Cart

Writing and Difference PDF, ePub eBook


Hot Best Seller
Title: Writing and Difference
Author: Jacques Derrida
Publisher: Published February 15th 1980 by University Of Chicago Press (first published 1967)
ISBN: 9780226143293
Status : FREE Rating :
4.6 out of 5

765346.Writing_and_Difference.pdf

In order to read or download eBook, you need to create FREE account.
eBook available in PDF, ePub, MOBI and Kindle versions


reward
How to download?
FREE registration for 1 month TRIAL Account.
DOWNLOAD as many books as you like (Personal use).
CANCEL the membership at ANY TIME if not satisfied.
Join Over 150.000 Happy Readers.


First published in 1967, Writing and Difference, a collection of Jacques Derrida's essays written between 1959 and 1966, has become a landmark of contemporary French thought. In it we find Derrida at work on his systematic deconstruction of Western metaphysics. The book's first half, which includes the celebrated essay on Descartes and Foucault, shows the development of De First published in 1967, Writing and Difference, a collection of Jacques Derrida's essays written between 1959 and 1966, has become a landmark of contemporary French thought. In it we find Derrida at work on his systematic deconstruction of Western metaphysics. The book's first half, which includes the celebrated essay on Descartes and Foucault, shows the development of Derrida's method of deconstruction. In these essays, Derrida demonstrates the traditional nature of some purportedly nontraditional currents of modern thought—one of his main targets being the way in which "structuralism" unwittingly repeats metaphysical concepts in its use of linguistic models. The second half of the book contains some of Derrida's most compelling analyses of why and how metaphysical thinking must exclude writing from its conception of language, finally showing metaphysics to be constituted by this exclusion. These essays on Artaud, Freud, Bataille, Hegel, and Lévi-Strauss have served as introductions to Derrida's notions of writing and différence—the untranslatable formulation of a nonmetaphysical "concept" that does not exclude writing—for almost a generation of students of literature, philosophy, and psychoanalysis. Writing and Difference reveals the unacknowledged program that makes thought itself possible. In analyzing the contradictions inherent in this program, Derrida foes on to develop new ways of thinking, reading, and writing,—new ways based on the most complete and rigorous understanding of the old ways. Scholars and students from all disciplines will find Writing and Difference an excellent introduction to perhaps the most challenging of contemporary French thinkers—challenging because Derrida questions thought as we know it.

30 review for Writing and Difference

  1. 5 out of 5

    Nathan "N.R." Gaddis

    Le tout sans nouveauté qu’un espacement de la lecture. -- Mallarmé, Preface to Un Coup de dés I had in mind, perhaps, to perform a public service, to undertake finally Derrida’s Writing and Difference, to head off the intentions of my goodreads Friends who have been intrigued by this THING. Let me stop right there. Recently some interest has been expressed among my Friends to look into what Derrida is all about, and one should, should one so might. This volume in particular was indicated. I know Le tout sans nouveauté qu’un espacement de la lecture. -- Mallarmé, Preface to Un Coup de dés I had in mind, perhaps, to perform a public service, to undertake finally Derrida’s Writing and Difference, to head off the intentions of my goodreads Friends who have been intrigued by this THING. Let me stop right there. Recently some interest has been expressed among my Friends to look into what Derrida is all about, and one should, should one so might. This volume in particular was indicated. I know a little about Derrida and I know a little about my Friends; it pained me to anticipate them putting themselves through this murk, this brick, this STUFF--whatever--I didn’t want to see them suffer. Enough suffering by book, enough already! These Friends of mine, whose best interest I undertook to protect and defend, are talented readers all. But Derrida? You don’t want to read Derrida. Am I protecting a secret treasure which ought not be dirtied by the enjoyers of Fiction, the sullen readers of Books? No. But what do we do when faced and repeatedly threatened by this spectacle which comes under the proper name of Derrida? Read the writing and the difference, but don’t beat yourself up, and don’t beat up Derrida. That’s all I ask. No debt is owed, no balances need be corrected. Frankly, if you find yourself curious about Derrida, I mean curious like some folks find themselves curious about that which is bandied about, then Derrida is probably not speaking to you. I mean, Derrida is not speak to you. Who is he speak to, then? I don’t know. I was only overhearing. I don’t mean to warn you off Derrida, but warn you into him. What can you expect? The audience presumed is not anything like what is known as a ‘common reader.’ Derrida presumes, not a general familiarity with something vaguely denominated ‘western philosophy,’ but an intimate and thorough familiarity with and understanding of the projects of Hegel, Husserl, and Heidegger, to limit ourselves to only three of the most complex thinkers of recent centuries. When one hears him speak of the epoché one must know what its status is in Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology. When one hears “unhappy consciousness” or “force” one must hear the corresponding sections of Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit. When one hears “destruction of the history of metaphysics,” one must know that Heidegger has read and admired all of the history of metaphysics, that Hegel is its completion. When one hears “Being” one must know whether it is Hegel’s or Heidegger’s. And then there are those other proper names; Freud, Nietzsche, Foucault, Bataille, others rendered below. And the ‘prose,’ that style and manner of Derrida in producing his texts. It is not a matter of arbitrary posing; not a matter of obfuscation of some pre-given content or ‘substance.’ Much more it is the question of the form and the content; the thing said and its saying. To object to Derrida’s texts as they are is already to make certain presumptions about the metaphysical status of such things as substance, essence, meaning, form, etc. The very things which are in question. The very problematic of using the only language available to us to question the very thing which we are employing to question it. Of course there is no privileged meta-language, no God’s point of view to which we could escape and from which we could reflect back upon our practices without having always already been tainted by being-in-the-world, temporal beings as we are, users of language. Reading tip: the preludes to the essays are knots of the threads which will then be woven and unwoven in the course of each piece. One must read what has already been written. _____________ Herewith, to further embarrass myself, a short delineation and direction-giving concerning the eleven essays. I do not deign to state Derrida’s theses; only to indicate a topos of each. For better direction-giving, please do not skip Alan Bass’ “Translator’s Introduction.” “Force and Signification” -- A critique of a certain manner of structuralist literary criticism, pointing out a certain failure of presumption to have escaped metaphysical presuppositions. “Cogito and the History of Madness” -- Through a close reading of a passage from Descartes which Foucault wished to use to demonstrate that social structures excluded mad and insane individuals at the same historical nexus as Descartes wanted to exclude the question of madness from philosophy, Derrida shows that Descartes did precisely the opposite; that madness was the very center of his method of radical doubt. “Edmond Jabès and the Question of the Book” -- A mediation on the work of Jabès which would seem to parallel Heidegger’s own thinking with the the poet Hölderlin. “Violence and Metaphysics: An Essay on the Thought of Emmanuel Levinas” -- Levinas, in addition to the Germans I enumerated above, is of central importance to Derrida’s thinking, and is second only perhaps to Heidegger for difficulty and importance. This essay is the most significant of W&D. I read it last summer, should return to it again, and would be the one I am most interested in disseminating. As I recall, it is a devastating wrap up of the project which would seek to cleanse our language of the last vestigial trace of violence. “‘Genesis and Structure’ and Phenomenology” -- There is no point in reading this essay unless one has a close understanding of Husserl’s project of establishing philosophy as rigorous science, i.e., phenomenology. “La parole soufflée” -- An engagement with the attempts of Artaud. The title is untranslatable. For what little I know of Artaud, this appears to be a fairly clear (but it’s not clear at all) working out of some of Derrida’s questions about purity of speech, speech which is not always already a writing. Difficult; but one suspects that a thorough grasp of this essay will get one many miles down Highway Derrida. “Freud and the Scene of Writing” -- An examination of how the metaphor of writing works in the thought of Freud concerning memory and its aid. Esoterica Freudiana. “The Theater of Cruelty and the Closure of Representation” -- The second essay about Artaud, this time more expository, approaching being concerned with Artaud himself rather than Derrida working through his own concerns. “From Restricted to General Economy: A Hegelianism without Reserve” -- This one is only for those who are interested in the question of the possibility of escaping the Hegelian dialectic. Through a close reading of Bataille’s thinking against dialectic (Derrida insists that Bataille is taking Hegel seriously, that “Hegel was more right than he knew,” etc) we see with what little we are left when we refuse lordship (dialectic) and insist upon sovereignty (which would seem to concern the addition of a “non” or “not” prefix to every predicate, up to and including a kind of non-atheology or not-atheology); total expenditure with no reserve. One sees even more clearly the desolation which is produced by the insistence of escaping Hegel than what we get in Kierkegaard’s attempts. Dense. “Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences” -- Just to state the obvious. This might be the place to begin. Myself, it felt like I must have read this previously, and in the course of this reading, it’s common sense now. A critique of structuralism by way of an analysis of Levi-Strauss, especially concerning the nature-culture presupposition in his work, a presupposition which is complicated by the prohibition of incest. Anyone who still likes to talk about the nature-nurture “debate” hasn’t read Derrida. “Ellipsis” -- ...

  2. 5 out of 5

    Benjamin

    What is it to read Derrida? Is it not to read reading itself? But how does one read reading if one cannot read? Derrida presents his own "readings" of reading, but then what do I read? I bought this book- which itself is a negation of buying, an erasure of "that which is not bought"- in order to get to grips with Der-rida who I'd always-already had trouble understanding. I'd read two introductory texts that I thought (or "thought I", the presupposition of the presence of I in thought, and though What is it to read Derrida? Is it not to read reading itself? But how does one read reading if one cannot read? Derrida presents his own "readings" of reading, but then what do I read? I bought this book- which itself is a negation of buying, an erasure of "that which is not bought"- in order to get to grips with Der-rida who I'd always-already had trouble understanding. I'd read two introductory texts that I thought (or "thought I", the presupposition of the presence of I in thought, and thought in I, an erasure of the thought-i (thought-eye, as in seeing or being seen, as an eye never sees itself)) would give me a nice solid grounding (to be ground-ed, an inversion of flight, of distance). I really understood them and had a good time dealing with the heavier concepts within(out) them but felt that I had to try reading the man himself. You can't rely on secondary stuff alone, so I bought this book to help me (or did me help? As Malarme said, or did not say, as saying is a not saying of the said-(un)"Said". Like Edward Said). I didn't understand a fuck-ing word of it. [edit] Actually, in retrospect the last but one chapter on sign and play where he actually seems to be attempting to be clear was excellent and the best introduction to his work I could imagine being offered. But it's hardly redemption.

  3. 4 out of 5

    Amber Todoroff

    Shopenhaur says if you can't understand what a person is saying, chances are they're not saying anything at all. I did not waste my time with some of these essays. some readers are taken by derrida's extremely large vocabulary and overly indulgent syntax, but these are only barriers to understanding behind which he hides his intellectual bankruptcy. Here is my favorite quote from differance- "one can expose only that which at a certain moment can become present, manifest, that which can be shown Shopenhaur says if you can't understand what a person is saying, chances are they're not saying anything at all. I did not waste my time with some of these essays. some readers are taken by derrida's extremely large vocabulary and overly indulgent syntax, but these are only barriers to understanding behind which he hides his intellectual bankruptcy. Here is my favorite quote from differance- "one can expose only that which at a certain moment can become present, manifest, that which can be shown, presented as something present, a being-present in its truth, in the truth of a present or the presence of the present" Right. Ok Derrida. Makes perfect sense. It is the job of an academic to simplify concepts, not shroud them in obscurity so only a tiny percentage of humans can decipher, or pretend to decipher, a given sentence. The only thing that impresses me about Derrida is how he managed to write essays upon essays saying absolutely nothing. I remember a whole paragraph of differance where he is basically saying "the a and e difference is only detected in writing, not speech." It really takes a genius to find 20 lines of text to explain that concept. When I first began reading him I thought he at least had something to say that I was too feeble minded to understand, but Derrida has been criticized by many academics who are much smarter than I. So if you read this and could detect no meaning whatsoever, don't worry, neither can Noam Chomsky. I just look forward to the day when Derrida falls out of fashion and hipster English majors stop pretending they're cool by drooling all over him. Derrida isn't cool. And neither are you.

  4. 5 out of 5

    Katie

    Yikes. This is probably the most difficult book I've ever read. I feel a little weird reviewing it, honestly, because I'm not sure I really comprehended it at all. But Derrida has let me know that poems are nothing without the risk of being meaningless and that language is crazy signifying play all the time anyway, so I will give it a go. Once I write words down they're apparently alienated from me forever, so make of this what you will! Derrida is all about deconstructions. There are ideas all o Yikes. This is probably the most difficult book I've ever read. I feel a little weird reviewing it, honestly, because I'm not sure I really comprehended it at all. But Derrida has let me know that poems are nothing without the risk of being meaningless and that language is crazy signifying play all the time anyway, so I will give it a go. Once I write words down they're apparently alienated from me forever, so make of this what you will! Derrida is all about deconstructions. There are ideas all over the place in this volume of twelve essays, but nearly all of them take the form of a discourse between Derrida and his chosen text: Foucault, Edmond Jabes, Emmanuel Levinas, Husserl, Bataille, Freud, Antonin Artaud, and Levi-Strauss are among the subjects. One of the main pillars that Derrida returns to is the idea that while the overriding concept of metaphysics that has ruled Western thought since Plato has been challenged (by Freud, Heidegger, Nietzsche), they haven't gone nearly far enough, and many of their challenges are predicated upon assumptions from the system they're attacking. They're attacking the structure from the inside, so their attacks have to make assumptions of the attacked system. Another central point is the problem of language: there are too many things signifying and its questionable whether there's any central object, beyond language, that gets signified. For Derrida, language is play and its impossible for it to indicate any single immutable thing (you can see it in his own text - even if it's often inscrutable it's almost always light and playful, with the prose gliding along). It's a new way of thinking of things that questions the foundations of what's come before, what Derrida at one point calls the end of the book (finite and meaningful) and the beginning of the text). I thought it was interesting that his essays in here about literature and theater differed quite a bit in tone and structure (!) from those that were more traditionally philosophical. I felt like Derrida, to a certain extent at least, saw Edmond Jabes and Antonin Artaud as kindred spirits, having started (incompletely) the process of decentralizing and deconstructing their field's traditions. And I think I'll stop. This book is making me absurdly self-conscious about my writing. Edited to add: I liked that this philosophy seemed to have a sense of optimism to it. I always kinda figured that post-structuralism = rampant relativism and nihilism, but I didn't get that impression at all. Just freedom from closed structures and the embrace of flexibility.

  5. 4 out of 5

    Mr.

    With this collection of subversive essays, Jacques Derrida exploded onto the scene of post-modern philosophy in Europe and the US though he didn't have a doctorate or teaching position at the time. In it, he demonstrates for the first time his conception of `deconstruction,' an apparently inexplicable concept which enables the analysis of `inter-textuality' and `binary-oppositions,' to be revealed. `Writing and Difference,' is of course a difficult text, and analytic philosophers don't even both With this collection of subversive essays, Jacques Derrida exploded onto the scene of post-modern philosophy in Europe and the US though he didn't have a doctorate or teaching position at the time. In it, he demonstrates for the first time his conception of `deconstruction,' an apparently inexplicable concept which enables the analysis of `inter-textuality' and `binary-oppositions,' to be revealed. `Writing and Difference,' is of course a difficult text, and analytic philosophers don't even bother with it, though that may be their greatest mistake, for Derrida attempts (and not without success) to demonstrate that the notion of purely objective, enlightened truth seeking is an impossibility. That the essence of thought always operates within a given schema, a given facticity. "Differance," the famous phrase of Derrida, indicates that writing is necessarily primary to speech, we can see the `differ a nce' in text, not phonetically. The first essay in this collection `Force and Signification,' attempts to apply a philosophical rigour to the analysis of literature, wherein Derrida explains Flaubert, Mallarme, and a number of others. `Cogito and the History of Madness' is an extremely famous essay about Foucault which triggered a feud between the two intellectuals that would never fully be mended. In it, Derrida argues that Foucault's book does not address the Cartesian notion of the Cogito adequately in the History of Madness, and that Foucault ultimately relies on the same principles of the enlightenment while attempting to expose the dynamics of its power simultaneously. The essay (along with violence and Metaphysics) is a perfect example of Derrida's capacity to deconstruct. However, he moves very quickly and without and assistance to the reader. If you have not read the author Derrida is deconstructing he will simply leave you in the dust. The latter essays in the book deal primarily with Artaud, Freud, Bataille, Hegel, Heidegger, Levi-Strauss, and metaphysics and language generally. The essay on Levi-Strauss (Structure, Sign, and Play) is a particularly damning lecture delivered at Johns Hopkins University and left irreparable damages to the structuralist movement at the time. `Writing and Difference' is an important collection of critical texts for 20th century philosophy, and it should remain an important work for many ages to come.

  6. 4 out of 5

    Sarah Shahid

    من أصعب الكتب التي قرأتها مؤخراً، لأنه كتاب موغل في التعقيد أولاً ولأنه يحمل فكرة جديدة يصعب فهمها بسهولة. دريدا كفيلسوف يبتعد عن البساطة في كتابته لسببين برأيي، الأول وهو عمق اطلاعه وعدم قدرته على الموازنة بين العمق والبساطة في آن، الثاني وهو إيمانه بتأويلات النص وتفكيكيته وبالتالي حرص على استخدام العديد من الكلمات والتعابير التي عقدت النص لسيطر بذلك على النص ويقيه من انقلابه على كاتبه كما يدعي ذلك بشأن النصوص بشكل عام. زادت صعوبة الكتاب أيضاً أثناء الترجمة التي كانت بلا شك أمراً مرهقاً بالنسبة ل من أصعب الكتب التي قرأتها مؤخراً، لأنه كتاب موغل في التعقيد أولاً ولأنه يحمل فكرة جديدة يصعب فهمها بسهولة. دريدا كفيلسوف يبتعد عن البساطة في كتابته لسببين برأيي، الأول وهو عمق اطلاعه وعدم قدرته على الموازنة بين العمق والبساطة في آن، الثاني وهو إيمانه بتأويلات النص وتفكيكيته وبالتالي حرص على استخدام العديد من الكلمات والتعابير التي عقدت النص لسيطر بذلك على النص ويقيه من انقلابه على كاتبه كما يدعي ذلك بشأن النصوص بشكل عام. زادت صعوبة الكتاب أيضاً أثناء الترجمة التي كانت بلا شك أمراً مرهقاً بالنسبة للمترجم، حيث سيحاول جاهداً نقل الكتاب كما هو وبكل تأويلاته الممكنة وضمان وصوله بعبارات سلسلة للقارئ. يعتبر فكر دريدا نقطة تحول في تاريخ الفلسفة بلا شك، وعلى قارئه أن يتحمل تبعات ذلك وخاصة أنه يقرأ لباحث وناقد في مجال الأدب واللغة.

  7. 5 out of 5

    Ahmed Almawali

    كتابٌ صعبٌ لدريدا مررتُ على فصولِه الأخيرةِ مرورًا سريعا إلى حد أنني اطلعتُ على الكتابِ ولم أقرأْه بمعنى القراءةِ الدقيقةِ، رجعتُ فيه إلى القواميسِ الفلسفيةِ وهي قد تكونُ ميزةً لكتابٍ يضطرُّ فيه قارئُه إلى البحثِ عن ما غمُض من مفاهيمِه الكتابُ خليطٌ من مقابلاتٍ ورسائلَ وتوضيحاتٍ ومقالات وتعليقاتٍ على كتب وهذه ميزةٌ تنظمُّ لسابقتِها فالقارئُ يتنقل من حديقةٍ فكريةٍ لأخرى مما يخففُ شيئا من مللِه إذا ما كان في أسلوبٍ واحد دريدا يكرهُ الكلامَ ويرى أنه قُدِّم على الكتابةِ في الفكرِ الغربي وهو يدقُّ هذ كتابٌ صعبٌ لدريدا مررتُ على فصولِه الأخيرةِ مرورًا سريعا إلى حد أنني اطلعتُ على الكتابِ ولم أقرأْه بمعنى القراءةِ الدقيقةِ، رجعتُ فيه إلى القواميسِ الفلسفيةِ وهي قد تكونُ ميزةً لكتابٍ يضطرُّ فيه قارئُه إلى البحثِ عن ما غمُض من مفاهيمِه الكتابُ خليطٌ من مقابلاتٍ ورسائلَ وتوضيحاتٍ ومقالات وتعليقاتٍ على كتب وهذه ميزةٌ تنظمُّ لسابقتِها فالقارئُ يتنقل من حديقةٍ فكريةٍ لأخرى مما يخففُ شيئا من مللِه إذا ما كان في أسلوبٍ واحد دريدا يكرهُ الكلامَ ويرى أنه قُدِّم على الكتابةِ في الفكرِ الغربي وهو يدقُّ هذا الأمرَ ويطرقُه كثيرا وفي مراجعتِه لآرتو يعمد إلى خلق نمطٍ مسرحي متفرد لا يكونُ عمادَه الكلامُ المعدُّ سلفا ولا قوامه متفرجونَ سلبيون، وفي مقابلةٍ هاتفيةٍ لكتابةِ عمودٍ صحفي يقدمُ الفلسفةَ فيها بأسلوبٍ مبسط يرى أن الفيلسوفَ من الأفضلِ له الصمتُ من أن يخطوَ هذه الخطوةَ، وحينما يبسطُ لمترجمِه الياباني مفهومَ التفكيك وكيف نفهمُه يسقطُ في معمعةِ التعقيدِ ويذهبُ بقارئِه لمتاهاتٍ لا يعرفُ كيف يخرجُ منها أسلوبُ دريدا في كتابتِه أسلوبٌ مرحٌ وروحُ الدعابةِ وهو في كتابتِه الفلسفية حاضرةٌ

  8. 4 out of 5

    Ananya

    It's frustrating to know that there's something out there in the English language that's completely out of my grasp .WHAT THE FUCK

  9. 4 out of 5

    Francesco D'Isa

    Ogni tanto lo riprendo in mano, non ci capisco nulla e penso sempre di più che non sia colpa mia.

  10. 5 out of 5

    Eric

    I had a class that Derrida guest lectured at right before he passed away. He was still thinking. That should have been his epitaph.

  11. 5 out of 5

    Matt

    The abstract art of modern philosophy. Self-indulgent (others say playful), unnecessarily digressive and round-about----the actual conceptual depth of what is conveyed, while it was surely groundbreaking, can be stated in terms much simpler than Derrida's. Derrida is a cultural hero to many and the gravitational mass of the cult that surrounds him has bent the light in the eyes of those who adulate a man that can do no wrong. I once heard Derrida give a lecture in Auckland on the concept of mercy The abstract art of modern philosophy. Self-indulgent (others say playful), unnecessarily digressive and round-about----the actual conceptual depth of what is conveyed, while it was surely groundbreaking, can be stated in terms much simpler than Derrida's. Derrida is a cultural hero to many and the gravitational mass of the cult that surrounds him has bent the light in the eyes of those who adulate a man that can do no wrong. I once heard Derrida give a lecture in Auckland on the concept of mercy as related to "merci", and it was 3 hours long. 1/3 of the audience left by 30 minutes once they saw where he was headed, 1/3 sat in rapture, and 1/3 laughed and played cards (or maybe that was my friend and I...). Derrida blah blah blah.

  12. 4 out of 5

    Oscar Despard

    I thoroughly enjoyed this stimulating work. It may not be a light read, and it will certainly require a more careful examination before I can give any considered opinion on much of its content. However, I was consistently fascinated by what I read, and I would recommend it.

  13. 4 out of 5

    John Lucy

    Every time I read Derrida I remember that he is hard to read. I don't want to sound dumb, but the big words and esoteric concepts that he uses, constantly, weigh down the text for the reader. Each paragraph is a struggle. Some people can read through these types of things more easily than others, of course, but the number of those people who will read Derrida for fun are quite few. At the end of the day Derrida is a little out of reach for the ordinary person, which is a shame. Before reading thi Every time I read Derrida I remember that he is hard to read. I don't want to sound dumb, but the big words and esoteric concepts that he uses, constantly, weigh down the text for the reader. Each paragraph is a struggle. Some people can read through these types of things more easily than others, of course, but the number of those people who will read Derrida for fun are quite few. At the end of the day Derrida is a little out of reach for the ordinary person, which is a shame. Before reading this collection of essays I had only read some of Derrida's longer works. I wish I had started with Writing and Difference. Though I still think Of Grammatology is the easiest to read conceptually, the essays here allow the reader to connect with Derrida on a level not possible in the longer works. For whatever reason Derrida doesn't carry over his conversational rhetoric into the longer works. His conversational rhetoric may still be hard to follow, but it's a nice style regardless. On the whole a collection of essays also allows the reader to gain a deeper appreciation for Derrida's thought by viewing a larger breadth of his work. Rather than focusing on one idea for a long time, a collection will bring you through a number of ideas relatively quickly. The middle essay in this collection is particularly interesting and alone makes picking up this book worth it. Unfortunately my main criticism of Derrida remains prominently present here, though. I cannot understand why he, as a philosopher, must cite others' works so friggin often. It's not that I begrudge Derrida using the works of others as a launching pad for his own writing; it's just that he makes it damnably hard to understand what he has to add to the conversation. You absolutely leave knowing what Derrida thinks, but other than the coining of differance and the intricacies of trace, you need to be a very close reader or already know the other authors referenced well to figure out what Derrida adds or modifies.

  14. 5 out of 5

    Tasniem Sami

    وَلَوْ أَنَّمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ مِن شَجَرَةٍ أَقْلَامٌ وَالْبَحْرُ يَمُدُّهُ مِن بَعْدِهِ سَبْعَةُ أَبْحُرٍ مَّا نَفِدَتْ كَلِمَاتُ اللَّهِ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ (27) لذلك نحس تحت لغة الكاتب الأصيل هذه الحركة التب تحاول سحب الكلام الملفوظ ك" الزفير" .لذلك كتاب مثل فرجينيا ولف وفوكنر وت.س اليوت كانو علي وعي بان "الكتاب" لا يوجد وأن ثمة للأبد كتب ينكسر فيها معني عالم غير مُفكر فيه من قبل ذات واعية قادرة على المعني ان ينتظر ان يقال او ان -يكتب ،حتي يسكن نفسه ويصبح مايكونه باختلافه عن نفسه وَلَوْ أَنَّمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ مِن شَجَرَةٍ أَقْلَامٌ وَالْبَحْرُ يَمُدُّهُ مِن بَعْدِهِ سَبْعَةُ أَبْحُرٍ مَّا نَفِدَتْ كَلِمَاتُ اللَّهِ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ (27) لذلك نحس تحت لغة الكاتب الأصيل هذه الحركة التب تحاول سحب الكلام الملفوظ ك" الزفير" .لذلك كتاب مثل فرجينيا ولف وفوكنر وت.س اليوت كانو علي وعي بان "الكتاب" لا يوجد وأن ثمة للأبد كتب ينكسر فيها معني عالم غير مُفكر فيه من قبل ذات واعية قادرة على المعني ان ينتظر ان يقال او ان -يكتب ،حتي يسكن نفسه ويصبح مايكونه باختلافه عن نفسه فالوجود دائما سابق للكتابة يولد المكتوب كلغة حينما يكون ميتا كعلامة ياخذ التفكُك الغدير الهايدجري كأصل ومنبع على الرغم من الماخذ التي يأخذها دريدا على هايدجر نفسه وان كانت الميتافيزيقيا الغربية فد قامت على اساس التمركز الصواتي واللوجوسي وحصر الوجود في الحضور حسب المذهب الروسوي ، ربما كمان في اللغة العربية معني او دلالة اكبر للفظة الوجود يقول الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم "الحمد لله الذي اوجدني بعد فقر " ويقول الشاعر "الحمد لله الغني الواجد " وفي القران "أَسْكِنُوهُنَّ مِنْ حَيْثُ سَكَنْتُمْ مِنْ وُجْدِكُمْ " ربما كان في الأصل الاشتقاقي لل "وجود" في اللغة العربية معني تاجود والندي والكرم !

  15. 4 out of 5

    Sara

    Lenta agonía hacia la fascinación. Le daría un 4,5, un 5 no por lo de lenta y agonía.

  16. 4 out of 5

    Draco3seven Crawdady

    The structural nature of Western thought. He says: “the concept of structure and even the word “structure” it self are as old as the episteme that is to say as old as western science and western philosophy and their roots thrust deep into the soil of ordinary language, into whose deepest recesses the episteme plunges in order to gather them up and to make them part of itself in a metaphorical displacement. Nevertheless, up to event which I wish to mark out and define, structure-or rather the stru The structural nature of Western thought. He says: “the concept of structure and even the word “structure” it self are as old as the episteme that is to say as old as western science and western philosophy and their roots thrust deep into the soil of ordinary language, into whose deepest recesses the episteme plunges in order to gather them up and to make them part of itself in a metaphorical displacement. Nevertheless, up to event which I wish to mark out and define, structure-or rather the structurality of structure-although it has always been at work, has always been neutralized and this by a process of giving it a center or of refining it to appoint of presence, a fixed origin.” (Derrida, Writing & Difference, Ch 10, pg 278, pa II) Derrida points out that the very analysis or the structural addressing of the structure, also involves the very process that he is addressing, which is not oddly the cause for paradox. At times Derrida seems ambiguous so it’s very hard to understand what exactly he is trying to say or the undertone of his purpose. P>T….Derrida’s idea though is subjected to its own criticism, so he seems to have a deeper truth value that’s not directly ascertained, which requires much more meditation (on what I perceive to be a viable paradox.) More or less the idea that I get is that the structure of Western philosophy is not entirely built upon knowledge… but rather symbolic thought in the language of logic, the symbolic is prone to error and the logic is just a language that is ultimately unaccounted for… when the symbols are traced back to their foundation the symbols are not able to make the jump to the non symbolic center… “Thus it has always been thought that the center, which is by definition unique, constituted that very thing within a structure which while governing the structure, escapes structurality. This is why classical thought concerning structure could say that the center is, paradoxically, within the structure and outside it.” (Derrida, W&D, pg 279, pa II) Now at this point we are talking epistemology and arguably western metaphysics…

  17. 5 out of 5

    Mark

    Thought-diarrhea. That's what writing is. But that's not the point. The point is that like pretty much all books and especially philosophy books, this is something that will mean more to you depending on when you read it. I was actually given the book like 12 years ago and had almost no interest in it after reading two essays. I read a few more a few years ago. Then I read through the rest of the book in about two weeks. If you're interested, Derrida's whole approach is basically to take a piece o Thought-diarrhea. That's what writing is. But that's not the point. The point is that like pretty much all books and especially philosophy books, this is something that will mean more to you depending on when you read it. I was actually given the book like 12 years ago and had almost no interest in it after reading two essays. I read a few more a few years ago. Then I read through the rest of the book in about two weeks. If you're interested, Derrida's whole approach is basically to take a piece of writing and say "Well now, this whole thing is just bullshit." And when he says that everything everyone is talking about is bullshit he means it as a compliment. Then he spirals that off into metaphysical reflection. Edit: Derrida's theory of "face" appears to be rooted in Kant's idea that what is beautiful in art is moral. Characters in a book could act immorally, but the whole work would be moral. This would be showing something beyond what is seen in the work. This abstraction would probably be similar to Derrida's idea about face, although for Derrida I do not believe that a work is default moral.

  18. 5 out of 5

    Vignette-Noelle

    Okay...just finished it last night. First of all. if you are not a fan- do not read this book. haha. Secondly, if you're still not really sure what linguistic deconstruction is all about, the first half of this book would be a good introduction to Derrida's philosophy. Thirdly, this book is awesome! While it is not as in depth as some of his other works, it is still a refreshing read if you're interested in deconstruction.

  19. 5 out of 5

    Alex Obrigewitsch

    An absolute must for any Derrida reader (which is to infer an absolute must absolutely). Also a good entry into Derrida, I guess. For is there any real entry into a deferring motion that has no real beginning or end as it slips within and without of the metaphysical closure? On a personal level, I enjoyed the "Violence and Metaphysics" essay the most.

  20. 5 out of 5

    Iryna

    Started it today and decided I don't want to read it. Read a dozen pages and didn't understand a single thought. Maybe I'm just not fit for the job :)

  21. 5 out of 5

    sologdin

    most well known for 'structure, sign, & play,' but contains otherwise some great little gems on hegel, foucault, levinas, husserl, inter alia.

  22. 4 out of 5

    Nazoryan Kapuvski

    Bazı gazetelerin "felsefeye getirdiği yapısökümcülük yaklaşımıyla çığırlar açmış kendisi de pek tarif edemese de, edebiyattan sinemaya, mimariye bir çok alanda kullanılmıştır" ifadesi* her ne kadar kötü ise de durumu özetler, "Hiçbir metin, özünden bağımsız değildir" yaklaşımı özellikle edebiyat ve sinema eleştirmenlerinin biraz daha yaratıcı metin okumalarına yol açmışsa da, günümüzde metin okumanın kendisinin toplumsal bir analiz alanına kayması artık bayma noktasına gelmiştir. Örneğin, dizi y Bazı gazetelerin "felsefeye getirdiği yapısökümcülük yaklaşımıyla çığırlar açmış kendisi de pek tarif edemese de, edebiyattan sinemaya, mimariye bir çok alanda kullanılmıştır" ifadesi* her ne kadar kötü ise de durumu özetler, "Hiçbir metin, özünden bağımsız değildir" yaklaşımı özellikle edebiyat ve sinema eleştirmenlerinin biraz daha yaratıcı metin okumalarına yol açmışsa da, günümüzde metin okumanın kendisinin toplumsal bir analiz alanına kayması artık bayma noktasına gelmiştir. Örneğin, dizi yorumları buna bir örnektir, bu dizilerdeki metinler üzerinden yapısökümcülük aracılığı ile koca koca tahliller çıkar ki**, senaristin bile "ulan sevgiliyle kavga ettik böyle bişi yazdık aceleden ama meğer ne yazmışım teyyyyy" demesine yol açmaktadır. Tabi bu yaklaşımın disiplinlerarası etkileşime olabildiğine yol vermesi de, sosyal bilimler alanında birçok ilişkiyi yeniden tanımlamaya olanak vermiş, hatta zenginleştirmiştir. Kendisinin ne dediğini anlamaktan çok, popülerleştirmeyi seven batı tüketiciliği çok kullanmıştır Derrida malzemesini. Hoş Derrida'da epey yol açmıştır bunun için. Örneğin Derrrida ve annesi tam bir muppet show mizahı içerisinde ele alınmıştır. Ama tutup "anneniz, eskicağ filozoflarından biri olsaydı hangisi olurdu ?" sorusuna üşenmeden yanıt vermek de Derrida'nın kabahatidir. *2004/ ölümü üzerine gazete haberlerine ithafen düşülmüş not. ** gençler hatırlamaz, 2000'li yıllarda entelektüellerin pazar keyfi Radikal 2 eki, her sayısında bir dizi üzerine sosyolojik analiz yayınlamazsa ölcek hastalığı içindeydi.

  23. 4 out of 5

    Alexander

    G'damn, what a collection. Derrida pitches and elaborates his philosophy of Writing (or, dfférance) with and against his gamut of (now) dead, white, European men (Husserl, Freud, Bataille, Levi-Strauss, Levinas, Arataud, Jabes). Not that he ever pretended to do anything else than work with the tradition he inherited. Still, it's an incredibly demanding work, not necessarily because of it's style (I thoroughly enjoy the way Derrida writes), but because of how much assumed knowledge each essay ta G'damn, what a collection. Derrida pitches and elaborates his philosophy of Writing (or, dfférance) with and against his gamut of (now) dead, white, European men (Husserl, Freud, Bataille, Levi-Strauss, Levinas, Arataud, Jabes). Not that he ever pretended to do anything else than work with the tradition he inherited. Still, it's an incredibly demanding work, not necessarily because of it's style (I thoroughly enjoy the way Derrida writes), but because of how much assumed knowledge each essay takes for granted on the part of the reader. This is undoubtedly a work for the initiated, which is why so many who aren't seem to find it so perplexing. With a working knowledge of the points of reference however, Writing and Difference is a truly exhilarating work of philosophy (Derrida might prefer "philosophy", scare quotes and all - but luckily, one of the lessons of W&D is that authorial intention isn't all that it's cracked up to be...). No arche, no telos, only Writing.

  24. 5 out of 5

    ralowe

    hmm do i like this more than *of grammatology*? i like the shorter sentences. something here is provoking me to re-evaluation my understanding of derrida as counter-hegemonic. i mean, as his classic intervention can become classic, of course; but more directly as the aporia difference produces is the precondition of the institutions he interrogates. i'm guessing he realized that. i mean the problem is hegelian: trying to resist one only conforms. the durability of g.w.f. hegel is not to be fucke hmm do i like this more than *of grammatology*? i like the shorter sentences. something here is provoking me to re-evaluation my understanding of derrida as counter-hegemonic. i mean, as his classic intervention can become classic, of course; but more directly as the aporia difference produces is the precondition of the institutions he interrogates. i'm guessing he realized that. i mean the problem is hegelian: trying to resist one only conforms. the durability of g.w.f. hegel is not to be fucked with. you think you're beyond metaphysics? think again. i wonder if this kind of coercive hegelianism is what makes spivak so unpopular or if it's just because she's a woman of color. fucking secular humanism, man. there's a jumble of authors i now want to get into thanks to derrida: more levinas, some blanchot and definitely artaud, and ugh heidegger... even levy-strauss. i want to see what they're doing through derrida's eyes. i'm sick.

  25. 5 out of 5

    univocal

    Interesting to compare the opening essay with "Sign, Structure and Play," as both are critiques of structuralism using Nietzsche as base. The difference being: the earlier essay is still using the Nietzsche of Deleuze, while the latter is wholly Derrida. So you get a metaphysical and extra-textual force which undergrids the possibility of structure or you get the textual play of signifiers. And after the opening essay, Derrida abandons any mention of force. It's no wonder the pieces on Bataille Interesting to compare the opening essay with "Sign, Structure and Play," as both are critiques of structuralism using Nietzsche as base. The difference being: the earlier essay is still using the Nietzsche of Deleuze, while the latter is wholly Derrida. So you get a metaphysical and extra-textual force which undergrids the possibility of structure or you get the textual play of signifiers. And after the opening essay, Derrida abandons any mention of force. It's no wonder the pieces on Bataille and Artaud are so bloodless as compared to their place in Anti-Oedipus.

  26. 4 out of 5

    Ruhat alp

    Postmodernistelerin piri.Ona göre Tarih bilimi edebiyata yakın,bu nedenle bilimsel kimliği sorgulanmalı.Herşey metindir ve metindeki dil gerçekliği belirler diyor kendileri.Haklılık payı var ama kanımca tarih bir bilimdir,evet metindeki dil ve tarihçinin ideolojik duruşu gerçekliği belirler fakat bu tarihin bilim olmadığı anlamına gelmez.Sadece nesnellik sorunumuz var.Misal;Bir sırp'ın Osmanlı'ya bakışı ile bir Boşnak'ın bakışı çok farklı.

  27. 4 out of 5

    Kate Savage

    I was feeling pretty smart because I enjoy Derrida's social and political commentary. And then I dipped into his theory on language. I was perpetually lost. So I sat in the lost-ness and dug out little serviceable fragments, like: "it is necessary still to inhabit the metaphor in ruins, to dress oneself in tradition’s shred and the devil’s patches" Lovely, but shred and patches are all I'm left with.

  28. 5 out of 5

    Anthony

    re-checked this out after giving up on it the first time-- love the chapter on jabes, but the chapter on foucault leaves a funky taste in my mouth-- and there is still a lot in here i'm going to need to come back to later (for example, i can't even begin to read derrida's reading of bataille's reading of hegel when i haven't yet read any hegel...)

  29. 4 out of 5

    Jason

    Writing and Difference - yeah, baby, yeah! Be prepared to get your analytical magnifying glass out. Probably worth a weekend of head scratching. Derrida is a good name to drop at the proverbial cocktail party :)

  30. 5 out of 5

    Pam

    Finally, I can finish this book. The book that contain its chapter from another philosopher and Derrida has commented, as usual he re-read and did some his work to deconstruct each the philosopher propositions. I will write further review on the paper later.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In order to read or download eBook, you need to create FREE account.
eBook available in PDF, ePub, MOBI and Kindle versions



Loading...