derrida
Jacques Derrida's Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences is a very difficult piece of literature. Once one pushes through the shell of the text, it then becomes possible to breakdown and understand the message that he is trying to convey. It is very important when dealing with this text to be patient and thorough. For the paradox is that the metaphysical reduction of the sign needed the opposition it was reducing. The opposition is systematic with the reduction. And what we are saying here about the sign can be extended to all the concepts and all the sentences of metaphysics, in particular to the discourse on "structure." But there are several ways of being caught in this circle. They are all more or less naive, more or less empirical, more or less systematic, more or less close to the formulation- that is, to the formalization- of this circle. It is these differences, which explain the multiplicity of destructive discourses and the disagreement between those who elaborate them. (85) At first glance this statement seems rather obtuse and cumbersome to deal with. The basic argument that Derrida is making, and I don't know why he doesn't plainly explain it, is that sign is wha
oth arguments have valid points and each point of view accepted. "Since these concepts are taken from a syntax and a system, every particular borrowing brings along with it the whole of metaphysics. This is what allows these destroyers to destroy each other reciprocally..." (86). Derrida brings us to the inescapable idea of binary opposites. No matter how hard one tries to maintain a fair-minded, unprejudiced critical assessment in the discourse of the human sciences, it is futile. Derrida argues that the moment one denounces a certain way of thinking to attain an unbiased view; at that moment one adopts a biased view. The section of Derrida's t makes argumentation and exploration possible. The sign is responsible for proof, disproof, back to proof and then again disproof. Breaking that down a little further, and for the sake of a better understanding, imagine an argument between two people about the phenomenon we call professional sports, we can take football as the easiest example. The argument posed is salary caps and who is responsible for the high pay of these athletes. One may argue that it is the players and their expanding greed. Another person can argue that it is the owners and their quest for domination who shell out for these playe
Some common words found in the essay are:
Human Sciences, Continuing Derrida, human sciences, discourse human sciences, binary opposites, structure sign, proof disproof, moment denounces, 86 derrida, critical assessment, discourse human,
Approximate Word count = 854
Approximate Pages = 3 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
