I just watched this video from a guy named Steve Patterson about the subjectivity of language: https://youtu.be/OJZs8UKVIO0

He makes the point that the dead end one reaches when they chase down every word in the dictionary proves nothing about the instability of language because concepts stablize the meaning of words. It's true that part of a word's meaning can be understood by differentiating it from other words, but that is a very limited and particular lense to view meaning. When we use words to build concepts, the concept remains built after the word has changed. Consider a word that is currently in the process of changing meaning socially: racism. While it once commonly referred to a prejudice on the basis of race, the new definition is grounded in behavioral relations between members of racial difference in a society of racial inequity. If the new meaning is established, the old concept of racial prejudice remains, and the word racism is restabilized by a new concept.

Patterson points to a difference between ostensive meaning and linguistic meaning. There are ostensive concepts that one can point to underpinning a word, the existence of which gives the word meaning as well (its relational meaning to the concept). He gives the example of how we teach a child the word "cat." We don't write down a definition and hand it to them. We don't open a biology textbook and describe the taxonomy of the cat to a 2 year old. We point to a cat and say, "this is a cat," then the child attaches the word to a concept they integrate through sense data. The child will have no formal definition of the cat for years, yet the word will still have meaning to them through their attachment to the concept.

Did Derrida misunderstand meaning? Or I'm I misunderstanding Darrida?

Edit: Sorry I misspelled Derrida...

Derrida reading group is starting on the Continental Philosophy discord server this Tuesday April 6th (20210406) at 10am PDT. It will be continuing on Tuesdays after that at that same time. We are reading the Differance essay in Margins of Philosophy book to begin with and then probably moving on to of Grammatology. INVITE https://discord.gg/vXnmRp4c84 Other reading groups already there are on Heidegger, Nietzsche, Schelling associated with the Deleuze and Guattari Qurantine Collective discord server https://discord.gg/7cW4fQBscJwhere we host also discussion on Heidegger and Zizek as well as many other Continental Philosophers. Please join us if you are interested in Derrida or any of these other philosophers.

Hi everyone,

Apologies in advance if this is against the rules.

I edit a small journal of criticism called New Critique. We've just published an essay you guys might be interested in. It uses Derrida's theories of hauntology and spectrality to read Salman Rushdie's Midnight's Children as a text obsessed with the historical, social, and religious ghosts that haunt the foundation of India.

Here it is: https://newcritique.co.uk/2020/05/22/essay-and-now-i-am-cast-as-a-ghost-spectres-of-india-in-midnights-children-seamus-mcginley-hughes/

Cheers,

J

I'm in highschool, and I need to give a 40 minute class of deconstruction. I'm daunted to say the least. It seems like everyone looks at it and explains it in a different way. Any advice for the class or any material you suggest to make the concept a little more digestible?

Hi all, I believe I understand Derrida’s concept of “trace”, but am struggling to find an example of it. Is it purely conceptual or do we see trace irl? If it is the mark of an absent presence .... then how do we identify it? Could mental illness be an example of trace? Because when we talk about mental health, often times, we describe it as a lack of mental illness. Could that be an example of trace irl or am I misunderstanding? Thanks for any help!

In Of Grammatology Derrida is, among other things, going to argue that Rousseau's notion of articulation in speaking is already at work in a language and doesn't befall language 'from the outside' or 'as an accident', as Rousseau wants it. Or differently put: Derrida will show how the logic of the supplement is already at work before the advent of language.

What I somehow can't seem to comprehend what Derrida's argument for this exactly is? So far I've managed my way through OG, even the part on imitation in the distinction of melody/harmony (which I found to be quite intriguing), but here I can't seem to discover what his argument for this conclusion is.

All secondary sources I've tried seem to brush over the argument itself and go straight to the conclusion, which is - as you can imagine - not helpful at all. Can anyone here help me out by any chance?

I’m relatively new to Derrida as well as Post-Modernism in general and I am currently reading an introductory book on Derrida which includes a chapter on his critique of communication. The chapter highlights Derrida’s claim that iterability undermines the context of our speech and creates “disorder within communication”. The book poorly glosses over how those two things connect and I’ve failed to find any resources that could help clarify. Anyone got anything?

I am looking for texts by Derrida on the encounter with the Other. I would guess his texts that involve Levinas, or perhaps his book The Ear of The Other would be potentially what I’m after. Particularly interested in writing that involves the situation of encountering something that involves/requires a change in that which encounters this other.

I’m looking into the aporiatic structures Derrida exposed and I see the “always already” referenced as one. However, I can’t find any elaborations on that anywhere. I understand the concept of the always already but I don’t understand in what ways Derrida applied it. Does anyone have some clarification for me?

My morning commute to work is so, so crowded, so much so that I can’t even take a book out to read. I’d like to listen to mp3s of Derrida’s corpus, but of course there aren’t any due to copyrighting. Does anyone have some self-recorded versions or some of elusive, recondite audiobooks that you could share with me? Thank you kindly :)

—fellow Derridean

Hi! I’m searching for a way to read this text from Derrida, but was only able to find it in spanish. I’m a portuguese speaker but can do with english. If anyone has it or knows where I can find it and could help, I’d appreciate it very much!

Hi all,

Just a quick question about English translations of Derrida. Are Voice and Phenomenon and "Speech and Phenomena" the same essay from different translators? I see that "Speech and Phenomena" is contained in a collection of Derrida's essays on Husserl while Voice and Phenomenon is translated by itself. Just wondering if they are different.

Thanks!

Hi! Being a novice in philosophy, I was wondering what book of Derrida I should start with?

I’ll start the list:

• the past that was never present

• the gift that resists gratitude

• the supplement that is already complete

• the always already

• forgiving the unforgivable

If you can, please link or reference the works in which they introduced or communicated.

Hi all, I wanted to ask you your thoughts, interpretations, ideas on the following enigmatic quote of Derrida's that concludes his 1999 Death Penalty seminar which I am struggling to understand the meaning of: [E]ven when the death penalty will have been abolished, when it will have been purely and simply, absolutely and unconditionally abolished on earth, it will survive, there will still be some death penalty [il y en aura encore]. Other figures will be found for it, other figures will be invented for it. . . . Let us have no illusion on this subject: even when it will have been abolished, the death penalty will survive, it will have other lives in front of it, and other lives to get its teeth into [d’autres vies à se mettre sous la dent].

From what I can gather arche-writing is meant to go beyond the "writing/speech" division and "already be there" before we use it. However, I don't understand what this means. In what sense does it go beyond this division? In what sense is it "already there"?

A brief impromptu talk on some common misconceptions about Derrida. Hoping to start a conversation.