Can objectivity and the universality of thought be founded on discourse? Is not universal thought of itself prior to discourse? Does not a mind in speaking evoke what the other mind already thinks, both of them participating in common ideas? But the community of thought ought to have made language as a relation between beings impossible. Coherent discourse is one. A universal thought dispenses with communication. A reason cannot be other for a reason. How can a reason be an I or an other, since its very being consists in renouncing singularity? …
But to make of the thinker a moment of thought is to limit the revealing function of language to its coherence, conveying the coherence of concepts. In this coherence the unique I of the thinker volatilizes. The function of language would amount to suppressing “the other,” who breaks this coherence and is hence essentially irrational. A curious result: language would consist in suppressing the other, in making the other agree with the same! But in its expressive function language institutes a relation irreducible to the subject-object relation: the revelation of the other. In this revelation only can language as a system of signs be constituted. The other called upon is not something open to generalization. Language, far from presupposing universality and generality, first makes them possible. Language presupposes interlocutors, a plurality. Their commerce is not a representation of the one by the other, nor a participation in universality, on the common plane of language. Their commerce ... is ethical.
Showing posts with label language. Show all posts
Showing posts with label language. Show all posts
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Deconstructing
Two prefatory points:
1) What follows is going to be something new for me. Rather than constructing and thinking about a piece of writing, this is just going to be a straight copying from some writing I did a few weeks back. I just started writing and the body of this blog will be word for word from that. As such, there is less argument and more contemplation. I'd love to hear feedback/criticism.
2) I don't believe I've read any explicit deconstruction literature; but I have read a good deal of recent literature that has all the general tendencies which I perhaps incorrectly presume to be a part of the deconstructionist goals. In general, I'm sure I haven't read near enough on this subject. I also believe that some people who are labeled deconstructionists, don't like the term. This may point to something about their thinking.
----
When one deconstructs, destabilizes, disfigures, fractures, delimits, or muddles the very concepts in question, what is left? More importantly, where is that person then left? On what basis can they discuss the given thing? By transfiguring the words, by doing all the things from the list above, what are they then talking about? Something new? What are they then critiquing? Can the deconstructionist talk? And thus, can the deconstructionist think?
Perhaps they are aware of this, and this is what leads to their abstruse rhetoric which obfuscates the reader into frustration, anger, and then dismissal. Their text leads to submission of the reader. Communication is relegated to a realm of errors and is thus done away with. This leads us back to the guiding question: how can the deconstructionist think. If its transmission, and thus logos itself, is unable to do its job, what does the intellect offer? Indeed, what progress is made from human discourse?
Perhaps something new is more appropriate. Let us hope progress is a concern. Correcting error is indeed progress, but to do away with so fundamental of an object, concepts themselves, is to do away with one's own progress. So the deconstructionists are inventive; forging ahead, and finding new concepts. They create a new form to human discourse. But can we then call it discourse? Earlier I mentioned there is a loss of communication. So maybe there is some vestige of discourse still present. At the very least, if there is to be any progress, there must be some resemblance to the former discourse and this new, "non-discourse".
1) What follows is going to be something new for me. Rather than constructing and thinking about a piece of writing, this is just going to be a straight copying from some writing I did a few weeks back. I just started writing and the body of this blog will be word for word from that. As such, there is less argument and more contemplation. I'd love to hear feedback/criticism.
2) I don't believe I've read any explicit deconstruction literature; but I have read a good deal of recent literature that has all the general tendencies which I perhaps incorrectly presume to be a part of the deconstructionist goals. In general, I'm sure I haven't read near enough on this subject. I also believe that some people who are labeled deconstructionists, don't like the term. This may point to something about their thinking.
----
When one deconstructs, destabilizes, disfigures, fractures, delimits, or muddles the very concepts in question, what is left? More importantly, where is that person then left? On what basis can they discuss the given thing? By transfiguring the words, by doing all the things from the list above, what are they then talking about? Something new? What are they then critiquing? Can the deconstructionist talk? And thus, can the deconstructionist think?
Perhaps they are aware of this, and this is what leads to their abstruse rhetoric which obfuscates the reader into frustration, anger, and then dismissal. Their text leads to submission of the reader. Communication is relegated to a realm of errors and is thus done away with. This leads us back to the guiding question: how can the deconstructionist think. If its transmission, and thus logos itself, is unable to do its job, what does the intellect offer? Indeed, what progress is made from human discourse?
Perhaps something new is more appropriate. Let us hope progress is a concern. Correcting error is indeed progress, but to do away with so fundamental of an object, concepts themselves, is to do away with one's own progress. So the deconstructionists are inventive; forging ahead, and finding new concepts. They create a new form to human discourse. But can we then call it discourse? Earlier I mentioned there is a loss of communication. So maybe there is some vestige of discourse still present. At the very least, if there is to be any progress, there must be some resemblance to the former discourse and this new, "non-discourse".
Friday, November 6, 2009
People Who Use "Extravagant" Language
Before I begin, I know this is lengthy but I encourage everyone to read it through, think about it, and then comment to me (on here or in person). This is a topic that hits close to home for me. Notice I put this at the beginning so people wouldn't get half way and decide they didn't want to read the rest and then not see how important this topic and their comments are to me :)
A quote: "Hegel wrote in his essay "Who Thinks Abstractly?" that it is not the philosopher who thinks abstractly but the person on the street, who uses concepts as fixed, unchangeable givens, without any context. It is the philosopher who thinks concretely, because he goes beyond the limits of everyday concepts to understand their broader context. This makes philosophical thought and language seem mysterious or obscure to the person on the street."
I take this to mean 2 things.
1. When people use various words without thinking about their meaning/context, they don't realize the ramifications of what they're saying, as well as what they're not saying. As a result, they have a set of static words which people take to mean something, but that that "something" is no longer necessarily the same referent (intended word). When we take language as something static, we do not realize how language works. This creates the possibility for unintended statements, miscommunication, and most often confusion on both parties.
2. And so if we are to then begin thinking (being aware and open), we must now step outside and away from typical verbage. Thus, someone who thinks about (analyzes) these concepts, and describes/explains things in "not-normal" ways, is seen as weird because they have to use words outside of the normal lexicon. But when the typical lexicon is steeped with ambiguous, if not vague, meanings and connotations, it is no longer fruitful to use such words when participating in discourse.
I tend to agree with this (go figure right?), but I do feel like I have some support for this (go figure again...).
I've begun reading some Heideggar and can't help but notice that whenever he begins to think about and discuss a particular topic, he often gives about 5 different and possible definitions for that word. Once the reader works through all the options and sees how he then begins to use the word, his writing becomes much more poignant and lucid. The reader realizes that when he uses a given word, this is in no way a nilly-willy invocation; rather, it is a deliberate, methodical representation of a specific concept (I emphasize the specificity), which all the more allows the reader to become more readily available to the thought of his work. And that is how thinking begins.
A perfect example is the beginning of this blog. I took twice as many words to interpret one simple paragraph. It says something about a person's writing when they can write very little and evoke a great deal of thought. (For me, its a sign of great writing.)
Those are my thoughts, but I am seriously interested to hear what my friends and family (or perhaps all ten of you who read this) have to say on this topic. This is something that directly relates to who I am and the people who have friendships and familial ties with me, and so I would like hear what other opinions are on the subject.
A quote: "Hegel wrote in his essay "Who Thinks Abstractly?" that it is not the philosopher who thinks abstractly but the person on the street, who uses concepts as fixed, unchangeable givens, without any context. It is the philosopher who thinks concretely, because he goes beyond the limits of everyday concepts to understand their broader context. This makes philosophical thought and language seem mysterious or obscure to the person on the street."
I take this to mean 2 things.
1. When people use various words without thinking about their meaning/context, they don't realize the ramifications of what they're saying, as well as what they're not saying. As a result, they have a set of static words which people take to mean something, but that that "something" is no longer necessarily the same referent (intended word). When we take language as something static, we do not realize how language works. This creates the possibility for unintended statements, miscommunication, and most often confusion on both parties.
2. And so if we are to then begin thinking (being aware and open), we must now step outside and away from typical verbage. Thus, someone who thinks about (analyzes) these concepts, and describes/explains things in "not-normal" ways, is seen as weird because they have to use words outside of the normal lexicon. But when the typical lexicon is steeped with ambiguous, if not vague, meanings and connotations, it is no longer fruitful to use such words when participating in discourse.
I tend to agree with this (go figure right?), but I do feel like I have some support for this (go figure again...).
I've begun reading some Heideggar and can't help but notice that whenever he begins to think about and discuss a particular topic, he often gives about 5 different and possible definitions for that word. Once the reader works through all the options and sees how he then begins to use the word, his writing becomes much more poignant and lucid. The reader realizes that when he uses a given word, this is in no way a nilly-willy invocation; rather, it is a deliberate, methodical representation of a specific concept (I emphasize the specificity), which all the more allows the reader to become more readily available to the thought of his work. And that is how thinking begins.
A perfect example is the beginning of this blog. I took twice as many words to interpret one simple paragraph. It says something about a person's writing when they can write very little and evoke a great deal of thought. (For me, its a sign of great writing.)
Those are my thoughts, but I am seriously interested to hear what my friends and family (or perhaps all ten of you who read this) have to say on this topic. This is something that directly relates to who I am and the people who have friendships and familial ties with me, and so I would like hear what other opinions are on the subject.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
