Derrida

x_Derrida

from Introduction to Modern Thought

• Deconstruction of Concepts
• Introduction to original texts/good explanatory books
  • There seem to be books by Derrida that meticulously deconstruct various original texts
  • ”Speech and Phenomena”: Deconstruction of Husserl’s phenomenology
• Emphasizing difference from identity
  • At the same time, the binary opposition of “identity and difference” is also Deconstruction
• Procedure of Derrida’s Deconstruction
  • Doubting the valorization of one side of the binary opposition
  • Also, inventing something that cannot be determined which side of the binary opposition it belongs to
    • This is expressed with the motif of pharmakon (something that can be both medicine and poison)
    • It’s unclear how “doubting the valorization of one side of the binary opposition” and “doubting the way of dividing the binary opposition” are mixed together (blu3mo)
      • I think these two are different layers of discussion
      • Isn’t deconstruction ultimately about the former? But if the latter can be achieved, the former is automatically achieved as well, so we do the latter too, something like that?
      • Personally, I find the latter more interesting (blu3mo)
      • It feels like breaking out of a mere discussion of ethics within the same framework and giving birth to something new
    • This is so Exploring New Models through Implementation (blu3mo)(blu3mo)

Parole vs Écriture

• All binary oppositions can be rephrased as parole vs écriture
  • Parole: direct presence
    • Authenticity, genuineness, essence-like things
  • Écriture: indirect representation
  • Wow, that’s a big statement (blu3mo)
  • Examples of Parole vs Écriture
    • Speech vs Writing
      • Writing can be misread, but speech is less likely to be, so there is a notion of “truthfulness” in speech
      • ??? (blu3mo)
        • No, speech can be misinterpreted too, without understanding anything
        • If we talk about the agreement of interpretation, both speech and writing are the same, and it’s not about media but about interactivity (blu3mo)
          • Maybe they found superiority in speech because they were thinking about it in a time when there was no text chat?
          • Ah, so this way of thinking is exactly deconstruction (blu3mo)(blu3mo)
            • I feel like deconstruction is at the root of my thinking as of June 2022 (blu3mo)(blu3mo)(blu3mo)
            • Here, “text chat” is the pharmakon, I suppose
      • Voice vs Text Communication
    • Nature vs Artificial
      • I don’t understand this either (blu3mo)
        • For now, I feel like they should clarify the definitions more clearly before discussing
    • Hmm, I don’t understand any of these binary oppositions (blu3mo)
      • Or rather, is not understanding something deconstruction? (laughs)
  • All binary oppositions can be rephrased as parole vs écriture, but I don’t think that’s necessarily true..? (blu3mo)
    • It’s impossible to rephrase “Takenoko no Sato vs Kinoko no Yama” (popular Japanese chocolate snacks)
      • You can force it by saying something like the directness to chocolate, but if it’s that interpretable, then this statement itself seems meaningless
• Critique of Essentialism
  • Essence (Parole) vs Non-essence (Écriture)
  • Doubting that essence is “better”
    • I feel like I wrote something similar before, but I can’t find it (blu3mo)
  • Well, that’s true (blu3mo)
• Relating deconstruction to philosophy of life
  • This book seems to value these aspects quite a bit
  • If I interpret “Derridean way of living,” it’s about accepting otherness that becomes pharmakon rather than excluding and stabilizing oneself
  • It’s similar to what I wrote in Choosing the Unexperienced (blu3mo)(blu3mo)- (This seems like the philosophy of masayachiba, but) in reality, it is difficult to solely pursue a “Derridean way of life” because the real world often requires making decisions.
  • However, it is important to be aware that there are things that are being omitted when making decisions, which is referred to as “attachment” in this context.
• In reality, it is impossible to continue pursuing deconstruction indefinitely, so it is necessary to find a balance between “omitting things and making decisions,” as discussed in a realistic manner.
  • That’s definitely true.
    • When discussing abstract philosophical ideas, it’s easy to forget about this point.
    • It’s important to be conscious that pursuing deconstruction without considering other people’s realistic situations is not the right approach. (blu3mo)