Philosophy Now Forum

Raymond Tallis is illocutionary about the young Wittgenstein’s perlocutions.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/80/Okey_Doke

In the 1980s I came across post-structuralism, post-modernism, literary theory and the works of characters such as Jacques Derrida, and disillusionment was replaced with rage. These people wanted to tell us that ‘there is nothing outside of the text’ – that the linguistic representation of an extra-linguistic reality was an illusion. “Tell that to a junior doctor responding to the message ‘Cardiac arrest, Ward 6’” I thought. Their reasons combined bad philosophy and bad linguistics, and their appeal in some cases to the later Wittgenstein and the later Austin to prop up their claims would have disgusted all of Wittgenstein and all of Austin.

© Prof. Raymond Tallis 2009

So, not a Derrida fan, then.
Is it true that 'these people wanted to tell us that 'there is nothing outside of the text' ?
Where does Derrida say this, and what did he mean by it?

I'd be grateful if someone could help me understand what Derrida - or Tallis- means by 'the linguistic representation of an extra-linguistic reality is an illusion'.
Where can I find the original, within its context?
Does anyone else agree that 'their reasons combined bad philosophy and bad linguistics' ?
If so, can you point to where this occurs. Thanks.

Raymond Tallis is a low-rent philosopher who writes unimaginatively about medical matters. He's a descriptive positivist, and has little to say that has much nuance or insight. His general approach to post-modernism and structural linguistic is an attack reminiscent of a snail trying to eat a bramble stem. Not very appealing or effective.
You cannot attack what you do not understand.
What really annoys me about him is that he wears a Terry Pratchett style red fedora, which is he seems to think gives him some wit. It does not.
If you want to get some sleep at night, open one of his books. Better than zopiclone.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Raymond Tallis is a low-rent philosopher who writes unimaginatively about medical matters. He's a descriptive positivist, and has little to say that has much nuance or insight. His general approach to post-modernism and structural linguistic is an attack reminiscent of a snail trying to eat a bramble stem. Not very appealing or effective.
You cannot attack what you do not understand.
What really annoys me about him is that he wears a Terry Pratchett style red fedora, which is he seems to think gives him some wit. It does not.
If you want to get some sleep at night, open one of his books. Better than zopiclone.

So, not a Tallis fan, then ? I've read a few of his PN articles - I gained the impression that he was quite an OK chap...but that is another issue.

Re your: 'You cannot attack what you do not understand'.
I'm hoping that you, or someone else here, understands Derrida, the surrounding controversy, enough to help me out a little. See previous questions.

marjoram_blues wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Raymond Tallis is a low-rent philosopher who writes unimaginatively about medical matters. He's a descriptive positivist, and has little to say that has much nuance or insight. His general approach to post-modernism and structural linguistic is an attack reminiscent of a snail trying to eat a bramble stem. Not very appealing or effective.
You cannot attack what you do not understand.
What really annoys me about him is that he wears a Terry Pratchett style red fedora, which is he seems to think gives him some wit. It does not.
If you want to get some sleep at night, open one of his books. Better than zopiclone.

So, not a Tallis fan, then ? I've read a few of his PN articles - I gained the impression that he was quite an OK chap...but that is another issue.

Re your: 'You cannot attack what you do not understand'.
I'm hoping that you, or someone else here, understands Derrida, the surrounding controversy, enough to help me out a little. See previous questions.

He never said it.

j.Derrida never said this in his Grammatology" i think. He says a lot,but never that, and as I don't read French have had to rely on translations. This is tricky enough in the French and people came away from it puzzled, even the French find this stuff hard. But much of it is easy enough when broken down.
Part of the problem is that JD was having to break new ground in linguistic theory and so end up repeating the same thought in a million different ways.
The relationship between the sign (word) and the signified (the thing described) is arbitrary. A cow is also a vache. JD claims that once humans leaned to use signs for communication, their entire conception of reality becomes enmeshed in a complex set of relationships between those signifiers to the point that the signified becomes secondary.
The interwoven grammar and lexicon can then stand alone, as if that which lies outside is of no consequence. We end up just talking words within word relationships. You will note that since I started this text I have only referenced an outside object "cow", and then only to dismiss it as having an arbitrary relationship with those things in the field. Words can only be understood when in comparison and relationship with others. So the 'cow in the field" is not a dog in the field, ad infinitem. Cows are ruminants, but not sheep. THis is all about différance.
Back to nothing outside the text.
It is the assertion that "there is no outside-text" (il n'y a pas de hors-texte), which is often mistranslated as "there is nothing outside of the text". The mistranslation is often used to suggest Derrida believes that nothing exists but words. According to Derrida, his statement simply refers to the unavoidability of context that is at the heart of différance.

Okey Doke

Thanks for the explanation. After reading it and an excerpt from wiki, I realise that my understanding is very far from complete. However, on the face of it, I'm not seeing anything terribly 'new' or that couldn't already be known simply by use of common-sense.

For example: '

Words can only be understood when in comparison and relationship with others. So the 'cow in the field" is not a dog in the field, ad infinitem. Cows are ruminants, but not sheep. THis is all about différance.
Back to nothing outside the text.
It is the assertion that "there is no outside-text" (il n'y a pas de hors-texte), which is often mistranslated as "there is nothing outside of the text". The mistranslation is often used to suggest Derrida believes that nothing exists but words. According to Derrida, his statement simply refers to the unavoidability of context that is at the heart of différance.'

This suggestion by others seems to be totally ridiculous - why would anyone believe that nothing exists but words? As to Derrida, why would anyone not see context as essential?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff%c3%a9rance

Différance is a French term coined by Jacques Derrida, deliberately homophonous with the word "différence". Différance plays on the fact that the French word différer means both "to defer" and "to differ."
Derrida first uses the term différance in his 1963 paper "Cogito et histoire de la folie".[1] The term différance then played a key role in Derrida's engagement with the philosophy of Edmund Husserl in Speech and Phenomena. The term was then elaborated in various other works, notably in his essay "Différance" and in various interviews collected in Positions.[2]
The ⟨a⟩ of différance is a deliberate misspelling of différence, though the two are pronounced identically (IPA: [difeʁɑ̃s]). This highlights the fact that its written form is not heard, and serves to further subvert the traditional privileging of speech over writing (see archi-writing), as well as the distinction between the sensible and the intelligible...

...In the essay "Différance" Derrida indicates that différance gestures at a number of heterogeneous features that govern the production of textual meaning. The first (relating to deferral) is the notion that words and signs can never fully summon forth what they mean, but can only be defined through appeal to additional words, from which they differ.

Thus, meaning is forever "deferred" or postponed through an endless chain of signifiers. The second (relating to difference, sometimes referred to as espacement or "spacing") concerns the force that differentiates elements from one another and, in so doing, engenders binary oppositions and hierarchies that underpin meaning itself.

So, Derrida gave us a new word that means both the 'difference' between words/meaning and a 'deferral' of understanding a word until we see it alongside other (different) words within a certain context.

Is that right?
Still not seeing the significance, sorry.

Part of the problem is that JD was having to break new ground in linguistic theory and so end up repeating the same thought in a million different ways.

Why would anyone - who wishes to be clear - repeat the same thought in a million different ways?

Okey dokey

Having had a downright frustrating experience reading and discussing the article 'Derrida's Performance', I have come to the conclusion that I would rather have tea with Tallis than dinner with Derrida.

If anyone wants to change my opinion, then feel free...
I'm not in love but I am open to persuasion...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwrRwfRKCAI