What do you think?
Rate this book
Ulysse gramophone. Deux mots pour Joyce
Una funambolica decostruzione di J. Derrida tra la lingua francese e l'inglese dell'Ulisse di Joyce. Dalla vibrazione traduttiva emergono i valori performativi del dire oui (yes) e la risonanza dello oui (l'udito); la figura di Elia e la circoncisione; e soprattutto il riso sagace di Ulisse, il suo oui-rire. Un'esperienza letteraria inimitabile e una sfida agli specialisti di Joyce.
- GenresPhilosophyTheory
128 pages, Paperback
First published February 11, 1987
1 person is currently reading
49 people want to read
About the author
Jacques Derrida
663 books1,814 followersJacques Derrida was a French philosopher best known for developing deconstruction, a method of critical analysis that questioned the stability of meaning in language, texts, and Western metaphysical thought. Born in Algeria, he studied at the École Normale Supérieure in Paris, where he was influenced by philosophers such as Heidegger, Husserl, and Levinas. His groundbreaking works, including Of Grammatology (1967), Writing and Difference (1967), and Speech and Phenomena (1967), positioned him at the center of intellectual debates on language, meaning, and interpretation.
Derrida argued that Western philosophy was structured around binary oppositions—such as speech over writing, presence over absence, or reason over emotion—that falsely privileged one term over the other. He introduced the concept of différance, which suggests that meaning is constantly deferred and never fully present, destabilizing the idea of fixed truth. His work engaged with a wide range of disciplines, including literature, psychoanalysis, political theory, and law, challenging conventional ways of thinking and interpretation.
Throughout his career, Derrida continued to explore ethical and political questions, particularly in works such as Specters of Marx (1993) and The Politics of Friendship (1994), which addressed democracy, justice, and responsibility. He held academic positions at institutions such as the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales and the University of California, Irvine, and remained an influential figure in both European and American intellectual circles. Despite criticism for his complex writing style and abstract concepts, Derrida’s ideas have left a lasting impact on contemporary philosophy, literary theory, and cultural criticism, reshaping the way meaning and language are understood in the modern world.
Derrida argued that Western philosophy was structured around binary oppositions—such as speech over writing, presence over absence, or reason over emotion—that falsely privileged one term over the other. He introduced the concept of différance, which suggests that meaning is constantly deferred and never fully present, destabilizing the idea of fixed truth. His work engaged with a wide range of disciplines, including literature, psychoanalysis, political theory, and law, challenging conventional ways of thinking and interpretation.
Throughout his career, Derrida continued to explore ethical and political questions, particularly in works such as Specters of Marx (1993) and The Politics of Friendship (1994), which addressed democracy, justice, and responsibility. He held academic positions at institutions such as the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales and the University of California, Irvine, and remained an influential figure in both European and American intellectual circles. Despite criticism for his complex writing style and abstract concepts, Derrida’s ideas have left a lasting impact on contemporary philosophy, literary theory, and cultural criticism, reshaping the way meaning and language are understood in the modern world.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
April 16, 2021
Dekonstrukcija, kažu, nije destrukcija.
Destrukcija je uništenje, dekonstrukcija je prilika za nove konstrukcije. Ali šta ako su konstrukcije samo jezičke „konstrukcije” čije DA između sveta i sebe jedva čeka da se uruši u samostvorenom ponoru? Odnosno – šta ako izlaza iz autoreferišućeg i samozaljubljenog govora nema? Jer filozofija, umesto da bude objašnjenje sveta, ona postaje objašnjenje sebe. Ali i to je pripadajuće začaranom krugu – nešto što upućuje na sebe upućuje da upućuje na sebe i zbog toga je svaka misaona strategija osuđena na provizornost, što otvara širom vrata za zanesene intelektualne mešetare koji razglobljavaju svet, ali i razglobljavaju razglobljavanje i razglobljavanje razglobljavanja. Nije čudo što se Derida pod stare dane nadao Nobelovoj nagradi, jer ono što je on pisao može, u određenom spletu buduće istorije, da bude doživljeno više kao književnost nego kao filozofija, budući da književnost za razliku od filozofije nema ukroćeni logos. Polazišta i ishodi ne moraju da budu ni logični ni koherentni ni jasni. Ali veliko pitanje na koje nemam odgovora jeste da li književnost može da bude samodovoljan sistem? Deluje da ne može, a voleo bih da može, a to, opet, zavisi od toga da koji diskurs podredimo kom.
Ovo je knjiga o da-govoru. O onom DA koje upućuje na samo na sebe i time na sve oko sebe. I onom DA koje u sebi ima fosil pred-govornog stanja. DA je i lanac večnog ponavljanja koji traži svoj eho (pa pogledajte koliko puta u svakodnevici na da odgovaramo sa da, da). Život jednog da-govora, Derida je pratio u „Uliksu”, i to ne samo kroz monolog Moli Blum, već kroz svugdašnju rasutost da-ova. A kad kaže DA čovek nikad nije sam – to je i čin pristanka i onomatopeja i gramofonisana reč koja potvrđuje razliku. Čak i NE može biti DA predstavljeno drukčije.
A ako nešto treba da se ponese iz čitanja knjige, to je briljantno razmišljanje o prirodi prevođenja: „ono što ostaje neprevodljivo jeste u suštini jedina stvar za prevođenje” (10). I ovo mi ječi istinom. Šta god istina bila.
Inače, povodom prevođenja, zanimljivo je kako u pogovoru ili napomenama nije naznačeno kako se Deridino OUI (kao DA i kao ČUJ) preobražava u DA koje može da bude i rečca i zavisni veznik i spoj glasova presudan u mnogim imenicama ili glagolima (DA+H, DA+R; DA+TI). Pa i samo DA može da bude glagol – dâ. Sam prevod, dakle, u svom šumu stvara jedan neprevodljivi para-jezik koji je izuzetno podsticajan za dalja razmišljanja.
Prevod Aleksandre Mančić, kao uvek, blistav! Pogovor Novice Milića sasvim na mestu.
Sve u svemu – da!
Da?
Da.
Da...
D-a.
(Dada?)
Destrukcija je uništenje, dekonstrukcija je prilika za nove konstrukcije. Ali šta ako su konstrukcije samo jezičke „konstrukcije” čije DA između sveta i sebe jedva čeka da se uruši u samostvorenom ponoru? Odnosno – šta ako izlaza iz autoreferišućeg i samozaljubljenog govora nema? Jer filozofija, umesto da bude objašnjenje sveta, ona postaje objašnjenje sebe. Ali i to je pripadajuće začaranom krugu – nešto što upućuje na sebe upućuje da upućuje na sebe i zbog toga je svaka misaona strategija osuđena na provizornost, što otvara širom vrata za zanesene intelektualne mešetare koji razglobljavaju svet, ali i razglobljavaju razglobljavanje i razglobljavanje razglobljavanja. Nije čudo što se Derida pod stare dane nadao Nobelovoj nagradi, jer ono što je on pisao može, u određenom spletu buduće istorije, da bude doživljeno više kao književnost nego kao filozofija, budući da književnost za razliku od filozofije nema ukroćeni logos. Polazišta i ishodi ne moraju da budu ni logični ni koherentni ni jasni. Ali veliko pitanje na koje nemam odgovora jeste da li književnost može da bude samodovoljan sistem? Deluje da ne može, a voleo bih da može, a to, opet, zavisi od toga da koji diskurs podredimo kom.
Ovo je knjiga o da-govoru. O onom DA koje upućuje na samo na sebe i time na sve oko sebe. I onom DA koje u sebi ima fosil pred-govornog stanja. DA je i lanac večnog ponavljanja koji traži svoj eho (pa pogledajte koliko puta u svakodnevici na da odgovaramo sa da, da). Život jednog da-govora, Derida je pratio u „Uliksu”, i to ne samo kroz monolog Moli Blum, već kroz svugdašnju rasutost da-ova. A kad kaže DA čovek nikad nije sam – to je i čin pristanka i onomatopeja i gramofonisana reč koja potvrđuje razliku. Čak i NE može biti DA predstavljeno drukčije.
A ako nešto treba da se ponese iz čitanja knjige, to je briljantno razmišljanje o prirodi prevođenja: „ono što ostaje neprevodljivo jeste u suštini jedina stvar za prevođenje” (10). I ovo mi ječi istinom. Šta god istina bila.
Inače, povodom prevođenja, zanimljivo je kako u pogovoru ili napomenama nije naznačeno kako se Deridino OUI (kao DA i kao ČUJ) preobražava u DA koje može da bude i rečca i zavisni veznik i spoj glasova presudan u mnogim imenicama ili glagolima (DA+H, DA+R; DA+TI). Pa i samo DA može da bude glagol – dâ. Sam prevod, dakle, u svom šumu stvara jedan neprevodljivi para-jezik koji je izuzetno podsticajan za dalja razmišljanja.
Prevod Aleksandre Mančić, kao uvek, blistav! Pogovor Novice Milića sasvim na mestu.
Sve u svemu – da!
Da?
Da.
Da...
D-a.
(Dada?)
July 5, 2015
You know better than I the disquiet regarding familial legitimation; it is this which makes Ulysses, as well as Finnegans Wake, vibrate.
The edition I enjoyed only contained the first essay and not the Two Words in Joyce. That said, it was sustained delight. The essay is based on a lecture that Derrida delivered to a Joyce Symposium in Frankfort in 1984. Almost immediately Derrida notes his trepidation at being involved, in addressing, a group of Joyce scholars.
When you call on incompetents, like me, or on allegedly external competences, knowing full well that these do not exist, is it not both to humiliate them, and because you expect from these guests not only news, good news come at last to deliver you from the hypermnesic interiority n which you go round in circles like hallucinations in a nightmare, but also paradoxically, a legitimacy?
What follows is a series of anecdotes and subsequent explorations of the word Yes in Ulysses. I have had my own affirmations while reading such. I successfully maintained a month long boycott of pizza in June. As it was now July I went yesterday afternoon to purchase a carry-out monster from a local artisan shop. I went up to the counter and placed my order and turned to sit and read ata windowside table. I was started with a greeting from the darkened corner of the restaurant. It is in a strip mall, so how could there be this Dickensian shadow? I saw a man, slightly younger than myself wearing sunglasses seated with a bucket of empty beer bottles in front of him. The man was obviously eager to talk. He noted that the Fourth was likely ruined by the rain. I thought, well, I didn't have to work today and I'm reading, well - was reading Derrida at a time when I would be heading home, no doubt knackered. So, NO, it wasn't ruined, not for me. I spent my evening in a beery haze, viewing a few films with my wife and tumbling into oblivion. I awoke and immediately steeled myself to finishing this masterful aside on the laughter which permeates Ulysses. I am often a lucky man
The edition I enjoyed only contained the first essay and not the Two Words in Joyce. That said, it was sustained delight. The essay is based on a lecture that Derrida delivered to a Joyce Symposium in Frankfort in 1984. Almost immediately Derrida notes his trepidation at being involved, in addressing, a group of Joyce scholars.
When you call on incompetents, like me, or on allegedly external competences, knowing full well that these do not exist, is it not both to humiliate them, and because you expect from these guests not only news, good news come at last to deliver you from the hypermnesic interiority n which you go round in circles like hallucinations in a nightmare, but also paradoxically, a legitimacy?
What follows is a series of anecdotes and subsequent explorations of the word Yes in Ulysses. I have had my own affirmations while reading such. I successfully maintained a month long boycott of pizza in June. As it was now July I went yesterday afternoon to purchase a carry-out monster from a local artisan shop. I went up to the counter and placed my order and turned to sit and read ata windowside table. I was started with a greeting from the darkened corner of the restaurant. It is in a strip mall, so how could there be this Dickensian shadow? I saw a man, slightly younger than myself wearing sunglasses seated with a bucket of empty beer bottles in front of him. The man was obviously eager to talk. He noted that the Fourth was likely ruined by the rain. I thought, well, I didn't have to work today and I'm reading, well - was reading Derrida at a time when I would be heading home, no doubt knackered. So, NO, it wasn't ruined, not for me. I spent my evening in a beery haze, viewing a few films with my wife and tumbling into oblivion. I awoke and immediately steeled myself to finishing this masterful aside on the laughter which permeates Ulysses. I am often a lucky man
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews