Jacques Derrida's revolutionary theories about deconstruction, phenomenology, psychoanalysis, and structuralism, first voiced in the 1960s, forever changed the face of European and American criticism. The ideas in De la grammatologie sparked lively debates in intellectual circles that included students of literature, philosophy, and the humanities, inspiring these students...more
Searle willfully misreads Derrida, or at the very least, doesn't take the time to understand his theory properly. The supposed limitation of deconstruction, the idea "that deconstruction deconstructs itself," is a "limitation" that De ...more
Yes Derrida tends to be a bit verbose and redundant. However once you get past the syntax you will find a philosophy that is deep and inherent in our postmodern society. Sometimes I say to myself while reading this, "why can you just use plain clarification like Ferdinand De Saussure?!" Derrida tends to explain the explanations with more confusion.
I will paraphrase the context here in brevity to help clarify. Foot notes, cliff-notes, other books and lectures served me well with the grappling ...more
In my own (possibly simplistic) interpretation, deconstruction works--impossibly, of course--at ground zero. It is an attempt to flatten preconceptions. Derrida explains in Of Grammatology, how Rousseau's writing subverts the nature/cult ...more
Many have cursed this text (and I'm sure many others before and after) because Derrida evokes a prose that brings many to their wits end. Jacques Lacan with similar complaints about his texts not making ...more
phonology/phonematics/phonetics/glossematics). And even if one wi ...more
But otherwise, never before has so little of such small impact been said with so many words, expended from the text like the spore cloud of a dying mushroom.
'Postmodernists parade their relativism as a superior kind of humility — the modest acceptance that we cannot claim to have the truth. In fact, the postmodern denial of truth is the worst kind of arrogance. In denying that th ...more
The pagination of my book is different, so, to clarify, I'm on only on p 14 of the primary text, which begins on page 6 after the Exergue in the Chakravorty Spivak version. Note: Spivak's preface is 79 dense pages!
Here are some of my thoughts thus far:
On the second page of the primary text I find myself both tempted to dismiss Derrida's argument on the basis of his expansion of t ...more
This book was an utter waste of my time. That's not necessarily a reflection on Derrida. It may be that I am an idiot. Either way, I got nothing of value from it, so there's not much more that I can say about it.
My guess is it's Derrida, though. I would suggest you stay away from this book unless 1) you're required to re ...more
As for this book... If you are a Deconstructionist then it's pretty much your bible. Enjoy. It's not for me.
b) Maybe I really should read it this time. I love this shit.
c) If you've not read this, don't say "deconstruction".
d) If you've not read Husserl, don't say "deconstruction".
e) You like it simple? Derrida does nothing more than continue the Heideggarian project of Destruktion.
f) If you've not read Hegel, you don't know Derrida. Like all those Lit=Crit folks from Yale you like to talk about all the time.
g) This has nothing to do with your Empirical Sciences. Your Empi ...more
My problem with it lies mainly in the misconceptions and misinterpretations surrounding this book, about 90% of the time you see the word "deconstruction" it is used incorrectly
The only other problem is simply it is a pet peeve of mine when philosophers use other's ideas and claim them as their own without citation. Derrida is for the most part good with this, but forgets that many of ...more
Still, I'd give it 3.5 stars if I could, just for shaking me up a little.