Derrida

General philosophy discussions. If you are not sure where to place your thread, please post it here. Share favorite quotes, discuss philosophers, and other topics.

Derrida

Postby BadgerJelly on June 6th, 2016, 5:30 am 

I know this should be in lounge area but would appreciate it if mods refrained from moving it there for a few days so people see this request!

I am going to order a few books and I am interested in Derrida and want to know what work of his is best for me. I am not shy of jumping in at the deep end and looking mainly for his work that opposes Husserlian phenomenology.

Any one here familiar with Derrida?

Thank you
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5380
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Derrida

Postby BadgerJelly on June 6th, 2016, 10:38 am 

I am referring to him calling phenomenology "metaphysics of presence".

Haooy to discuss here too if there are any takers.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5380
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Derrida

Postby dandelion on June 6th, 2016, 6:13 pm 

Edmund Husserl's 'Origin of Geometry’: An Introduction, trans. Leavey, Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1978 (1962) (HOG).

Speech and Phenomena' and Other Essays on Husserl’s Theory of Signs, trans. Allison, Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1973 (1967) (SP).

https://monoskop.org/images/1/1e/Derrid ... n_1989.pdf
https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en& ... gy&f=false

Have you looked at these? I like Derrida’s thoughts generally and find the ideas inspire interesting thoughts too, and happy to write more.
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 385
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Derrida

Postby BadgerJelly on June 7th, 2016, 5:05 am 

I'll print that out soon and give it a good read. At the moment I am in two minds about purchasing any Derrida although he does sound intriguing.

Atvthe moment I am certainly going to read Wittengenstein and more of Husserl. My main interest is in phenomenology so I am looking for something recent that has opposition to it. Derrida seems to be the only prominent philosopher I can find, but with only references to stanford and other philosophy resources I have little exposure to his actual work.

Hopefully I can rwad through what you've given me well enough within the next week. I do hear Derrida is quite a cumbersome read, but I'll do my best.

My extremely limited understanding of Derrida leads me to believe he has misrepresented how Husserl deals with time. On standford site it sounds like Derrida has misrepresented what Husserl meant by protention and slippage. Also with Derrida's almost synomynous term "trace" it is not very clear what he is getting at with only stanford to refer to. I kniw for a fact that stanford is only useful as a vague introduction given how it presents Husserl. There is no substitute for the actual full written text.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5380
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Derrida

Postby dandelion on June 7th, 2016, 9:22 am 

Ok, great. If you think a few sentences that very roughly sum my interpretation would help to approach it, I could try doing that.
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 385
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Derrida

Postby dandelion on June 8th, 2016, 9:02 am 

On second thoughts, this seems helpful. It is an introduction to Phemenology and includes Derrida, http://www.8pic.ir/images/681wr4pdkq67e8u9r4hh.pdf
e.g., from page 446-

“Husserl’s The Origin of Geometry recapitulates the philosophical problematic of the Philosophie der Arithmetik, namely the manner in which objective mathematical (in this case, geometrical) knowledge is produced by temporally bound, individual acts of thinking. Husserl’s approach in this late text, however, is explicitly ‘regressive’ (OG 158), ‘genetic’, and ‘historical’ (OG 172–173): how do timeless, objective, invariant truths (e.g. the Pythagorean theorem) get constituted in the living, historical context of changing human culture? As Husserl says:

Our problem now concerns precisely the ideal objects which are thematic in geometry: how does geometrical ideality (just like that of all sciences) proceed from its primary intrapersonal origin, where it is a structure within the conscious space of the first inventor’s soul, to its ideal objectivity? (OG 161)

The regressive—historical method requires a thoughtful reconstruction of the human practices and mental acts which gave birth to geometry, which originally emerged from the practice of land surveying and, through a set of idealisations and transformations, solidified into a pure eidetic science. Removed from the intuitions of the original geometers, geometrical discoveries become objectified in written forms. In writing down symbols, the addressee is removed, and what is written down becomes a ‘sedimentation’ which can be reactivated by new acts of understanding (OG 164). Husserl, whose constant theme is the importance of symbolic thought for science, here recognises the need for written language to underpin the ideality of meaning. The objectivity of geometry is made possible, for Husserl, through the ‘body of language’ (Sprachleib, OG 161). As Derrida puts it elsewhere, Husserl is the first philosopher to recognise that writing is “the condition of the possibility of ideal objects and therefore of objectivity” (Gramm., p. 27; 42–43), and in Writing and Difference he remarks:

Meaning must await being said or written in order to inhabit itself, and in order to become, by differing from itself, what it is: meaning. This is what Husserl teaches us to think in The Origin of Geometry.31 (WD11)

Husserl’s emphasis on the role of written language in preserving scientific insights provided the main inspiration for Derrida’s claim that Western culture has, since Plato’s Phaedrus, prioritised full speech over derivative writing, a trait Derrida labels ‘phonocentrism’ or ‘logocentrism’. In subsequent publications, especially Of Grammatology, Derrida proposed a new, general science of writing, grammatology (Gramm., p. 4; 13). Grammatology is meant to be, not just one science among others, but the true science of science, directly contradicting Bolzano and the early Husserl who saw logic as the exemplary for science as such. Derrida argues that the inscription of meaning in sound is only one form of inscription or writing in general. Furthermore, the whole area of the relation of signification itself must be put under scrutiny. Derrida will argue that traditional philosophy, and especially Husserlian phenomenology, located the origin of meaning in subjectivity, whereas he sees it as produced in a play of ‘difference’ and of ‘trace’, key concepts of his own grammatology.”

There is more, from page 456 on, and although I’m not so sure about this, concluding with things like- “…It is indeed true, as Husserl himself recognised, that his account of signification in the First Investigation falls short of a full treatment of the topic, and that he underestimated the importance of signification as such….Nevertheless, Derrida is exaggerating and clearly distorting Husserl when he claims that Husserl thought of expression primarily in terms of spoken speech. For Husserl, expression is associated with language but not necessarily speech. Furthermore, Husserl’s recognition that in private mental awareness one does not have to intimate to oneself that one is expressing meanings is surely correct against the Derridian view that expression, indication, and intimating cannot be disentangled.”
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 385
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Derrida

Postby BadgerJelly on June 8th, 2016, 10:26 am 

Thank you for that. Of Grammatology was one of the books I was looking at buying not just because of Husserl.

What books of Derrida have you read? Or have you more or less just read various essays of his?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5380
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Derrida

Postby dandelion on June 9th, 2016, 8:04 am 

No, I liked looking at it, and maybe say so if you read Of Grammatology, and I could think about it more then too. I read one or two books when I was probably too young to take much of anything in, and more later but haven't kept track much. I had a look to see if I have any books here and saw a couple with jottings I'd made in them, but they'd be less generally recommended, I''d say.
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 385
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Derrida

Postby dandelion on June 13th, 2016, 6:17 am 

I noticed this thread http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=30182 , and thought to respond in the context here because of ideas of something like neutralising assumed oppositions e.g. subject and object, presence and absence, signified and signifier. Regarding subject/object, for example, middle voice could be related. 1966 at Johns Hopkins was a bit of a turning point for structuralism/post structuralism, where Barthes spoke of it https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiAqN-gqKPNAhXHLMAKHe5ADn8QygQIMTAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FVoice_(grammar)%23Middle&usg=AFQjCNGZFmEtogs6t5jmonXlwHaud1Sr5w, and in the last lines of the notes of the preface, page 4, in the Introduction to The Origin of Geometry, linked above, there is reference to middle voices in regard to the ‘a’ in “différance”. Or elsewhere, “We must consider that in the usage of our language the ending –ance remains undecided between the active and the passive. And we will see why that which lets itself be designated différance is neither simply active nor simply passive, announcing or rather recalling something like the middle voice . . . For the middle voice, a certain nontransitivity, may be what philosophy, at its outset, distributed into an active and a passive voice, thereby constituting itself by means of this repression…”. As well in the link there is some mention of inter and intra subjectivity. You’d also questioned the trace and an interpretation of Husserl’s time in this thread, and like différance, it could be something like an extension of Husserl’s ideas on time that may allow something like neutralisation of time and presence and absence.
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 385
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Derrida

Postby BadgerJelly on June 14th, 2016, 2:39 am 

So confused! I still don't know what book to buy. I might just go for two instead. The more I look inot Derrida the more I think I may find good use of his work.

At the moment its a toss uo between Of Grammatology, Speech and Phenomena or both. Tempted by Writing and Differance too.

Speech and Phenomena seems like the obvious choice for me regarding Husserl. Of Grammatology sounds really interesting as I have been of the opinion that philosophy is primarily a linguistic investigation, or rather tending to get bogged down in linguistics ... and more or less than that! Haha!

Is get me wondering about the introduction of pasive and active as being a direct contributor/contribution of scientific methodology and intent.

Anyway couple of days to decide what to order. In mean time the pdf you provided will keep me busy enough I think.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5380
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Derrida

Postby BadgerJelly on June 15th, 2016, 3:22 am 

I understand Derrida now. Excited to see what use I can make of what he has to say.

Hopefully reading him will give me the tools I need to explain Hussrl better and myself.

I hope this can help me get to where I believe I can get to. I have something written down from a few years ago titled "Dichotomies and Magnitudes". I can now go back to that and continue it from where I got stuck last time :)
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5380
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Derrida

Postby dandelion on June 15th, 2016, 12:00 pm 

BadgerJelly » June 15th, 2016, 8:22 am wrote:I understand Derrida now. Excited to see what use I can make of what he has to say.

Hopefully reading him will give me the tools I need to explain Hussrl better and myself.

I hope this can help me get to where I believe I can get to. I have something written down from a few years ago titled "Dichotomies and Magnitudes". I can now go back to that and continue it from where I got stuck last time :)


Great!! :)
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 385
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Derrida

Postby dandelion on June 17th, 2016, 8:26 am 

Sorry, it has been a bit crazy here and I’ve been wanting to get back to this for days. It seems to me you already have a really nice attitude for reading Derrida, and may want to go further than Husserl critiques, so reading Of Grammatology could be good too. I’m not sure of the dates, but I think his Husserl critiques could be sort of prior to the 1966 Johns Hopkins seminar I wrote of earlier, where Derrida also spoke among others, and Of Grammatology followed in the next year. Thanks for sharing the other thread, I’ve read quite a bit of it and think your argument about ontology and epistemology seems a little similar to Derrida’s critique of Levi-Strauss’s structuralist work given during that seminar, in a way, and other ideas too. Also since you mentioned Writing and Difference too, the essay in it Sign, Structure, Play…, the tenth, second last, is said to be based on that 1966 talk, and I think the other essays tend to lay down some ideas towards that essay. http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/Writing_ ... ssics_.pdf . It begins with a quote from Montaigne that I like, “We need to interpret interpretations more than to interpret things”. Anyway, maybe looking at that will give you a better idea if you want to read Of Grammatology, that sort of follows on, I think.
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 385
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Derrida

Postby BadgerJelly on June 18th, 2016, 3:13 am 

For Of Grammatology would you recommend one translation over another?

Thanks for pdf. Will print it out once I'm doen with intro to geometry, only 50 pages into it. Have avoided reading philosophy for quite a while so bit rusty in the old concentration department! Forgot what a slog it can be.

I am still not sure that Derrida has a case against Husserl because I feel he is actually getting to the heart of what Husserl was trying to say. I am obviously bias because I am applying my own meaning to his work. I think I'll be better equiped with a broader knowledge of grammar and linguistics in general.

Sorry I don't have much specific to say yet. My focus is always towards applying what I read to brain function, language and that mysterious thing we call reality.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5380
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Derrida

Postby dandelion on June 20th, 2016, 11:31 am 

I don’t think I’ve heard of a translation other than Spivak and I think I’ve seen she re-translated it again this year. I’ll have to read up again some more myself when I can.

Sorry about the slog of reading, the links and things are just suggestions, and I wouldn’t have any problem discussing it whether these were read or just roughly skimmed or not, because you seem to have a good idea of what it is about and a lot of the writing can be tedious, and you might realise you’re not as interested as you’d thought, too, or felt you now have as much of an idea as you want, or something like that. Again, just another suggestion, but you might prefer more secondary sources. I prefer videos for lots of reasons, such as I’m able to do other stuff while listening. You might like say this is from 2009, on the “Structure, Sign, Play,…”, paper I linked in my last post. I’ve listened to it all at some stage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np72VPguqeI (In this lecture on Derrida and the origins of deconstruction, Professor Paul Fry explores two central Derridian works: "Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of Human Sciences" and "Différance." Derrida's critique of structuralism and semiotics, particularly the work of Levi-Strauss and Saussure, is articulated. Deconstruction's central assertions that language is by nature arbitrary and that meaning is indeterminate are examined. Key concepts, such as the nature of the text, discourse, différance, and supplementarity are explored.) If interested in language, etc., there are also some pretty simple videos on poststructuralist communication and things like that which can give a rough idea and be a lot quicker than reading.

You’re view of Derrida’s response to Husserl, whether it is furthering Husserl’s thoughts or opposing them, or displacing them along with ideas that critique them, could be like some of the ironies of these ideas more generally- that ideas about displacing opposition might be seen as an opposition to existing ideas themselves, that sort of thing, and more specifically to Husserl, removing an assumption of presence could seem a change, but I’ll let you finish if you like. Given your interests, sorry, thoughts on geometry might not have been best. Questions about possible alternative interpretations of space-time interests me, as well as the areas that interest you. On a very small related note, I like how Derrida chose to critique Husserl’s Origin or Geometry as an Introduction to translation, inserting some response in as sort of prior to a work on beginnings, the preface too, the Origin instead included as a much smaller Appendix. Hopefully instead of being too excessive, it is all interrelated enough to all be worth some consideration concerning details that interest you most.

Some of my problems here are that I’m not sure where different books stop and more of Derrida’s though begins, and like you said about Husserl, differences between words and interpretations are blurred ( like the subject matter!). I also feel I could be hogging responses.
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 385
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Derrida

Postby BadgerJelly on June 20th, 2016, 11:51 am 

I am working through what you've given me. I've found some interesting bits in the Intro to Geometry up to now.

I am trying to make myself take the position that I have no idea what he means so I can see it better. I am a little worried I will take my own meaning rather than what is intended (done that before).

I read half of Being and Time in a few days. If I get in the zone I can get a lot of intense reading done.

Just got to page 72 today. Touches on what concerns me. Absolutes, Objectivity and Language. In my last engagement with owleye on Ontology and Epistenology I was tryign to get at something along these lines ... I think. I found a couple of terms I liked. One being Plenum. Which is my analogy of hownknowledge operates. There are, as ever, close relations to Kant's noumenon and phenomenon.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5380
Joined: 14 Mar 2012
dandelion liked this post


Re: Derrida

Postby dandelion on June 24th, 2016, 12:18 pm 

Since you mentioned reading Being and Time, I thought this could help-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_of_presence
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 385
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Derrida

Postby BadgerJelly on June 30th, 2016, 1:39 am 

I really wish I could write something suucinct here.

Still slogging slowly through book. Have thought about posting several times here and there. I do see the biggest issue, as usual, is with time. I think pages 66-76 caught my attention the most. Language is something of a fixation for me.

It is very strange to talk about bracketing language and then using language to describe this! I personally view Husserls position as pointing at the difference of mathematical logic and logic in language. For me Lewis Carroll also illustrated this and I love to refer to Jabberwocky as an example of how meaning can be expressed by association of phonemes ... slighty off topic by I think it is analogous to what Husserl was doing.

I can say one thing. It has given me a better understanding of "grounding" and hownto explain it to people. Another hard issue to get at is the "universal substratum" (unconsicous).

Anyway, looks like I won't be done here for some time. Holiday in two weeks so after that I should have had more time to read and digest all of this.

Also look at p.90-91. I think this is the clearest way I have seen irreel and reel described.

One thing I fidn over and over in trying to deal with Husserl is that after reading Heidegger much of the terminology has been hijacked by Heidegger. Not really having a go at what Heidegger attempted, but I do feel he may have steered many people away from Husserl accidently. I am no scholar of philosophy though just my initial view of the situation and the course phenomenology has taken.

It looks to me like Heidegger tried to create a new language to deal with subjectivity whilst Husserl saw no problem (distinction) between subjective objective for phenomenology. My old thread about ontology and epistemology, crude as it was, was trying to reduce another distinction taken on very readily in philosophy that plays on the dichotomy of ontology and epistemology. It is not that I didn't understand the difference between the two when I made that thread it is that I found the distinctions as mayeb inappropriate in some situations. Since then I have come to have a better understanding of how to apply those terms, but for phenomenology there is still a lot more to say against them I believe.

I like what Gaston Bachelard said "bibliomenon". Very fitting for Derrida to pick that one out.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5380
Joined: 14 Mar 2012
dandelion liked this post


Re: Derrida

Postby BadgerJelly on July 3rd, 2016, 3:06 am 

If you don't wish to read all of that pdf look at section IX. I find that to be the very heart of phenomenology, from my perspective at least.

Has been a great read up to now. Should be done with it by end of the week. Has certainly given me a better understanding of Husserl and his view on science generally.

With Sartre we hear "existence precedes essence", but that is contrary and stretching the use of language and revealing its limits (or rather grasping at the limits). I have not read Crisis in its entirety and have ordered in with some Wittengenstein. Also tempted by Kirkegaard, Searle and Foucault (found pdf for Foucault). So annoying not knowing if something is worth reading until I read it! Haha
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5380
Joined: 14 Mar 2012
dandelion liked this post


Re: Derrida

Postby BadgerJelly on July 6th, 2016, 3:39 am 

Finished it! Next Writing and Difference, get back to you after/on holiday.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5380
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Derrida

Postby dandelion on July 6th, 2016, 4:57 am 

Great! I'll be away mostly too.
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 385
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Derrida

Postby BadgerJelly on July 7th, 2016, 2:05 am 

I cannot help laugh! Derrida introduction to Husserl's The Origins of Geometry about 153 pages long whilstbwhat Husserl wrote is 23 pages long.

I understand Derrida's interpretation. I just don't quite see it the way he chooses to. I think he has gone to great pains to remark about Husserl's problem with "time" (which Husserl never really could express clearly) and the "ideal objects" (which again is what I feel is the heart of what Husserl is looking for knowingly knowing they can only be grasped at through attempts that use our approach to language and how we represent "time" lingually, and more to the point, "paasively".)

There will always be an empty place here. I think this "empty space" is exactly what Heidegger tried to fill with Dasein, although, from my perspective Husserl had already addressed this problem and dealt with it.

I wish I could write like these guys! If I could maybe I could actually present my take on all this better.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5380
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Derrida

Postby dandelion on July 7th, 2016, 10:40 am 

I really wish I could explain myself like that too!

Yes! Derrida sort of "literally" displaced an "origin", with pre-origins.

Before leaving the Introduction to the Origin of Geometry, in case it is interesting to consider it along with other ideas in different areas, such as to do with foundations in physics, I'll mention Wheeler's ideas involving pregeometry -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregeometry_(physics) , in possible connection with quantum gravity.

These sorts of related ideas can involve more emergence, like that of directional time and further questions, e.g., the link given for Sidoni, Lorenzo, 2013.
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 385
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Derrida

Postby BadgerJelly on July 8th, 2016, 1:23 am 

Not moving on yet. Finished readinds Derridas intro and should finish the actual Origin of Geometry today straight from the horses mouth. It does appear Derrida is trying to argue a point that is not actually there.

I think I have to go back to trying to express my view on "knowledge" to show better what I think Husserl is getting at (what I am getting for sure!). I have tried on these forums before, but I think I am better equiped to present myself now.

I am guessing Husserls Logical Investigations is worth a read. Enough on the list for now though, but I may order vol.1

Also I think Searle may be useful here too. I am talking about his approach to signified and signifier. A great little book by Colin Renfew touches on this. He discusses Inequality. He looks at our concept of moneyand shows how paper money does not have intrinsic value and doesn't represent anything. Whereas it used to represent gold. He uses a quote from Clifford Geertz said to express religion, a quote I have posted a few times on these forim so just search Geertz to find it. Renfew used this definition to describe money, and I saw thatbit described language (and further more that it described humans generally). Anyway what I am getting at is how all this talk of symbol, sign, signifier and context relate to knowledge in general and how it meshes with phenomenology (if it can?).

I have always found the idea of epistemological phenomenology to be a contrary idea. That is why I attacked ontology and epistemology.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5380
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Derrida

Postby dandelion on July 9th, 2016, 12:31 pm 

On the tangent I’d last mentioned, I didn’t think to link to the discussion I’d recently linked, viewtopic.php?f=10&t=30884 and here are some examples of recent papers that are relevant to that tangent. I should think of somewhere better to put these.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.05268
http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.04444
http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.00364

Sorry I hadn’t realised it wasn’t finished. I should put more thought or time into replies, but I have not so much time at the moment, so for now, how do you feel about a suggestion that Husserl perpetuates traditional views with presence or intention?

From what you said this seems a little relevant. Just from memory, I think it was in Sinha’s discussion of Searle, in which it was said that a chair, which might be anything with properties that afford a function of sitting, is a chair if it is intended as or used as a chair, which seems to mean was built with intended purpose, or conforms with a socially agreed notion of function. But there can also be multi-functions and change, e.g., using something with properties that afford sitting, also as a footstool, or some designer chairs, in some cases epitomising sitting function, are selected for display in museums, the designed function forbidden, as possible alternatives. There was also are similar discussions of a Mother placing a knotted sting around her child’s finger, as a reminder for changing instructions on different occasions while at school, such as a reminder to use a handkerchief, or to wear a hat outdoors. A repeated gesture or gaze seems to indicate different things in different contexts. But because for example, money loses value when destroyed, there are discussions, e.g. Sinha, about “counting as” and “standing for”. Finitude could be part of this.

The interpretation of Geertz is funny. I’ve found some reference to the discussions I mentioned, and there is mention of differences between such types of representation, like "counting as", and about early coining occurring in the period between 800 and 600 BCE in Greece and China. But in earlier cases the metal involved, divided into units, seemed finite and possibly held more useful value, but still was used as an intermediary between a more direct bartering relationship between different goods with likely differing uses, but including goods also functioning as investment, etc. I see how unbacked paper money could be seen as meaningless for intended function, possibly more so without some idea of finitude and agreed trust, and is also culturally indicative and could be taken as a religion, re the quote. It could also be fuel or rather impractical wallpaper, or art http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/arts/ ... .html?_r=0 . Money might not be made to fulfil such other functions- paper money usually isn’t minted in order to be burnt as fuel or for decoration, but, for instance, as a social indicator it can be particularly valuable to some, e.g., http://www.ashmolean.org/departments/he ... oom/about/
and so, in other contexts, a particular functional intention may not always be privileged.

Could an idea of rather tangible metal as a backing value, and ideas in which divisions into standardised units of space and time, such as centimetres and seconds from rulers and clocks, set between more direct distinctions in relationships give, or encourage, something of ideas of absolutes more generally?

Incidentally, Sinha’s research on changing names for differing life stages was one of the examples I was thinking of when I’d said I was aware of things similar to a language naming parts of trees in the Epistemology and Ontology thread. I’d posted about it in this thread - http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=124&t=27652 . There was more mention of time in the thread, too.

Also, do you think phenomenology or epistemology may vary in something like intensity?
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 385
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Derrida

Postby BadgerJelly on July 10th, 2016, 3:19 am 

I really struggle with words to answer the final question (also not sure what you meam by intensity?).

Anyway, I look at epistemology as the "grounding" of being. Phenomenology is not concerned so much any particular given truth and doesn't expect to arrive at any conclusive evidence (in fact to seems to actively avoid this!). My current view is that Heidegger pushed his phenomenology into this area. He was concerned with the "grounding" of being to understand "being" (will be reassessi g my view of this once I reread Being and Time).

By intensity I can guess you mean that epistemology views knowledge as the key concern where phenomenology doesn't try to pin down any particular "truth"?

Perpetuates traditional views with intention? Mmm. I think Husserl knows that to uncover the origin of something feeds more into the immediate view of it. He talks about "sedimentation" to describe this. This is hard!! I can only really relate my view and intent. By constantly reducing something, historically and infinitely towards genisis, phenomenology uncovers more and more of what intention means. I don't real see that phenomenology has a purpose other than to multiply and create more and more horizons in order to adumbrate the "intentionality" (the phenomenon of phenomenon). Sorry, reading this back it probably doesn't make much sense to you.

I think the term "perpetuating" is a good one. Phenomenology is certainly about keeping the question alive, and looking at it. This is something I see taken up by many philosophies. I see it often approached and dealt with as grounded in language. Language founds our meanings which we communicate and give life to and keep alive. This is where we perpetuate tradition, often blindly. The successful application of mathematical logic to the phsyical world has then flowes into language and tried to apply itself there too.

Kind of related to this, if you get some idea of how I think now. I was thinking the other day about the effect of having different numbering systems to apply to different contexts. For example in a building instead of saying "two", I would say "dos", thus separating abstract mathematical numbers from phsyical quantities. The simple and easiest application of language is not always the best. Often the terms we use fall into too broad a useage or to specific a use. From my view philosophical writing is the ability to mive with ease between these two applications and bring the reader to see them too.

Derrida quotes Husserl on page 124

"Thus geometrical space does not signify anything like imaginary space..."

Maybe I've just been drinking too much coffee! Haha
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5380
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Derrida

Postby dandelion on July 20th, 2016, 11:35 pm 

I hope this at least gives some idea of patterns as I see Derrida, but it is written on the hop a bit-
I think Derrida is less definite generally, but an epistemology could be knowledge of interactions, or interpretations or translations of interactions based on repetitions of an amount similarity with an amount of difference. This sameness and difference could be in similar sorts of interactions involving similar components combined differently. I think by intensity I meant something like a spectrum, somewhere between no knowledge and all knowledge. Such variation could be through varying amounts of context, and otherness or absence, or maybe this could also be much like the different neural systems neuro wrote of in your motorbike near collision response thread (btw, take care). That sort of thing could suggest the interior monologue Husserl wrote about, or "being", may not be about something singular but involve different amounts of knowledge from amongst different parts involved differently in interactions.

As you say about phenomenology generally, this could be not so much about over-all, definite conclusions, or truth, and Derrida could be about alerting the reader to possible transcendental, ontological, ideas that may preferably be avoided. Derrida, with Godel, quantum and Skolem sorts of influences writes of undecidability and uncertainty or of something like maths or logic out-side, but with compatible with a use of, traditional maths or logic (a bit like your example). Actually, your earlier comments about Derrida furthering phenomenology could also be said to be similar to this last in utilising the same vocabulary for considerations that may attempt to be outside traditional philosophy, reasoning outside traditional logic, and this sort of idea could also venture into a possible sort of Derridian ontology.

I think Derrida suggests that Husserl, with presence, like traditional philosophy since the pre-Socratics may perpetuate, ventured into metaphysics with the sort of ideas involved in origin and intention, with a transcendental pure presence which might, more preferably, be avoidable. Rather than pure presence, interpretation might extend far into the past and an anticipated future, in interpreting markings by ancients on rock,bones, etc., or perhaps even interpreting DNA, equations in physics, etc., of many possible interpretations not yet conceived of or may never be, and so could involve presence but also maybe to some extent, absence of presence. Derrida writes of a transcendental signified.

I think your mention of reduction towards origins is a fascinating aspect of this. Derrida might have shown more about how ideas continue to change with various combinations, while there may also be similitude. Derrida also showed alternative contexts to just privileging an original or authoritative intent. Such origins and intent could be replaced by repetition with an extent of difference and with "trace" as minimum similarity. Recurrence with difference might suggest eternity of different combinations and no singular origins from within a traditional view, but a part of this view might be about some reduction and some origins too.

Heidegger may have felt historical time is a relationship of errors of translation, "Without errancy there would be no connection from destiny to destiny: there would be no history" (Heidegger, Early Greek Thinking), and perhaps sought origination in reduction historically backwards to the recently widely accessible phonetic writings of pre-categorical Greece. Derrida may have considered such ideas as perhaps possible stages of amounts of otherness in disorder and order, along some continuum, viewed through the history, language, logic, epistemology, etc., that such categories and order that Aristotle and other Classical Greeks, and so on, have given. Such laws may be a measure for interpreting, evaluating and transforming laws. Perhaps this would be something like historical reduction towards increasing epistemology or possibly with through a recursively logical relationship, something like an increasing meta-epistemology. It might be that in such ways Derrida may have considered origination in ontico-ontological difference or différance.
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 385
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Derrida

Postby dandelion on July 22nd, 2016, 12:10 am 

The way I wrote the last paragraph with the quote from Heidegger's work may mistakenly give the impression that Derrida agreed that such translations or I nterpretations have been made in error, but I'm not sure about that being the case, and Derrida might instead consider such sorts of translations as limited and questionable.
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 385
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Derrida

Postby BadgerJelly on August 1st, 2016, 3:13 am 

I think Derridas issue is with phenomenology is with how Husserl uses language. I mean language in the more commonsense of written/spoken/signed language, verbose language. This is relation to how we think, our "inner speech".

The thing is I don't see phenomenology as about explanation of worded concepts. I obvious see phenomenology, as every subject, having need to engage in communicating its ideas socially. When Husserl talks about univocity of terms such as "one" or "of" he is referring to a faculty of directedness that has no physical manifestation, something akin to Kantian intuitions.

It does seem that Derrida sees Husserls adumbration of such a non-material concept, such as concept, as a thing known only through language. I am talking about the everyday sense of language here as opposed to sensibility. Derrida seems to point towards signification, through language, as the heart of phenomenology.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5380
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Derrida

Postby dandelion on August 3rd, 2016, 5:26 pm 

Although perhaps akin to Kant, this likening might give different ideas about change, because these could be less about change, while ideas such as Derrida's seem to be more about change.
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 385
Joined: 02 May 2014


Next

Return to Anything Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests