Any existent entity, an animal, a person, an organization, even a university, has both an aim and a goal. Remove all limits of both the teachers and the students or pupils, depending on one's view of them, and the entity falls apart. It will likely shift into factions, which will coalesce around some
given thinker(s), who more or less agree. I do not see his view of the university being much different than the Estates General, in Paris, in the early to mid 1790's.
Without a principle of order, all else falls apart and the center is unable to hold.
In our world it is a combination of things, beginning with gravity and all to often ending with its opposite, comedy.
Well, that's a true critic. However, it's unclear whether he was a proponent of "no limits" and "no rules." I understand him more as a proponent of questioning and, if necessary, rethinking. Though, being Derrida, he is not always clear!
It may well be your interpretation is a more correct one. Have only read his words through your missives on Substack.
Am more than open to exploring new ideas, possibilities, and even visions of what might be, but there has to be some reasonable basis for pursuing them, other than blind faith, hope, or wishes.
His deconstruction ideas have so permeated English Departments in American colleges, that students, who once had a love of English Literature, have left the departments with so few pupils, that a number of departments are barely keeping alive and teachers no longer have classes. Taking the beauty out of writing has not helped, which to a fair extent, seems to be what Derrida’s idea of deconstruction has done to the humanities.
I something like that in the past. That is quite strange since Derrida was clearly the kind of man to value literature and to refer to some English literature text positively. I myself read secondary literature on Derrida and there is stuff that draw on Derrida but make him say things that he would probably have not said himself. For me, it is similar to what distinction Descartes from Cartesianism or Marx from Marxism. Based on but something else.
It is also true that Derrida himself was not free of contradictions, which may lead to various interpretations. Though he defended deconstruction as a way to conduct inquiry, he was also a defender of a certain kind of tradition...
Not unlike Nietzsche. My view of the "Superman", is one who has overcome his own inherent non-virtuous tendencies, and emerged triumphant, free, and seeking to discover more. This does not appear to be the main view of him. Then again, found Schopenhauer an optimist.
"Is it merely knowledge? Merely a performative profession of faith? Does it belong within the university? Is it philosophy or literature? Or theater? Is it a work of art or a course, or a kind of seminar?" Derrida speaks (and not just here) at the margins of knowledge and of language. He seems reluctant to leave what his successful academic life has led him into. In doing so, he refrains from moving into poetry to find expression for his thought and models theories of utopia, conditions for achieving what no one really can realise. Poetry (Aristotle and many others say) is the most conducive expression of philosophy. Derrida's quest presupposes the same approach for the transformation of all social institutions (à la Foucault) without which the university itself could not possibly be transformed. Remaining at the margins like he does, wanting to leave but not in fact leaving means that his approach is mostly aesthetic, 'a feat of denotation' and remains held within the realm of abstraction. As such it may provide the reader new knowledge and nuanced perspectives but allows for little understanding of the very reality he would like to achieve.
Thank you for your response. I think Derrida was closer to your position than you realize. He advocated for a convergence of philosophy and literature...
I was an adjunct professor, not tenured. But who is the "university?" It should exist without any outside influences? Right. While they shut down debate and indoctrinate students. And while they discriminate against students by race? Why shouldn't all ideas be welcome in a place that exists for the free exchange of ideas. If it did, outside influences wouldn't be necessary. Maybe what Derrida should do is define "university" and why it exists.
Thank you for this information. I am not surprised. Similar services exist in France as well. I don't know about Japan, where I currently live. Yet, for me, this is not nearly enough. I think Ph.D. students should be made more sensitive to the issue during classes, such as research methodology classes for Ph.D. students.
Any existent entity, an animal, a person, an organization, even a university, has both an aim and a goal. Remove all limits of both the teachers and the students or pupils, depending on one's view of them, and the entity falls apart. It will likely shift into factions, which will coalesce around some
given thinker(s), who more or less agree. I do not see his view of the university being much different than the Estates General, in Paris, in the early to mid 1790's.
Without a principle of order, all else falls apart and the center is unable to hold.
In our world it is a combination of things, beginning with gravity and all to often ending with its opposite, comedy.
Well, that's a true critic. However, it's unclear whether he was a proponent of "no limits" and "no rules." I understand him more as a proponent of questioning and, if necessary, rethinking. Though, being Derrida, he is not always clear!
It may well be your interpretation is a more correct one. Have only read his words through your missives on Substack.
Am more than open to exploring new ideas, possibilities, and even visions of what might be, but there has to be some reasonable basis for pursuing them, other than blind faith, hope, or wishes.
His deconstruction ideas have so permeated English Departments in American colleges, that students, who once had a love of English Literature, have left the departments with so few pupils, that a number of departments are barely keeping alive and teachers no longer have classes. Taking the beauty out of writing has not helped, which to a fair extent, seems to be what Derrida’s idea of deconstruction has done to the humanities.
I something like that in the past. That is quite strange since Derrida was clearly the kind of man to value literature and to refer to some English literature text positively. I myself read secondary literature on Derrida and there is stuff that draw on Derrida but make him say things that he would probably have not said himself. For me, it is similar to what distinction Descartes from Cartesianism or Marx from Marxism. Based on but something else.
It is also true that Derrida himself was not free of contradictions, which may lead to various interpretations. Though he defended deconstruction as a way to conduct inquiry, he was also a defender of a certain kind of tradition...
Not unlike Nietzsche. My view of the "Superman", is one who has overcome his own inherent non-virtuous tendencies, and emerged triumphant, free, and seeking to discover more. This does not appear to be the main view of him. Then again, found Schopenhauer an optimist.
"Is it merely knowledge? Merely a performative profession of faith? Does it belong within the university? Is it philosophy or literature? Or theater? Is it a work of art or a course, or a kind of seminar?" Derrida speaks (and not just here) at the margins of knowledge and of language. He seems reluctant to leave what his successful academic life has led him into. In doing so, he refrains from moving into poetry to find expression for his thought and models theories of utopia, conditions for achieving what no one really can realise. Poetry (Aristotle and many others say) is the most conducive expression of philosophy. Derrida's quest presupposes the same approach for the transformation of all social institutions (à la Foucault) without which the university itself could not possibly be transformed. Remaining at the margins like he does, wanting to leave but not in fact leaving means that his approach is mostly aesthetic, 'a feat of denotation' and remains held within the realm of abstraction. As such it may provide the reader new knowledge and nuanced perspectives but allows for little understanding of the very reality he would like to achieve.
Thank you for your response. I think Derrida was closer to your position than you realize. He advocated for a convergence of philosophy and literature...
Thanks for responding. Perhaps that is the case ...
I wanted to answer you more quickly, but I got stuck with administrative tasks...
You do seem to be very busy. Summer holidays are over I guess!
I was an adjunct professor, not tenured. But who is the "university?" It should exist without any outside influences? Right. While they shut down debate and indoctrinate students. And while they discriminate against students by race? Why shouldn't all ideas be welcome in a place that exists for the free exchange of ideas. If it did, outside influences wouldn't be necessary. Maybe what Derrida should do is define "university" and why it exists.
Thank you for this information. I am not surprised. Similar services exist in France as well. I don't know about Japan, where I currently live. Yet, for me, this is not nearly enough. I think Ph.D. students should be made more sensitive to the issue during classes, such as research methodology classes for Ph.D. students.