Hugo Holbling

Es tut mir leid! I asked based on a remark you made elsewhere, but i can't remember it now...

Would you say this is what differentiates it from analytical philosophy? If not, where do you see the distinction, if any? Why the hostility?

Do you think continental philosophy provides an answer to this question? That is, does it provide only a critique, or positive conclusions too (in your reading, at any rate)? This is an extension of my original third question.

How so? Do you mean at school, or in your own time?

In every interview i've read, Derrida refuses to define deconstruction; why do you suppose that is? From my reading, i think he wants to avoid turning the slaying of systems into just another system, hence the reference to de Man. Would you agree that it's a long way from the critique of presence to a deconstructionism?

Sure, but even then de Man insists that texts are not deconstructed; rather, they deconstruct themselves. That is, deconstruction is not a methodology, but the critique of presence that involves the deconstruction of a text could be seen as a critical tool. What do you think?

This is something i'm very interested in discussing with you. Have you read Eco? If so, what do you make of his response to this "death"? What's your opinion of the concept of the "ideal reader"? How well does he answer with his "Limits of Interpretation"? If you're really keen, how does his system of semiotics compare with Saussure's?

There's no need to answer all those questions at once...

Agreed. There seems to be quite an emotional attachment at stake here - hence my question hinting at the use of psychology/psychoanalysis in philosophy. Why are most criticisms of Derrida outright dismissals, instead of taking him on? It's a rhetorical question, apparently...

I've asked this question before: where does philosophy go, post-Derrida or Rorty? I think the lack of an acceptable answer is a poor reason to take a step back and reject them both.

A last question for you and thefugitivesaint: how do you see the influence of PoMo on political philosophy, or politics in general?

August Spies

Im reading him right now actually, but how about Calvino's dealing with the death of the author (he was a friend of Barthes and Foucault BTW)

Hugo Holbling

... and a good friend of Eco, too.

According to Vidal, Calvino agreed with the former's reading, in which the reader and author become One. On the other hand, and for those who aren't sure what we're talking about, here's a link with some commentary on Eco's Ideal Reader.

Perhaps you could argue for Calvino while i go with Eco, and we'll see what we end up with?

John Page

First, I'd like to say .

Now, the meaning of the smilie is a reflection of your image of me, i.e. what state of mind you think I'm trying to convey. This is the signified. The signified must be communicated through the reality we inhabit, hence the use of signs and symbols.

Thus, the text has sgnificance for the perceiver. To perceive the intended meaning requires an understanding not only of the language but of the cultural references incorporated into the signs. e.g. a Martian might intellectually understand the language but not "get it".

When you ask questions about Foucalt and Derrida's works IMO you need to consider that their intent, coming from their minds, has been "externalized" in a form (their works) more immutable than our mortal bodies. While the death of an author denies us the possibility of verifying the intention with the author, written language is a means of freezing the signs of a thought into a "permanent" medium that appears to us as having a constant becoming. To this extent logocentrism makes sense.

Deconstruction seems reasonable on the face of it, let's pick things apart and see whats inside! You ask if it has gone too far!! While I'm not exactly sure what you mean (note this is a different smilie because of its different context, although me in reality is not in a permanent state of smiling ) I'll give you my answer:

Meaning is conveyed by language but is not inherent in that language. Language can be used to describe itself, but that is only because language participates in reality. Reality, on the other hand, can be shown to exist without language. Any claim that reality is only perceivable because of language distorts the meaning of the word language to cover the mechanisms of perception itself.

The relationship between mind and language seems complex to me and I would concur with deconstructionist allusion to this long standing relationship. To give language primacy over all reality is, however, going too far - there is no need to reinvent language as god.

I'm not comfortable with the way Derrida uses the "play" concept. Like Zeno's arrow in flight, one may "freeze frame" to create a theoretical infinity of half-meanings. While language may not effect precise transfer of thought patterns from one individual to another it does not mean that an infinite number of meanings exist. The meanings that *do* exist at any given time are probably as a result of brain states interpreting reality into language form. Text may be theoretically infinite but in practice all texts I have ever know are finite (even unfinished books ).

So, I don't think its a case of going too far, more that Derrida followed a wrong track already beaten by Saussure. The relationship between the sign and the signifier is the meaning of the sign, irrespective of whether the sign appears to be random or arbitrary. If Saussure intended that the sign be a "deeper" or more atomic thing than the symbol I disagree, we still need a quanta of meaning for meaning to mean anything at all.

Cheers, John

Amos

The two are opposite to each other and continental philosophy is wholistic if Brittish philosophy is analytic. For example, in continental philosophy "essence precedes existence" while in analythic philosophy "existence precedes essence" and as soon as we compromise from this both sides lose their integrity. There is no middle ground here and both cannot be right.

With regard to interpretation of literature, the continental philosopher is supposed to have noetic vision and can be the critic of lyric poetry that is writtern from lyrical vision.

Luiseach

Hi folks, just popped in with a link that might come in useful for the discussion (as it relates to Derrida and deconstruction). I tried to find a short-ish look at Derrida and deconstruction, and found this (I think it sums both up quite well). The link provides a more in-depth analysis of deconstruction than the one I provided, and examines the controversy in far more detail. I hope it helps us somewhat.

I like all those questions, Hugo, and will enjoy addressing them. I'm especially interested in how you're tying together the strands of the discussion with your query about the 'death of the author' issue, and psychology. I'm no psychologist, mind you!

I'll need to address the questions on Friday, because I work tomorrow...but I'll catch up with the convo as it progresses. :-)

http://www.derridathemovie.com/bio.html

Hugo Holbling

I won't be able to post Thurday either, but here's a couple of off-topic questions for later: have you seen the movie? I've looked around but can't find a release date in the UK. Have you seen Irreversible? I think you should...

Luiseach

Sorry about the delay in my contribution! Anyhoo, here it be:



As part of my studies and research. 'Own Time'?! Sheesh, what's that? ;-)

Quote:

In every interview i've read, Derrida refuses to define deconstruction; why do you suppose that is? From my reading, i think he wants to avoid turning the slaying of systems into just another system, hence the reference to de Man. Would you agree that it's a long way from the critique of presence to a deconstructionism?

I think the reason that Derrida doesn't define the term 'deconstruction' is that he argues in favour of the position which views deconstruction as resistant to the limiting effects of defining terms. In my opinion, I know what he's getting at with this move (i.e. he argues that the text 'unravels', so what would be the point of placing closure on just one word within the text...that is 'deconstruction'); on the other hand, I think that we can define deconstruction without necessarily limiting its referentiality or contradicting the meaning of the term itself.

As for your second question...I know what you're saying there: critiquing anything does not necessarily imply an underlying system of thought, but then again it could. Darn, but language is slippery (again, in keeping with deconstruction). I think, again, that Derrida et al are being coy at times in denying that Deconstruction cannot be viewed as a system of thought. I honestly think it can be viewed as such, without undermining its critical power.

Quote:

Sure, but even then de Man insists that texts are not deconstructed; rather, they deconstruct themselves. That is, deconstruction is not a methodology, but the critique of presence that involves the deconstruction of a text could be seen as a critical tool. What do you think?

I think I pointed out earlier the point often made by deconstructionists (i.e. that texts unravel themselves); further, we as the 'deconstructing' points of convergence are witness to this unravelling of meaning...although I tend to think of the critic involved as part of the deconstruction process, not just a passive audience to language playing games with itself. If deconstruction is a tool (as you suggest, and I agree with this), then the critic still exerts will upon the text. 'Seeing' the unravelling requires the critical eye to see it. If a text remains un-witnessed, then it might as well not exist - either intact with closed meaning(s) or deconstructing itself quietly - slowly disintegrating on a dusty bookshelf.

Quote:

This is something i'm very interested in discussing with you. Have you read Eco? If so, what do you make of his response to this "death"? What's your opinion of the concept of the "ideal reader"? How well does he answer with his "Limits of Interpretation"? If you're really keen, how does his system of semiotics compare with Saussure's?

I don't read much of Umberto Eco, I'm afraid, except his fiction...(I know I should, though)...although I am familiar with de Saussure. Would you mind giving me your take on Eco?

I agree with this:

'' In a recent statement on reading and interpretation, Eco has stressed that the 'anything goes' version of postmodern criticism is not what is implied in the notion of an open work. Rather, every literary work can be said to propose a model reader corresponding to real and justifiable possibilities set by the text. For Eco, to propose that an infinite number of readings is possible for any text is a wholly empty gesture. This does not mean, on the other hand, that an empirical author should be able to adjudicate on the validity of interpretation in light of his or her intentions. It is a question of pointing to evidence that could lead to a pertinent and coherent interpretation, whether or not this be in spite of the empirical author. In this regard, Eco is fond of quoting the line from Finnegans Wake which refers to 'that ideal reader suffering from an ideal insomnia' (FW 120: 13-14). The ideal reader is not so much a perfect reader as one who represents the range of possible readings justified in terms of the structure of the text itself - the reader who is awake to these possibilities. ''

Yep, I have no beef with this. I prefer to think of literary criticism as a convergence between reader and text...I can't think of language as a system which can 'mean anything' you want it to. As far as this criticism of PoMo stands, I think it could be considered a straw-manning of the deconstruction position.

Quote:

Agreed. There seems to be quite an emotional attachment at stake here - hence my question hinting at the use of psychology/psychoanalysis in philosophy. Why are most criticisms of Derrida outright dismissals, instead of taking him on? It's a rhetorical question, apparently...

I think it's difficult to refute Derrida's arguments, simply because of his writing style, which is in itself self-consciously elusive. A good, if complex, read. In a sense, his writings are a demonstration of deconstruction's inherent slipperiness, and an illustration of its indeterminacy. So dismissals are an easy way of disregarding his thought. A few of his more outspoken critics (including Plantinga) have dismissed all of PoMo (with Rorty and Derrida lumped in for good measure) as 'posturing.' :-D

Quote:

I've asked this question before: where does philosophy go, post-Derrida or Rorty? I think the lack of an acceptable answer is a poor reason to take a step back and reject them both.

A very good question, and one I often discuss with my husband (who is an analytic philosopher). I lean towards postmodern readings of texts of all sorts, and my view is that analytic philosophers tend to disregard the implications of postmodernism within certain contexts. I kind of agree with this view...symbolic logic is a system in its own right, for instance, whereas when we discuss the meaning(s) of texts, postmodernism (including deconstruction) can be more illuminating - and makes for a more interesting read/discussion - than modus tollens and modus ponens! ;-)

Quote:

A last question for you and thefugitivesaint: how do you see the influence of PoMo on political philosophy, or politics in general?

As a first response to this question, I would say that the emphasis on pluralism in PoMo is beneficial to political philosophy, and indeed, real-life politics as well. I would also argue that PoMo can undermine dogmatism.

[edited to add quotation from link provided by Hugo]

Luiseach

No, I haven't had a chance to see the movie, I'm afraid. What's Irreversible like, then?

Hugo Holbling

Alas, i know what you mean. Thanks for sticking with the discussion.

These are interesting claims; i wonder if you'd mind expanding on them here? I'd like to see how you formulate deconstruction - i think Critchley agrees with you.

Sure; i appreciate the emotional investment that makes some folk want criticism to be positive, but i'm too much the Menckenian to care...

Would you say there's more than one deconstruction to a given text? If so, what limits the number of possibilities?

So what is the role of the reader in the text deconstructing itself? Does the "critical eye" merely "see" the unravelling, or does it influence it?

I always dreamed such creatures existed, but never believed it until today! :notworthy

My take generally, or with regard to this discussion? I'll assume the latter until corrected...

The book i'd like to point you towards initially is his Six Walks In The Fictional Woods, in which he expands on the references to the "Ideal Reader" he's made elsewhere. In particular, he uses a magical passage in Nerval's Sylvie to illustrate the concept. Here is a brief description of the work.

Eco claims that an author doesn't just write; he (or she ) has in mind an ideal or model reader who will follow the tale as and at the level it was meant to be told. In order to do so, a number of clues, signs and signals are interspersed throughout the text; whether the reader makes the effort to see them is another matter, of course.

The best example i can think of is Eco himself - you said you've read his fiction, so you've seen the master at work. If we take The Name Of The Rose, for instance, it's clear even on a superficial reading that there are multiple levels to the story; the question is how far in do you want to follow? In Foucault's Pendulum, on the other hand, the reader who is well-versed in conspiracy theory, ancient and modern, can follow the hints that appear lit up like the proverbial xmas tree while others take it all as background detail in which the story is set. I suppose this could be construed as an elitist reading but Eco is at pains to point out that all authors are aiming for this model reader, genius or otherwise.

This limitation on the interpretation of a text provides an interesting caveat to the postmodern discussion, i think. It seems an infinity of readings is possible only by discounting the roles of author and reader, at least as far as i understand Eco; however, the author leaving clues for their model reader is dependent on the latter for the unfolding of the story, just as a secret depends on those excluded from it.

Eco has more to say about this is his Open Work and The Limits Of Interpretation, if you're interested.

Like Calvino?

That's not what i understand Saussure and Derrida's reading of him to be implying. An endless chain of signifiers, never reaching a signified, is perhaps the same thing that Critchley calls a "re-enchantment of the world as a web of contingencies" and Rorty refers to as the realization that we only have each other to depend on; kind of like saying that meaning can only ever have a lower-case "m".

Another damning verdict on my social circle...

As i asked in another thread, do you suspect a methodological incommensurability here, or are both sides just being stubborn?

Agreed, but as i asked at the start - "Does continental philosophy/postmodernism encourage global skepticism and, if so, have they gone too far? How and why should we set limits on our skepticism/methodologies?"

Perhaps you can find the time somewhere to take this one on as well?!

Finally,

As i've said to a few others, i can't get this movie out of my head. It's undeniably brutal, but also the most beautiful and yet depressingly profound thing i've ever seen. I'd agree with the minority of critics that actually watched it that it's the most important film of the year, and probably of recent times. Hell, a philosopher is one of the main characters!