Jacques Derrida(French Jacques Derrida; July 15, 1930, El Biar, Algeria - October 9, 2004, Paris, France) - French philosopher and literary theorist, creator of the concept of deconstruction. One of the most influential philosophers of the late twentieth century, Derrida has been neglected in the Anglo-American tradition of analytic philosophy.

Derrida's main goal is to fight the European philosophical tradition with the help of the deconstruction project he created. For Derrida, such a struggle has a positive meaning and allows us to renew our understanding of man's place in the world. Derrida was constantly criticized on a variety of issues: from accusations of being too pedantic when analyzing texts to accusations of obscurantism. The philosopher tried to respond to his numerous opponents - from Searle to Foucault and Habermas.

In his works, Derrida touched upon a wide range of issues - from ontological and epistemological problems of the philosophical tradition (knowledge, essence, being, time) to problems of language, literature, aesthetics, psychoanalysis, religion, politics and ethics.

In his later period, Derrida focused on ethical and political issues.

Biography

Born on July 15, 1930 in El Biar (Algeria), into a wealthy Jewish family. He was the third child of his parents. They named him Jackie, presumably in honor of a certain Hollywood actor (later, having moved to Paris, he changed his name to the more familiar to the French “Jacques”).

In 1942, in his second year of study, Derrida was expelled from the lyceum on the grounds of his nationality: the Vichy regime had established a quota for Jewish students.

In 1948, he became seriously interested in the philosophy of Rousseau, Nietzsche and Camus.

At the age of 19, he moved from Algeria to France, where on the third attempt in 1952 he entered the Ecole Normale Supérieure. Here Derrida, in particular, attends lectures by Foucault and makes acquaintance with him and other subsequently famous French intellectuals.

In 1960-1964 he was an assistant at the Sorbonne. Since 1964, Derrida has been professor of philosophy at the Grandes Ecoles in Paris.

In 1966, he took part in the International Colloquium “Languages of Criticism and the Humanities” at Johns Hopkins University (Baltimore), together with R. Barth and others.

In 1968-1974 he taught at Johns Hopkins University. Since 1974 - lecturer at Yale University.

Creation

Derrida publishes his first significant work, a translation of Husserl's The Beginning of Geometry (with his own introduction) in 1962. In 1963-1967 he published articles in periodicals, later included in the works “On Grammatology” and “Writing and Difference”.

In 1967, almost simultaneously, the first books were published that made Derrida’s name famous - “On Grammatology”, “Writing and Difference” - “the first and to this day the most read among many dozens of his books”, and their complementary short work “Voice and Phenomenon” . The work “On Grammatology” is devoted to the analysis of Rousseau’s philosophy of language, but its content is much broader. The work contains the basic concepts developed by Derrida. The subject of the book is the history of the development of graphic signs, the dominance of which is the basis of Western culture.

"Writing and Difference" is a collection of articles devoted to various aspects of language theory. This book explores the work of Descartes, Freud, Artaud and others. It provides definitions of such important concepts for Derrida as structure, difference, pharmakon and others. The article “Cogito and the Problem of Madness” served as the beginning of a discussion between Derrida and Foucault about the role of madness in the formation of Western rationality.

The book “Dispersion” (1972, in Russian translation - “Dissemination”) is devoted to the analysis of Plato’s dialogue “Phaedrus”. This work bears traces of a formal experiment - the text does not represent a traditional scientific work, but is a combination of heterogeneous fragments, graphic diagrams and numerous quotations. The main concepts of this book are pharmakon (pharmacy), unbinding, device (frame). Pharmakon is a metaphor for language, both poisonous and healing. Untying is a method of mechanically reproducing text. The device is a mechanism for perceiving text, creating the illusion of visibility of what is being read.

Biography

Main thesis: The world is a text. He criticized the European tradition of logocentrism. He insisted on the need for the practice of deconstruction, during which it turns out that the text is a random set of arch-trace quotes.

He considered himself a continuator and critic of the ideas of Heidegger and Freud. Influenced by Louis Marin. He introduced a number of important concepts into philosophical and even newspaper language, such as deconstruction, writing, differentiation, trace. He has written about eighty books and more than a thousand articles, interviews, etc.

Social activity

Derrida was a leftist. In the tradition of French “engaged thought” (Sartre, Foucault), he believed that an intellectual should actively participate in the life of society and be a political figure.

He spoke publicly and in print in defense of illegal immigrants. Contributed to the spread of multiculturalism practices in France.

He spoke in support of Eastern European dissidents. In 1981, while staying in Prague, he was arrested. Released after the personal intervention of President Mitterrand.

In 1995, he was part of the campaign headquarters of Lionel Jospin, a socialist candidate in the presidential elections.

Bibliography (in Russian)

Derrida J. Around the Towers of Babel // Comments. - 1997. - No. 11.
Derrida J. Essay on name. // St. Petersburg. Aletheia 1998 190 p.
Derrida J. Voice and phenomenon and other works on Husserl's theory of sign. // Per. from fr. S. G. Kalinina and N. V. Suslova, Gallicinium Series, St. Petersburg. Aletheia 1999 208 p.
Sokolov B. G. Marginal discourse of Derrida. // St. Petersburg, 1996
Derrida J. Che cos’è la poesia / Translation and notes by M. Mayatsky // Logos. - 1999. - No. 6. - P. 140-143.
Derrida J. About a postcard from Socrates to Freud and more. Mn. Modern writer 1999 832 p.
Derrida J. Writing and difference. Per. from fr. edited by V. Lapitsky St. Petersburg. Academic project 2000 430 p.
Derrida J. About grammatology. / Per. from fr. and rise Art. N. Avtonomova M. Ad Marginem 2000 512 p.
Derrida J. Globalization. World. Cosmopolitanism. Per. from fr. D. Olshansky // Cosmopolis magazine, No. 2 (8), 2004. - P. 125-140.
Derrida J. Marx and sons. / M. Logos altera 2006 104 p.
Derrida J. Dissemination (La Dissemination) / Trans. from fr. D.Kralechkina, scientific. ed. V. Kuznetsov - Ekaterinburg: U-Factoria, 2007 - 608 pp.
Derrida J. Writing and difference. Per. from fr. D.Kralechkina M. Academic project 2007 495 p.
Derrida J. Positions. Per. from fr. V.V. Bibikhina M. Academic project 2007 160 p.
Derrida J. Pregnant. Four washes by Colette Deble // Vita cogitans, No. 5. - St. Petersburg State University Publishing House, 2007, p. 213-224

About Derrida

Avtonomova N. S. Philosophical problems of structural analysis in the humanities. M., 1977
Jacques Derrida in Moscow. Per. from fr. and English / Preface, M. K. Ryklina. - M.: RIK "Culture", 1993. - 208 p.: ill.
Sokolov B. G. Marginal discourse of Derrida. St. Petersburg, 1996
Ilyin I. Poststructuralism, deconstructivism, postmodernism. M., 1996.
Nechipurenko V.N., Polonskaya I.N. Searches for national identification in the philosophy of Jacques Derrida // Scientific thought of the Caucasus. 2007, No. 1. P.41-49.
Mazin V. 2000 “About the postcard from Socrates to Freud and beyond” // New Russian book, No. 2(3). - pp.52-54.
Mazin V. 2001 ““On Grammatology” and “Writing and Difference” by Jacques Derrida”//New Russian Book, No. 6 (7).- pp.30-32.
Olshansky D. A. Tongue prosthesis in Jacques Derrida // Journal Critical Mass no. 3-4, 2005. pp. 60-64.

Links

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Derrick-Lavon Jefferson
Derrick Delmore

See what "Derrida J." in other dictionaries:

Derrida- Derrida, Jacques Jacques Derrida Jacques Derrida Jacques Derrida, 2001 Date of birth: July 15, 1930 ... Wikipedia

DERRIDA- (Derrida) Jacques (b. 1930) French. philosopher, esthetician, literary critic. Founder of deconstructivism (si: Deconstruction), which became a variant of poststructuralism and received wide use in USA. He started as a structuralist, from Ser. 1960s... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

DERRIDA- (Derrida) Jacques (b. 1930) French. philosopher and esthetician, cultural theorist, one of the intellectual leaders of the 80s and 90s, whose poststructuralist ideas became one of the main. conceptual sources of postmodern aesthetics. Author of the theory... ... Encyclopedia of Cultural Studies

DERRIDA- (Derrida) Jacques (b. 1930) French philosopher, literary and cultural critic, intellectual leader of the 'Paris School' (1980-1990s). Taught at the Sorbonne (1960 1964), Ecole Normale Supérieure, Ecole Superieure social research(Paris),… … History of Philosophy: Encyclopedia

DERRIDA- (Derrida) Jacques (b. 1930) French philosopher and cultural scientist. He taught at the Sorbonne (1960 1964), the Ecole Normale Supérieure, the Higher School of Research in Social Sciences (Paris), organizer of the “Group for Research in Philosophical Education”,... ... The latest philosophical dictionary

Derrida Jacques- (Derrida) (b. 1930), French philosopher, language theorist. He criticizes metaphysics, the overcoming of which is associated with “deconstruction” (analytical dissection) of its basic concepts, and above all the concept of being. "Grammatology" (the science of... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

DERRIDA Jacques- (b. 1930) French philosopher close to structuralism. He criticizes metaphysics as the basis of European culture. Overcoming metaphysics is associated with finding its historical origins through analytical dissection (deconstruction... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

Derrida, Jacques- Jacques Derrida Jacques Derrida Jacques Derrida, 2001 ... Wikipedia

Derrida Jacques- Jacques Derrida Date and place of birth: July 15, 1930 (El Biar, Algeria) Date and place of death: October 9, 2004 (Paris, France) School/tradition: Poststructuralism ... Wikipedia

DERRIDA Jacques- (Derrida, Jacque) (b. 1930), French philosopher; his methods of analysis and criticism of Western philosophy, language and literature have a strong influence on modern thought. The most significant of his deconstruction techniques is a special type of dismantling of a system for... ... Collier's Encyclopedia

Books

Derrida, Peters Benoist, The book offers a comprehensive chronological account of the life of Jacques Derrida (1930-2004) and his intellectual trajectory, relationships and mutual influences with other philosophers, the genesis... Category:

The philosophy of J. Derrida was part of the post-war “spirit of the times”, which rejected modernism and structuralism - in other words, the idea of progress and the existence of real entities.

Derrida is known primarily as the creator of deconstructionism, the main opponent of which is dialectics.

Derrida is best known as the creator of deconstructionism. However, he became such not so much of his own free will, but thanks to American critics and researchers who adapted his ideas on American soil. Derrida agreed with this name for his concept, although he is a strong opponent of emphasizing the “main word” and reducing the entire concept to it in order to create another “-ism”. Using the term "deconstruction", he "did not think that it would be recognized as having a central role." Note that deconstruction does not appear in the titles of the philosopher’s works. Reflecting on this concept, Derrida noted: “America is deconstruction,” “its main residence.” Therefore, he “resigned himself” to the American baptism of his teaching.

At the same time, Derrida tirelessly emphasizes that deconstruction cannot be limited to the meanings that it has in the dictionary: linguistic, rhetorical and technical (mechanical, or “machine”). In part, this concept, of course, carries these semantic loads, and then deconstruction means “the decomposition of words, their division; dividing a whole into parts; dismantling, dismantling a machine or mechanism.” However, all these meanings are too abstract; they assume the presence of some kind of deconstruction in general, which in fact does not exist.

In deconstruction, the main thing is not the meaning or even its movement, but the very shift of displacement, the shift of shift, the transfer of transmission. Deconstruction is a continuous and endless process that excludes any conclusion or generalization of meaning.

Bringing deconstruction closer to process and transmission, Derrida at the same time warns against understanding it as some kind of act or operation. It is neither one nor the other, for all this presupposes the participation of a subject, an active or passive principle. Deconstruction, on the other hand, is more like a spontaneous, spontaneous event, more like an anonymous “self-interpretation”: “it gets upset.” Such an event requires neither thinking, nor consciousness, nor organization on the part of the subject. It is completely self-sufficient. The writer E. Jabès compares deconstruction with the “spread of countless fires” that flare up from the collision of many texts of philosophers, thinkers and writers whom Derrida touches.

From what has been said, it is clear that in relation to deconstruction, Derrida argues in the spirit of “negative theology,” pointing out mainly what deconstruction is not. At one point he even sums up his thoughts along these lines: “What is deconstruction not? - Yes to everyone! What is deconstruction? - Nothing!”

However, his works also contain positive statements and reflections on deconstruction. He, in particular, says that deconstruction takes on its meaning only when it is “inscribed” “in a chain of possible substituents,” “when it replaces and allows itself to be defined through other words, for example, writing, trace, discernibility, addition, hymen, medicine, lateral field, cut, etc.” Attention to the positive side of deconstruction is intensified in the philosopher’s latest works, where it is considered through the concept of “invention” (“invention”), covering many other meanings: “to discover, create, imagine, produce, install, etc.” Derrida emphasizes: “Deconstruction is inventive or not at all.”

Undertaking the deconstruction of philosophy, Derrida criticizes, first of all, its very foundations. Following Heidegger, he now defines existing philosophy as a metaphysics of consciousness, subjectivity and humanism. Its main vice is dogmatism. It is such due to the fact that from the many well-known dichotomies (matter and consciousness, spirit and being, man and the world, the signified and the signifier, consciousness and the unconscious, content and form, internal and external, man and woman, etc.) metaphysics, as a rule, gives preference to one side, which most often turns out to be consciousness and everything connected with it: subject, subjectivity, man, man.

Giving priority to consciousness, that is, meaning, content or signified, metaphysics takes it into pure form, in its logical and rational form, while ignoring the unconscious and thereby acting as logocentrism. If consciousness is considered taking into account its connection with language, then the latter acts as oral speech. Metaphysics then becomes logophonocentrism. When metaphysics devotes its full attention to the subject, it views him as an author and creator, endowed with “absolute subjectivity” and transparent self-awareness, capable of complete control over his actions and actions. Giving preference to man, metaphysics appears as anthropocentrism and humanism.

Since this person is usually a man, the metaphysics is phallocentrism.

In all cases, metaphysics remains logocentrism, which is based on the unity of logos and voice, meaning and oral speech, “the proximity of voice and being, voice and the meaning of being, voice and ideal meaning.” Derrida discovers this property already in ancient philosophy, and then in the entire history of Western philosophy, including its most critical and modern form, which, in his opinion, is the phenomenology of E. Husserl.

Derrida hypothesizes the existence of a certain “arch-writing,” which is something like “writing in general.” It precedes oral speech and thinking and at the same time is present in them in a hidden form. “Archiletter” in this case approaches the status of being. It underlies all specific types of writing, as well as all other forms of expression. Being primary, “writing” once gave way to oral speech and logos. Derrida does not specify when this “fall” occurred, although he believes that it is characteristic of the entire history of Western culture, starting with Greek antiquity. The history of philosophy and culture appears as a history of repression, suppression, repression, exclusion and humiliation of “writing”. In this process, “writing” increasingly became a poor relative of rich and living speech (which, however, itself was only a pale shadow of thinking), something secondary and derivative, reduced to some kind of auxiliary technology. Derrida sets the task of restoring violated justice, showing that “writing” has no less creative potential than voice and logos.

In his deconstruction of traditional philosophy, Derrida also turns to Freud's psychoanalysis, showing interest primarily in the unconscious, which occupied the most modest place in the philosophy of consciousness. At the same time, in his interpretation of the unconscious, he significantly differs from Freud, believing that he generally remains within the framework of metaphysics: he considers the unconscious as a system, admits the presence of so-called “psychic places”, the possibility of localizing the unconscious. Derrida more decisively frees himself from such metaphysics. Like everything else, it deprives the unconscious of systemic properties, makes it atopic, that is, without any specific place, emphasizing that it is simultaneously everywhere and nowhere. The unconscious constantly invades consciousness, causing confusion and disorder in it with its play, depriving it of imaginary transparency, logic and self-confidence.

Psychoanalysis also attracts the philosopher because it removes the rigid boundaries that logocentrism establishes between well-known oppositions: normal and pathological, ordinary and sublime, real and imaginary, familiar and fantastic, etc. Derrida further relativizes (makes relative) the concepts included in this kind of opposition. He turns these concepts into “undecidable” ones: they are neither primary nor secondary, neither true nor false, neither bad nor good, and at the same time they are both one and the other, and the third, etc. Others In other words, the “undecidable” is at the same time nothing and at the same time everything. The meaning of “undecidable” concepts unfolds through a transition into its opposite, which continues the process ad infinitum. “The undecidable” embodies the essence of deconstruction, which lies precisely in the continuous displacement, shift and transition into something else, for, in the words of Hegel, every being has its own other. Derrida makes this “other” multiple and infinite.

The “undecidables” include almost all basic concepts and terms: deconstruction, writing, discernibility, dispersion, grafting, scratch, medicine, cut, etc. Derrida gives several examples of philosophizing in the spirit of “undecidability.” One of them is the analysis of the term “tympanum”, during which Derrida considers its various meanings (anatomical, architectural, technical, printing, etc.). At first glance, it may seem that we are talking about searching and clarifying the most adequate meaning of a given word, some kind of unity in diversity. In fact, something else is happening, rather the opposite: the main meaning of the reasoning lies in avoiding any specific meaning, in playing with meaning, in the movement and process of writing itself. Note that this kind of analysis has some intrigue, it captivates, is marked by high professional culture, inexhaustible erudition, rich associativity, subtlety and even sophistication, and many other advantages. However, the traditional reader who expects conclusions, generalizations, assessments, or simply some kind of resolution from the analysis will be disappointed.

The goal of such an analysis is an endless wandering through a labyrinth, from which there is no Ariadne thread to exit. Derrida is interested in the pulsation of thought itself, not the result. Therefore, filigree microanalysis, using the finest tools, gives a modest microresult. We can say that the ultimate task of such analyzes is the following: to show that all texts are heterogeneous and contradictory, that what the authors consciously conceived does not find adequate implementation, that the unconscious, like Hegel’s “cunning of the mind,” constantly confuses all the cards, sets all sorts of traps that fall into authors of texts. In other words, the claims of reason, logic and consciousness often turn out to be untenable.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

1. Biography

2. Philosophy of J. Derrida. Deconstructivism

3. Living and dead word

4. Differance, difference, distinction

5. The world as text

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Jacques Derrida is today one of the most famous and popular philosophers and literary critics not only in France, but also abroad. He is considered one of the brightest representatives of modern poststructuralism. Like no one else, Derrida has numerous followers abroad.

Although Derrida is widely known, his concept has great influence and dissemination, it is very difficult to analyze and understand. This, in particular, is pointed out by S. Kofman, one of his followers, noting that his concept cannot be summarized, nor can the leading themes be identified in it, much less be understood or explained through a certain circle of ideas, or explain the logic of premises and conclusions.

In his works, in his own words, a variety of texts “cross” - philosophical, literary, linguistic, sociological, psychoanalytic and all sorts of others, including those that defy classification. The resulting texts are a cross between theory and fiction, philosophy and literature, linguistics and rhetoric. It is difficult to fit them into any genre; they do not fit into any category. The author himself calls them “illegitimate”, “illegitimate”.

1. Biography

In 1942, in his second year of study, Derrida was expelled from the lyceum on the grounds of his nationality: the Vichy regime had established a quota for Jewish students.

In 1948, he became seriously interested in the philosophy of Rousseau and Camus.

At the age of 19, he moved from Algeria to France, where on the third attempt in 1952 he entered the Ecole Normale Supérieure. Here Derrida, in particular, attends lectures by M. Foucault, makes acquaintance with him and with other subsequently famous French intellectuals.

In 1960-1964 he was an assistant at the Sorbonne. Since 1964, Derrida has been professor of philosophy at the Grandes Ecoles in Paris.

In 1966, he took part in the International Colloquium “Languages of Criticism and the Humanities” at Johns Hopkins University (Baltimore), together with R. Bartomi and others.

In 1968-1974 he taught at Johns Hopkins University. Since 1974 - lecturer at Yale University. Nietzsche

2. Philosophy of J. Derrida.Deconstructivism

The philosophy of J. Derrida was part of the post-war “spirit of the times”, which rejected modernism and structuralism - in other words, the idea of progress and the existence of real entities.

Derrida is known primarily as the creator of deconstructionism, the main opponent of which is dialectics.

Undertaking the deconstruction of philosophy, Derrida criticizes, first of all, its very foundations. Following Heidegger, he defines current philosophy as a metaphysics of consciousness, subjectivity and humanism. Its main vice is dogmatism. It is such due to the fact that from the many well-known dichotomies (matter and consciousness, spirit and being, man and the world, the signified and the signifier, consciousness and the unconscious, content and form, internal and external, man and woman, etc.) metaphysics, as a rule, gives preference to one side, which most often turns out to be consciousness and everything connected with it: subject, subjectivity, man, man.

Giving priority to consciousness, i.e., meaning, content or signified, metaphysics takes it in its pure form, in its logical and rational form, while ignoring the unconscious and thereby acting as logocentrism. If consciousness is considered taking into account its connection with language, then the latter acts as oral speech. Metaphysics then becomes logophonocentrism. When metaphysics devotes its full attention to the subject, it views him as an author and creator, endowed with “absolute subjectivity” and transparent self-awareness, capable of complete control over his actions and actions. Giving preference to man, metaphysics appears as anthropocentrism and humanism.

Since this person is usually a man, the metaphysics is phallocentrism.

3. Living and dead word

Criticism of the fundamental concepts of traditional philosophy (within the boundaries of which - despite the direct influence on the formation of deconstructivism - Nietzsche, Freud, Husserl, and Heidegger remain for Derrida) - “reality”, “identity”, “truth” - proceeds from the premise that the status of the rational in culture is not self-reproducing own material, but is supported by a constant effort to oust from his sphere elements that turn out to be non-thought, unthinkable. This repressive intention, which lies at the basis of Western European culture, is designated by Derrida as logocentrism (both components of the word are significant: an indication of centering and placing the logos, the sounding word, in the center), the basis for which he sees in the emergence of phonetic writing as a prerequisite for any transcendental signifieds. Derrida philosopher deconstruction logocentric

In the totality of its aspects - phonocentrism, phallocentrism, theocentrism - logocentrism constructs the ideal of immediate self-sufficiency or presence, which, according to Derrida, sets the paradigm for all Western metaphysics. The metaphysics of presence, placing transcendental reality and the true world next to man and striving to connect the sphere of existence to being, serves as the basis for logocentric totalization in the humanitarian field. One of the most important philosophical concepts introduced by Derrida is “logocentrism,” which refers to Plato’s belief in the superiority of the spoken word over the written word. This idea, which influenced all Western philosophy, held that the “presence” of the speaker in the “logos,” or word, was imbued with special meaning, while the written word was devalued by the “absence” of the author. The crisis of logocentric totalization clearly reveals itself already in Nietzsche, whose texts represent examples of the destruction of the homogeneous environment of the conductor of the ideas of the “mobile army of metaphors.”

A living word, a sounding word, is something that is born directly here and now, here and now, before your eyes and ears. But the sound of a living word is “higher” than a visible picture, because it is a way of comprehending, understanding what is visible, because it is not the picture that is important, but what is important is what you understood and felt in connection with what just happened. That is why everything that remains for people remains in the spoken word, and only much later in the written word, otherwise in the text. “Nothing exists outside the text,” Derrida and I agree. What about silence? Are we not deceived when we think that we communicate with each other through the word? After all, if there is no depth of silence between us, words convey nothing - they are just an empty sound, an air wave. Understanding occurs at the level where two people meet deeply in silence, beyond any verbal expression. This is true, but how to tell others what you were just silent about, silent with someone who doesn’t need your words, because he and you, here and now, are one. Overcoming the split of the world into internal and external can only happen beyond the limits of the word, when the word is outlived in the process of the hero’s magical experience of the declared collision.

MT ascends to silence through the text and descends from the peak of Silence into the same text, but how different the text of the ascent and descent are. For having been at the top, where the air is cool, transparent and still, the climber discovers a new ability to feel in the same words that caused, for example, an attack of anger during the ascent, something completely different: peace, tranquility, agreement with Being. Nothing exists outside the text except silence. MT begins and ends with text, remaining inaccessible to him at his Peak of Silence. In this sense, MT is the highest philosophical statement, which cannot be conveyed in the language of philosophy, that is, in words. MT subjects the word to total deconstruction, that is, it kills it, freeing up space for a “new” word, which, while remaining phonographically old, begins to project completely different feelings, images and meanings.

4. Differance, difference, distinction

The procedure of listening to the transcendental, male voice of Being, God, presented, according to Derrida, as a principle of philosophizing in the works of Husserl and, in particular, Heidegger, is crossed out by the strategy of differance (Derrida’s neographism, which retains, by substituting “a” in the French difference, both meanings verb differer I) to distinguish; 2) delay). “The verb “to distinguish” seems to be a word different from itself. On the one hand, it denotes difference as difference, inequality, distinction - on the other hand, it expresses the intervention of delay, the interval of spatialization and temporalization, postponing for later what is being denied now - meaning the possible, which is impossible at the present time.” (Gurko E. Texts of deconstruction. Derrida J. Differance. - Tomsk: Publishing House "Aquarius", 1999. p. 125)

At the same time, this neographism indicates both a fundamental preference for visual outline over sound (when pronounced, all the nuances of the neologism disappear), and the aconceptual nature of differance, a word that differs from itself.

Differance erases all the dual positivity of European ideologies - metaphysics: the opposition of God and the world, spirit and matter, soul and body, essence and appearance - leaving the phenomenalist field of the unrepresentable movement of pure difference, the transcendental negative energy which was constrained by abstract logical structures to ensure “normal”, “cultural” communication. In this capacity, the conditions of possibility for the movement of signification, differance is the result of an expanded philosophical interpretation of Saussure's linguistic concept of pure difference. Another aspect of difference refers to the unthinkable experience of non-presence, an eternally deferred present, captured in the breaks in the semantic unity of the text revealed by deconstructive work. Differance represents the traces of a certain “primary letter” that precedes the language and culture itself, the imprint of which is borne by the “letter” - that is, the dynamics of the non-given, heterogeneous, which is exposed when dismantling the ideological framework that totalizes the text. In the letter, the centrifugal movement of tradition, the collapse of the games of signification into some unshakable point of presence (the guarantor of meaning and authenticity) is contrasted with the centrifugal movement of “dispersion” (one of Derrida’s works of the same name, “Dispersion”, 1972) of meaning in an endless network of genealogy and citation.

How can you tell the difference? This means seeing the non-cash in the present, and the non-identical in the identical. It is enough to focus on the present, and we will see cracks indicating that the present and the present are not identical to themselves, are different from themselves, internally differentiated: in them the past is “still” preserved, but the future is “already” predetermined.

So, difference is the opposite of presence as identity and self-sufficiency. It can be assumed that the originality of differences, distinctiveness, is a consequence of the anthropological finitude of man, the discrepancy between the infinite and the finite, de jure and de facto, things and meaning. Man occupies an intermediate place in the general structure of existence. What distinguishes him from an animal is his non-reactivity, the restraint of immediate impulses, the transformation of physiological needs into drives that cannot be satisfied right there on the spot, and in a certain sense, cannot be satisfied at all. What distinguishes him from God is his inability to directly intuitively, directly discern the meaning of existence in general and his own life - events, actions, texts - in particular. The Creator of the Universe has no distinction between created being and the meaning of being; for him they are one. A person, and even the most creative one, in this sense is not a creator, but a comprehender of the Universe. Thus, difference, differentiation twice, from two different ends, comes to the fore - as slowness in comparison with animal reactions and as deferral of meanings in the general - complex and indirect - process of signification.

The first point is the splitting of the dialectical pair of opposites identity/difference, the separation of self-sufficient completeness and differentiating traces into different registers and bringing the difference to the fore. The second point is Derrida's attitude to the concept of difference in its structuralist (Saussurean) interpretation. As is known, for linguistic structuralism, and then for structuralist thought, transferred to other areas of humanitarian knowledge, difference is always a systemic meaning-distinguishing quality: those differences that are not meaning-distinguishing are not included in the system at all. So, it is precisely these extra-systemic and meaningless differences that poststructuralism as a whole absolutizes. This also has to do with Derrida's understanding of difference.

However, Derrida's concept of difference is not limited to these specifications. It introduces another operation that radically enhances the difference and reinforces man's complex and indirect relationship to meaning. It is called the word “difference” (differAnce): by ear this concept does not differ from the usual difference (difference) and reveals its originality only in in writing. Derrida interprets this neologism, or neographism, as something similar to the Greek middle voice - beyond the antithesis of activity and passivity. Distinction is the condition for the formation of form, the condition for signification. Positive sciences can describe only certain manifestations of discrimination, but not discrimination as such, although processes and states associated with discrimination occur everywhere. Discrimination lies at the heart of the opposition of presence and absence, at the heart of life itself.

Distinction presupposes a double deformation of space and time as supports of perception and awareness. Namely, discrimination is slowness, delay, constant delay in time and detachment, displacement, breakdown, gap in space. We discussed above that presence is the unity of “here and now”, the present moment and this place. And this unity is broken by differentiation - its temporal aspect is delayed, and its spatial aspect includes a “breakdown”, “interval” ", suspension. In this case, both types of deformations - both temporal and spatial - interact and intertwine. In the word “discrimination” one hears, therefore, different meanings: to differ, not to be identical; to be delayed (more precisely, to be delayed in time and removed in space); differ in opinions, argue (French differend).

Tracing the elements of writing as a work of differance, Derrida considers the totality of cultural texts as a continuous field of transfer of meaning, not stopping at any place in the form of a frozen structure; she undermines from within the fundamental concepts of Western culture, pointing out their non-identity with themselves, liberating the repressed metaphors of philosophical works that come into conflict with their ideological system. This demonstrates the resistance of language to any philosophical (metaphysical) project. The position of the classical interpreter, external to the text, is eliminated in deconstruction. A statement is made of the fact of “invagination”, embeddedness, grafting of one text onto another, the endless interpretation of one text through another (this approach is refinedly implemented in “The Death Knell”, 1974, where Derrida confronts Hegel’s “Aesthetics” and “Philosophy of Religion” with reflections on the novel “ Miracle" to Genet, transferring the function of commentary and interpretation to the white gap between the columns of the two texts). The practice of deconstruction is non-methodological in nature and does not offer a limited set of strict rules for “disassembly”. Derrida argues that almost any philosophical work is vulnerable to it - from the writings of Plato to the works of Heidegger.

Following Husserl, what is especially important here is the interrelated formation of space and time, this becoming - the time of space and the becoming - the space of time. Unlike Husserl, who retreats to his primary pre-linguistic intuitions, Derrida strives not to the origin, but to where everything in the human world is removed and deferred, where substitutions and replacements grow. However, in the end, this construction of delay and withdrawal appears not as a result, but as a condition - as something before which nothing else is possible.

Derrida believes that deconstruction should be used not only in philosophy, but also in ethics and politics. The state is a sphere where metaphysical myths are reproduced uncontrollably; it is based on power and strength. We need, Derrida believes, an understanding of history that shows us some missing element, some lost foundation - without which nothing would exist. This is some logical element that must be assumed.

No matter how familiar (or unusual) we are social subject No matter what (national state, democracy), in all these cases the contradiction between unity and plurality makes the question of the philosophical and real status of these entities “unsolvable.” And therefore “pluralism” turns out to be just as useless a strategy as homogeneous “unity”. In essence, we do not need plurality as such, but heterogeneity, which presupposes difference, dismemberment, separation - as conditions for establishing relationships between people. Unities that take the form of homogeneous organic wholes are dangerous - within them there is no place for a responsible decision, and therefore, there is no place for ethics and politics. But if you look at all this more broadly, then both pure unities and pure multiplicities equally turn out to be names of a dangerous, lifeless state, names of death.

Now Derrida gives us almost the same method as was found by MT himself.

Deconstruction is non-methodological in nature and does not offer a limited set of strict rules for “disassembly”

Difference refers to the unthinkable experience of non-presence, an eternally deferred present, captured in the breaks in the semantic unity of the text revealed by deconstructive work.

We are thus talking about a rupture, a crack in the supposedly continuous space of the text. It is worth finding, feeling this gap, “settled in it,” and then it becomes possible to see some kind of original writing that represents traces that precede the language and culture itself.

The element of MT is improvisation, action as an intuitive understanding of the not understood, as a break with linearity, an exit into another world space, the space of the “primary text”, which contains only the potential of the text, but is not yet itself. There is no more room in this space

the centrism of tradition, the collapse of games of signification into some unshakable point of presence (the guarantor of meaning and authenticity). Here, as Derrida says, there is only a centrifugal movement of “dispersion.”

5. The world as text

According to Derrida, “the world is a text,” “the text is the only possible model of reality.” According to the theorists of postmodernism, language, regardless of the scope of its application, functions according to its own laws and the world is comprehended by man only in the form of this or that story, a story about it. Or, in other words, in the form of “literary” discourse (from the Latin discurs - “logical construction”).

Doubt about the reliability of scientific knowledge led postmodernists to the conviction that the most adequate comprehension of reality is accessible only to intuitive - “poetic thinking” (an expression by M. Heidegger, which, in fact, is far from the theory of postmodernism). The specific vision of the world as chaos, appearing to consciousness only in the form of disordered fragments, was defined as “postmodern sensitivity.”

It is no coincidence that the works of the main theorists of postmodernism are works of art rather than scientific works, and the worldwide fame of their creators eclipsed the names of even serious prose writers

Considering a person only through the prism of his consciousness, i.e. solely as a geological phenomenon of culture and, even more narrowly, as a phenomenon of written culture, as a product of Gutenberger’s civilization, post-structuralists are ready to liken the self-awareness of an individual to a certain sum of texts in that mass of texts of various nature, which, in their opinion, constitutes the world of culture. The whole world is ultimately perceived by Derrida as an endless, limitless text (can be compared with the characterization of the world as a cosmic library" by W. Leitch, or the "encyclopedia" and "dictionary" by W. Eco).

Thus, for Derrida, the text is not an object as such: the text is not an object, but a territory. It exists rather as a terra mutationis, a topos of activity, a permanent field of metamorphoses. It is not identities and constants that take place here, i.e. initially overwhelming statics, but floating values, series and variations. Text is possible only as an echo sounder of communications projected outside.

A detailed study of the structure of the text allows us to assert that no text is a totality: the text, a priori, cannot act as a kind of centering principle. A text is always a reality between, suggesting a multiplicity of dispersed sources of meaning. Moreover, the text rejects the presence of foundations, it rushes towards layers, is addressed to chains of differentiated traces, and therefore even a universal text, understood as a cultural universe, opposes, whatever it may be, the theory and practice of centralization.

Consequently, textuality is not a property of individual texts, but is a form of organization of knowledge itself, a graphic percussion of human thinking. The idea of the world as a sum of texts, in essence, turns out to be a micromodel of the perception and design of reality in the form of a certain plot mode. Reality is always already a text: the world is revealed to a person only in the form of texts, stories about him. This position of being-in-the-text is not simply a statement of the text; this position is the expanded body of the text. Therefore, when Derrida says that “there is nothing outside the text,” it is rather about the fact that everything is thinkable in the text, everything is part of the text, that text, which is the world, that original textuality of thinking, through which within which the culture itself was born.

The textual perception of reality and history is determined not only by the impossibility of culture to be outside the text, but also by the fact that everything external to the text, every negativity of the text is produced within it. The exit from the text, the “other” and the “threshold” are expressed in the text itself. Even reflection on what is apophatic in a text is always already part of the text. “Our ideas about the text from the point of view of its relationship with reality are an endless expansion beyond the limits of its classical representation. This is a breakthrough into the radical otherness of the text” (Derrida J. Outwork. p.1-60)

For Derrida, the text is not outside of language - it is its outsideness. “So the text no longer has a limit, there is nothing external to it. You cannot reduce a text to language, a speech act in the strict sense of the word” (Philosophy and Literature: Conversation with Jacques Derrida. //Jacques Derrida in Moscow: deconstruction of a journey. - M. : Ad Marginem. - 1993. - p. 151). Language is always a linguistic phenomenon; its understanding and interpretation are in one way or another mediated by the text, namely by everything that defines “language” as such. Therefore, beyond the boundaries of language there really is a text - a text that gives birth to “what it means to be outside.”

Conclusion

Derrida's ideas:

1) Derrida demonstrates the persistence of logocentrism in Western thought and the intractability of its paradoxes, as well as the unlikelihood of overcoming it, since any criticism of logocentrism is ultimately based on logocentric concepts.

2) Derrida points out the importance of seemingly marginal elements and the dependence of systems on what they repress and repress.

3) Derrida develops a technique of interpretation that is unusual for philosophy, since it uses the resources of the rhetoric of the text, and productive for literary criticism, which studies language and its paradoxical nature.

4) Although Derrida does not offer his own theory of language, his deconstruction of other theories shows that meaning is a product of language, not its source, and that it can never be completely definite, since it is the result of contextual forces that cannot be limited.

5) Finally, Derrida's work calls into question various concepts, on which we are accustomed to base ourselves, such as origin, presence, the human Self, showing that they are results rather than pure givens and foundations.

Bibliography

1) https://ru.wikipedia.org

2) Almanac “Archetypal Research” L. Khaitin, E. Mironova, V. Lebedko “Philosophy of Jacques Derrida” [ Electronic resource]. URL: http://www.kafedramtai.ru

3) Philosophy. Textbook for universities, edited by V. V. Mironov. [Electronic resource]. URL: http://philosophica.ru

4) http://eurasialand.ru

Posted on Allbest.ru

...