Can You Try That Again...In English?
You know what? I can't even pull a quote out from Derrida because I had no clue what the article was getting at. Yes there were a few points made that I kinda sorta not really understood. The only thing that really made sense was Keesey's intro into the article and he even stated, "While no single essay can fully represent Derrida's thought, or capture his shifting terminology..."
Sometimes, as evident with this article, you just shouldn't try.
3 Comments
Leave a comment
Recent Comments
Mara Barreiro on Can You Try That Again...In English?: I also had a difficult time wi
Ellen Einsporn on Can You Try That Again...In English?: I've posted this on a few othe
Derek Tickle on Can You Try That Again...In English?: I, too, think that it was a ha
Ellen Einsporn on Can You Try That Again...In English?: I've posted this on a few othe
Derek Tickle on Can You Try That Again...In English?: I, too, think that it was a ha
I, too, think that it was a hard essay to understand, but his ideas were very complex and intriguing. I like the quote that you took from Keesey because it shows how not just "one essay" can present how complex his mind is.
I've posted this on a few other blogs as well. Hope it helps:
While there is much I still don't understand about Derrida, I think his main point is simply to prove that every text, every argument we might come up with, every symbol we might create, can be deconstructed (even his own!). This ability arises from the nature of language: as humans, we are completely dependent upon language--we cannot express our thoughts in any other way; however, the system of language is inconstant, and this inconsistency undermines any center we might try to create within the system. Instead, all we are left with is a "field of freeplay" where there is no finite meaning, no determined "center". Thus, in the absence of a solid foundation, we cannot create texts with a sturdy meaning, we cannot ever really know the truth, for we don't have a sound starting point for our search; all we have is language, which is faulted, thus our answers will be faulted as well.
If you find this depressing, please see Greta's blog and the comments below http://blogs.setonhill.edu/GretaCarroll/2009/03/use_the_tool_that_works_best.html.
Also, I highly suggest taking a look at Angela's blog + comments http://blogs.setonhill.edu/AngelaPalumbo/2009/03/the_terrible_terribleness_that.html --it addresses the problem of Derrida's "shifting terminology" that you mention.
I also had a difficult time with this essay. It took me awhile to pull a quote out that I thought I could speak on, but still I'm not sure if I truly got anything from this or not. I'm glad to see that I wasn't the only one.