![41FBHaGeMkL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/XxJQhH3.jpg "41FBHaGeMkL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_[1].jpg")
Is Derrida's 'of grammatology' worth the read? I've seen it getting some hate on this board but is it really that bad?
WE
WUZ
SPEECH
>>7402482
I rarely struggle with books, but this was hopelessly opaque. I even bought one of those "Understanding: Derrida" books and just gave up.
>>7402495
With Derrida I think it is important to take a break from the text... I often quit in frustration but after a few days the concept starts to make sense and then I curse Derrida and think "why didn't he just say that"
>>7402501
Was it worth the read in the end, though?
>>7402504
I haven't finished it yet and to be honest it will probably be a long time before I finish and completely understand it (not that Derrida wants to be understood)/From what I have read I think Derrida offers a formidable critique of the Kantian system.
>>7402511
It's Heidegger.
There's nothing in Derrida that wasn't already in Heidegger.
>>7402524
I should probably just read Heidegger. I am not well read in the hermeneutic tradition
>>7402524
>There's nothing in Derrida that wasn't already in Heidegger.
Derrida remarks on language were already in (the late) Wittgenstein.
>>7402529
Some claim late Wittgenstein and Heidegger pair up nicely, although I'm not very familiar with Wittgenstein.
Sometimes I actually see Wittgenstein paired against Derrida.
>Derrida
More like Diarrheada
I just ordered this because I'm into linguistics. Pretty excited to read it desu
>>7402971
You should make a thread while you read so we can discuss. There aren't enough quality Derrida threads.
>>7402530
Which is interesting because Heidegger dismissed Wittgenstein as some naive empiricist analytic if I recall correctly.
>>7402971
derrida is not a linguist, he's just a weird autistic pedant with nothing important to say beyond wordgames just like wittgenstein, except he's french so his sentence are longer.
>>7402482
Very much worth it. One of the most important books of the past fifty years. It's dense and difficult, and it helps if you have a background in phenomenology (especially Husserl, who Derrida was reading a lot in the years previous). The basic idea is that there's a fundamental contradiction at the heart of Western philosophy (especially in the tradition of metaphysics). This involves the reliance of a notion of "presence" to provide a guarantee of truth in meaning. But language by its very structure can operate without the presence and intention of a speaker. A second contradiction is between two different philosophies of time: the idea of time as a continuum versus the idea of time as a series of points. This contradiction creates great difficulties when trying to think about "presence," or what it means to be present now within written language. Derrida is a very patient philosopher who slow pursues the implications of these thoughts, mostly via the analysis of how they play out in other people's writing. He's also something of an iconoclast, so he rubs some people up the wrong way, and hence the hatred and popular dismissals of his work you often see (like the controversy surrounding the honorary Cambridge degree).
>>7402524
This isn't true. Derrida began in the wake of Husserl and Heidegger, but took his thought to many different places, most notably in ethics with discussion of ideas like forgiveness, the unforegivable, reconciliation, the death penalty, the gift, the archive, and such like.
I'd recommend starting with some intro texts like the interviews in "Deconstruction in a Nutshell" or "Positions" or the "Letter to a Japanese Friend." Then try some serious philosophical material like Of Grammatology or the crucial essays in Margins of Philosophy like "Differance" or "Ousia and Gramme" or "Signature Event Context." Good luck!! Don't rely on the dismissive opinion of resentful commentators. Read the stuff yourself and make up your own mind.
>>7403557
Very insightful. Thanks!
>>7403549
No, but he based alot of his work on de Sausure and the early linguists.
>>7403557
>it helps if you have a background in phenomenology (especially Husserl
Derrida, by the way, has another book from the same time as Of Grammatology which is basically all about how he departs from Husserl, and is written in a much clearer style than the OG. It's Speech and Phenomena (or Voice and Phenomenon).
pseudo-intellectual trash, nothing more than language games
>>7403957
Man it's almost supernatural how bad this comment it is. Language games is exactly what Derrida is writing about, he matches with Witty on so many issues.
Also using linguistic theory to argue why linguistic theory is bad is about as retarded as you can get. You might as well tell a physicist that physics says that gravity is bullshit.
Will Hegel help me through it?
>>7404052
Derrida is not even considered in any decent Linguistic department, you Continental faggots are dense
>>7405298
found the impotent butthurt
It's not worth killing yourself over because you stupidly identify its difficulty with its quality
Derrida is a poststructuralist with some interesting stuff to say, sometimes, but there's no fucking reason at all to try to read him in a vacuum. Understand the intellectual traditions Derrida is part of and reading him becomes less of a chore even though he's still a faggot obscurantist Frenchman.
It's like trying to read some random semi-interesting b-grade gnostic without knowing anything about gnosticism or having read any of the basics, just because he's infamous for having shitty prose. Why bother
He's the reason we have all these SJWs tbhfam.
>>7405586
Is it true though. I've never been in a Linguistic department what do they think of Mr. Fabulous Hair there? Is he ever even mentioned?
>>7405641
that's what everyone on this board about everything that isn't PURE SCIENCE
>>7405676
Yes but he is hardly important. He mostly serves as a base for understanding Lacan and Lyotard who are usually the focus of our linguistic department.
I have not read Derrida's work (admittedly). But much of what I have read of it in synopsis makes it seem like contemptible garbage. The takeaway I've gathered is that Derrida was responsible for deconstruction (ie post-structuralism) which is the way in which we can take any text and imply a meaning from it because there is in the text no intrinsic meaning, because intrinsic meaning in text is impossible.
This to me has at least three problems. First, if meaning cannot be implied from a text, then why would Of Grammatology of itself have any meaning?
Second, it seems from what he is saying is that saying, in language, a true statement is impossible. (I've already stated in problem one that I don't think you can say this truthfully.) But even if this were 'objectively true' would we care? If under common understanding one speaker can say 'the sun rose in the east this morning' and another speaker can say 'yep!' who gives a shit about quibbling over the definition of sun?
Second, inductively we could easily construct a book that explodes a post structuralist narrative. If you allow any set of sentences to have a known understanding (which includes true and false statements) then a narrative can be constructed. If no set of statements can be made understandable then a trivial book such as:
The Author Exists.
I am the Author. I exist.
By
The Author.
Must be deconstructable. I challenge anyone on this board to deconstruct this by a feminist/queer/transattackhelicopter perspective. The meaning here is a few truth statements and that's it.
Finally, I despise the latitude that post-structuralism has given to criticism. Just because there is not a 'definite' meaning to many texts does not imply that the meaning isn't bounded to a reasonable sub-set of the entire fucking universe of conceivable plot. No, cuntstain, there is no transqueer re-imagining of Dr. Seuss. To layer entire subsets of meaning over authorial intent is to re-write the book, not to 'find hidden layers' or 'see through a lens'. Yich.
>>7405742
>I have not read Derrida's work (admittedly).
It really shows.
>>7405746
Feel free to contribute something other than a cynical one line dismissal if you have anything of value to contribute.
>>7405742
>The Author Exists.
Is this the title or the first line of the book? Is "the author" referring to a single author or the concept of an author in general?
>I am the Author. I exist.
Is "I" refering to the writer of the book only or is to supposed to relate to all authors. Is he talking just about himself or the greater scope of literature.
"exist" do you mean you are alive or that you were alive at one point (in other words when you die will the statement be false)? Or do you just mean we have a concept of you and only the concept of "I" itself exist
"Author" Again are you referring to a single author or are you trying to refer to all authors in general as a sort of blanket statement.
>By
Does this imply it was specifically written by you or that it was conceive by you? There is a difference. If it is just conceived by you than it means someone else could have written it with you narrating
>The Author.
Again you have failed to define author
There I've deconstructed your book. I'll remind you that anything you say to try to clarify can also be deconstructed. This includes opening up the possibility you are lying and looking for hidden meaning behind the words.
But I'm sure you some anti-intellectual fuckward that doesn't care about the subtle distinction between various meanings of a word.
>>7405742
>the way in which we can take any text and imply a meaning from it because there is in the text no intrinsic meaning
That's not what Derrida says. You don't understand anything about post-structuralism and your strawmans aren't even halfway correct.
>>7405756
Feel free to provide a correction with a bit more depth than 'nuhuh!
>>7405759
How about you just read the second part of Of Grammatology so I don't have to do your homework for you?
>>7405755
Ok, so then does mathematics not exist? If anything can be deconstructed, what about real analysis?
>>7405762
I understand if you don't have a rebuttal. It's ok, this is an anonymous message board, no one's going to laugh at you.
>>7405763
>does mathematics not exist?
I think a lot of philosophy of math points to it being constructed
It may correspond to reality but you can create multiple mathematical "languages" or systems that correspond to reality
>>7405766
Again, deflecting because you don't have anything to add is ok. We understand. It's hard being wrong sometimes.
>>7405763
Derrida isn't saying things "don't exist" he's just saying an exact communication isn't going to fucking happen, we can still share ideas but the idiosyncrasies and subtle details will be lost in interpretation.
It's like that joke about quantum physics in Futurama where the professor says "I changed the results be observing them"
Analysis according to Derrida no longer cares about what the author meant. You can analysis the text however you want. You can use pscho-analysis, study it from a historical perspective, read things figuratively, two people can have 2 different interpretations.
His ideas deal with the human language. I think pure mathematics is not affected because every symbol has exactly 1 definition which is never changed by context or culture.
>>7405768
Goddel's incompletness theorom affirms this.
Our math system is just an invention and it has bugs in it, for instance dividing by zero. But all math systems except for incredible simple ones that aren't good beyond basic arithmetic will have bugs.
This is what's frightening. We can't have a perfect math language. Some of the bugs like divinding by zero are obvious and we can avoid them but what if there are other bugs that are more subtle and we don't know about?
Can you imagine the disaster of having bugs in our math for say...computer programming...or any complex calculation.
logics-mathematics is nothing but the process of abstraction and the manipulation of the abstract objects, resulting from the abstraction, according to rules of inferences that WE CHOOSE from our abstraction of our daily life.
and natural languages are already abstractions...
>>7405780
Whoa dude, incorrect.
>>7405741
>Lacan and Lyotard
>Linguistics
nope
>>7405780
is this some kind of pasta?
>>7405742
>I have not read Derrida's work (admittedly).
Well don't bother saying anything about him until you have. You're a bitter charlatan.
>>7406165
>Lacan and Lyotard
>Not important for the interpretation of the written word
no
>>7406436
Lacan was a self acknowledged Charlatan and Lyotard admitted to bullshitting.
>>7406452
Sounds like you haven't read anything by them. Right?
>>7406454
that is a weak ass defense of fraudulent scholarship. Lyotard admitted in an Italian journal that he never read the books he referenced, made up stories, and that his work was worthless. Face it all of your pomo Continental heroes are frauds and have no insight into anything real.
>>7406482
Get a grip and read his work! The lazy and typical way to dismiss continental philosophy is by not reading it. Lyotard was trained rigorously in a French philosophical tradition and knew Kant inside out, as well as much else. Try reading his Lessons on the Analytic of the Sublime, for starters.
And in case you didn't realise, saying "I didn't read much" is a French philosopher meme. Althusser liked to say the same thing about Marx.
It's way too common for Anglo-conservatives to dismiss weird continental stuff based on awful Anglo-pastiches of the material rather than actually reading the fucking books!!! It's one of my major bugbears. Show me you're read the stuff you're talking about and the conversation can continue.
>>7406490
lol
science disproved all your stupid ideas. this is why you marxists will never win
>>7406492
>science disproved all your stupid ideas.
>>7406490
Show me what ideas that Lacan or Lyotard have that describe any part of reality that are not trivialities or truisms. Face it, their drivel describes nothing. They spend all of their time mindlessly referencing other philosophy and obscuring simple ideas, it is nothing more that intellectual toxic waste
>>7406515
>btfo fraudulent pomo trash
>where are you from
typical vacuous Continental response
>>7405736
Sure, but deconstruction obviously contributed to this obsession with dismantling of identity (racial, gendre, etc.).
>>7406515
>scientism is /pol/
>christfaggoty and Evola is also /pol/, which is anti-science
Which one is it, damn it.
>>7406574
Stupidity is /pol/.
>>7406533
>I'm too lazy to read a fucking book and want one sentence summaries from others so I can dismiss them. Also, try /pol/.
Learn to work, lazy fucker!
im gonan read derrida when i finish heidegger
>>7406744
Speaking of which does anyone know which book to start with? theres a bunch that look good
>>7406732
>can't give one one example
>doubles down on the work of intellectual fraudsters
your right, I should read more of this trash. It is comedy gold.
>In both cases, the possibility of auto-affection manifests itself as such: it leaves a trace of itself in the world. The worldly residence of a signifier becomes impregnable. That which is written remains, and the experience of touching-touched admits the world as a third party. The exteriority of space is irreducible there. Within the general structure of auto-affection, within the giving-oneself-a-presence or a pleasure, the operation of touching-touched receives the other within the narrow gulf that separates doing from suffering. And the outside, the exposed surface of the body, signifies and marks forever the division that shapes auto-affection. Auto-affection is a universal structure of experience. All living things are capable of autoaffection. And only a being capable of symbolizing, that is to say of auto-affecting, may let itself be affected by the other in general. Auto-affection is the condition of an experience in general. This possibility —another name for “life”—is a general structure articulated by the history of life, and leading to complex and hierarchical operations. Auto-affection, the as-for-itself or for-itself—subjectivity—gains in power and in its mastery of the other to the extent that its power of repetition idealizes itself. Here idealization is the movement by which sensory exteriority, that which affects me or serves me as signifier, submits itself to my power of repetition, to what thenceforward appears to me as my spontaneity and escapes me less and less.
>>7406561
>linguistic theory is part of a conspiracy to destroy the white race
/pol/ please
>>7406752
Start with Pic Related, especially "La structure, le signe et le jeu dans le discours des sciences humaines".
>derrida thread
>ctrl + f
>"hack"
>0 results
You disappoint me.
>>7407365
Because this isn't /his/
>>7407358
this was my first derrida and it was tough going but i really enjoyed it.
as far as of grammatology:
>i am a professional analytic linguist in the chomksyan tradition who appreciates non-analytic philosophy.
given greentext, I found the bits of "of grammatology" that i read fun, though I agree with others that quite a lot can be gotten from heidegger (though in a much drier fashion), and a few of his criticisms of the structuralist approaches (descendants of which are still leading ideas in language science) were later discovered by analytic linguists and expanded on (though obviously not because of derrida, nor following his methods).
In any event, I (secretly away from my research department) still find his ideas interesting, and I think his thoughts about deferring meaning onto (always) other symbols and presence, and his thoughts internal contradiction that makes deconstruction almost inevitable are important, if hard to do anything with. in some of his interviews, he contrasts his usual technique with the idea of "indeconstructibles" which I found a valuable untapped nugget for discussion of relationships between empirical science, language, and formal science (though these were not derrida's main interests, so it's no surprise he didn't follow up on them).
I'm curious, can anyone point me to an author in this realm that specifically says how everything is unknowable or deeply open ended because language? Beyond just an author, what book (& chapter if you know) would I have to look for this in? Or can someone just give me some good quotes to start. If I'm gonna slog through a whole book of this I'd at least like to be intrigued
>>7409331
btw asking 'which' author even though this is a Derrida thread cuz I'm wondering if Witty or Heideggar or someone else would be more suitable or not
>>7406482
>>that is a weak ass defense of fraudulent scholarship. Lyotard admitted in an Italian journal that he never read the books he referenced, made up stories, and that his work was worthless. Face it all of your pomo Continental heroes are frauds and have no insight into anything real.
just like you shit on the continental without having reading them....
>>7402501
he did and he didn't
