Hello
Die opskrif sou eers gewees het, Derrida vir dommies, soos in die bekende reeks, “For Dummies”, maar dit sou ’n haan laat kraai het oor haat en nyd, aangesien die haan rond gepik het in die teks. Daar is mos niks buite die teks nie, hane en homoseksuele is ewe welkom. Wie sal tog die finale oordeel kan vel oor wat dit alles beteken?
Die dommie is dus hierdie deelnemer, ’n “filosoof-manqué”, wat sy bes probeer om ’n drafstappie agter Derrida te bly en dit is moeiliker is wat ’n mens sou dink. Die haan het geput uit Wikipedia maar dit is nie die plan in hierdie skrywe nie. Oester, hoof anti-intellektueel, en meester van die hilti's sal hierdie deelnemer beskuldig van googlemania en wie wil daarvan beskuldig word?
Daarom net ’n paar kort aanhalings wat konteks tot die teks moontlik maak uit publikasies wat hierdie onderwerp aangespreek het en voorheen aan my bekend was en die antwoorde na vore gebring.
Roger Scruton, filosoof:
He's difficult to summarise because it's nonsense. He argues that the meaning of a sign is never revealed in the sign but deferred indefinitely, and that a sign only means something by virtue of its difference from something else. For Derrida, there is no such thing as meaning – it always eludes us and therefore anything goes.
Nie so vinnig nie, volgens AC Grayling, ook ’n filosoof:
Derrida says that any text has multiple meanings and the great majority of those meanings won't be apparent even to the author of them. So a deconstruction of the text will show the variety and levels of meanings, some of which will be inconsistent with each other.
Verdere ondersteuning kom ook van, Amy Ziering Kofman, maker van die film, Derrida:
Derrida has been mischaracterised – he's not nihilistic or relativistic. He doesn't say, "Everything is equal and you can do what you want." Because there is no God or higher power, you have to take responsibility yourself. There is no absolute truth, so you have to agree a course of action. His thinking is based on a strict code of ethics.
’n Lekseltjie van die menings oor die "snowy-haired" filosoof.
Vir hierdie deelnemer is die beste opsomming die opstel van Mark C Taylor.
Mr. Derrida's name is most closely associated with the often cited but rarely understood term "deconstruction." The guiding insight of deconstruction is that every structure – be it literary, psychological, social, economic, political or religious – that organizes our experience is constituted and maintained through acts of exclusion. In the process of creating something, something else inevitably gets left out.
These exclusive structures can become repressive – and that repression comes with consequences. Mr. Derrida understood all too well the danger of beliefs and ideologies that divide the world into diametrical opposites: right or left, red or blue, good or evil, for us or against us. He showed how these repressive structures, which grew directly out of the Western intellectual and cultural tradition, threatened to return with devastating consequences. By struggling to find ways to overcome patterns that exclude the differences that make life worth living, he developed a vision that is consistently ethical.
Dit is in hierdie lig wat ’n teks benader word en ook so die opstel van Samantha Vice wat soveel oproer oor wit vs swart veroorsaak het. ’n Volkome verstaanbare teks wanneer die bevoorregte rol van witheid beskou word en die onderdrukking wat daardie bevoorregte rol impliseer.
Vreemd die ander “filosoof-manqué”, ou man, Comestor, vinnig in die uno, hoog op Mahler, dit gemis het.
Baie dankie
Wouter
NS Ter verdediging vir hierdie “filosoof-manqué” word daar gesteun op ’n stelling gemaak deur Roland Barthes, wat uiters beskeie was en sy eie sterkte onderspeel.
In a late interview (1978) he said that if he had to define himself it would be as a ‘philosopher’, adding ‘which does not refer to a degree of competence, because I have had no philosophical training. What I do is philosophise, reflect on my experience. This reflection is a joy and a benefit to me, and when I’m unable to pursue this activity, I become unhappy.’
Dalk laat dit ruimte vir hierdie deelnemer dan?