Journal articles on the topic 'Derrida'
To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Derrida.
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Derrida.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Weltman-Aron, Brigitte. "Derrida's Biography ( Derrida , Who?)." Discourse 30, no. 1-2 (March 2008): 255–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/dis.2008.a362098.
Full text
2
Cadava, Eduardo. "Remembering Jacques Derrida Derrida's Futures." Grey Room 20 (July 2005): 74–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/1526381054573578.
Full text
3
Driscoll, Sean Donovan. "Metaphor as Lexis: Ricoeur on Derrida on Aristotle." Études Ricoeuriennes / Ricoeur Studies 11, no. 1 (July 22, 2020): 117–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/errs.2020.494.
Full textAbstract:
Both Derrida and Ricœur address philosophy’s relation to metaphor, and both take Aristotle as their starting points. However, though Ricœur’s The Rule of Metaphor is largely a response to Derrida’s “White Mythology,” Ricœur seems to pass right over Derrida’s critically important interpretation of Aristotle. In this essay, I dispel concerns that Ricœur may have been intellectually irresponsible in his engagement with Derrida on this point, and I demonstrate how Study 1 makes better sense as a detailed response to Derrida.
4
Koci, Martin. "Transforming Representation: Jacques Derrida and the End of Christianity." Open Theology 5, no. 1 (January 1, 2019): 116–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/opth-2019-0018.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract The central question of this paper revolves around the problem of representation. Following Jacques Derrida and his critique of representation, this paper will interconnect two, at first sight distinct, topics: Christianity and the world of media. For Derrida, Christianity stands behind our common understanding of representation, whereas the media are the major driving force of any representation today. The central argument of this paper is to unfold this link between Christianity and representation and thus to elaborate on the idea of representation in relation to the end of Christianity announced by Derrida. Firstly, I will review Derrida’s account on the logic of representation. Derrida deems Christianity to be responsible for the logic of representation discernible in today’s media world and offers a devastating critique of the concept. Secondly, I will contextualize Derrida’s approach by pointing out the tension between the modern and postmodern perspectives on representation. Thirdly, I will return to a close reading of Derrida. Fourthly, I will offer a critique of Derrida’s critique and will look further at the possible meanings of ‘the end of Christianity.’
5
Regard, Frédéric. "Derrida Un-Cut: Cixous's Art of Hearts1." Paragraph 30, no. 2 (July 2007): 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/prg.2007.0024.
Full textAbstract:
This article concerns the Portrait of Jacques Derrida, drawn by Hélène Cixous in 2001. The pages I choose to focus on are nine extracts of Derrida's footnoted additions to an essay by Geoffrey Bennington, either annotated or highlighted, sometimes both, in Cixous's hand in red, blue or black pen. The central point I develop is that Cixous's close relation to Derrida is not so much to an intimate friend whose skin could be touched, as to Derrida qua writing being, Derrida as corpus. I argue that intimacy operates by loosening Derrida's tongue, entering into his tongue in order to get to his heart by means of a hand-performed ‘ritual’, which I call the ritual of ‘sur-lining’.
6
Sahu, Sanjaya, Harihar Sarangi, and Partha Sarathi Mallik. "A Deconstructive Analysis of Derrida’s Philosophy." Shanlax International Journal of Arts, Science and Humanities 9, no. 1 (July 1, 2021): 98–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.34293/sijash.v9i1.4097.
Full textAbstract:
This paper is designed to reveal some of the philosophical ideas of Algerian-born philosopher Jacques Derrida. Jacques Derrida, a leading figure of Post-structuralism and Postmodernism is best known as the founding father of ‘Deconstruction’ but many of his philosophical ideas such as, logocentrism, differance, phonocentrism, aporia, anti-representationalism, etc. still remain rarely focused. Therefore, in this paper the researcher has tried to explore various philosophical ideas of Derrida before the readers to get acquainted with Derrida’s contribution to the world of knowledge. This research work has done with the help of both primary sources i.e., original writings of Derrida and secondary sources including the texts written by others. Here, all of Derrida’s ideas are explicitly described and justified by an inductive method. Finally, a concluding remark on deconstruction has been made by comparing Derrida’s idea of “Differance” with Nagarjuna’s concept of “Emptiness” which left the Indian roots of deconstruction.
7
Freire, Maria Continentino. "Por amor ao traço: uma leitura de "Memórias de Cego"." Ítaca, no. 19 (January 8, 2012): 186–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.59488/itaca.v0i19.179.
Full textAbstract:
Resumo: Este texto é uma leitura de “Memórias de cego” de Jacques Derrida, livro que foi publicado na França pela primeira vez por ocasião de uma exposição de mesmo nome organizada pelo filósofo, no museu do Louvre, entre outubro de 1990 e janeiro de 1991. A exposição e o texto de Derrida partem do tema da cegueira mostrando como tanto o desenho como a escrita são marcados por um intrínseco não ver que deixa ver.Palavras-chave: Derrida; cegueira; traço; escrita, desenho.Abstract: This text is a reading of Jacques Derrida's “Memoirs of the blind”. The book was first published in France as a catalogue of an exhibition with the same name organized by Derrida and shown in Louvre museum from October of 1990 to January of 1991. Derrida's exhibition and text start from the theme of blindness, letting see how drawing, as much as writing, comes from a certain impossibility of the gaze.Keywords: Derrida, blindness, trace, writing, drawing.
8
Hillis Miller, J. "Touching Derrida Touching Nancy: The Main Traits of Derrida's Hand." Derrida Today 1, no. 2 (November 2008): 145–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/e1754850008000201.
Full textAbstract:
Derrida has been perennially concerned with hands and touching. This interest finds its most concentrated form in On Touching—Jean-Luc Nancy. This text outlines a number of concerns Derrida has in that book which might be extrapolated as exemplary of Derrida's reading strategies in general. It concludes with a consideration of what is revealed about the Derrida-Nancy relationship in this book.
9
Dionizio, Mayara Joice, and Gabriel Bonesi Ferreira. "A comunidade dos amantes: anacronismo e aforismo em questão em Blanchot e Derrida." EDUCAÇÃO E FILOSOFIA 34, no. 72 (March 23, 2021): 1253–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.14393/revedfil.v34n72a2020-51666.
Full textAbstract:
A comunidade dos amantes: anacronismo e aforismo em questão em Blanchot e Derrida1
Resumo: A reflexão sobre o pensamento da “comunidade”, especificamente no séc. XX e, em especial, por pensadores franceses, é tema de diversas obras. Em torno dessa temática, pensadores como Bataille, Deleuze, Foucault, Blanchot, Jean-Luc Nancy e Derrida deram importantes contribuições. Apesar de Derrida recusar a noção de comunidade colocando em seu lugar a noção de coletividade, as concepções que fundamentam uma experiência de comunidade/coletividade são próximas: alteridade; différance; escritura; acontecimento e presença de uma ausência. Nesse contexto, a possibilidade de uma interseção entre esses conceitos, a partir da obras de Blanchot e Derrida, permite pensar a experiência da comunidade em sua relação com a escritura. Palavras-chave: Comunidade; Coletividade; Escritura; Alteridade; Acontecimento.
1Pesquisa realizada com apoio da Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Código de Financiamento 001.
The lovers community: anachronism and aphorism in question in Blanchot and Derrida
Abstract: The reflection about the thought of “community”, specifically in the XX century and, specially, by French thinkers, is the theme of many works. Around this theme, thinkers/intellectuals like Bataille, Deleuze, Foucault, Blanchot, Jean-Luc Nancy and Derrida gave important contributions. Despite Derrida's refusal of the notion of community putting in its place the notion of collectivity, the conceptions that ground an experience of community/collectivity are close: otherness; differance; writing; event and absent presence. In this context, the possibility of an intersection between these concepts, starting from the works of Blanchot and Derrida, allows to think the experience of community in its relation to the writing.
Keywords: Community; Collectivity; Writing; Otherness; Event.
La communauté des amoureux : anacronisme et aphorisme en question chez Blanchot et Derrida
Résumé: La réflexion sur la pensée de la “communauté”, spécifiquement au XXe siècle, et particulièrement par les penseurs français, fait l’objet de plusieurs travaux. Autour de ce thème, des penseurs tels que Bataille, Deleuze, Foucault, Blanchot, Jean-Luc Nancy et Derrida ont apporté d'importantes contributions. Bien que Derrida rejette la notion de communauté, en la remplaçant par la notion de collectivité, les conceptions qui fondent une expérience communauté/collectivité sont proches : altérité ; la différance ; écriture ; événement et présence d'une absence. Dans ce contexte, la possibilité d'une intersection de ces concepts, basée sur les travaux de Blanchot et de Derrida, permet de réfléchir à l'expérience de la communauté dans sa relation avec l'écriture.
Mots-clés: Communauté ; Collectivité ; Écriture ; Altérité ; Événement.
Data de registro: 21/11/2019
Data de aceite: 08/12/2020
10
Greaney, John. "On The Legacies of Derrida and Deconstruction Today: An Interview with Jean-Michel Rabaté." Derrida Today 14, no. 1 (May 2021): 91–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/drt.2021.0254.
Full textAbstract:
In this interview, which took place in Center City in Philadelphia in September 2020, I ask Jean-Michel Rabaté to reflect on his personal and writerly relationship with Jacques Derrida, and to assess the legacies of Derrida and deconstruction across the globe today. In the last five years, Rabaté has published three books (one monograph and two edited volumes) on Derrida: Les Guerres de Derrida (Presses de l'Université de Montréal, 2016), After Derrida (Cambridge University Press, 2018), and Understanding Derrida, Understanding Modernism (Bloomsbury, 2019). In response to this flurry of publications, I ask Rabaté what has prompted his recent and vigorous turn to Derrida and what his intentions were with these books. As we review their organising principles, the central thematic of this discussion is thus concerned with Derrida's relevance to the Humanities and Social Sciences as we enter the third decade of the twenty-first century.
11
Collins, Guy. "Defending Derrida: A Response to Milbank and Pickstock." Scottish Journal of Theology 54, no. 3 (August 2001): 344–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0036930600051644.
Full textAbstract:
The reception of Jacques Derrida in the academic community has frequently been a source of controversy. Whilst America has often been hospitable to his thought, the situation in British and even French universities has occasionally been openly hostile. Derrida arouses an intensity of emotion illustrated by the two hundred and four academics at Cambridge University who attempted to block the award of an honorary degree in 1992. Like the reaction within other disciplines, the theological response was, and remains, fissured. Leading the critics, Brian Hebblethwaite lent vocal support to Derrida's detractors. Nevertheless, Hebblethwaite's published criticisms of Derrida at the time lack either theological or philosophical arguments. Instead, his assessment reveals a knowledge of Derrida gleaned almost exclusively from secondary sources, with the exception of a lone reference to Derrida's debate with John Searle in Limited Inc.
12
Ross, Daniel. "Toward an Exergue on the Future of Différance." Derrida Today 13, no. 1 (May 2020): 48–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/drt.2020.0219.
Full textAbstract:
In Of Grammatology, Derrida discusses Leroi-Gourhan in relating différance to memory, the ‘program’, and the history of life. In Technics and Time, 1, Stiegler argues that Derrida failed to draw all the philosophical implications of linking différance to the questions of life and retention. Derrida returned to the life sciences in 1975, in a seminar not published in its entirety until 2019. There, Derrida attempts to deconstruct the geneticist François Jacob's account of the ‘logic of life’, but Derrida's analysis of different kinds of memory and programs seems confused, suggesting that the Derridean text remains haunted by the deficiencies of his earlier reading of Leroi-Gourhan. Later in the seminar, Derrida shows foresight concerning the problems arising from seeing the genetic molecule as akin to a computer program, despite Jacob making this link via Schrödinger and Wiener's discussions of negentropy. When Derrida turns to a reading of Freud and libidinal energy, however, he ‘assumes’ a reading of Laplanche but ignores the latter's critique of Freud's own preoccupations with the second law of thermodynamics. The limitations of Derrida's attempts to bring deconstruction together with scientific understanding expose the need for the kind of ‘organological’ and ‘neganthropological’ approach that Stiegler will ultimately pursue.
13
Jackson, Sarah. "Derrida on the Line." Derrida Today 10, no. 2 (November 2017): 142–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/drt.2017.0153.
Full textAbstract:
By offering us a voice that is both at a distance and inside one's own head, the telephone causes interference in thinking and writing. But despite the multiple telephones that echo in and across Jacques Derrida's work, and specifically his writing to and with Hélène Cixous, it is only since Derrida's death that critical interest in the phone has fully emerged, with work by Royle (2006) , Prenowitz (2008) , Bennington (2013) and Turner (2014) stressing the value of staying on the line. Engaging with Derrida, however, is not simply a matter of picking up the receiver. For the telephone is also, Derrida insists in H.C. for Life (2006), a ‘poetico-technical invention’, that is, the telephone is ‘thought itself’. This paper is about how the telephone ‘thinks’ Derrida, about how it remembers Derrida, and about how it offers us a line for re-imagining his voice. Bound up with the uncanny mechanisms of the telephone, it invites readers to participate in long-distance calling – listening across species, texts and worlds.
14
Raffoul, François. "Tout contre Heidegger." Oxford Literary Review 43, no. 1 (July 2021): 82–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/olr.2021.0352.
Full textAbstract:
Derrida's relation to Heidegger can fairly be described as ‘complicated,’ and marked by a deep ambivalence. Although he has always recognized his debt towards Heidegger, Derrida has also insisted on his profound allergy towards some aspects of Heidegger’s thought. The reader is thus often faced with this ambivalence in Derrida's writings, which offer, on the one hand, uncannily precise and insightful readings of Heidegger's texts, with on the other hand less than generous interpretations. We find a Derrida tout contre Heidegger, at once entirely against Heidegger, but also right up close to Heidegger. I will explore this debate between Derrida and Heidegger by focusing on the motifs of deconstruction, presence, the proper and the inappropriable.
15
Gaon, Stella. "‘As If’ There Were a ‘Jew’: The (non)Existence of Deconstructive Responsibility." Derrida Today 7, no. 1 (May 2014): 44–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/drt.2014.0076.
Full textAbstract:
The argument of this paper hinges on Derrida's relation to Judaism as a religious heritage and/or as an essential experience. If he can be said to ‘appropriate his Jewish roots’ at all, as Colby Dickinson (2011) has recently proposed, this is not because Derrida concurs that all belief in an ultimate reality (‘as such’) must now be understood in merely conditional terms (‘as if’). Rather, it is because Derrida deconstructs the difference between the Jew and the non-Jew, along with the differences between the ‘as if’ and the ‘as such’ and the performative and the constative, in his very demonstration of the impossibility of ‘being-jewish’. Dickinson thus misunderstands the way in which Derrida appropriates Kant's regulative ‘as if’, and thus misrepresents what is at stake in Derrida's ‘faith’ in ‘Jewishness’. What is at stake is what Derrida calls deconstructive responsibility, and it takes the form of a radical fidelity to the principle of reason (to an ‘unconditional theoreticism’). This responsibility, paradoxically, demands and impels the interrogation of critical thinking itself, with its principles, its essences and its identities. Accordingly, Derrida interrupts both the ‘as such’ and the ‘as if’ with the ‘if’ of a dangerous ‘perhaps’.
16
Sansevero, Bernardo Boelsums Barreto. "Quem é, afinal, Derrida?" Ítaca, no. 19 (January 8, 2012): 41–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.59488/itaca.v0i19.169.
Full textAbstract:
Resumo: Este trabalho tem como principal referência o texto de Derrida “Violência e metafísica: ensaio sobre o pensamento de Emmanuel Lévinas”. Interessou-me nesse texto a forma como Derrida se aproxima e se distancia do pensamento de Lévinas distanciando-se e aproximando-se de Heidegger. A partir disso, destaco o tema da violência no pensamento heideggeriano para estabelecer um diálogo com a leitura que Derrida faz de Heidegger no fim do texto, um tanto distinta das suas interpretações mais conhecidas do filósofo alemão.Palavras-chave: Derrida, Heidegger, violência.Abstract: This work has as main reference Derrida's text “Violence and metaphysics: an essay about the thought of Emmanuel Lévinas”. In this text I was interested about the way in which Derrida approaches and withdraws Lévinas's thoughts, withdrawing and coming close to Heidegger. From that I highlight the subject “violence” in Heidegger's thought to establish a dialogue with the reading Derrida does of Heidegger in the end of the text, very much distinct from the most known interpretations he does about the German philosopher.Keywords: Derrida, Heidegger, violence.
17
Gaston, Sean. "A Palintropic Genealogy of the Diaphanous Exactitude of Pe(n)ser." Derrida Today 1, no. 2 (November 2008): 212–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/e1754850008000249.
Full textAbstract:
Derrida frequently comments on the need to read and reread the texts of the tradition, to be always starting again with them. In On Touching – Jean-Luc Nancy Derrida offers another reading of (he starts again with) Aristotles's De Anima. By paying attention to the play of the palintropic, diaphanous, exactitude and ‘penser’ in Derrida's text, this paper seeks to show how important Aristotle is for Derrida in this book and in any deconstruction of the sense of touch. *
18
Terzi, Pietro. "“The Very Place of Apparition”: Derrida on Husserl’s Concept of Noema." Research in Phenomenology 48, no. 2 (June 8, 2018): 209–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15691640-12341392.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract In Specters of Marx, Derrida suggests that the most fundamental condition of phenomenality lies in the ambiguous status of the noema, defined as an intentional and non-real component of Erlebnis, neither “in” the world nor “in” consciousness. This “irreality” of the noematic correlate is conceived by Derrida as the origin of sense and experience. Already in his Of Grammatology, Derrida maintained that the difference between the appearing and the appearance, between the world and the lived experience, is the condition of all other differences. Unfortunately, Derrida limits himself to a few self-evident remarks, without further elaborating. The aim of this paper is twofold: on the one hand, to contextualize Derrida’s interpretation of the noema from a theoretical and historical perspective; on the other hand, to show its effects on the early moments of Derrida’s philosophy. The result will shed light on a neglected issue in the relationship between deconstruction and phenomenology.
19
Urbonienė, Aušra. "JACQUES’O DERRIDA PHARMAKON INTERPRETACIJA." Problemos 76 (January 1, 2009): 196–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.15388/problemos.2009.0.1932.
Full textAbstract:
Straipsnyje analizuojama Platono dialoge „Faidras“ suformuluota rašto samprata, ir J. Derrida knygoje „Diseminacija“ pateikta šios sampratos dekonstrukcija. Šioje Platono rašto sampratos rekonstrukcijoje sąvoka „pharmakon“ atlieka esminį vaidmenį. Dėl šios sąvokos keblumo visa Vakarų logocentrinė tradicija, pradedant Platonu, kalbėjimą iškelia virš rašto. Raštas įvardijamas kaip „pharmakon“, paprastai nurodant į jo nuodingumą ir kenksmingumą gyvąją esatį kontempliuojančiai sielai. Derrida, nagrinėdamas šią sąvoką, atskleidžia, jog neegzistuoja gyvas, neįtarpintas ženklais žinojimas. Šia prasme kalbėjimas (logos) tėra raštas plačiąja prasme. Ši Derrida įžvalga išjudina klasikinę kalbėjimo/rašto opozicijos hierarchiją, grąžindama ją į „pharmakon“ neapibrėžtumo būseną. Kaip galimas pakaitalas klasikiniam logocentriniam žinojimo idealui straipsnyje aptariama diseminacija kaip reikšmių išsėjimo būdas, įtvirtinantis signifikantų žaismą. Šis žaismas Platono farmacijoje pasireiškia kaip „pharmakon“ išsisėjimas naujuose „pharmakeus“ ir „pharmakos“ reikšmių laukuose.Pagrindiniai žodžiai: logocentrizmas, pharmakon, raštas, pharmakeus, pharmakos.Jacques Derrida’s Interpretation of PharmakonAušra Urbonienė SummaryThe article deals with Derrida’s interpretation of Plato’s notion of pharmakon. Pharmakon is the Greek word which has two opposite meanings – “cure” and “poison”. The concept of pharmakon, according to Derrida, produces a play of binary oppositions crucial to Western logocentric tradition: remedy/poison, speech/writing, good/bad, interior/exterior, etc. In Plato’s Pharmacy Derrida questions the main distinction between speech and writing. He argues that speech was viewed as the “original” form of language by Plato and the Western tradition. Writing is a later development – essentially bad, external to memory, productive not of truth but of appearances. Derrida, in his theory of archi-writing, turns upside down the opposition by showing that speech is a form of writing. Also, when reading Plato, Derrida reveals an interconnection between the words pharmakon (remedy), pharmakeus (sorcerer, magician) and pharmakos (scapegoat) which was never used by Plato but, according to Derrida, plays an important role in the character of Socrates. Socrates as pharmakeus becomes the most famous pharmakos in Athens after he drinks the pharmakon.Keywords: logocentrism, pharmakon, writing, pharmakeus, pharmakos.
20
Naas, Michael. "“World, Solitude, Finitude”: Derrida’s Final Seminar." Research in Phenomenology 44, no. 1 (March 26, 2014): 1–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15691640-12341273.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract In his final seminar, The Beast and the Sovereign, vol. 2 (2002–2003), Jacques Derrida spends the entire year reading just two texts, Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe and Martin Heidegger’s Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics. This essay looks in detail at Derrida’s treatment of this latter and, in particular, at Derrida’s emphasis on the Heideggerian notion of Walten (as sovereign power or originary violence) in this work. The essay begins by considering several of Derrida’s prior engagements with Heidegger, especially in Of Spirit and the “Geschlecht” essays, and their analyses of such themes as Geist or spirit, sexual and species difference, violence, and ontotheology. The essay then develops the relationship between what Derrida considered to be the hyper-sovereignty of Walten and Derrida’s own notions of autoimmunity and différance, before concluding with the question of why Derrida would think it necessary to devote so much of his final seminar to this Heideggerian notion.
21
Lindberg, Susanna. "Derrida’s Quasi-Technique." Research In Phenomenology 46, no. 3 (July 22, 2016): 369–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15691640-12341344.
Full textAbstract:
The article’s aim is to measure the potential of Derrida’s work for a philosophy of technique. It shows why Derrida does not present a positive philosophy of technology but rather describes technique as a quasi-technique, as if a technique. The article inquires into the potential of such a quasi-technique for a contemporary philosophy of technology: it is suggested that it can function as a salutary “deconstruction” of mainstream philosophy of technology (that “knows” the “essence of technology”) because it shows how to think technique in the absence of essence and as the absence of essence. The article begins with a survey of the machines that figure in Derrida’s texts. It then examines three propositions concerning technology in Derrida’s work: Derrida thinks technology as a metaphor of writing and not the other way round. Derrida thinks technique as prosthesis, firstly of memory, then more generally of life. Derrida’s quasi-technique relies on his peculiar conception of the incorporal materiality of technique.
22
Krell, David Farrell. "We, the Unborn: On Derrida’s Geschlecht III." Research in Phenomenology 51, no. 1 (April 8, 2021): 1–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15691640-12341461.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract The article pursues the theme of “the unborn” in the poetry of Georg Trakl and in the commentaries on Trakl’s poetry by Heidegger (in Unterwegs zur Sprache) and Derrida (in Geschlecht III). It continues a decades-long conversation with Trakl, Heidegger, and Derrida developed most recently in Phantoms of the Other: Four Generations of Derrida’s Geschlecht (Albany: SUNY Press, 2015) and in “Derrida, Heidegger, and the Magnetism of the Trakl House,” Philosophy Today, 64:2 (Spring 2020), 1–24.
23
Timár, Eszter. "Derrida's Error and Immunology." Oxford Literary Review 39, no. 1 (July 2017): 65–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/olr.2017.0210.
Full textAbstract:
While Derrida's work is often seen as removed from matter, influential arguments have also been made about deconstruction's capacity to capture some foundational logic of matter or life. I offer an example of the way Derrida's work may be read to suggest the latter, even in a case where Derrida may be wrong: based on Thomas Pradeu's Limits of the Self, I suggest that Derrida's arguably erroneous use of autoimmunity anticipated recent developments in immunology. However, instead of simply concluding that Derrida ‘anticipates’ immunology, I suggest that Pradeu's theory had earlier been prefigured in immunology around the term ‘allergy’ in agreement with the Derridean use of it in ‘Plato's Pharmacy’. Last, I will briefly consider what Derrida calls ‘life in general’, in order to demonstrate a resistance in his work to be simply proven right within what he understands as the organicist discourse of living matter.
24
Barker, Stephen. "Threshold (pro-)positions: Touch, Techné, Technics." Derrida Today 2, no. 1 (May 2009): 44–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/e1754850009000372.
Full textAbstract:
Touching on Nancy and Derrida offers a glimpse not only into the thesis both of Jean-Luc Nancy's critique of touch and of Derrida's Le Toucher, but also into the threshold of a technology of (the) sense to come. This glimpse is an interrogation, and one that is both historic and historical, in the sense that Derrida, in addressing Jean-Luc Nancy's work, has presented us with an encyclopedic history of touch in the philosophic tradition from Aristotle to Nancy, one in which what Derrida calls “transcendental archifacticity” is accorded its proper value, and within which any seeming anthropological privilege, as an inherent aspect of the Phenomenological Reduction is, as Derrida says, ‘overshadowed.’ Such an overshadowing is both strategic, in terms of a historical phenomenological project, and tactical, in Derrida's investigative sense: tactical in terms of implementation, manifestation, manipulation (i.e. through the application of the hand, manus) and in terms of tact, tactility; to which must be tacked on, à la Nancy, con-tact, ‘with touch,’ a ‘with-touch’ in which a béance, a gash or dash, opens out in-between, ‘at the very point’ to use Derrida's repeated specification, of bifurcation and of con-tact, at the junction point of the ‘spacing out’ of a laminated différance con-noting more than it has or had ever done in Derrida's work itself. *
25
Gildea, Niall. "Also Intransitive. Mark Fisher's Hauntology." CounterText 6, no. 3 (December 2020): 401–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/count.2020.0202.
Full textAbstract:
This article offers a reading of the version of Jacques Derrida's concept of ‘hauntology’ that is developed by Mark Fisher in his essay collection, Ghosts Of My Life: Writings on Depression, Hauntology and Lost Futures. The article begins by noting some salient genealogical features of Fisher's critique of Derrida, and argues that Fisher's engagement with hauntology prompts an elaboration of Fisher's thinking about Derrida which corresponds to the elaboration in Derrida's thinking which, for Fisher, hauntology marks. But it also goes on to suggest, in a manner that is intended to pay tribute to Fisher's final work, The Weird and the Eerie, that Fisher's engagement with Derrida has a weird performativity, irreducible (as always in Fisher) to mere commentary or exegesis, and having more to do, like the weird, with ‘ things which do not belong together’. Fisher's adoption of ‘hauntology’ is of particular interest because it develops from an earlier hostility to Derrida's work which was of a piece with the position of the Cybernetic Culture Research Unit (CCRU), of which Fisher was a member during its existence at Warwick in the late 1990s/early 2000s. This late, phantasmatic reconciliation between Fisher and Derrida is at once intellectually fertile and undeniably poignant.
26
Urbonienė, Aušra. "SUPPLÉMENT IR ESATIES METAFIZIKA J. DERRIDA GRAMATOLOGIJOJE." Problemos 78 (January 1, 2010): 174–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.15388/problemos.2010.0.1342.
Full textAbstract:
Straipsnyje analizuojama J. Derrida veikale „Apie gramatologiją“ atlikta J. J. Rousseau tekstuose vartojamos sąvokos „supplément“ dekonstrukcija. Rousseau šią sąvoką vartoja tokių temų kaip gamta/kultūra, kalbėjimas/raštas, heteroerotizmas/autoerotizmas kontekste. Derrida, skaitydamas Rousseau, aptinka tam tikras hierarchijas, kuriose pirmajam nariui suteikta viršenybė, o antrasis įvardijamas kaip „pavojingas supplément“ (priedas ir/ar pakaitalas), keliantis grėsmę natūraliai, autentiškai ir sau pakankamai esačiai. Derrida atskleidžia, jog „supplément“ ne nutolina esatį, kaip manė Rouseau, bet sukuria esaties, kurios niekuomet ir nebuvo, efektą.Pagrindiniai žodžiai: supplément, raštas, esaties metafizika.Supplément and Metaphysics of Presence in J. Derrida’s Of GrammatologyAušra Urbonienė SummaryThe article deals with Derrida’s deconstructive reading of the concept of supplément in the corpus of Rousseau works. Rousseau uses the concept in the context of such themes as nature/culture, speech/writing, heteroerotism/autoerotism, etc. According to Derrida, these binary oppositions are hierarchical, i.e. the first element is given priority over the second one. The denounced element is treated as a ‘dangerous supplement’ (replacement/addition) endangering the natural and original self-presence. The point of Derrida’s reading is to show that it is not the supplement that mediates the presence as Rouseau thought, but it is the chain of supplements that produces the effect of a presence that has never existed.Keywords: supplément, writing, metaphysics of presence.
27
Rapaport, Herman. "Response." Poetics Today 42, no. 1 (March 1, 2021): 103–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/03335372-8752669.
Full textAbstract:
This article contextualizes Derrida’s seminars within the European seminar tradition familiar to French and German academic cultures as a prerequisite to discussing individual essays in a special issue of Poetics Today devoted to Derrida. These contributions engage with both published and unpublished seminars that Derrida delivered chiefly in Europe and North America. Highlights of the various essays are reviewed and at various points some few issues of a critical nature are raised for consideration. The seminars Life Death (1975–76), Hospitality (1995–96) and Death Penalty (1998–2001) are of main concern, though significant mention is made of numerous other seminars that Derrida gave over a forty year span. Discussants have been very careful to consider the specific characteristics of Derrida’s seminars from a textual point of view informed by Derrida’s well-known conceptions of écriture and dissemination. Major themes concern issues of education, modeling, production-reproduction, language, the foreign, philosophical nationalism, and borders.
28
Barcsák, János. "A Poetic Revolution of the Political." Pázmány Papers – Journal of Languages and Cultures 1, no. 1 (June 13, 2024): 128–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.69706/pp.2023.1.1.8.
Full textAbstract:
In this paper I attempt to give a reading of Jacques Derrida’s second extended interpretation of Paul Celan’s “Meridian.” This second interpretation can be found in Derrida’s “seminar,” The Beast and the Sovereign, and differs from the first – which appeared in Shibboleth: For Paul Celan – in that it is placed in the broader context of the seminar: the deconstruction of sovereignty. In this context Celan’s “Meridian” acquires a special status because Derrida can identify in it a “step,” an act of freedom, a way, which can perhaps take us beyond all sovereignty by bringing about what Derrida calls “a poetic revolution of the political.” In my reading of Derrida’s reading of Celan I try to spell out the “structure” of this step as Derrida conceives it. I argue that it is ultimately in the difference between two poetic gestures, two equally necessary but still distinct acts, that the poetic revolution of the political and thus the step beyond all sovereignty becomes perhaps possible.
29
Galetti, Dino. "How close to Hegel is ‘close’? Revisiting Lawlor on Derrida's Early Logic." Derrida Today 7, no. 2 (November 2014): 197–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/drt.2014.0089.
Full textAbstract:
This article aims to restore a way to approach Derrida by revisiting the essentialist ‘logic’ that Leonard Lawlor put forward in 2002. Lawlor argues that the early Derrida developed a ‘logic of totality’ from Hyppolite's reading of Hegel, which formed the basis for a ‘logic of contamination’ and différance; moreover, Lawlor demonstrated such progress. We will situate his implicit premises before following his sequential argument, and thus isolate how Lawlor is aware that Derrida disputes Hyppolite's basic premises and outcomes, so as to suggest the difficulty is methodological. By that we will support Lawlor's discovery that Derrida's earliest work can be approached ‘logically’, so as to help re-orientate both an approach and strands of thought that Derrida helped to inspire.
30
Bennington, Geoffrey. "Handshake." Derrida Today 1, no. 2 (November 2008): 167–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/e1754850008000213.
Full textAbstract:
How might Derrida be said to greet Jean-Luc Nancy in Le Toucher? What kind of handshake does he offer? Derrida explicitly mentions the handshake at the very centre of his book, in the tangent devoted to Merleau-Ponty. A reading of this moment reveals an exemplary case of what happens when Derrida reads apparently ‘fraternal’ texts, and opens up further levels of difference. What then if we consider Nancy's response to Derrida, when the recipient of the handshake shakes back? By examining Nancy's various (mis-)readings of Derrida's famous phrase ‘la différance finie est infinie’ it is possible to trace a subtle but irreducible non-reciprocity in this relationship, represented in the handshake of the ‘salut’ as greeting and valediction, beyond all safety or salvation.
31
Joris, Pierre. "Derrida/Celan Talk (Derrida/Celan)." Rue Descartes 89-90, no. 2 (2016): 172. http://dx.doi.org/10.3917/rdes.089.0172.
Full text
32
Michaud, Ginette. "Reading Derrida Reading Kofman." Paragraph 44, no. 1 (March 2021): 41–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/para.2021.0353.
Full textAbstract:
This article examines the relationship that Jacques Derrida and Sarah Kofman developed throughout their lifetimes, both as close friends and as philosophers who shared many common research interests. In his tribute to Sarah Kofman, published in Les Cahiers du Grif in 1997, Derrida stated that ‘These interests and exercises go far beyond the limits of a short narrative, indeed of a terminable analysis’, thus challenging the reader to delve into these ‘elliptical greetings’. The numerous interactions present in Kofman's and Derrida's respective bodies of work are not without conflicts nor dissymmetry, and their often oblique modes of acknowledgement are far from any ‘balance’ on either side. Revisiting some of the différends among two great thinkers of différance, this article highlights the Derridean logic of gift and debt at work between them. Focusing on the posthumous tribute Derrida pays to his friend (left untitled, which is itself a revealing gesture), one can sense that there is much at stake in that piece that touches on the major question of forgiveness and the affirmation of survie or living on, thus setting a scene of reading where Derrida's debt towards Kofman turns out to be more telling than one may have expected.
33
Raffoul, François. "Sexual Difference and Gathering in Geschlecht III." Philosophy Today 64, no. 2 (2020): 325–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/philtoday2020427333.
Full textAbstract:
Derrida states at the beginning of Geschlecht III that at stake is the question of sexual difference, one that is referred in Heidegger’s 1953 essay on Trakl to a twofoldness that precedes the opposition of sexual duality, a duality which, according to Derrida, neutralizes sexual difference. I follow the development of what Derrida also called the “dream” of “another sexual difference,” one that would not be ruled by the opposition of the two. Derrida’s guiding interpretation in Geschlecht III is that Heidegger privileges “gathering” (Versammlung) and the reference to the “one” in this thinking of difference, and of sexual difference, thereby neutralizing difference. Drawing a contrast between difference as polysemy (gathered) and difference as dissemination (dispersion), I attempt in what follows to discuss Derrida’s interpretation, raising questions concerning some of his readings with respect to the motifs of dispersion, dissemination, polysemy, and gathering.
34
Guenther, Lisa. "Who Follows Whom? Derrida, Animals and Women." Derrida Today 2, no. 2 (November 2009): 151–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/e1754850009000499.
Full textAbstract:
In ‘L'Animal que donc je suis’, Derrida analyzes the paradoxical use of discourses on shame and original sin to justify the human domination of other animals. In the absence of any absolute criterion for distinguishing between humans and other animals, human faultiness becomes a sign of our exclusive capacity for self-consciousness, freedom and awareness of mortality. While Derrida's argument is compelling, he neglects to explore the connection between the human domination of animals and the male domination of women. Throughout ‘L'Animal’, Derrida equivocates between ‘man’ and ‘humanity,’ and between the biblical figures of Ish and Adam. In so doing, he repeats a gesture that he himself has insightfully criticized in other philosophers, such as Levinas. By articulating the distinctions that Derrida elides, I suggest a way of reading Genesis which avoids this difficulty, but also continues Derrida's project.
35
LI, Qingben, and Jinghua GUO. "Grammatological Deconstruction of Linguistics: From Marx to Derrida." Cultura 16, no. 1 (January 1, 2019): 129–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.3726/cul012019.0009.
Full textAbstract:
Derrida considered himself Marx’s successor in Spectres of Marx, as manifested in his grammatological deconstruction of linguistics. Proceeding from linguistics, Derrida questioned the traditional linguistics represented by Saussure, overturned the metaphysics based on linguistic signs, and thereby deconstructed logocentrism. In Derrida’s view, logocentrism is the belief that there is an ultimate reality such as being, essence, truth and ideas, which actually doesn’t exist and needs to be negated. In linguistics, logocentrism, or rather phonocentrism, maintains that speech alone conveys ideas smoothly while writing is a simple supplement. Contrary to this idea, Derrida argued that writing could also convey meanings just as speech according to social convention. This deconstruction of traditional linguistics by Derrida shows his adoption of Marxist theory and methodology as well as the significant linguistic influence of Marxist theory with its contemporary perspective.
36
Banham, Gary. "Joshua Kates, Essential History: Jacques Derrida and the Development of Deconstruction (Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 2005), 352pp, $29.95 (USD), ISBN 10: 0810123274, ISBN-13: 978-0810123274." Derrida Today 1, no. 1 (May 2008): 131–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/e1754850008000122.
Full textAbstract:
This book promises a ‘radical reappraisal’ (Kates 2005, xv) of Derrida, concentrating particularly on the relationship of Derrida to philosophy, one of the most vexed questions in the reception of his work. The aim of the book is to provide the grounds for this reappraisal through a reinterpretation in particular of two of the major works Derrida published in 1967: Speech and Phenomena and Of Grammatology. However the study of the development of Derrida's work is the real achievement of the book as Kates discusses major works dating from the 1954 study of genesis in Husserl's phenomenology through to the essays on Levinas and Foucault in the early 1960's as part of his story of how Derrida arrived at the writing of the two major works from 1967.
37
Senatore, Mauro. "Biologists also do Literature: Derrida, Heidegger, and the Danger of Scientism." Derrida Today 14, no. 2 (November 2021): 207–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/drt.2021.0266.
Full textAbstract:
In his recently published seminar Life Death (1975–76), Derrida engages in a close reading of Heidegger's refutation of the biologistic interpretation of Nietzsche. Derrida explains that, building on his interpretation of Nietzsche as the peak of metaphysics, Heidegger wishes to rescue the latter's metaphysical discourse from its biologizing character. In this article, I argue that Derrida's reading centres on the ontological regionalism undergirding Heidegger's refutation. To develop this argument, I test the following three hypotheses. First, I show that the later exploration offered in Life Death draws on the schematic reading of Heidegger's question of being provided in Of Grammatology (1967). Second, I explain that, for Derrida, through his refutation of Nietzsche's supposed biologism, Heidegger reaffirms ontological regionalism in order to secure the whole interpretative system that interweaves together his reading of Nietzsche and Western metaphysics and his thinking of being. Finally, I highlight Derrida's emphasis on the relentlessness of Heidegger's denunciation of biologism. I demonstrate that, for Derrida, this can be explained as biology, which is a discourse on life and nature that since its beginnings touches on the blind point of regionalism.
38
Fischer, Luke. "Derrida and Husserl on Time." Forum Philosophicum 12, no. 2 (November 1, 2007): 345–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.35765/forphil.2007.1202.26.
Full textAbstract:
In this essay I take issue with Derrida's interpretation of Husserl's phenomenology of internal time-consciousness in Speech and Phenomena. Derrida's critique of Husserl's phenomenology of time also forms the basis for what Derrida regards to be an undermining of phenomenological philosophy itself. After first disagreeing with Derrida's interpretation of Husserl's understanding of time I proceed to object to his “undermining” of phenomenology. I attempt to illustrate that his critique of phenomenology is unconvincing.
39
Pepperell, Nicole. "Handling Value: Notes on Derrida's Inheritance of Marx." Derrida Today 2, no. 2 (November 2009): 222–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/e1754850009000554.
Full textAbstract:
Derrida's Specters of Marx asks whether and how we could inherit Marx today: whether we might find, in a certain spirit of Marx, the critical resources to challenge resurgent liberal ideals, without this challenge assuming a dogmatic or totalitarian form. Derrida's own response to this question involves a curious move: a material transformation of Marx's text, in which Derrida first foreshadows, and then carries out, the excision of a single sentence from the pivotal passage in which Marx christens the commodity fetish. The excision subtly transforms the meaning of Marx's text and, in the process, acts out a vision of inheritance as an active, transformative performance, rather than as a passive transmission of inherited content to its heirs. In this paper, I explore the way in which Derrida foreshadows and then effects this curious elision. I highlight the distinctive understanding of transformative inheritance at the heart of Derrida's text, and also pose the question of why Derrida should effect this particular transformation in the search for a certain deconstructive spirit in Marx's work.
40
Cixous, Hélène. "Shakespeare Ghosting Derrida." Oxford Literary Review 34, no. 1 (July 2012): 1–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/olr.2012.0027.
Full textAbstract:
This ‘fabulous’ essay sketches a hauntological bond of debts between Shakespeare and Derrida as a complex intertextual scene of translation across languages and literatures (but also philosophy and psychoanalysis), times and cultures. Starting from Derrida's essay ‘What is a “Relevant” Translation?’, Cixous explores via numerous voices, cloaks and masks (Celan, Joyce, Genet, Blanchot, Marx, Freud, Poe, Socrates but also Cixous's own father Georges, etc.) the spectral ‘visor effect’ of texts and languages concealing one another, or burrowing secretly underground like moles, in Derrida's Hamlet-like passion for the Bard.
41
Allred, Ammon. "Pedagogy and Politics in Derrida’s Theory and Practice Seminar." Symposium 27, no. 1 (2023): 96–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/symposium20232716.
Full textAbstract:
In what follows, I outline the role that pedagogical concerns play in how Derrida structures his Theory and Practice seminars. Framing my discussion with Foucault’s criticism of Derrida’s pedagogy as overly textual and quasi-despotic, I show how Derrida accepts elements of that criticism in his description of his pedagogy. Moreover, by treating these seminars as model exercises for students rather than as a philosophical text advancing a thesis, we can identify connections with Derrida’s commitment to a more radically democratic institutional politics, insofar as the supposed “limitless sovereignty” of the quasi-despotic pedagogue is a self-conscious fiction, deployed strategically to challenge other forms of sovereignty. In this way, Derrida draws a parallel between his own textual and pedagogical practices and those of Heidegger, an attempt both to open his practice up to genuine interruptions and gaps and to contest the neoliberal “disruptions” of the academy.
42
Krapp, Peter. "On collegiality: Kittler models Derrida." Thesis Eleven 107, no. 1 (November 2011): 21–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0725513611418037.
Full textAbstract:
Kittler was among the first to invite Derrida to lectures in Germany, and to translate Derrida’s texts into German. Yet a cursory tally in his references does not always do justice to what Kittler’s media theory owes to deconstruction. Discourse Networks credits Derrida with a mere ‘rediscovery’ of grammatology, although Wellbery’s foreword labors mightily to identify the deconstructive traits in Kittler’s work. Gramophone, Film, Typewriter reduces The Post Card’s complex networks to an allegation that ‘voice remains the other of typescripts' – as if Kittler had not in fact taken a much more subtle evaluation of hearing oneself speak from Derrida. What happens to the writability and citability of texts if they are sorted into such neat binary distinctions of logical or poetic orientation? What, to Kittler, is the quotability and readability of the body of work titled Derrida?
43
Segal, Alex. "Deconstruction, Literature, and Wittgenstein’s Privileging of Showing." Advances in Language and Literary Studies 8, no. 6 (December 25, 2017): 112. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.8n.6p.112.
Full textAbstract:
Wittgenstein’s distinction between saying and showing involves a privileging of the latter. This privileging, which is both ethical and aesthetic, emerges in Wittgenstein’s attitudes to literature. Involving the metaphysics of presence and an oppositional hierarchy, it seems to be a possible target of Derrida’s deconstruction. Indeed, in Wittgenstein, Derrida sees an effacement of theory, an effacement that Derrida criticises and that can be construed as part and parcel of Wittgenstein’s privileging of showing. For theory belongs to saying rather than to showing. Focusing on commentators of Wittgenstein who affirm the privileging of showing, this essay explores a tension between Wittgenstein and Derrida that pertains to this privileging.
44
DeArmitt, Pleshette. "Cascade of Remainders." Derrida Today 9, no. 2 (November 2016): 97–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/drt.2016.0127.
Full textAbstract:
In a very late essay on remains, one might say a throw away essay, Derrida doggedly tracks the relation of a certain desire to remains, linking it to sacrificial economy and to a hierarchical ontological order. If our concern is a thinking of desire as it pertains to remains, why should we not turn first, or perhaps exclusively, to Derrida's monumental works on the subject of remains, specifically Glas and Cinders, jettisoning the little-known essay we have not yet named? Certainly Derrida has said much in these well-known works about desire and remains, consumption and excretion, fire and ashes. So, why devote all one's attention, as we will do in this paper, to what might be said to be a morsel of an essay, which has remained largely unread and hence falls outside of Derrida commentary? The essay in question is his 2002 ‘Remains – the Master, or the Supplement of Infinity’, a homage to Charles Malamoud, a French ethnologist and scholar of Indian and Oriental religions whose work, especially his 1989 Cooking the World, was influential on Derrida's thinking concerning the ‘rhetorics of cannibalism’ and ‘eating the other’ and featured prominently in his seminars from 1989–1991 on the aforementioned themes. In ‘Remains – the Master’, a dense and rich essay, Derrida analogically links two vastly different cultures – the Brahmanic of India and the Greco-European – in terms of a ‘law of remainders’, which for both traditions, he claims, is an organizing principle of humans, gods, and the whole of the world. In his essay Derrida returns to or, more accurately, remains with a thinking of ‘the French word “reste”, the remnants [restance] of “reste”’, which, as Derrida notes, is ‘difficult to translate in an exhaustive or transparent manner,’ that is, ‘without remainder’ (2002, 41). However, what this paper will follow is the circulation of remainders in the Vedic tradition, as analysed by Derrida and Malamoud. In doing so, we can begin to not only translate the notion of Malamoud's ‘cascade de restes’ from one culture, logic, and idiom to another but understand how for Derrida this ritual downpour of remainders not only institutes a hierarchy of remainders but also produces ipseity.
45
Dastur, Françoise. "Derrida and the Question of Presence." Research in Phenomenology 36, no. 1 (2006): 45–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156916406779165854.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractIt has often been considered that the most important part of Derrida's work consisted in the five books published between 1967 and 1972. This paper intends, by way of a re-reading of Derrida's most powerful text from this period, Speech and Phenomena, to bring to light Derrida's specific manner of uniting the question of the disruption of presence to the question of writing. What is therefore questioned is Derrida's emphasis on death, considered as the very condition of possibility of language and writing. As Derrida rightfully shows, Husserl, in spite of the importance he conferred upon writing in the process of idealization, was not aware of the fact that the relationship to death constitutes the concrete structure of the living present. But on the other hand, by still opposing in a too dualistic manner presence and absence, life and death, Derrida himself was not able to see that the condition of language is not so much the death of the subject as the being toward death and the finitude of Dasein.
46
Idziak-Smoczynska, Urszula. "The theological turn of postmodernity: to be alive again." Approaching Religion 3, no. 1 (July 2, 2013): 36–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.30664/ar.67521.
Full textAbstract:
This article discusses the role of religion in the philosophy of Jacques Derrida. The author considers a specifically Christian, affirmative character of deconstruction that is found through the biblical references of Derrida, inspired by his forgotten master Gérard Granel. This line of argument opposes both the presence of Heideggerian death drive in Derrida’s subject and advances the possibility of a genuinely Christian rebellious subject as an answer to the question; who comes after the subject? Derrida’s thought informs us about the affective and weak concept of subjectivity that might be fruitful for the development of new outlines for the social realm of subjectivity.
47
McQuillan, Martin. "Clarity and Doubt: Derrida among the Palestinians." Paragraph 39, no. 2 (July 2016): 220–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/para.2016.0196.
Full textAbstract:
This essay takes the Genet column of Derrida's Glas as its point of departure for a wider discussion of Derrida's contribution to thinking on the question of Israel–Palestine. What would it mean for Genet to be at war, encircled or outcast? What of the polemos in Genet, in Derrida, in Glas? How are we to show that what always interests Derrida takes place (or the place of Genet) among the Palestinians? What is the space of literature here? How does Genet explode as Western thought takes a bow? Through a reading of Genet's Prisoner of Love and a number of Derrida's writings on Israel–Palestine, this essay unpacks an important configuration of the biographical, the literary and the philosophical in Glas, which still has profound significance for us 40 years after its original publication.
48
Naas, Michael. "Derrida’s Flair (For the Animals to Follow...)." Research in Phenomenology 40, no. 2 (2010): 219–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156916410x509931.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis essay traces the history of Jacques Derrida’s engagement with the question of the animal and the methodology Derrida follows in his 2008 The Animal That Therefore I Am. As Derrida demonstrates, the history of philosophy is marked from its inception by an attempt to draw a single, indivisible line between humans and all other animals by attributing some capacity to humans (e.g., language, culture, mourning, a relationship to death) and denying it to animals. Derrida thus begins by questioning the supposed fact that animals do not have such and such a capacity or attribute but then quickly turns to questioning the principle by which philosophers have claimed that humans do. In all his work on the animal, therefore, Derrida questions the confidence with which humans attribute certain capacities to themselves while denying them to animals, all in the name of a pervasive and yet repressed violence against the animal world.
49
Devi, K. L. Chamundeswari. "THE STUDY OF STRUCTURE AS A CRITICAL THEORY: THE ANALYSES OF JACQUES DERRIDA AND GERARD GENETTE." Journal of English Language and Literature 09, no. 02 (2022): 17–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.54513/joell.2022.9203.
Full textAbstract:
Jacques Derrida and Gerard Genette are the versatile critics of the 20th and 21st centuries. Both the critics deal with the 'Structuralism'. Jacques Derrida, the French philosopher, deals with semiotics that discusses the significance, representation, reference and meaning. His lecture 'Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of Human Sciences' is an advanced theory of Literature. Jacques Derrida's theory is about Post Structuralism. Gerard Genette is a French Literary Theorist and Critic. In his Literary Theory. Structuralism is examined with the underlying invariant structure. The literary conditions may change but never the literary structure. The structure is an assessment of Literature. The structure appeals to all times. The action, theme, plot, the narrative and the different components of Literature are universal. This is how the theories of Jacques Derrida and Gerard Genette appeal to the readers on the whole by culminating at the same point. This article provides the structures of Literature by striking a parallel between Gerard Genette's structuralism and Jacques Derrida's Structure, Sign, and Play.
50
Montalva, Joaquín. "‘Who Announces the Nonrecourse?’: The fort/da in ‘To do Justice to Freud’ and in the Derrida/Foucault debate." Trans/Form/Ação 46, no. 2 (April 2023): 167–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0101-3173.2023.v46n2.p167.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract: This article consists of a commentary on Derrida’s essay “To do Justice to Freud: The History of Madness in the Age of Psychoanalysis”, with the aim of tracing what cannot be re-appropriated by the presuppositions of the Derrida/Foucault debate. By analysing the question “who announces the nonrecourse?”, I will explore the way in which Derrida’s writing is affected by the necessity and impossibility of not repressing unreason. I will defend that Derrida compulsively writes the effects of his own resistance to repress unreason by reproducing the Foucauldian quest for a “beyond of reason”. This repetition compulsion not only keeps re-opening the debate, but more importantly, it triggers the return of unreason as a disarrangement of the principles of identity and linear time which destabilizes any authorial ground for a history of madness in general and for any of its critiques. This article will read the exchanges between Derrida and Foucault by deconstructing the premises of any debate in general.