Deconstruction is the core idea of Jacques Derrida’s philosophy. And Derrida’s philosophical theory on Deconstruction is also the main part in this realm. The word “deconstruction” is always tied with the name Derrida.
The background of Derrida’s philosophy on deconstruction is that some people think the structure of the philosophy is perfect and has no space to develop. Some scholars consider that the philosophy reached its limitation and was dying. ‘人们谈的最多的是哲学的局限，有时甚至是哲学的“终结”和“死亡”’（2）Derrida, Jacques Écriture et la différence. Chinese 書寫與差異 = L'écriture et la difference / 雅克.德里達著 ; 張寧譯 北京市 : 生活.讀書.新知三聯書店, 2001
However, Derrida doesn’t agree with this view of point.
He presents an idea of Logocentrism, which is “the mark of ‘metaphysics of presence’” and “the very foundation of Western thought”. (183) First reading material’s quotation“‘Logocentrism’ is the term Derrida uses to cover that form of rationalism that presupposes a ‘presence’ behind language and text—a “presence” such as an idea, an intention, a truth, a meaning or a reference for which language acts as a subservient and convenient vehicle of expression.” (182) First reading material’s quotation欧洲中心主义
That is a criticism of the establish structure of the European academia.
Derrida thinks that Logocentrism is unreasonable. As a result, he raises deconstruction to against the established philosophy.
As he says in his paper, “Nevertheless, up to the event which I wish to mark our an define, structure—or rather the structurelity of structure—although it has always been at work, has always been neutralized or reduced, and this by a process of giving it a center of referring it to a point of presence, a fixed origin, the function of this center was not only to orien...
... middle of paper ...
...laire’s work is the failure of Baudelaire the man, Van Gogh’s his madness, Tchaikovsky’s his vice.” (186) 意象由作者决定First reading material’s quotation
“We know now that text is not a line of words releasing a single ‘theological’ meaning (the ‘message’ of the Author-God) but a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash. The text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centres of culture.” (188) 文本的多重解读First reading material’s quotation
With the development of the globalization, transnationalism emerges. This new conception is a consequence of the interaction in the aspects of the economy, politic, culture and population between countries. The interaction is based on the immigration. The flows of the population build connections between different cultures. They break the boundaries of the nation-states.
Allusions to philosophers and other authors pepper “Create Dangerously,” reflecting how the people use the words of those that came before them to make the best of their own reality. The most highlighted philosopher within the paper is Albert Camus, by whom the title “Create Dangerously” was inspired. Not only does Danticat quote and speak of Camus within the essay, but tells of how the people of Haiti would put on his play quietly, quietly in the basements of their homes in secret, finding invigoration in the philosopher’s absurdist and poignant words. " 'Execution relieves and liberates. It is a universal tonic, just in precept as in practice. A man dies because he is guilty. A man is guilty because he is one of Caligula’s subjects. Ergo all men are guilty and shall die. It is only a matter of time and patience' " quotes Danticat in reference to “quietly, quietly.”. By picking this quote, Danticat draws parallels to the death sentences given to the people of Haiti by the dictatorship, including Numa and Drouin, perpetuating the consistency of Danticat’s message. Camus was part of a dialogue that was strikingly similar to that of the people battling the Haitian dictatorship. He himself opposed the Nazi regime by editing an underground newspaper in France (Kellman 2011). Danticat’s affinity for Camus’ work is made more palpable seeing the similarities in what they have faced through their lifetime. Inciting small forms of rebellion is a lifeline for those faced with domination, more specifically an autocracy. The overall theme of the story is the importance of literature, especially in times of oppression and pain, and how it can be used to aid the human
... the echoes of intellectuals as Epicurus, Gramsci, Sartre and Picasso, though if we look at each of us more closely our actions do have a weight and consequences in the course of history. It is for this reason that we, as citizens and “not-organic” intellectuals, must try to find our meaning.
Deconstruction or poststructuralist is a type of literary criticism that took its roots in the 1960’s. Jacques Derrida gave birth to the theory when he set out to demonstrate that all language is associated with mental images that we produce due to previous experiences. This system of literary scrutiny interprets meaning as effects from variances between words rather than their indication to the things they represent. This philosophical theory strives to reveal subconscious inconsistencies in a composition by examining deeply beneath its apparent meaning. Derrida’s theory teaches that texts are unstable and queries about the beliefs of words to embody reality.
In "The Intentional Structure of the Romantic Image," one encounters a piece of the twentieth-century discussion of the philosophical considerations of language. One can say that Paul de Man really takes the view of Romanticism akin to that of Martin Heidegger's view of poetry in general. Heidegger states that poetry must be a kind of "speaking being" or the creation of something "new" through language.(Note 1) Language itself stands upon itself in poetry according to Heidegger. De Man picks up the broad discussion of what language is with his discussion of the Romantic image. The main thesis of this essay lies in the difference between the everyday consciousness that one has of the concrete world and the consciousness which one achieves through the Romantic image. De Man says that these two functions of the consciousness differ and that the objects one finds in concrete nature are essentially different from those found in Romantic imagery.
ABSTRACT: In his writings during the 60s and 70s, Derrida situates his doctrine of différance in the context of a radical critique of the Western philosophical tradition. This critique rests on a scathing criticism of the tradition as logocentric/phallogocentric. Often speaking in a postured, Übermenschean manner, Derrida claimed that his 'new' aporetic philosophy of différance would help bring about the clôture of the Western legacy of logocentrism and phallogocentrism. Although in recent writings he appears to have settled into a more pietistic attitude towards the traditionally Judeo-Christian sense of the sacred and a stronger declamatory acknowledgment of his solidarity with the critical project of the Greek thinkers, many of his readers are still left with a sour taste in their mouths due to the denunciatory and self-ingratiating tone of his earlier writings. In this paper, I address these concerns, arguing that the earlier phallogocentric paradigm underlying Derrida's critique of classical Greek philosophical paideia can be troped as a postmodern, Franco-Euro form of 'Occidentalism'-a 'metanarrative' very similar in intent to the Orientalism critiqued by Said. In Derrida’s earlier writings, it is indeed very difficult to untangle this Occidental metanarrative from the aporetic metaphysics of différance.
“There are no facts, only interpretations”, said famous French philologist Friedrich Nietzsche on the topic of deconstruction. It is this quote that we are opened into the world of deconstruction, a world where “language doesn’t reflect or convey our world but constitutes a world of its own”. Deconstructionists believe that language is the barrier that forces thoughts to lose their purpose. The moment you share an idea from the inner workings of your mind, whether it be written or spoken, is the moment the idea is lost in translation. In order to understand deconstruction, one mu...
...sthetics and defends the liberty of creation; he defends the subjective thing in the work of art, the conscious process of creation.
Thus, deconstruction takes apart such oppositions by showing how the devalued concept thrives and lives inside the valued positive one. The outside inhabits the inside. In doing ...
"Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy." Beauvoir, Simone de []. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2014. .
...p from the world they live in, a world of separation and indicate themselves with their own realities. Art is handed over into society’s hands, as in one movement it is suggested - to fixate what is real, live like you create and create like you live; in other – abandon media’s proposed ideas and take the leadership of life in our own hands.
Derrida, Jacques. "Signature, Event, Context." Margins of Philosophy. N.p.: U of Chicago, 1982. 307-30. Print.
In his book Freud and the Philosophers, the hermeneuticist Paul Ricoeur coined the phrase “the school of suspicion” to describe the method shared by Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud. Their common intention, he claims, was the decision “to look upon the whole of consciousness primarily as ‘false’ consciousness… [taking] up again, each in a different manner, the problem of Cartesian doubt, to carry it to the very heart of the Cartesian stronghold,” (Ricoeur, 33) that is, applying doubt’s caustic and destructive epistemological impulse to the internal world. Their achievement lies in the introduction of a profoundly new process of interpretation. Contrary to “any hermeneutics understood as the recollection of meaning,” (Ricoeur, 35) that is, any idea of interpretation as a ‘proper listening,’ the “masters of suspicion” saw the act of exegesis as one of deciphering, demystification. A message must be more than simply heard; reception is not equivalent to comprehension. Signification, by this logic, is a coded affair, and without the cipher it will be received but not understood. Ricoeur makes a point to draw a sharp line between suspicion and skepticism here; there is no question that symbols have a message to convey. Suspicion is “a tearing off of masks, an interpretation that reduces disguises.” (Ricoeur, 30) Where the skeptic allows the suspicious impulse to run unchecked, suspicion works to “clear the horizon…for a new reign of Truth.” The radical skeptic’s childish destructiveness is untempered by a creative, inventive act: “the invention of an art of interpreting” (Ricoeur, 33).
The second chapter brings out a collection of annotated quotations from Althusser on art criticism and literature while the third chapter exemplifies some literary work to analyze from Althusserian critical approach. Montag in his writing seems to have found problems with Althusser’s views on the meaning of function of art. Montag interprets Althusser’s art in these words, “this art is not a passive representational medium. To the contrary, great art…carries out a displacement of the ideology, it presents to us and allows it not simply to be seen as ideology but to be felt or experienced as such”- an achievement, Montag emphasises, that may erase the distinction between art and philosophy, which both come to name a similar event of insight” (35).
Globalization is an overwhelming trend. It is no doubt that there are many positives rise out of globalization, but equally some serious negatives brought from this trend, such as gradual disappearance of ethnic identity (Buckley, 1998). This essay is going to address some positive effects of globalization generally, and then it will focus on impacts of this trend on developing countries.
Literary criticism is used as a guideline to help analyze, deconstruct, interpret, or even evaluate literary works. Each type of criticism offers its own methods that help the reader to delve deeper into the text, revealing all of its innermost features. New Criticism portrays how a work is unified, Reader-Response Criticism establishes how the reader reacts to a work, Deconstructive Criticism demonstrates how a work falls apart, Historical Criticism illustrates how the history of the author and the author’s time period influence a text, and last of all, Psychological Criticism expresses how unconscious motivations drive the author in the creation of their work as well as how the reader’s motivations influence their own interpretation of the text (Lynn 139, 191). This creates a deep level of understanding of literature that simply cannot be gained through surface level reading. If not one criticism is beneficial to the reader, then taking all criticisms or a mixture of specific criticisms into consideration might be the best way to approach literary