Peter Benson tells us what language is and isn’t according to Jacques Derrida.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/100/De ... n_Language
Derrida On Language
-
Sal Scilicet
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2014 7:12 am
Re: Derrida On Language
I’m sorry, the first sentence already makes my teeth curl. “Early in the Twentieth Century, philosophy diverged into two camps: analytic and Continental philosophy. Since then they have pulled up their drawbridges, ceased communicating, and, like groups separated by mountains or oceans, the languages they speak have become mutually incomprehensible (a condition which does not deny the possibility of bilingualism).”
This rather neatly illustrates, I think, the inherent problem with all language right there. The inescapable ambiguity in the words we use. By disingenuously evoking different, therefore discrete, ‘brands’ of philosophy, whether “analytic”, “Continental” or whatever, you create the illusion that ‘philosophies’ are somehow capable of acting as independent moral agents.
However, as ‘philosophies’ do not, because they cannot, do anything (“like groups separated by mountains or oceans”), they certainly cannot “cease communicating”. Similarly, neither do presumably neatly disentangled ‘religions’ act as independent moral agents. Or ditto ‘ideologies’. Nor do so-called ‘self-contained’ theories and hypotheses. None of these ‘things’ lives in a vacuum, untouched by all “that is not this”. It’s these magic words we use (more precisely, those who use them) that create these irresistible illusions.
But to suggest that “mutual incomprehensibility does not deny the possibility of bilingualism” cannot pass unchallenged. Really? What is one to understand under “bilingualism”? The ability to say the same thing in two different languages? Or, even more preposterous, the ability to understand the same idea in two different languages?
That, too, is a popular, and therefore persuasive, illusion. Saying, “es tut mir Leid” is certainly not the same thing as saying, “I’m sorry”. Even the same text in the same language is never the same the second time around. Language-in-use is far more mysterious and the plethora of possible meanings far more elusive than here implied.
Even to say that one has “read Derrida” (in French, or Hebrew, or Sign language), is not the same as saying that one has captured the essence of Derrida. One reads a given text, translates, interprets, contemplates, rereads, reconsiders some more … comes back next year, and starts over. Then, one day … there is no definitive “Derrida”.
This rather neatly illustrates, I think, the inherent problem with all language right there. The inescapable ambiguity in the words we use. By disingenuously evoking different, therefore discrete, ‘brands’ of philosophy, whether “analytic”, “Continental” or whatever, you create the illusion that ‘philosophies’ are somehow capable of acting as independent moral agents.
However, as ‘philosophies’ do not, because they cannot, do anything (“like groups separated by mountains or oceans”), they certainly cannot “cease communicating”. Similarly, neither do presumably neatly disentangled ‘religions’ act as independent moral agents. Or ditto ‘ideologies’. Nor do so-called ‘self-contained’ theories and hypotheses. None of these ‘things’ lives in a vacuum, untouched by all “that is not this”. It’s these magic words we use (more precisely, those who use them) that create these irresistible illusions.
But to suggest that “mutual incomprehensibility does not deny the possibility of bilingualism” cannot pass unchallenged. Really? What is one to understand under “bilingualism”? The ability to say the same thing in two different languages? Or, even more preposterous, the ability to understand the same idea in two different languages?
That, too, is a popular, and therefore persuasive, illusion. Saying, “es tut mir Leid” is certainly not the same thing as saying, “I’m sorry”. Even the same text in the same language is never the same the second time around. Language-in-use is far more mysterious and the plethora of possible meanings far more elusive than here implied.
Even to say that one has “read Derrida” (in French, or Hebrew, or Sign language), is not the same as saying that one has captured the essence of Derrida. One reads a given text, translates, interprets, contemplates, rereads, reconsiders some more … comes back next year, and starts over. Then, one day … there is no definitive “Derrida”.
Re: Derrida On Language
The same analysis can work all the way down through the lexicon until you finally stop with the fundamental particles of physics, if there are any. Right? Physical objects also do not live in a vacuum and the words signifying them are notoriously ambiguous. The analytic philosophers I've read struggle with this issue - I can't speak for the others, as I don't speak 'continental.'However, as ‘philosophies’ do not, because they cannot, do anything (“like groups separated by mountains or oceans”), they certainly cannot “cease communicating”. Similarly, neither do presumably neatly disentangled ‘religions’ act as independent moral agents. Or ditto ‘ideologies’. Nor do so-called ‘self-contained’ theories and hypotheses. None of these ‘things’ lives in a vacuum, untouched by all “that is not this”. It’s these magic words we use (more precisely, those who use them) that create these irresistible illusions.
-
marjoram_blues
- Posts: 1629
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm
Re: Derrida On Language
I enjoyed reading this article...this time round...
I think I read it, or scanned it, before - because I remember being somewhat put off by the introduction.
However, of course, that is necessary to give the background to Derrida, someone I now find myself interested in.
The final paragraph:
What is the source of this 'power'? Is it even a 'power' unless it is used as such.
Benson suggests that if we want to learn more, then the 'attentive reading of his [Derrida's ] books' is the best way forward. Easier said than done.
Where would be a good place to start...?
I think I read it, or scanned it, before - because I remember being somewhat put off by the introduction.
However, of course, that is necessary to give the background to Derrida, someone I now find myself interested in.
The final paragraph:
The power of absence and nothingness - as combined with the function, or content, of the vehicle of the word or voice. So, this touches on something I read earlier today - possibly Pluto's thread 'papers pervert people' - where language is used/misused/abused to manipulate and distort what might be considered 'reality', according to a dogmatic daily reading ( of a newspaper/ religious tract ).Jean-Paul Sartre said that human beings introduce nothingness into the world, which otherwise would be “a plenitude of being.” Nor was he the first to make such an observation. In Chapter XI of the Dao De Ching (Fourth Century BCE) it is written:
“Thirty spokes share one hub. Adopt the nothing therein to the purpose in hand and you will have the use of the cart. Knead clay in order to make a vessel. Adopt the nothing therein to the purpose in hand and you will have the use of the vessel.”
This power of absence and nothingness for human purposes is, according to Derrida, multiplied in all sorts of ways by language. But did the source of such a power exist before humans evolved, or did we, as Sartre suggests, bring it into the world? Derrida is ambivalent about this and I remain doubtful whether his philosophy can resolve such issues in any satisfactory way. My aim in this article has instead been to set out those characteristics of language which, in Derrida’s view, are of acute philosophical significance, and to correct some common misunderstandings of his views. Attentive reading of his books (whose difficulty has often been exaggerated) is the best way for anyone to learn more.
© Peter Benson 2014
Peter Benson studied analytic philosophy at Cambridge University, and Continental philosophy in reading groups and seminars in London.
What is the source of this 'power'? Is it even a 'power' unless it is used as such.
Benson suggests that if we want to learn more, then the 'attentive reading of his [Derrida's ] books' is the best way forward. Easier said than done.
Where would be a good place to start...?
Re: Derrida On Language
People should stop writing these articles. They are all full of shit.
-
marjoram_blues
- Posts: 1629
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm
Re: Derrida On Language
Well, that is your opinion given without offering any reasons for your thinking so. As such, I could just as easily say 'people should stop writing such posts because they are full of nothing'.Melchior wrote:People should stop writing these articles. They are all full of shit.
However, I don't believe that your reply is an empty one; you must have something to say that is worthwhile and are simply dying to spread your word about 'Derrida on Language'.
Rather than deal with 'people' and 'these articles', it might be more beneficial/enlightening to focus on specifics i.e. this article and Benson.
Benson aim was:
1. Why would you think that he should not have written this article?to set out those characteristics of language which, in Derrida’s view, are of acute philosophical significance, and to correct some common misunderstandings of his views.
2. Why do you think it is 'full of shit' ?