Familiar with Hegel, not so much with Derrida.
Thanks!
I'm reading Derrida's essay right now, but I can't get my head around this brief passage:
>In attempting to put into question these traits of the provisional secondariness of the substitute, one would come to see something like an originary différance; but one could no longer call it originary or final in the extent to which the values of origin, archi-, telos, eskhaton, etc. have always denoted presence--ousia, parousia." To put into question the secondary and provisional characteristics of the sign, to oppose to them an "originary" différance, therefore would have two consequences.
I get the part where he says that origin, archi-, telos, eskhaton denote presence, but I'm not really sure about what he means with "originary différance" and how it relates to the provisional secondariness of signs. Can someone help me?
Thanks.
I'm a lit student, soldiering through the Margins of Philosophy after having been taught deconstruction and différance in a more "applied" way. Quite the exercise.
So, for Derrida, meaning is not present but eternally defered, right? I wanna say that's what différance "means". "Means" with quotation marks, because precisely this meaning problematizes fixing a word's precise meaning. I can get along with this: I'll just pretend that my utterances have some determined/determinable sense while I utter them. (I think this is the impossibility of doing without "presence" or "metaphysics".)
But then why can't the same hold for "différance" as a word? Why can't "différance" just sort of be there, unfixed like all other words? Why is it instead denied to be a word at all? At least, I think that's what Derrida is denying on page 32 of my edition (just after the first note) when he says:
>For us 'différance' is still a metaphysical name ... [But] 'older' than Being itself, such a différance has no name in our language. Yet we 'already know' that its inexpressibility is no case of provisionality, because our language has not yet found or received that name or because that name would have to be searched for in another language, outside of the limited system of ours. Rather, it is because no such name exists, not even those of existence or Being, not even that of 'différance', which is no name, forms no pure nominal entity and incessantly falls apart within a chain of different substitutes.
>
>(my translation, I don't have the English text.)
So, is there supposed to be a difference between a name or "pure nominal entity" and a word? If not, then my question remains. Don't all words "incessantly fall apart within a chain of different substitutes?" Is Derrida hesitant because différance is the source of this falling apart, and if it were or had a name, it would accordingly fall apart itself, making it impossible to describe différance as falling apart? Yet he gives this description either way, in that very sentence, denying it has/is a name nonetheless. ARGH! Someone, help me pinpoint exactly what Derrida means!
Specifically, here. I'm reading a book for one of my grad classes this term that is discussing Derrida's introduction of "différance" (I think) as a way of showing that words are not necessarily tied to meaning and that written language can actually inhibit oral communication, specifically in this instance by having to distinguish "différance" from "différence" by clunkily stating "with an a" or "with an e" for each use, as they are pronounced the same.
What I don't understand is how he is using this word. Can the words not be differentiated from their context as is the case with many other homophones? It seems to me that he is saying that "différance" does not have a specific meaning prescribed to it and thus is neither a "word" nor a "concept," but how does it even come up in spoken language then? Am I just missing the entire point of this essay?
Salut à tous a partir d'Espagne.
Peut-être que j'ai trouvé un boulot au Maroc. Au dessus de l'opportunité d'apprendre l'arabe (darija fuck yeah), je peux finalement pratiquer mon français (négligé...) dans un pays francophone, hellll yeah mec! Mais sérieusement pour l'instant, il y a différances dialectales dont ce que je dois me soucier? Merciiiiii.
P.s. c'est dont ce ou dont ce que? Je sais pas, j'ai déjà dit que ça fait longtemps que je ne le parle, je m'excuse etc etc
P.s.s. merde je viens de me rendre compte que j'ai écrit il y en a au lieu de il y en un. Et différence....
How does derrida's différance relate to judith butler's "performative acts and gender constitution" and to lisa lowe's "heterogeneity, hybriddity, multiplicity: making asian american differences", or how do they reflect the influence of différance?
In Derrida's philosophy, différance is a neologism that combines difference and deferral. For Derrida, the signifier is the différance of the signified (the signified differed), and the signified is the différance of the signifier. Likewise, the body is the différance of the mind, and the mind is the différance of the body.
The so-called problem of mind-body interaction is founded on a logocentric view of the terms as disjunctive binaries and declares their interaction impossible, and from this declared impossibility flows a wide variety of, often fantastic, reformulations and redefinitions or erasures to solve or restate or reframe the terms to overcome or sidestep the 'problem'. Yet which of these philosophers seriously subscribes to a reading-writing problem? And even if they did, how could they hope to communicate the problem through their writings? After all, the marks made by a writer (the signifier) are quite different from the meaning taken by a reader (the signified).
Together, the signifier and signified compose the sign. So, together, the body and the mind compose the what?
The central feature of Derrida's scholarship is rooted in a term which he coins "Différance." In sum, following Saussure, Derrida argues that meaning is differential, originating from the difference between signs. But according to Derrida's (mis) reading this means that meaning is impossible. Derrida argues that in order to know the meaning of a word you must know all the other terms in the system from which it can be distinguished. Put differently, if you want to know the meaning of a word you must look it up in a dictionary which will provide a set of new words each of which you must look up somewhere, hence meaning is infinitely deferred. (He will then extend this hermeneutical to texts). But given that to some extent Derrida's thesis is based on outdated linguistic theory, I'm looking for a contemporary solution to it from linguistics as such.
There must be an argument in more contemporary linguistics about how this is wrong. I assume the field has moved pretty far beyond Saussure at this point.
I imagine the argument would be that meaning is also produced positively and I would guess cognitive linguistics and prototype theory would have something to say on the subject.
Are there scholarly sources that might deal with this more explicitly (perhaps refuting Saussarian differential linguistics or about the production of meaning) ? Can r/linguistics point me to these sources? I have some (dated, undergrad level) background in linguistics and a lot more in continental philosophy. I imagine there is more in analytic philosophy of language that would be relevant, (and I'd appreciate recommendations of that sort) but first and foremost I'm interested in scholarship actually grounded in linguistics (and hence evidence). In particular, I'm interested in how meaning is generated. Can reddit help? Thanks in advance.
I don't want to step on anybody's toes here, but the amount of non-dad jokes here in this subreddit really annoys me. First of all, dad jokes CAN be NSFW, it clearly says so in the sub rules. Secondly, it doesn't automatically make it a dad joke if it's from a conversation between you and your child. Most importantly, the jokes that your CHILDREN tell YOU are not dad jokes. The point of a dad joke is that it's so cheesy only a dad who's trying to be funny would make such a joke. That's it. They are stupid plays on words, lame puns and so on. There has to be a clever pun or wordplay for it to be considered a dad joke.
Again, to all the fellow dads, I apologise if I'm sounding too harsh. But I just needed to get it off my chest.
Alot of great jokes get posted here! However just because you have a joke, doesn't mean it's a dad joke.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT NSFW, THIS IS ABOUT LONG JOKES, BLONDE JOKES, SEXUAL JOKES, KNOCK KNOCK JOKES, POLITICAL JOKES, ETC BEING POSTED IN A DAD JOKE SUB
Try telling these sexual jokes that get posted here, to your kid and see how your spouse likes it.. if that goes well, Try telling one of your friends kid about your sex life being like Coca cola, first it was normal, than light and now zero , and see if the parents are OK with you telling their kid the "dad joke"
I'm not even referencing the NSFW, I'm saying Dad jokes are corny, and sometimes painful, not sexual
So check out r/jokes for all types of jokes
r/unclejokes for dirty jokes
r/3amjokes for real weird and alot of OC
r/cleandadjokes If your really sick of seeing not dad jokes in r/dadjokes
Punchline !
Edit: this is not a post about NSFW , This is about jokes, knock knock jokes, blonde jokes, political jokes etc being posted in a dad joke sub
Edit 2: don't touch the thermostat
Do your worst!
How the hell am I suppose to know when it’s raining in Sweden?
Ants don’t even have the concept fathers, let alone a good dad joke. Keep r/ants out of my r/dadjokes.
But no, seriously. I understand rule 7 is great to have intelligent discussion, but sometimes it feels like 1 in 10 posts here is someone getting upset about the jokes on this sub. Let the mods deal with it, they regulate the sub.
We told her she can lean on us for support. Although, we are going to have to change her driver's license, her height is going down by a foot. I don't want to go too far out on a limb here but it better not be a hack job.
They were cooked in Greece.
I'm surprised it hasn't decade.
He lost May
Now that I listen to albums, I hardly ever leave the house.
The doctor says it terminal.
Two muffins are in an oven, one muffin looks at the other and says "is it just me, or is it hot in here?"
Then the other muffin says "AHH, TALKING MUFFIN!!!"
Don't you know a good pun is its own reword?
For context I'm a Refuse Driver (Garbage man) & today I was on food waste. After I'd tipped I was checking the wagon for any defects when I spotted a lone pea balanced on the lifts.
I said "hey look, an escaPEA"
No one near me but it didn't half make me laugh for a good hour or so!
Edit: I can't believe how much this has blown up. Thank you everyone I've had a blast reading through the replies 😂
It really does, I swear!
And now I’m cannelloni
Because she wanted to see the task manager.
And boy are my arms legs.
But that’s comparing apples to oranges
Put it on my bill
Heard they've been doing some shady business.
but then I remembered it was ground this morning.
Edit: Thank you guys for the awards, they're much nicer than the cardboard sleeve I've been using and reassures me that my jokes aren't stale
Edit 2: I have already been made aware that Men In Black 3 has told a version of this joke before. If the joke is not new to you, please enjoy any of the single origin puns in the comments
They’re on standbi
