WTF Derrida!
November 13, 2004
And I quote:
“Derrida claims that ‘différence governs nothing, reigns over nothing, and nowhere exercises any authority. It is not announced by any capital letter. Not only is there no kingdom of différence, but différence instigates the the subversion of every kingdom.’ Différence for Derrida manifests nothing, not even nothing, nor the not nothing. It cannot instantiate the principle of the goodness of being as such, because the trace of différence is for Derrida a first principle that is different from any principle, including itself, the principle that is no principle. Différence is ‘that which not only could never be appropriate in the as such of its name or its appearing, but also that which threatens the authority of the as such in general.’”
Yup, I’m screwed. Thankfully, I’m picking up this book tonight (thanks to Reno’s suggestion) and hopefully it will help.
Tags: Derrida, différence, Philosophy
Posted in General
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
November 13th, 2004 at 4:13 pm
This probably won’t make you feel any better, but I think it is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to get any kind of handle on Derrida without some background in structuralism, which Derrida is in large part challenging even while employing it. Claude Levi-Strauss and Ferdinand de Saussure are the primary structuralists.
November 13th, 2004 at 7:26 pm
ummm good luck. Derrida is one of those immensly talented writers who are also pretty impenetrable. I would definitely recommend that you read others on him before reading anything by him - believe me most of the profs I know have a hard time getting a handle on him. He is so playful in his language seemingly trying to underline the structuralists with the words difference and différance. Well you have set yourself a pretty tough target for your essay - hope you can plough through it. You might find the following link useful:-
http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENGL2012Klages/1derrida.html
the links are at the bottom of the page are pretty good too
November 13th, 2004 at 7:45 pm
This continues to be my question when confronted with writing by “brilliant” authors who write in “impenetrable” ways: Couldn’t they have just been a bit brighter and penned their ideas in language the rest of the world understands? After 7 weeks at Princeton, I’m more and more convinced that difficult writing is often a weakness on the part of the author and his ability to communicate his ideas, and not a weakness on the part of the reader.
November 13th, 2004 at 8:10 pm
I’m with Andrew. I wouldn’t attribute the opacity of M. Derrida’s writing to his talent.
November 13th, 2004 at 8:42 pm
Well said AZ!
November 13th, 2004 at 10:54 pm
I hate to see Derrida run through the mud–he was actually up for a Nobel Prize in Lit–before his death. Adam, stop being a baby–and reread Derrida. Actually, you may want to pick up some of John Caputo’s work on Derrida. There is also a guy who has done a systematics on Derrida’s thought–in the margins, Derrida deconstructs it by telling about his circumcision. I have read 12+ books of Derrida, a lot of those only once. I can tell you–if you just keep reading–it gets better.
November 14th, 2004 at 12:50 am
On the plus side, if you use Derrida even half-way correctly in your paper, your prof will be seriously impressed.
November 14th, 2004 at 1:30 am
I tried the book for dummmies too. It’s not bad but even it gets deep and chases it’s tail. Oh well!
November 14th, 2004 at 8:45 am
Comment pouvez-vous probablement me comprendre si je ne me comprends pas?
November 14th, 2004 at 10:26 am
Here is an interesting link;
http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001871.html
Have a great day!
November 14th, 2004 at 5:55 pm
let’s start a seminary where we never have to read anything by anyone ever again!
WWDS?
November 15th, 2004 at 3:21 pm
Dude, email Andrew Jones. (tallskinnykiwi) When I heard him, all he was talking about was Derrida and De Saussure. He seemed to feel pretty comfortable with them… but then again, he was talking to a group of people who probably never had or never would read Derrida, so he could have said anything and gotten away with it. Anyway, I am sure he’d be interested in your attempt at this topic.
November 15th, 2004 at 3:31 pm
I LOVE that series of books, by the way… Totally worth your money.
November 15th, 2004 at 10:34 pm
I’m kinda with Anastasia and Andrew - while difficult concepts might be difficult to convey, I think there’s a real talent in conveying them in language that’s accessible. (But then again, I’m an Aussie law grad, and I learnt very quickly that American law students have a completely different perspective on plain language to Australians, so that’s perhaps my own biases!)
In my first year of undergrad, the Australian emerging church folk were utterly obsessed with Derrida. As I was barely out of high school, I couldn’t keep up, and now nobody’s interested in talking about him anymore! :(
November 16th, 2004 at 9:55 pm
yeah, good luck with that. i ran into derrida in undergrad in my lit classes, and i got enough of him there.
November 16th, 2004 at 10:08 pm
Adam,
I have a very good friend at Union Seminary who is working with Derrida on his dissertation. Perhaps the three of us could hook up here in the City over spirits…on us.
I am so glad to see that you are moving in the right direction with your postmodern theology. As always, thanks for your openness…
Regards,
O.
P.S. Less pictures of books and hair and more of YOU!!!