Of Grammatology

Book Description

"One of the major works in the development of contemporary criticism and philosophy." -- J. Hillis Miller, Yale University

Jacques Derrida's revolutionary theories about deconstruction, phenomenology, psychoanalysis, and structuralism, first voiced in the 1960s, forever changed the face of European and American criticism. The ideas in De la grammatologie sparked lively debates in intellectual circles that included students of literature, philosophy, and the humanities, inspiring these students to ask questions of their disciplines that had previously been considered improper. Thirty years later, the immense influence of Derrida's work is still igniting controversy, thanks in part to Gayatri Spivak's translation, which captures the richness and complexity of the original. This corrected edition adds a new index of the critics and philosophers cited in the text and makes one of contemporary criticism's most indispensable works even more accessible and usable.

Customer Reviews:

The problematization of writing.......2007-03-30

Derrida's thought is the primary reason why I inevitably feel an urge to put quotation marks around so many of the conceptual labels in my own writing; he initiates a needful misgiving: Do we really know what we are speaking about when we attempt to speak philosophically? Or is our language so subverted, displaced, and otherwise (blindly) ideological that a lot of the theoretical malarkey that academics put forth just seems to beg the age-old questions of knowledge, truth, meaning, etc.? But wait. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that Derrida's writing shies away, almost essentially, from authoritative positioning in such matters because his own writing is subject to the same blind alleys and provisionalism that all writing is. In this respect, his writing is always, in a way, winking and playful, but admittedly in an rigorous and sometimes difficult way.

Is this book difficult? Yes, you bet it is! But I assure you that it's is as close to entry-level Derrida as any other book written by him. I first encountered the thinking of Derrida in a very watered-down gloss on his theory in postmodernist primer; this intrigued me to pursue him further, to read such things as Beginner's Guides and Short Introductions (which I definitely recommend to those who have either no prior experience with him or no great familiarity with the other thinkers he addresses in Of Grammatology--Saussure, Rousseau, etc.). Of course, you'll discover that these tidy little intros can be oversimplifying in places, but they at least get you to the general neighborhood before your set out on your own.

Derrida's writing, because of its inherent need for argumentative clarity and rigor, can at times be difficult to decipher; therefore, do not obsess over every sentence; the overall meaning of the argument is much more important and often becomes clearer if you just plow through difficult passages.

Every writing, especially philosophical writing, and even of course Derrida's, is by nature ideological; it works outward from a set of assumptions. There is no other alternative. We cannot start from scratch, from some dreamed-of ground zero where there is no preceding meaning and out of which we may deduce all the truths of the universe. Derrida's ideological vantage is then what appealed to me about him; perhaps never in black and white, but always and everywhere his thinking seems to question authoritative accounts, seeks to expand upon the marginalized element in any discourse, and foregrounds the difficulty in making large and almost mathematical pronouncements in philosophical and other supradisciplinary affairs. These are certain dispositions which align with my own particular perspective, and if they have some resonance with you, and if you come to Derrida having completed a little homework and bringing along a good dose of patience and effort, then you'll likely find this book rewarding as well.

A final note on the opposing opinion: Although there is no one camp of thinkers or philosophers which opposes Derrida's thought for one and only one reason, some of the most vocal of his detractors (and I will temporarily assume their voice here) regard him as a proponent of relativism or an attempted (but miserably failed) assassin of the western philosophical tradition. They are less skeptical of a fundamental faith in the general structures of meaning and in the rudimentary capabilities of the rational mind to attain to some variety of truth, however limited. Also, opponents often regard Derrida as a kind of interloper in the field of philosophy, that he should putter around with his obscurantist games in the narrow field of literary theory where he belongs. Therefore, if Plato, Descartes, and Locke seem like more feasible philosophical pursuits, Derrida probably (1) won't convert you and (2) won't be to your liking. He doesn't put forth a philosophical system, and neither does he assert an epistemological framework, so you won't find the kind of concrete, axiomatical philsophical claims common to pre-modern and early modern philosophy.

Push through it.......2005-01-28

When I first tried to tackle this book I was a first year undergrad philosophy and logic student - I declared Derrida my arche-enemy.
Three years later I am devoted to Derrida.
I eventually managed to push down the frustration (and at times, the blind rage) I felt at reading his stuff and took my time to follow him where he wants to take us.
Derrida is important for thinking, whether or not you agree with what he is saying.
Derrida's greatest lesson is forcing us to look closer, he wants us to pay attention to what is really going on (or at least, to pay attention to other possibilities that may be at work)

A Celebration of Incoherency.......2004-12-24

The importance of Derrida and his movement is monumental - not for the term "deconstructionism" (heard frequently without a clue to its true meaning) but for how he has influenced (Western) society. Derrida, like Marcuse, Chomsky, Foucault and others, has moved from his original study to a broader agenda and, like many intellectuals, considers his mastery of one subject transferrable to another. He managed to survive the embarrassing Paul de Man fiasco and has since wisely avoided mention of the "Hitler in all of us". He has remarked on the authoritarian anti-democratic nature of deconstructionism, treating the subject ironically.

This is, allegedly, a textbook of post-Modern thought on language but reads like a didactic, out-of-focus Proust. The writing is nebulous, self-referential, unreadable. He speaks in Orwellian terms equating opposite qualities and words. It is so ephemeral as to lack certitude and for this very reason many commentators fear definitive statements on the subject. Deconstructionism is, despite all the twaddle, inherently subjective. He muses on expression, anxiety, emotions, signs and existentialism, finding meaning and interpretation where there is none. His popularity rests entirely on academia and like-minded camp followers in the media. I mean, how many Iowans care about the "ultimate" meaning of allusions? The problem with the ouevre is that when taken seriously, it literally make mountains of molehills.

Such as, well, equating fairy tales to S&M sagas, symphonies to invitations to rape, skyscrapers to phallic power trips, signs of "white" recycled paper as racism and stuttering as aggression. Allusions are, in Derrida-speak, fraught with deep meaning. To accomplish this one must divorce words from their sources and stated intent. The critic has been necessarily elevated above the author since only he can provide a "true" meaning. It is so outrageous that few outside of the Ivory Towers give it credence. That would be a mistake. Language is perhaps the most human of all abilities and its interpretation affects our personal and collective consciousness. His method has been called the "language of cultural Marxism" and is a necessary component of modern leftist ideology. At any time I expect Jacques Derrida to announce, like Alan Sokal, that it has all been a collosal joke on both the true believer and the reader.

read poetry - it's better for you.......2004-12-20

While it's certainly true that there will always be a gulf between reality and words, communication between reader and writer is nonetheless very real and potentially profound, thanks in no small part to empathy and the imagination. Deconstructionism, by denying presence and instead proposing unlimited differences between signs, dismisses any connection between readers and writers and turns language into a hermetic system separated from the outside world which is, of course, inhabited by people who read and people who write. This is exactly what makes deconstructionism so empty and hypocritical: It rejects traditional metaphysics while adopting a pseudo-mystical position which regards language as some unstable and solipsistic alien creature independent of everything and everyone.

The perennial postponement of signification.......2004-08-23

Of grammatology is a tour-de-force of Derrida's ideas about reading and writing; it encapsulates his view of de-construction, and his reformulation of such complex issues as phenomenology and structuralism. I have to admit that there were times when I felt that I was just turning the pages. I needed to go back several times just to get a sense of what I had just read. Spivak's introduction is a gem as she makes Derrida more accessible. Reading Derrida places a real strain on the reader because he assumes the reader is well informed and has an academic sense of the writers he engages in like Ferdinand de Saussure, Claude Levi-Strauss, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. For Derrida, structuralists - particularly Levi-Strauss take for granted that speech is more direct than written script. Derrida critiques this sense of logocentrism that privileges the spoken word where the sound and meaning exist side by side. On the other hand, writing for Derrida creates an interstice between the sign and its meaning. Logocentricism and the accompanying phonologism are the seed of Derrida's deconstruction. Derrida sense of grammatology is that it is a soft science, one of writing. In this really complex mélange of engagements by Derrida, he problematizes Saussure's structural linguistics and goes to town on the notion of 'presence' that he feels has dominated the West since the Greeks, down to Heidegger and eventually culminating in the structuralism of Levi-Strauss. The notion of deconstruction is, for the most part attributed to Derrida. Deconstruction feeds into a much larger and more involved intellectual school of thought commonly known as poststructuralism. Postructuralism's genesis appeared with Derrida's exegetical critique on Strauss's the notion of, 'structure.' Taking the Saussure's lead, Levi-Strauss took structuralism into the field of structuralist anthropology - of which Levi-Strauss is said to have pioneered. In Of grammatology, Derrida portrays structuralism as the culmination of a tradition of structuralities, and reduces all to a fixed point of presence. This fixed point is effectively its center - calling for Derrida to move to de-center. To return to the issue of the sign, Derrida sees signs as random, in that they are defined not by essence but by or in comparison to something else. The solidity of the binary opposition between signifier and signified, which binds the sign, cannot be sustained unless we are prepared to grant that there exists some form of transcendental signified which would kill the play of signification. Derrida's analysis compels us to be aware that every signified is also in the position of a signifier. According to Derrida, the meaning of words is really dependent on how they are used. Derrida claims that everything is what it is, based on what it is not, - or difference. In a nutshell, Derrida is positions himself on the notion of the perennial postponement of signification - or "differance" -- or the outcome by which an opposition constantly repeats itself inside each of its component terms. In French, the word is in a liminal space between "to differ" and "to defer," as if saying there is yet one more thing to consider one more difference to account for. Moreover, Derrida seeks to de-construct claims of fixed truths. However, as a caveat, the critique on logocentrism, the practice of deconstruction, is really aimed at language, and to use it within and around other areas without really understanding Derridian de-construction is dangerous.

Miguel Llora

Average customer rating:

Cryptic and Wonderful
Reading Derrida....
Derrida all over the place
the difference that makes the difference

Writing and Difference
Jacques Derrida
Manufacturer: University Of Chicago Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Modern | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Look Inside Fiction Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

Look Inside Nonfiction Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

All Titles | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books

Literature & Fiction | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books

Nonfiction | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books
Similar Items:

ASIN: 0226143295

Book Description

First published in 1967, Writing and Difference, a collection of Jacques Derrida's essays written between 1959 and 1966, has become a landmark of contemporary French thought. In it we find Derrida at work on his systematic deconstruction of Western metaphysics. The book's first half, which includes the celebrated essay on Descartes and Foucault, shows the development of Derrida's method of deconstruction. In these essays, Derrida demonstrates the traditional nature of some purportedly nontraditional currents of modern thought—one of his main targets being the way in which "structuralism" unwittingly repeats metaphysical concepts in its use of linguistic models.

The second half of the book contains some of Derrida's most compelling analyses of why and how metaphysical thinking must exclude writing from its conception of language, finally showing metaphysics to be constituted by this exclusion. These essays on Artaud, Freud, Bataille, Hegel, and Lévi-Strauss have served as introductions to Derrida's notions of writing and différence—the untranslatable formulation of a nonmetaphysical "concept" that does not exclude writing—for almost a generation of students of literature, philosophy, and psychoanalysis.

Writing and Difference reveals the unacknowledged program that makes thought itself possible. In analyzing the contradictions inherent in this program, Derrida foes on to develop new ways of thinking, reading, and writing,—new ways based on the most complete and rigorous understanding of the old ways. Scholars and students from all disciplines will find Writing and Difference an excellent introduction to perhaps the most challenging of contemporary French thinkers—challenging because Derrida questions thought as we know it.

Customer Reviews:

Cryptic and Wonderful.......2007-01-21

With this collection of subversive essays, Jacques Derrida exploded onto the scene of post-modern philosophy in Europe and the US though he didn't have a doctorate or teaching position at the time. In it, he demonstrates for the first time his conception of `deconstruction,' an apparently inexplicable concept which enables the analysis of `inter-textuality' and `binary-oppositions,' to be revealed. `Writing and Difference,' is of course a difficult text, and analytic philosophers don't even bother with it, though that may be their greatest mistake, for Derrida attempts (and not without success) to demonstrate that the notion of purely objective, enlightened truth seeking is an impossibility. That the essence of thought always operates within a given schema, a given facticity. "Differance," the famous phrase of Derrida, indicates that writing is necessarily primary to speech, we can see the `differ a nce' in text, not phonetically.

The first essay in this collection `Force and Signification,' attempts to apply a philosophical rigour to the analysis of literature, wherein Derrida explains Flaubert, Mallarme, and a number of others. `Cogito and the History of Madness' is an extremely famous essay about Foucault which triggered a feud between the two intellectuals that would never fully be mended. In it, Derrida argues that Foucault's book does not address the Cartesian notion of the Cogito adequately in the History of Madness, and that Foucault ultimately relies on the same principles of the enlightenment while attempting to expose the dynamics of its power simultaneously. The essay (along with violence and Metaphysics) is a perfect example of Derrida's capacity to deconstruct. However, he moves very quickly and without and assistance to the reader. If you have not read the author Derrida is deconstructing he will simply leave you in the dust.

The latter essays in the book deal primarily with Artaud, Freud, Bataille, Hegel, Heidegger, Levi-Strauss, and metaphysics and language generally. The essay on Levi-Strauss (Structure, Sign, and Play) is a particularly damning lecture delivered at Johns Hopkins University and left irreparable damages to the structuralist movement at the time. `Writing and Difference' is an important collection of critical texts for 20th century philosophy, and it should remain an important work for many ages to come.

Reading Derrida...........2002-09-02

Begin with essay #10. It's short, it's famous (it launched deconstruction in America), and it's fairly lucid. Then turn to essay #1 for another stunning discussion of the limits of structuralism.

Essay #5 is devoted to structuralism's rival, phenomenology. Just as essay #10 suggested that structuralism can't conceive of a structure with a fluid center, and essay #1 suggested that structuralism tends to impoverish literary texts because it can't account for certain textual energies, this essay insists that Husserl's phenomenology cannot do justice to origins, cannot think genesis. Unhappily, this is a dense and difficult piece of writing.

Next take up essay #9. Derrida is interested here with Hegel's attempt to repress the free play of signification via conceiving philosophy as a totality. Derrida also discusses Bataille's attempt to think the unthought of the Hegelian system, to ascertain what, if anything, can elude such philosophical closure. This is a great essay, but familiarity with Hegel's Master/Slave dialectic is a prerequisite.

If you have read Foucault's MADNESS AND CIVILIZATION, you'll want to read essay #2. Here Derrida attempts to call into question that book's major thesis by arguing that Foucault misreads Descartes. This essay is nicely structured but, for this reviewer at least, not terribly convincing. I also feel that essay #7, on Freud, is not a success. It is so difficult, so tedious, that most readers will cease to care about Derrida's point long before he gets around to making it.

Happily, there are two essays (#6 and #8) dealing with the writings of that fascinating artist/lunatic Antonin Artaud. They are both pretty dazzling, but I suggest taking on #8 first. There are also two rather short, amusing pieces on the Jewish thinker Edmond Jabes (essays #3 and #11). He appears to be something of a kindred spirit to Derrida.

Finish up with essay #4, the longest and most ambitious in this collection. Echoing themes from essay #9, here Derrida takes on the early writings of Emmanuel Levinas and his claim to have stepped outside of metaphysics. It's a demanding, but fascinating piece of writing.

Derrida all over the place.......2001-07-18

In the beginning of Jacques Lacan's work "the ethics of psychoanalysis", Lacan speaks of honey that has no natural divisions and is instantly all over the place. Enter Derrida. This was only the second work I had read by Derrida at the time a few years ago and it astounded me. The breadth of commentary, play, and insight in these essays is radical - moving from freud, to foucault, to levi-strauss, to Artaud, to an amasing and important work on Levinas, to writings of his own, and more. This work (is it one or many?) is perhaps Derrida at his most poetical and yet at his most clear. In other works, his knack of writing seeming hieroglyphics makes his ideas extremely difficult to decipher. In this work, however, his play actually opens itself up to what he's doing. Not only that but where his poetics become more analytic, his language is fairly clear and understandable, given a background on the subject (freud, levinas, etc.). In multiple readings through the years this work has proved more and more fruitful and is still one of my favorite works by him (besides possibly the clear and consice Speech Event Context in "Limited Inc.", "Spurs", and "Gift of Death"). This is Derrida's insights all over the place - thank God.

the difference that makes the difference.......1999-12-22

an excellent set of essays that map out derrida's project and a lucid introduction to deconstruction, including the celebrated critique on foucault's 'madness and civilization'. not as involving as 'of grammatology' but certainly worth more than his critics make him out to be.

Rogues: Two Essays on Reason (Meridian: Crossing Aesthetics)

Average customer rating:

Derrida Deconstructs the notion of "Rouge States"

Rogues: Two Essays on Reason (Meridian: Crossing Aesthetics)
Jacques Derrida
Manufacturer: Stanford University Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Modern | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Political | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Look Inside Nonfiction Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books
Similar Items:

ASIN: 0804749515
Release Date: 2004-12-13

Book Description

Rogues, published in France under the title Voyous, comprises two major lectures that Derrida delivered in 2002 investigating the foundations of the sovereignty of the nation-state. The term “État voyou” is the French equivalent of “rogue state,” and it is this outlaw designation of certain countries by the leading global powers that Derrida rigorously and exhaustively examines.

Derrida examines the history of the concept of sovereignty, engaging with the work of Bodin, Hobbes, Rousseau, Schmitt, and others. Against this background, he delineates his understanding of “democracy to come,” which he distinguishes clearly from any kind of regulating ideal or teleological horizon. The idea that democracy will always remain in the future is not a temporal notion. Rather, the phrase would name the coming of the unforeseeable other, the structure of an event beyond calculation and program. Derrida thus aligns this understanding of democracy with the logic he has worked out elsewhere. But it is not just political philosophy that is brought under deconstructive scrutiny here: Derrida provides unflinching and hard-hitting assessments of current political realities, and these essays are highly engaged with events of the post-9/11 world.

Customer Reviews:

Derrida Deconstructs the notion of "Rouge States".......2006-11-05

If you are in to Derrida, political science, contemporary political philosophy, understanding the contemporary political landscape, and notions of a new Democracy to come - this is a must read.

Average customer rating:

Best Introduction to Derrida
Metaphors on the Margin
Metaphor in the text of philosophy
Reading Derrida...
Interesting but hardly radical

Margins of Philosophy
Jacques Derrida
Manufacturer: University Of Chicago Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Modern | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Look Inside Nonfiction Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

All Titles | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books

Nonfiction | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books
Similar Items:

ASIN: 0226143260

Book Description

"In this densely imbricated volume Derrida pursues his devoted, relentless dismantling of the philosophical tradition, the tradition of Plato, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger—each dealt with in one or more of the essays. There are essays too on linguistics (Saussure, Benveniste, Austin) and on the nature of metaphor ("White Mythology"), the latter with important implications for literary theory. Derrida is fully in control of a dazzling stylistic register in this book—a source of true illumination for those prepared to follow his arduous path. Bass is a superb translator and annotator. His notes on the multilingual allusions and puns are a great service."—Alexander Gelley, Library Journal

Customer Reviews:

Best Introduction to Derrida.......2005-12-27

Jacques Derrida is the most significant philosophical figure in what is too blithely referred to as poststructuralist thought. An amazon.com review is not the place to go into a discussion of whether Derrida is "right" or "wrong," but he is indisputably one of the most important postmodern philosophers, and an awareness of his thought, however cursory, is indispensable if you are serious about philosophizing.
Margins of Philosophy is, I believe, the best introduction to Derrida's work, containing some of his most significant and far-reaching essays. Especially worthwhile are White Mythology and Signature, Event, Context. Derrida's thought is far-reaching and wide-ranging (he has even written on a photo-novel of women making love), and Margins of Philosophy represents only his most important thoughts in the realm of philosophy. For his reactions to literature, I recommend Acts of Literature and Dissemination. However, it has been said by Eagleton that deconstruction is like that drunk at the bar who tells the same story every night, and for many (most) people, one volume of Derrida will be a lovely sufficiency.
Derrida can be tough going, even if you are familiar with his antecedents; however, it is far from impossible to understand him. I recommend reading a given essay twice, then going through a third time underlining important parts, then reading it another two times and attempting a paraphrase. If you go through this admittedly arduous procedure, you will find you understand what he is talking about quite well, even if you don't read too much philosophy. Remember: don't give up the first or second time through. The pieces won't start falling together until a bit further down the line.

Metaphors on the Margin.......2004-07-26

Jacques Derrida has provided us with an important text whose central concern is, arguably, "metaphor". In leaving the reader discover the details of how philosophy exists within the margins of its own discourse, I want to simply and briefly map out a number of, what may be called, "conceptual metaphors", that I have found captivating, intriguing and useful (for my own quest for difference).

To start with, there is "differance", and the reason why it can be treated as a conceptual metaphor is that it cannot be approached directly. As Derrida's interest is in helping us discover 'a new play of opposition, of articulation, of difference' (p. xxviii), namely "differance", we are however precluded from posing, let alone answering, the question "What is differance?". This is because it is 'neither a word nor a concept' (p. 3), has 'neither existence nor essence' (p. 6), is 'irreducibly polysemic' (p. 8), a 'temporisation' and 'spacing' (p. 9), and is that which 'produces differences' (p. 11). It can therefore only be approached metaphorically, in its use as a tool operating on the margins of language and discourse for understanding difference in other authors (especially Hegel) and (of course) Derrida himself!

"Differance" is by far not the only conceptual metaphor in this text: there are additional ones, which are in a way, related to "differance" and thus provide additional clues for getting closer to understanding its purpose and function. In particular, the Hegelian conceptual metaphor "pyramid" (an inspiration for Mark Taylor's text 'Altarity') operating on the margins of signs and difference, in addition to that of "vibration", as the movement of idealisation. Further, there is a useful parallel between de Saussure and Rousseau as regards "language", and an account of its "interweaving" with other threads of experience, a conceptual metaphor found in Husserl. With Benveniste and Aristotle, Derrida deals with the issue of "category" as 'one of the ways for "Being" to say itself or to signify itself' (p. 183) in its relation to "thought". Next, he gives an account of the nature of philosophical text and in discussing Aristotle and Bachelard among other thinkers, explains the role of "metaphor" as 'the manifestation of analogy' (p. 238) in carrying and emitting meaning - hence its important role in the logic of (philosophical) discourse. Finally, in discussing Valery, Derrida tackles the conceptual metaphor of "source" in the sense of origin and grounding.

Overall, although it is a difficult text, it is captivating and must be read several times (ideally in conjunction with the French text) so as to (progressively) discover the multiple nuances and conceptual connections that Derrida is making in a style that decidedly relies on metaphor and différance. It is an important reading for anyone concerned with the notion of difference and its workings through and with language.

Metaphor in the text of philosophy.......2003-09-19

In the 1980s, White Mythology was required reading for Yale lit-crit majors. It is an incredible tour de force so rich that its overwhelming in the initial read. How was it possible to write this (and how was it possible to translate?) The inescapability of metaphor, metaphor not just in, but constituting the text of philosophy, the false privileging of metaphysics over rhetoric are made stunningly evident -- if not plain -- here.

Reading Derrida..........2003-01-31

Begin with "Tympan", it's designed to serve as an introduction to the ten essays which follow and, despite a lot of word play, Derrida does mention most of the themes informing this collection (philosophy's attempt to master its domain, Hegel as the philosopher of limits, the threat metaphor poses to philosophical discourse, etc).
Read "Differance" next (it's probably the single most famous thing Derrida has ever written). After declaring the thought of difference to be crucial to our intellectual epoch (he mentions Saussure, Nietzsche, and Freud before taking up Heidegger's notion of ontological difference) Derrida proposes the nonword/nonconcept of "differance" to go them all one better. This is a dazzling essay, but if it leaves you more exhausted than exhilarated, then Derrida just isn't for you.
Essay #2 is a dense and convoluted discussion of the metaphysics of presence in Aristotle and Hegel. Skip this.
Essay #3 is a surprisingly interesting investigation of Hegel's semiology (of all things). Derrida demonstrates that Hegel's disdain for non-phonetic scripts (say, hieroglyphics) is not just a quirk, but is crucial to Hegel's entire philosophical project.
"The Ends Of Man" is a classic example of 1960's French anti-humanism. It's essentially an attempt to rescue Hegel, Husserl, and Heidegger from their existentialist interpreters. Another very famous piece (and rightfully so).
Essay #5 is a sort of Cliffs Notes version of OF GRAMMATOLOGY; it deals with the denigration of writing in the thought of Saussure and Rousseau. Very readable.
Essay #6 is all about Husserl's theory of signs and I found it incomprehensible.
Essay #7 concerns itself with to what extent the grammar and syntax of a particular language influences what can be thought in that language. Recommended, despite the opacity of Derrida's criticisms of Benveniste.
"White Mythology" is the longest and most demanding essay in this collection, so leave it for last. I'm not even going to venture a comment on this one.
Essay #9 meanders quite a while before it gets around to illustrating Valery's low opinion of philosophy, so be patient.
The book wraps up with Derrida's notorious reading/misreading of that wonderful little book, HOW TO DO THINGS WITH WORDS. This modest essay launched a feud between Derrida and the American philosopher John Searle. Much ado about nothing, I say.

Interesting but hardly radical.......2002-01-16

One could open up this review by pointing out that the book being reviewed is not a "coherent" work in the conventional sense of the term but this would be playing into the hands of the deconstructionist. Perhaps it is best to phrase one's comments in such a fashion as to avoid the need for anything more-than-average coherence in a review. "The Margins of Philosophy" is an interesting work by this academically controversial author. Generally speaking--and what more can one do in a review--Derrida's readings are heavily influenced by Heidegger's statement that what an author keeps silent is as important as what he states. This is asserted almost immediately in the introduction as Derrida lets us know that what philosophy (and philosophers) have pushed to the margin in their work is very important to explore since its unveiling will de-center the work. Put differently, every writing undercuts itself in the end. In a series of separate, but linked essays, Derrida goes on to demonstrate how this sort of thing happens in Hegel, Saussure, Benveniste, Heidegger, and others.

I am not the first to point out that Derrida is a perceptive, subtle reader with a very keen eye for the hidden details. "White Mythology" is an interesting discussion of the role of metaphor in philosophy and its consequences for philosophy. I am also not the first to complain that Derrida's taste for exegesis runs towards the extravagant and excessive. The aforementioned essay spans 65 pages for reasons that otherwise escape me. There is also the more serious problem in Derrida that his keen eye is not keen enough and he is too clever by half in his explication. At one point in the work he connects the greek word for intuiting (ie. seeing with the soul) "theorein" with the desire for death. Strictly speaking this is a conflation of the desire to be a god with the desire to be unconscious (a leftover from the decay of romanticism?). An elementary reading of Plato's Phaedrus makes this clear. His obsession with the "metaphysics of presence" is also a problem for the work, as he hitches his interpretations to this dubious construction and the interpretations ultimately suffer for it. This is not to say that there isn't much of philosophical interest in the work for Derrida gives the reader much to chew on. He reminds us that any serious reading of a text must devote itself scrupulously to the whole of the text and not just to those parts which we think are interesting. Though, perhaps, not the best place to start one's study of Derrida it is certainly worth a serious read if only to understand what some of the shouting is all about.

Average customer rating:

Repetition is bequeathed; the legacy repeated...

The first time is still best

Hungry Hungry Hippos

A book which can only be read among *other* books.

A book which can only be read among *other* books.

The Post Card: From Socrates to Freud and Beyond
Jacques Derrida
Manufacturer: University Of Chicago Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books
Modern | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books
Look Inside Nonfiction Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books
All Titles | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books
Nonfiction | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books
Similar Items:

Margins of Philosophy

Positions

Writing and Difference

Dissemination

Of Grammatology

ASIN: 0226143228

Book Description

17 November 1979

You were reading a somewhat retro loveletter, the last in history. But you have not yet received it. Yes, its lack or excess of address prepares it to fall into all hands: a post card, an open letter in which the secret appears, but indecipherably.

What does a post card want to say to you? On what conditions is it possible? Its destination traverses you, you no longer know who you are. At the very instant when from its address it interpellates, you, uniquely you, instead of reaching you it divides you or sets you aside, occasionally overlooks you. And you love and you do not love, it makes of you what you wish, it takes you, it leaves you, it gives you.

On the other side of the card, look, a proposition is made to you, S and p, Socrates and plato. For once the former seems to write, and with his other hand he is even scratching. But what is Plato doing with his outstretched finger in his back? While you occupy yourself with turning it around in every direction, it is the picture that turns you around like a letter, in advance it deciphers you, it preoccupies space, it procures your words and gestures, all the bodies that you believe you invent in order to determine its outline. You find yourself, you, yourself, on its path.

The thick support of the card, a book heavy and light, is also the specter of this scene, the analysis between Socrates and Plato, on the program of several others. Like the soothsayer, a "fortune-telling book" watches over and speculates on that-which-must-happen, on what it indeed might mean to happen, to arrive, to have to happen or arrive, to let or to make happen or arrive, to destine, to address, to send, to legate, to inherit, etc., if it all still signifies, between here and there, the near and the far, da und fort, the one or the other.

You situate the subject of the book: between the posts and the analytic movement, the pleasure principle and the history of telecommunications, the post card and the purloined letter, in a word the transference from Socrates to Freud, and beyond. This satire of epistolary literature had to be farci, stuffed with addresses, postal codes, crypted missives, anonymous letters, all of it confided to so many modes, genres, and tones. In it I also abuse dates, signatures, titles or references, language itself.

J. D.

"With The Post Card, as with Glas, Derrida appears more as writer than as philosopher. Or we could say that here, in what is in part a mock epistolary novel (the long section is called "Envois," roughly, "dispatches" ), he stages his writing more overtly than in the scholarly works. . . . The Post Card also contains a series of self-reflective essays, largely focused on Freud, in which Derrida is beautifully lucid and direct."—Alexander Gelley, Library Journal

Customer Reviews:

Repetition is bequeathed; the legacy repeated..........2007-02-13

Contrary to the reviews thus far reported in regards to this "work in the traditions of Finnegans Wake," i would reccomend reading this book to all who are interested in Derrida's philosophy of ethics. Herein we may find ephemerally expounded glimpses at Postmodernism's notions of continuity and of the legacy of ideas: a gift which we neccessarely both receive and reinscribe - "What is tragic is not the possibility but the neccessity of repetition" (Writing and Difference). Many Derrida readers have shied away from this text because of its disparate and fragmented stuttering...Don't if you have patience to listen read this treasure. It is a pastiche, a montage and a rebus. An exquisite rendition on tradition and inheritance, on presence and absence. A reminder to never stop giving and giving and giving because the most ethical one can be is through the dissemination of ideas, the transformation of the recurring within which each becomes a relative of all and none. Finnegans Wake approximates the same themes with Vico's philosophy of history as an addendum. By the way Vico was an avid reader of the Cabbala...Only Walter Benjamin can better inspire the re-visions that we need for a tragic becoming tragic. This book is extremely personal and one of Richard Rorty's favorites I might add...he was not very fond of the early Derrida...Rorty understands Derrida as only Caputo and Bennington have...This is our modern day Novalis, we may dream of dreaming our dreams!

The first time is still best.......2003-06-01

It took me a long time to crack the Derrida nut. But when I did, I did it with this book. Thus it will always be my favorite philosophical novel by Derrida. When I finished this book I picked up Badiou's book on Deleuze and he said I got everything right, only he said it better than I would have.

So far, all the other readers seem to have missed the point. First, this book is not about anything so feminine and smacking of vulgar Christianity as love and cushy feelings. Derrida says it's a poison pen letter. It's about hate. It may be "between lovers," but it's published for the whole world to admire and appraise, a radically different context than the relationship of husband and wife. Which the careful Derrida-phile will note was handled very carefully, almost cynically, in the Derrida "documentary." (Has there ever been a greater and more hilarious take on oral sex?)

One wag commented that the book is only good for beach-reading. But that misses the serious side of Derrida, which is also the point. Rhetoric can be philosophy. Derrida is one hundred percent hilarious. But he's always pushing the philosophical envelope with his puns. To resort to a distinction that has a pragmatic value even though it utterly lacks any philosophical foundation, the use-mention distinction, when Derrida uses the word 'this,' he also means _that_. (Why does the use-mention distinction make no sense? Because when you say 'horse,' a _horse_ comes out of your mouth. As per Wittgenstein and the Stoics.) It's up to us lesser mortals to tease out the strands and levels until we can produce something as thoroughly competent. And simultaneously beautiful and ugly. Like orgasm.

Which brings us to Lacan. Some say he's a charlatan. And you have to be suspicious of anyone who declares that they're not interested in truth, but falsity. But when the postmodernists say this what they mean is that the truth, which can potentially be known, is in being aware that you actually don't know. The idea goes back to Plato and his early Socratic dialogues. Stated like that, it isn't too far from Kant, who also believed that we can't actually know much, other than that there are stars above and some sort of moral rules within. (Nobody has ever agreed with him on his rules, including his great heir John Rawls.) Derrida doesn't differ much from Lacan. He abandons Oedipus for the same reasons as Deleuze (it's a self-fulfilling prophecy and alienated from real life). But the argument on the postal system only looks different from Lacan's account because Derrida says it is. That he got Lacan to agree with him says something about Derrida's prestige, so there must be something there. (Though Lacan's submission looks suspiciously like he doesn't submit--republishing the Ecrits in an edited down version where the offensive passages have been actively forgotten.) But when Lacan says that a letter always gets to its destination he means that it always misses its destination, because the person it's intended for is going to sometime pass away. ("The living is a species of the dead." Nietzsche.) Which is also Derrida's point. I haven't read Derrida's latest writings on Lacan but apparently there's a whole lot of a rapprochement. In his interviews with Roudinescu, A Quoi Demain, he considers his style to be Lacanian and a lot of his conclusions to be similarly disposed.

Here's hoping the most consistently amusing of the post-Heideggerians remains a liberal individualist. Though it's probably going to be tough for him, given that the Straussists of the Whitehouse talk a similar talk and walk a similar walk. ("Jewgreek is Greekjew.") I believe the fact that Derrida is explicitly against the death penalty is the deciding difference. QED.

Hungry Hungry Hippos.......2002-12-10

I like this book better than the game hungry hungry hippos. Catch all the marbles as fast as you can, beat your opponents with a slight of the hand!

A book which can only be read among *other* books........2000-12-27

Derrida has stated that one of the main purposes of his decontructive readings, writing, and ruthless re-contextualization of various philosophical ideas is to minimize the "violence" of various philosophical practices- those ways of speaking, writing, which silently privilege various terms, and ideas and, perhaps unknowingly repress others. Given the other "esoteric" reviews here, its my duty to minimize the "violence" for those people who really want to know about the book, and not about namedropping, three lines of praise.

The Postcard is a "collection" of various love-letters, supposedly burned in a fire, which has left pieces of text missing. Derrida has also included a few essays which he believes continues the analysis begun in the loveletters [envois]. The content of the loveletters covers a broad range of philosophical and personal questions - from philosophy of language - to the relation b/w Socrates and Plato - to personal encounters in (I suppose) Derrida's life as a philosopher. But the over all effect of this - this "re-contextualization" or in other words, this casting of philosophical questions in a format not usually considered "serious" -> love letters... the profundity, the importance, the dissemination of the questions take on a wholly different feel and effect. The feel and effect, of course, is hard to describe, but it is a way of playing with "philosophical sensibilities" -- what is "real" philosophy? What is "serious" philosophy? And what is the meaning of such questions in the most private of all communications - love letters between two intimate lovers.

Of course, in typical Derridean style, he puns, and jokes his way, throwing punchlines out of every page. The envois are not an easy read. They can be tough, and confusing, especially with the 'missing text" which link ideas. The other essays included in The Postcard are equally a tough read, with a very interesting, but treacherous deconstruction of Lacan's analysis of Poe's "The Purloined Letter".

The Postcard can only be understood as continuation of previously examined (Of Grammatology), argued (Limited Inc.), and illustrated (Glas) philosophical strategies employed by Derrida. And yes, Richard Rorty (an american post-enlightenment philosopher) totally misses the boat on this one. While, i believe Derrida is attempting to "play" with various aspects of the philosophical tradition (Derrida is by far the funniest philosopher, since, Nietzsche), The Postcard is merely an new way of asserting those same ideas Derrida laid out in Limited Inc and other books, that conceptual meaning is not fixed but disseminated and deferred [differance] to all possible contextual usages and instantiations.

A book which can only be read among *other* books........2000-12-27

I know, this is merely one small aspect of Derrida's enterprise. But it is, I believe, the main purpose of The Postcard: to see how the meaning of philosophical questions regarding language, history, and the sequence of events, take on new meanings in the context of lost love lettes-- the same way a Post Card, which never reaches its destination-- takes on new meanings for the unintended third reader.

Average customer rating:

...

Helpful but Controversial

Excellent Observations at a Perilous Cost

Incredible!

Balanced, informed, and well-written

Who's Afraid of Postmodernism?: Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church (The Church and Postmodern Culture)
James K. A. Smith
Manufacturer: Baker Academic
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Postmodernism | Movements & Periods | History & Criticism | Literature & Fiction | Subjects | Books
General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books
Religious | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books
General | Theology | Christianity | Religion & Spirituality | Subjects | Books
Philosophy | Theology | Christianity | Religion & Spirituality | Subjects | Books
General | Christianity | Religion & Spirituality | Subjects | Books
General | Religion & Spirituality | Subjects | Books
Similar Items:

Christianity and the Postmodern Turn: Six Views

Introducing Radical Orthodoxy: Mapping a Post-secular Theology

Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense

A Primer on Postmodernism

Philosophy and Theology (Horizons in Theology)

ASIN: 080102918X
Release Date: 2006-04-01

Book Description

The philosophies of French thinkers Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault form the basis for postmodern thought and are seemingly at odds with the Christian faith. However, James K. A. Smith claims that their ideas have been misinterpreted and actually have a deep affinity with central Christian claims. Each chapter opens with an illustration from a recent movie and concludes with a case study considering recent developments in the church that have attempted to respond to the postmodern condition, such as the ''emerging church'' movement. These case studies provide a concrete picture of how postmodern ideas can influence the way Christians think and worship. This significant book avoids philosophical jargon and offers fuller explanation where needed. It is the first book in the Church and Postmodern Culture series, which provides practical applications for Christians engaged in ministry in a postmodern world.

Customer Reviews:

..........2007-05-01

This is absolutely ridiculous.

How long will the children drag their feet and fight as the toothfairy is being pried from their sticky little fingers?

The Essence of Christianity (Great Books in Philosophy)

Helpful but Controversial.......2007-02-18

"There is nothing outside the text."
Derrida the prophet whose view of language and meaning as an endless vortex of interpretation brings hope that the Church can challenge existing interpretations which pretend to be absolutes. I confess some surprise that Derrida's thoughts here could be encapsulated in, "There is no meaning outside context" and whilst I think James KA Smith's chapter is still a must-read for Christians who think Derrida is the Devil Incarnate, I'm somewhat wary about whether Smith has done justice to Derrida's thoughts. If indeed "everything is just interpretation" is the key that unlocks Derrida then how come it wasn't used by writers like Thiselton, Grenz, Veith Jr., Megill, etc.

"Postmodernism is incredulity towards metanarratives."
Lyotard's grenade thrown into the heart of autonomous universal reason as some God's-Eye view, counsels us to spend less time seeking to produce apologetical evidence and maybe devote more time to simply sharing the story of Christ and showing how this story trumps the Enlightenment one (or any other). Once again, I was surprised at Smith's contention that Christianity is not a metanarrative - I always thought it was, but given its nature of suffering and self-giving (as per the replication of Calvary I believe Jesus demands of us all), I always felt that this sets the faith apart from other metanarratives.

But I calmed down after reading his/Lyotard's definition of metanarrative as any grand story that legitimizes itself by an appeal to universal reason i.e. a worldview beyond a community, beyond an internal narrative. This made me reflect on the many instances where I and others have justified/explained the faith by exploiting reason, 'natural law', always seeking the base arguments which my challengers or listeners cannot deny. I think about the numerous times I tried to legitimate the Person and work of Christ without acknowledging the community He came to create. Maybe I should be careful about bringing people into a historical community as opposed to converting a person to some abstract disembodied idea.

This doesn't, however, mean that I'm all the way with Smith in his call for a presuppositionalist-ish kind of apologetic which virtually eschews all 'common ground' between believer and non-believer, and seemingly devaluing external evidences for the faith. And whilst Smith's rejection of anything resembling a correlationalist model (whereby theology leans on a secular discipline of intellectual support, so to speak) is worth pondering over, one can't help but wonder if Smith has sufficiently deconstructed the distinction between sacred and secular, between theology and everything else.

"Power is knowledge."
Foucault's insight that society cannot run away from power and domination spurs the Christian to ask the nature of power he/she chooses to submit to. This trains fresh light on spiritual disciplines and the church's institutional power as a means of conformity to Christ, not at all a bad thing.

Foucault/Smith reminds us of the character-forming elements inherent in our media-soaked culture, the goals of the social disciplinary process and extols the recovery of spiritual disciplines and counter-formational action as a revival of serious discipleship. That Foucault - a sexually promiscuous gay atheist - can be used as a reminder that discipleship is about 'living in a certain way' and not just 'thinking a certain way' strikes me as absolutely wicked. The fact that Smith foot-noted Richard Foster's Celebration of Discipline augments the value of the book, IMO (smile).

The analysis of the postmodern Unholy Trinity above is followed by a brief introduction and application of Radical Orthodoxy which I read to be more or less a (re)emphasis and (re)turn to:

- presuppositionalist apologetics and reviving theology as a metadiscourse independent of non-theological language games
- remembering and living a "healthy catholicity", reclaiming a catholic faith, understood as the Christian community affirmatively (and peculiarly) "standing out" over against secular ones
- liturgical, sacramental and aesthetically oriented worship, as an incarnational response/approach towards sanctifying time and space and body (there's a wonderful sampling of how radically orthodox worship would look like in the final three pages of the book; I think the idea of having shifting glass-digital images as a physical backdrop to worship is far-out awesome)

So Who's Afraid of PostModernism? Nobody who's read his pomo writers in-depth with a charitable and creative heart, seeking to go beyond the "bumper-sticker" view of thinkers like Derrida et al, offering options for the helpful and edifying use of pomo in church, theology and personal spirituality. Smith's book embodies this approach/attitude and even though Radical Orthodoxy raises questions (I know I have a few), I'm grateful for his work and certainly look forward to reading more.

Excellent Observations at a Perilous Cost.......2006-11-28

In the newest edition to the philosophical conversation pertaining to the emergent church, James Smith tackles the issue from a different perspective than other emergent leaders. He claims postmodernism has been fundamentally misunderstood and misapplied to the church. Smith honestly explores the postmodern philosophical mindset and determines that only through a truthful lens of where we are all of modernism must be jettisoned to allow the church to properly function as a countercultural witness. The interaction with postmodern philosophy is by far the most beneficial aspect of Smith's work; yet, his conclusions leave far too many unanswered concerns. As with other emergent leaders, Smith focuses on reacquiring authentic Christian tradition while overlapping it with a new direction of thought. As beneficial as this entry is, a fundamental fault lies at the center of his thinking; Smith has embraced the philosophical postmodern world view and blatantly overlays it upon the Church as the only direction available to true unity. In a manner of speaking he is correct; however, a unified church catholic can only be created at the expense of the doctrine of separation. I strongly suggest only discerning biblical scholars read Smith's book. The direction he calls for will only result in creating a false screen catering to disillusioned hearts; traditionalism is not what the church needs--heart directed teaching is. God's holiness demands as much.

Incredible!.......2006-11-10

I am yet to find a scholar who understands the integration of Philosophy and Theology as well as James Smith (please respond if you know of anyone else). This book is well written, well thought out, for anyone in ministry in a postmodern context this book is a must.

Balanced, informed, and well-written.......2006-11-04

Smith's treatment of Post-Modernism is the best I've seen in the popular Christian press. He makes his case clearly and finds the value in post-modern analysis without succumbing to watered-down theology. I heartedly recommend this book.

Average customer rating:

One of the greatest thinkers of the last century....
probes from concepts on high as a bird in flight looking
good ideas, tedious excursion
One of the best anthologies I have read during recent years.

A Derrida Reader: Between the Blinds

Manufacturer: Columbia University Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Modern | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Look Inside Fiction Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

Look Inside Nonfiction Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books
Similar Items:

ASIN: 0231066597

Book Description

This is the only available collection of Jacques Derrida's contributions to philosophy, presented with a comprehensive introduction. From Speech and Phenomena to the highly influential "Signature Event Context," each excerpt includes an overview and brief summary.

Customer Reviews:

One of the greatest thinkers of the last century...........2005-10-03

Such a title is both purple and cliched and only appropriate to Derrida if heard as a kind of true joke. Derrida is surrounded by his myths as the cartoon character "Pig Pen" is by a cloud of dust. This is the first barrier to reading him since he always appears characterized in advance by his enemies. The next barrier is that he writes "against" those standards of logic and fact that are everywhere taken thoughtlessly for granted: this means his stance is "irrational." Such a perspective is, once again, that of his antagonists or those who are simply ignorant and so think with the herd. Derrida is, in fact, hyper-rational or post-rational: he has thought about and studied the history of thinking to the degree that its problems are clear to him. Most of us live in banal rationality as a goldfish in a bowl: the person is outside is both distorted and by definition, crazy. A third problem is that Derrida wishes to stimulate, not clarify: his mission is not to bring the novice from the first questions of philosophy to its ends nor should we expect this any more than we hope that a president is instructing children on 9-11. Finally, Derrida's conviction in the contingent nature of normal logic means that his form of composition, not just his ideas, is non-normative. He is best read as a philosophical poet with all the word play, punning, and allusion that marks that genre. In short, he is very hard and the selections here are brief and so suffer from the disorientation brought by displacement. Still, if you stay, you will grow.

probes from concepts on high as a bird in flight looking.......2001-01-13

by far this is the most accessible introduction tothe forbidden threshold of Derrida's thought. Peggy Kamuf mounts the fairly limitless edifice of his work through seasoned selected excerpts,If you are fascinated forever by the conceptual,the literary,or analytic,the performative or philosphic focus,Derrida's work is like an alive moment that touches each in between elements of text,of ideas.All sometimes in simultanaeity or in context to each.If you come to Derrida it must from some place(time,geographic/cultural)some discipline,and sadly enough that acts to skew and blind,to opaque-ify Derrida's virtuoso,contextual,cross-referencing,overdetermined,overanalyzed modes of thought. But if you have scoured literature(Blanchot,Ponge,Jabes) not for its own sake,or thought,looked at ideas(Plato) (Heidegger) retrogressively yet with a committment to subversion(Genet) (Marx) of the Western canon,Derrida work serves these realms quite admirably.I humbly request you gander and pass time at this collection, peak between the blinds(Kamuf's metaphor)before you proceed directly to an original work. Derrida's work has that element of throwing forward a growth of petrified thought finding new conceptual life in the present, or not so distant past. So wherever you begin in Derrida it is like a timeless warp to be repeated some place,some time to come or had come,or had been,or will not ever be.

good ideas, tedious excursion.......2000-05-17

It's unfortunate that Derrida has carried on the Western philosophical tradition of unnecessarily turgid, convoluted, and just plain bad writing inaugurated by the inflated Hegel and exemplified by Sartre and a host of other heady hacks. On the plus side, this is a solid collection of Derrida's most important pieces and enumerates some of his best ideas: difference, logocentrism, the trace, etc. Not for beginners, but if you're determined to read an important thinker, this may be required reading...some of it anyhow.

One of the best anthologies I have read during recent years........1998-07-08

Peggy Kamuf offers a well organized anthology of Derrida's varied contributions.

Philosophic Classics: From Plato to Derrida (4th Edition)

Average customer rating:

Who thought philosophy would be fun??
Excellent Introduction to Philosophy Text

Philosophic Classics: From Plato to Derrida (4th Edition)
Forrest E. Baird , and Forrest Baird
Manufacturer: Prentice Hall
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Reference | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Look Inside Nonfiction Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

All Titles | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books

Nonfiction | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books
Similar Items:

ASIN: 0130485616

Customer Reviews:

Who thought philosophy would be fun??.......2006-02-25

Great study of major philosophies that have impacted our western culture. Very enjoyable and easy reading, yet stimulating and intellectual...Loved the book!

Excellent Introduction to Philosophy Text.......2000-06-13

If you teach Introduction to Philosophy using a historical approach, this is the text I recommend. I used "The Philosophic Classics 2nd edition, From Plato to Nietzsche" for my classes and was looking for a text with the same basic works with some more contemporary materials. I find the updated 3rd edition, "From Plato to Derrida" the perfect solution. Instead of having to look through more textbooks for the right stuff, this is it.

Average customer rating:

This made my head spin!
Controlled form triumphs over historical substance
Barbara Johnson provides an erudite translation.
An Admittedly Limited Perspective
Masterful translation of a masterwork

Dissemination
Jacques Derrida
Manufacturer: University Of Chicago Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Modern | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Rhetoric | Words & Language | Reference | Subjects | Books

Semantics | Words & Language | Reference | Subjects | Books

General | Foreign Languages | Reference | Subjects | Books

Look Inside Nonfiction Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

Look Inside Reference Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

Look Inside Religion & Spirituality Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

All Titles | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books

Nonfiction | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books

Reference | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books

Religion & Spirituality | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books
Similar Items:

ASIN: 0226143341

Book Description

"The English version of Dissemination [is] an able translation by Barbara Johnson . . . . Derrida's central contention is that language is haunted by dispersal, absence, loss, the risk of unmeaning, a risk which is starkly embodied in all writing. The distinction between philosophy and literature therefore becomes of secondary importance. Philosophy vainly attempts to control the irrecoverable dissemination of its own meaning, it strives—against the grain of language—to offer a sober revelation of truth. Literature—on the other hand—flaunts its own meretriciousness, abandons itself to the Dionysiac play of language. In Dissemination—more than any previous work—Derrida joins in the revelry, weaving a complex pattern of puns, verbal echoes and allusions, intended to 'deconstruct' both the pretension of criticism to tell the truth about literature, and the pretension of philosophy to the literature of truth."—Peter Dews, New Statesman

Customer Reviews:

This made my head spin!.......2002-04-17

This book was cool man! It's like forget everything because nothing exists, right? I think the only other time I had this much fun was when I whooped Gabe's arse in Power Stone 2.

Controlled form triumphs over historical substance.......2001-07-25

In regard to the two seminal essays that make up the 100 or so pages of "Plato's Pharmacy" - these are reprints of articles published in the late 1960s, and presumably based on research dating back even earlier.

The historical research behind these essays has not stood up well. Let me say it another way. Much of it is wrong.

For example, a portion of the essay's argument rests on the notion that, for the Greeks, "pharmakon" signified remedy or poison. This is true, it did, but "pharmakon" also could mean painters pigment, perfume, magical talisman (both medical or non-medical, as for example for spell-casting) or intoxicant. A couple of notes and an aside or two in the essay hint at this, but this just begs the question.

The Greek understanding of "pharmakon" continually blurred the understanding of these functions, unlike the strict deliniations of our modern categories. Perfumes were frequently added to wines, making them, on occasion, poisons, to give just one example. A little digging will turn up Nicander's work, which documents all sorts of strange and sometimes deadly combinations of drug administration in the ancient world. Derrida's analysis is not up to the task.

This blurring of the meaning of "pharmakon" is constantly present in Plato. Even the Republic's "noble lie" is described by Plato as a pharmakon. So what is it? A remedy? A poison? Makeup to disguise the lack of democracy? Drug for the masses? How could Derrida not discuss this? Rather incredible that he missed the chance, in an essay that is in part preoccupied with truth, or meaning, or some such.

"Plato's Pharmacy," ironically, with its emphasis on a false "remedy" vs. "poison" dichotomy, reproduces the Western, binary, "logocentric" reasoning that deconstruction supposededly circumvents, evades, folds back upon itself, or whatever. For anyone who has followed developments in cultural anthropology, the history of pharmacology, ancient medicine, midwifery, religious sacrements, and the like, "Plato's Pharmacy" cannot but produce a mix of mirth and annoyance. The Phaedrus, the Platonic dialogue discussed throughout most of "Plato's Pharmacy", is permeated with language and allusions drawn from the Eleusian Mysteries, yet Derrida doesn't even mention this as I recall, nor does he comment on the "potion" celebrants drank at Eleusis, called the "kykeon" - now believed to have contained ergot of barley, a substance similar to LSD-25. I'd recommend reading The Road to Eleusis - Unveiling the Secret of the Mysteries, if you want the proper contextual background to Plato's "pharmacological" Phaedrus.

"Plato's Pharmacy" may be a classic of deconstructionist methodological form, but any connection with Plato's world, or the substance of Plato's thought, is at best tenuous, and certainly suspect.

[Post-script: I see more people are leafing through this work since the author's recent death; the death of an author is no reason to change one's opinion about "Plato's Pharmacy."]

Barbara Johnson provides an erudite translation........2001-04-18

Reading most of Jacques Dierrda's body of work is a task akin to Chinese water torture. Dierrda's project is to debunk the foundation of Western philosophy by subverting it's classic texts. Dierrida uses deconstructive readings of these texts to point out logical flaws, indeterminate meanings and self referrential errors which call into question all that we understand about the structuralist notion of the relationship of the self to the other. In short, Dierrda may be the most radical thinker in modern history, because the success of his project would leave western civilization in the lurch. If Plato was wrong, then all we have learned from the beginning of philosophy is rendered useless. Barbara Johnson's translation of this difficult text is the best grip on Dierrda's project that I have ever read. Stay away from other intrepetations of Derrida, Johnson's translation is elegant and erudite.

An Admittedly Limited Perspective.......2000-05-01

My experience with this book is mostly limited to "Plato's Pharmacy," so my comments apply primarily to that essay, even though the book very much has structure as a whole. This is a nice introduction to Derrida, though still a very difficult read. If nothing else, the text that Derrida is "rereading" (Plato's Phaedrus, mostly) is short, though deep, and might well have been read previously by someone interested in philosophy. This spares the reader the trouble of engaging a new and difficult text merely as a preliminary to reading Derrida. And since Plato's Pharmacy is a reasonably short, though challenging, essay, it gives the reader the opportunity to finish a mostly self-contained piece by Derrida quickly enough so as not to have totally forgotten what was being discussed in the first place. Plato's Pharmacy revolves around Derrida's central questions about language and meaning. At the same time, it is recognized in the world of Platonic philosophy as an important interpretation (I have a significant interest in Plato, and found it fascinating as a commentary). So, while I am far from being well-read in Derrida, I recommend this book a challenging, interesting, and relatively accessible starting point.

Masterful translation of a masterwork.......2000-04-26

Where Derrida is concerned, the translator must be of equal worth to the superlative standards of the text. One of the reasons the man is considerd so hard to read is that he exploits ambiguity and wordplay in (his native) language to its fullest extent. For Barbara Johnson, the complexity of the french is not an obstacle, but allows her to search out parallel plays in english that mimic those in the original at the same time that they add their own nuances to this amazingly rich work. Understanding Derrida is important, but equally important is understanding what he is *not* - particularly when it comes to his philosophical method. This work helps to show clearly what a high regard he holds for the texts he "re-reads", and his particular use of the methods of deconstruction. For those new to Derrida, I recommend reading this work in conjunction with _Derrida for Beginners_ by Jim Powell, published by Writers and Readers press in New York. Powell's book helps you keep your bearings amongst the many twists and turns of _Dissemintation_.

Average customer rating:

A must have for deconstruction aesthetics
Very interesting book

The Truth in Painting
Jacques Derrida
Manufacturer: University Of Chicago Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Aesthetics | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Modern | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Arts & Photography | Subjects | Books

All Titles | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books

Arts & Photography | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books

Nonfiction | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books
Similar Items:

ASIN: 0226143244

Book Description

"The four essays in this volume constitute Derrida's most explicit and sustained reflection on the art work as pictorial artifact, a reflection partly by way of philosophical aesthetics (Kant, Heidegger), partly by way of a commentary on art works and art scholarship (Van Gogh, Adami, Titus-Carmel). The illustrations are excellent, and the translators, who clearly see their work as both a rendering and a transformation, add yet another dimension to this richly layered composition. Indispensable to collections emphasizing art criticism and aesthetics."—Alexander Gelley, Library Journal

Customer Reviews:

A must have for deconstruction aesthetics.......2007-05-12

A reading of Adami's reading of Derrida's Glas. Fantastic book. Recommended to those who want a new view of painting, art, and history in general.

Very interesting book.......2007-03-15

Derrida has a very complicated way of writing : it is not easy avoiding metaphors, the verb to be, the 'I'. Especially when the subject is art, beacause it is exactly the realm of the aesthetic, the subjective, the presence. This, I think, is one of his most difficult texts.
This book sets to investigate the multiple questions that develop in the presence of Cezanne's proposal : Cezanne's aim is to tell the truth in painting.
What is the relation between truth anda beauty, language and image, philosophy and art? Derrida investigates those in two large chapters called 'Parergon' and 'Van Gogh boots'.

Books:

Books Index

Books Home

Recommended Books