatchik: I dont think maths is invented - no-one invented the Mandelbrot set [13:30] Shanyra Ceriano: or blue is a color? [13:30] Zen Arado: but it can describe aspects of reality [13:30] Andret Beck: of course [13:30] Vladimir Apparatchik: it was an astonishing discovery [13:30] Herman Bergson: This is all nice, but what has it to do with derrida? [13:30] Andret Beck: like lecterature "two" [13:31] Vladimir Apparatchik: Derrida denies truth [13:31] hope63 Shepherd: wow.. now way to listen to herman .. but you sure seemed to stir up a bee hive..:lol [13:31] itsme Frederix: we are setting up the discours the context Herman [13:31] Zen Arado: is it about how human descriptions relate to reality? [13:31] Herman Bergson: Yes, but He takes the denial as a truth I guess [13:31] Samuel Okelly: i think it is important to distinguish between the semantic representation of number and its corresponding concept being expressed when talking about number and mathematics [13:32] Herman Bergson: Yes Samuel [13:32] itsme Frederix: Oke Sam, can so say something like that also about Derrida's idea's [13:32] Mickorod Renard: surely it is relevent to whether the author of the piece derrida is dismantling actually wrote it in a serious manner [13:33] Samuel Okelly: i think that was a key part of his decontruction ideas itsme [13:33] Herman Bergson: Well maybe it is interesting to try and find an example of Derrida's decontruction of some text [13:34] Mickorod Renard: good idea [13:34] Andret Beck: :-)) [13:34] Siena Masala: sorry but I am at a disadvantage here as I have not read the text !! [13:34] itsme Frederix: well it sound good to me - separation of ideas - so whats the problem with derrida - that he in a tuff way said something clear [13:34] Herman Bergson: Neither have I Siena..^_^ [13:34] Siena Masala: :) [13:35] Herman Bergson: That might be the case indeed Itsme [13:35] arabella Ella: Herman a good example of deconstruction as literary criticism is Stanley Fish who has a paper called something like There is no text in this class [13:35] itsme Frederix: oke you suspect him from a tautology - ciclereasening [13:35] Siena Masala: I am correct in thinking that Derrida denies the possibilty of absolute truth? [13:35] arabella Ella: yes [13:36] Herman Bergson: He thinks in contexts [13:36] Nick Cassavetes: as did Kant Siena [13:36] Nick Cassavetes: and many others [13:36] itsme Frederix: and there is no such thing as absolute context? I presume! [13:36] Zen Arado: whats wrong with that? [13:36] Herman Bergson: every meaning is dependent on the context a word in appears [13:36] Herman Bergson: so there never can be an absolute meaning [13:36] Nick Cassavetes: indeed Herman :) [13:37] arabella Ella: how can there ever be an absolute context? is that even conceivable? [13:37] hope63 Shepherd: the fact that we don't klnow abbsolute truth dioesn't imply that there is no absolute truth.. [13:37] Herman Bergson: I even begin to understand Derrida ^_^ [13:37] itsme Frederix: why not if you know everything you have all the context - absolute - so you can construct a perfect absolute thruth [13:37] Nick Cassavetes: maybe a euclidian system for a circle arabella ;) [13:37] Nick Cassavetes: that had me beat, and still has [13:37] Siena Masala: well that is reasonable to say there is no such thing as 'absolute context' as the context is forever changes because of the human condition - however that does not follow that the underpinning of truth is inconsistant [13:38] arabella Ella: a circle is still limited and can never encompas all that is [13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: alarice you seee he is complicated in any language :-) [13:38] Seeker Schussel: truth is defined by the interperter.. [13:38] Andret Beck: i agree with siena [13:38] Zen Arado: agree [13:38] Herman Bergson: Indeed Siena....that is the real philosophical question here [13:38] Alarice Beaumont: yes... seems to be so.. my head is spinning! [13:39] hope63 Shepherd: smut is in the mind of the beholder(tom lehrer) to anwer seeker.. [13:39] Zen Arado: i think i am a postmodernist - for the time being :) [13:40] Herman Bergson: Well...maybe some conclusions about derrida... [13:40] hope63 Shepherd: you will be vieux jeux in 50 years zen:) [13:40] Vladimir Apparatchik: I suspect we are becoming post-postmodernists now [13:40] Zen Arado: dont think ill get 50 :) [13:40] Nick Cassavetes: ceci n'est pas une pipe! :D [13:40] Nick Cassavetes: it's all about the 'doubling' of the world [13:40] Mickorod Renard: lol [13:40] hope63 Shepherd: just try a little zen:) [13:40] Nick Cassavetes: language issues [13:40] Herman Bergson: One thing is, that he revealed underlying assumptions and postulates in the work of others by what he calls deconstruction [13:40] AristotleVon Doobie: I suppose the malaise i feel about the most recent philosophers, excluding Foucault, is the abstraciton they bring to the joy of pure philosophical perception [13:41] Herman Bergson: The problem is Aristotle , that there is no Philosophy anymore [13:41] Zen Arado: thats has Rorty said [13:41] arabella Ella: but Ari they always 'show' us something new, innovative perspectives [13:42] Mickorod Renard: not now science has its teeth in it [13:42] hope63 Shepherd: the joy of pure philosophical perceptions sounds like philosophy is something like a video game.. [13:42] Herman Bergson: Some do what you say, others dont....depends on the context the philosopher lives in :-) [13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: they certainly are trying just to undo centuries of thought [13:42] AristotleVon Doobie: waht better game than life, hope? [13:42] arabella Ella: Herman do you mean philo is now philo with a small 'p' not there is no philosophy [13:42] itsme Frederix: aha we killed God, we killed philosophy now we have to kill the philosophers - or they die by them self [13:42] Nick Cassavetes: did anyone get that Magritte analogy I made? [13:42] Mickorod Renard: no [13:43] Herman Bergson: Like Foucault derrida has mainly interest in the cultural part , hardly the pure scientific part of human existence [13:43] Nick Cassavetes: well [13:43] hope63 Shepherd: lol.. as long as you accept that you will lose it.. and you can't win on the long run..:) [13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: you could do a pendant with the philosophers [13:43] Nick Cassavetes: ever since we first started drawing on walls ... [13:43] hope63 Shepherd: for ari [13:43] Nick Cassavetes: we've been hving issues with symbolising our world [13:43] Nick Cassavetes: doubling it [13:43] Alarice Beaumont: no [13:43] Zen Arado: is Scientism a good idea? [13:43] hope63 Shepherd: no.. [13:44] Nick Cassavetes: anyone interested, otherwise I shut up? [13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: hope, hope there no chance of surviving it so you must enjoy it [13:44] Ze Novikov: go for it Nick [13:44] Mickorod Renard: was it about a blow j.b? [13:44] arabella Ella: go on Nick please? [13:44] Nick Cassavetes: ok :) [13:44] Siena Masala: ? mickorod? [13:44] Nick Cassavetes: well, for example indians believe their souls was captured by pictures [13:44] hope63 Shepherd: sdon't listen to mick senna..lol [13:44] itsme Frederix: why not just accept that as long as you are in sthe "system" you can not have a total view of it - and so always are a part of the system not the whole [13:44] Nick Cassavetes: in ancient times spekaing a God's name was prohibited [13:45] arabella Ella: yes [13:45] Nick Cassavetes: and it still is in some religions [13:45] AristotleVon Doobie: native ameriacans you mean [13:45] Nick Cassavetes: the poitn I'm trying to make [13:45] hope63 Shepherd: why nick? [13:45] Siena Masala: itsme - that is a valid point of discussion i feel [13:45] Nick Cassavetes: in general about symbolising [13:45] Zen Arado: so we ve moved to a scientific worldview [13:45] arabella Ella: yes? [13:45] Nick Cassavetes: is that it doubles the world, but isn't a mirror of it [13:45] Nick Cassavetes: and that leads to all our issues I believe [13:45] arabella Ella: what do you mean by 'doubles'? [13:46] Nick Cassavetes: forgot the greek work [13:46] arabella Ella: increases in volume the amount of stuff learnt or known? [13:46] Nick Cassavetes: hmmm [13:46] Mickorod Renard: we see what we want to see in the mirror? [13:46] Nick Cassavetes: well doubles [13:46] hope63 Shepherd: itsme.. not a system.. we are - as a unique but not excluxive - organism part of this world.. [13:46] Siena Masala: however - as for the indians !!! and their beliefs and any otherws similar - one has to remember that that fact that one belives something does not make it so [13:46] Nick Cassavetes: don't know how to say it better [13:46] Herman Bergson: We have one fundamental epistemological problem which maybe never can be solved [13:46] Herman Bergson: it is what Itsme refered to [13:46] arabella Ella: ok interesting Nick ty [13:47] itsme Frederix: I do not think it is a scientific worldview - science is (mis)used to hav some psychological good feeling about life - so it is used as a tool that sounds more technological!! [13:47] Nick Cassavetes: yw :) [13:47] Nick Cassavetes: yes Herman? [13:47] Herman Bergson: We try to measure the length of the ruler we hold in our hand with the ruler we hold in our hand [13:47] hope63 Shepherd: could we hear herman on what he has to say to its? [13:47] Nick Cassavetes: Tarski :) [13:47] itsme Frederix: YES HERMAN [13:47] Nick Cassavetes: brought him up last time I was here [13:47] arabella Ella: like the meter measure in Paris [13:48] Siena Masala: yes i agree - i wish to hear hermans thoughts [13:48] Nick Cassavetes: I think the meta-language problem is overestimated though Herman [13:48] Herman Bergson: And I think that in contemporary philosophy you see people realizing that and coming to conclusions....like Derrida for instance [13:48] Herman Bergson: or people like Kuhn and Feyerabebd [13:48] arabella Ella: yes [13:48] Nick Cassavetes: I even think it's a dangerous coining, or framing of the problems [13:49] Herman Bergson: what do you mean Nick? [13:49] arabella Ella: altho Derrida would never come to a conclusion as he was even against the idea of writing form such as start middle and end [13:49] Nick Cassavetes: that it presupposes some base of litteral meaning lying beneath it all [13:49] Vladimir Apparatchik: and yet science still succeeds - it doesnt seem to have hit a barrier yet, maybe the barrier is not there? [13:49] Nick Cassavetes: something fixable to relfect upon [13:50] Nick Cassavetes: wich isn't the case imo [13:50] hope63 Shepherd: now i understansd how mathematicians created the chaos theory..lol [13:50] Herman Bergson: yes...good point Vladimir [13:50] arabella Ella: Vlad you are making an assumption ... science still succeeds ... look at the mess we have put our own planet in [13:50] itsme Frederix: for science there is no barrier - therefor it is science ... looking futher. We will meet other barriers first! [13:50] Nick Cassavetes: evrything is communication [13:50] Nick Cassavetes: talking about talking remains talking [13:51] Herman Bergson: No arabella...not a mess... [13:51] Vladimir Apparatchik: arabella - that mixes two views of success - understanding and value [13:51] Nick Cassavetes: trying to frame our reality [13:51] Herman Bergson: we just changed the planet... [13:51] Nick Cassavetes: talking is a part of reality [13:51] Herman Bergson: saying it is a mess contains dozens of assumptions [13:51] Zen Arado: isnt it about looking for foundations and we havent got any anymore? [13:51] Siena Masala: talking is the manifestation of thought [13:51] Samuel Okelly: i think there is a strong case to be made for suggesting that science has reached its barriers but simply keeps pushing them back (and so making the idea of "context" ever changing) [13:51] Nick Cassavetes: dunno if I'm formulating very well what I want to say, sorry [13:51] hope63 Shepherd: itr is as it is.. and we are responsable foir a great deal as it is now:) [13:52] hope63 Shepherd: the planet [13:52] itsme Frederix: Sam I disagree. [13:52] arabella Ella: a mess of the planet - as in environment polution and climate change i meant [13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: i think not samuel [13:52] AristotleVon Doobie: Siena I thnk revelation is the manifestation of thought, langues is communcating that revealtion to others [13:53] Siena Masala: revelation is the knowleges that cannot be accessed by the senses [13:53] Vladimir Apparatchik: that may be so Arabella but Einstein is an "improvement" on Newton, even if it led to atomic weapons [13:53] Samuel Okelly: there are always limits to "scientific" knowledge but with each new discovery the context in which science operates changes as a result [13:54] Zen Arado: new paradigms? [13:54] itsme Frederix: Oke Sam, it keeps itself busy yes [13:54] Herman Bergson: We'll look into that issue when we meet Kuhn and Feyerabend, Samual.....could be an interesting discussion [13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: well i have to go in the middle of all this [13:55] Mickorod Renard: bye gemma [13:55] Herman Bergson: Ok...bye Gemma :-) [13:55] Zen Arado: bye Gemma [13:55] Samuel Okelly: tc gemma :) [13:55] itsme Frederix: Well Vlad if the world was like Newton calculated it migh have been more understandeble [13:55] itsme Frederix: So maybe i like the Newton wold better [13:55] Siena Masala: revelation has a spiritual aspect to it - knowledgecan be accesed through the 5 senses - however there is an acknowledged revalatory knowlege such as when people have so called 'intutaition' sorry my spelling is not good [13:56] Vladimir Apparatchik: oh no ! modern physics is so much more amazing than Newton [13:56] Mickorod Renard: I agree siena [13:56] Zen Arado: intuition? [13:56] Andret Beck: and not only intuition [13:56] Andret Beck: we could have more senses then the ones we know (and have) [13:57] Herman Bergson: Siena, that is a whole new subject for a discussion [13:57] itsme Frederix: Vlad it would have been anazing if the world was like Newton described - that would have been a real wonder [13:57] Siena Masala: indeed andret - it is not an area that philohers should ignore [13:57] Herman Bergson: Not exactly fit for the context of Derrida [13:57] Zen Arado: we still use Newtons ideas mostly though [13:57] Andret Beck: world is just an interpration of humans using what they have (with their limits) [13:57] itsme Frederix: well that depends Herman - to the context [13:57] Siena Masala: yes herman - you are right sorry [13:58] Andret Beck: sorry herman .. *_* [13:58] itsme Frederix: I think it is hard to stay on Derrida - pls. show us the way Herman [13:58] Herman Bergson: Well...I think that who likes to understand Derrida can conclude from this discussion how he works [13:58] Siena Masala: hehehe [13:58] Nick Cassavetes: bye all, have a good one, or two as the fact may be ;) [13:58] Vladimir Apparatchik: really Zen ? This computer you are in front of would be impossible if we lived in a Newtonian world, the modern world is almost entirely post-newtonian [13:58] Mickorod Renard: bye nick [13:58] AristotleVon Doobie: bye bye for now Nick [13:59] Herman Bergson: what his method was and his assumptions regarding meaning and context [13:59] Ze Novikov: lol [13:59] Zen Arado: ys but we still use his laws a lot [13:59] Siena Masala: herman - how would you describe his methods? [13:59] Era Lucas: Thank you Herman, bye all [13:59] Siena Masala: bye era [14:00] Mickorod Renard: bye era [14:00] Herman Bergson: In fact tho he calls it decontruction , I would call it close reading and analysis of texts [14:00] Herman Bergson: That is why he was so loved by language departments [14:00] Vladimir Apparatchik: Thanks herman again. What I find frustrating about someone like Derrida is I don't know whether he is a genius or a fraud [14:00] arabella Ella: i think one question which de constructionists ask is ... is this really what it generally seems to be from the outside and are the interpretations given to it so far valid? [14:01] Herman Bergson: Very true Vladimir..I agree with that [14:01] Ze Novikov: Yes, ty herman BB everyone [14:01] Herman Bergson: Bye Ze [14:01] Mickorod Renard: bye ze [14:01] Hello: Qwark Allen donated L$50. Thank you very much for supporting us, it is much appreciated! [14:01] Zen Arado: bye Ze [14:01] Samuel Okelly: tc Ze [14:01] arabella Ella: Derrida was a genius - he only died about a few months ago - but he sometimes acted like a prima donna or court jester too [14:01] Qwark Allen: ty herman once again!!! [14:01] Qwark Allen: cya later friends [14:01] arabella Ella: by Qwark [14:01] Siena Masala: i can understsand how language departments would love him as the meaning of words are so important in the real communication of thought [14:02] Herman Bergson: Bye Qwark [14:02] Mickorod Renard: did he restrict himself to deconstruct only works of a certain type Herman? [14:02] Qwark Allen: time allways agains`T us [14:02] Mickorod Renard: bye quark [14:02] Qwark Allen: :-) [14:02] Siena Masala: be ze [14:02] Zen Arado: have to go thanks erman and everybody [14:02] Siena Masala: bye qwark [14:02] arabella Ella: any text could be de constructed Mick [14:02] arabella Ella: bye Zen [14:02] Herman Bergson: I am not sure Mickorod, but I think so yes [14:02] Mickorod Renard: bye zen [14:02] Alarice Beaumont: bye :-) [14:02] Vladimir Apparatchik: Arabella - I meant it. It would be great for you to explain to me maybe why you think he's a genius. I'm openminded [14:02] Herman Bergson: Work by Levi-Strauss for instance.....literature too [14:03] Mickorod Renard: ok [14:03] Alarice Beaumont: that was hard on me again ... my head is spinning [14:03] Vladimir Apparatchik: perhaps not now though [14:03] Herman Bergson: Good Idea Vladimar.... [14:03] Mickorod Renard: but some writers of literature never wrote in a way that they expected it to be analysed [14:04] Herman Bergson: No..maybe not, but that doesnt deny the fact that there are all kinds of assumptions in their work [14:04] arabella Ella: Vlad - I had explained at the start - I think he is a genius as he (1) had guts to move from an Algerian background to guru status and (2) he shook established theories and philosophers in a context where everything was (before) so categorial. [14:05] itsme Frederix: as we all have assumptions in our life - which is a big releif but we should be aware of it [14:05] arabella Ella: and (3) his influence on subsequent philosophy is tremendous too [14:05] Herman Bergson: But that is about the french establlishment Arabella [14:05] Herman Bergson: And he has no influence on the analytic philosophy at all, I think [14:06] arabella Ella: not only French Herman, even today it is not easy to go against the establishment where philo departments in unis are concerned [14:06] itsme Frederix: arabella you could say that from other persons to ... well oke he's a genius but to far away maybe? [14:06] Herman Bergson: he belongs to what I would call Literary philosophy [14:06] Mickorod Renard: our minds are largely made up of assumptions i thought [14:06] Vladimir Apparatchik: didn't he influence Rorty I heard someone say? [14:06] arabella Ella: and Herman ... I dont personally like the analytic-cntinental distinction which divides rather than unites ... altho Derrida had more influence on what is known on continental philo [14:07] Vladimir Apparatchik: Isn't Rorty part of that tradition - pragmatism [14:07] arabella Ella: yes i said Derrida influenced Rorty a lot [14:07] Alarice Beaumont: well.... i think i would say good bye for now! [14:07] itsme Frederix: he influenced everybody because he changed the context - he changed the rules [14:07] Siena Masala: mick how true - we come into this world and accept the status quo - it is the rare person that questions the assumptions [14:07] itsme Frederix: accordig to hi rules ofcourse [14:07] arabella Ella: Rorty is a pragmatist where society and politics are concerned ... and a relativist and postmodernist too [14:07] Alarice Beaumont: wish all of you a nice evening.. [14:08] Herman Bergson: Herre are my rules, Itsme....^_^ [14:08] Alarice Beaumont: bye guys :-) [14:08] Mickorod Renard: bye alarice [14:08] arabella Ella: one last example [14:08] Herman Bergson: So I thank you all for this splendid debate [14:08] arabella Ella: if I may [14:08] Mickorod Renard: pls [14:08] Herman Bergson: sure.. [14:08] Herman Bergson: but a last one, Arabella..:-) [14:08] Samuel Okelly: thanks for the lecture herman :) take care every1 :) [14:08] arabella Ella: when reading a text why should there be only one correct interpretation presented to us by an 'establsihed' critic? [14:08] itsme Frederix: oke guys see you next time, Herman thx interesting rules anyway you got [14:08] arabella Ella: ok ty Herman ... [14:08] arabella Ella smiles [14:09] Mickorod Renard: bye sam, itsme [14:09] arabella Ella: bye itsme [14:09] Herman Bergson: Bye Itsme, Samuel [14:09] Vladimir Apparatchik: Arabella, have you got a suggested text on Derrida that isn't inpenetrable? [14:09] Herman Bergson: I dont beliefve in ONE correct interpretation, Arabella [14:09] Siena Masala: thank you Herman - most enjoyable as always [14:09] AristotleVon Doobie: time for me to go, good bye all.....thank you Herman ! [14:09] Herman Bergson: Bye Aristotle [14:09] arabella Ella: bye Ari [14:09] Siena Masala: I must be off now thanks for all [14:09] Vladimir Apparatchik: bye [14:10] Mickorod Renard: bye siena [14:10] Siena Masala: :) mick [14:10] Mickorod Renard: bye ari [14:10] Herman Bergson: Thnx Siena [14:10] arabella Ella: ehrm ... Vlad ... sorry I dont ... not offhand that is [14:10] Siena Masala: :) [14:10] arabella Ella: but I will let you know if I can find any [14:10] Vladimir Apparatchik: thanks [14:10] arabella Ella: my knowledge of Derrida goes back some years ... [14:10] Herman Bergson: Class dismissed....! [14:11] arabella Ella: thank you so much Herman and I hope you will view Derrida with a bit more sympathy if you remember Feyerabend [14:11] Vico Rabeni: bye and good night [14:11] Vladimir Apparatchik: thanks Herman - my first class this term. I've missed it [14:11] Herman Bergson: Thnx for coming Vladimir..:-) [14:12] Herman Bergson: I am glad you enjoyed it as usual..:-) [14:12] Vladimir Apparatchik: when are we doing Feyerabend? [14:12] Mickorod Renard: bye vlad [14:12] Shanyra Ceriano: sorry sl crashed [14:12] Osrum Sands: Cheers Herman --- Sorry but I have been having a few NET issues but all OK now [14:12] Vladimir Apparatchik: bye Mick [14:13] Osrum Sands: Cheers and CU all later [14:13] Herman Bergson: He is nr 99 [14:13] Vladimir Apparatchik: ok [14:13] Mickorod Renard: bye os, vlad