One thing I've been surprised by on several of these thinkers is that basic middle school science refutes major pillars of their argument. Ie, "we can only understand 'black' as it relates to 'white'." Well, sure that's one way to understand it. We also know, as a pigment black absorbs light and doesn't reflect it, and is the amalgamation of all the other pigments. In light rays, black is the absence of light or any color in the visible spectrum. White can still be defined primarily as the opposite of this, but black would be black regardless. As an, albeit extreme, member of a spectrum, an opposite will of course exist. But, that existence is only one aspect of the thing's definition, not the entirety of it.
Another excellent video, Dr Cooper! I've watched/listened to all the videos in this series from beginning to end, and have found them all really helpful. I focussed on philosophical hermeneutics in my MA in Theology and read works by most of these thinkers, and yet I still learned a lot from what you have produced. Would you be willing to go into such thinkers as Gadamer and Ricoeur in future videos?
Thank you so much, Dr Cooper, a short digest that helps by putting words and roots on the world we face today. It is important to understand the enemy as Christians in the western world and pedestrians like me struggle to go through the minimum study to resist.
@@DrJordanBCooper I would also be interested in a video on this. A lot of people at my philosophy department are some kind of pragmatists, and it’s hard to know how to seriously engage with people who claim with a straight face to think there’s no “truth” or “reality” out there without just dismissing them entirely
It might be the case that you overlooked Derrida's later ideas. I believe that his thought has a very strong ethical current, which was mostly expressed in his later works in notions like democracy-to-come, justice-to-come, or Messianicity without Messianism. These are, imo, derived and modified theological structures. His ethics of the wholly Other is also dependent on the thought of Emmanuel Levinas, whose ethical work is almost explicitly theological (i.e depends on the command of God). Levinas was a transcendentalist, and Derrida as well, the wholly Other is as transcendental as one can imagine (i.e always beyond what one can imagine). Derrida's work on hauntology and ghosts can also be understood as a deep concern for heritage and his own avowal of belonging to a tradition (both philosophical and Jewish) (I recently read the text Archive Fever, which, I believe, in part says exactly that). So I don't think that it's just to understand Derrida only by those most famous concepts that were later weaponized by "postmodernists".
17:58 Sorry, but this was an equivocal explanation and is wrong. For starters, the “sign” consists of both the “signifier” and the “signified”. Also, it has nothing to do with one’s brain, like you said😂. If you are talking about psychological structuralism that is nearly a completely different subject.
This video and the one on Foucault were great, thank you! Any plan to explore Rene Girard? He's not that influencial but some are trying to offer him as an alternative to all those far left intellectuals. I would love to hear your opinion of his thought.
That was a really nice lecture, very well done. I might want to add that karl marx doesn't reject inherent heriarchies in human abilities and capacities. Not everyone can be a physicist or a great athlete or a great poet. Marx rejects hierarchies that come because of virtue of being born in a certain social class but he doesn't reject the inherent hierarchies due to different abilities of people.
@@deutscherritter344 I am not a marxist. But i agree with marx that in a capitalist( and modern consumerist) economy, Poverty of the class you are born into, follows you with all its demerits like a birth defect. And many communities fall into the cycle of poverty and desperation, which is later passed on to their children. They grow with low quality food, low quality health care, low quality education, low quality work ethics etc. IT WILL BE OBJECTIVELY BENEFICIAL FOR A SOCIETY TO PREVENT A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF ITS POPULATION TO FALL INTO THE VISCOUS CYCLE OF POVERTY, because with good living conditions you will have a larger population which can function more efficiently and have higher potential and productivity. So yes, If having compassion for children born to generations of poor parents is marxism, i might be one.
I think you're being a bit hard on Derrida. Culture isn't largely preserved through texts. Most of our mind is subconscious, and our dispositions come from our immediate experiences of the world unmediated by text or traditional language. You should look into John Vervaeke, he has some interesting things to say about participation and the subconscious.
Maybe it's a misreading, but I get the impression that with many of these 20th c. thinkers sex is always present at least on the background, idk it feels weird
very interesting talk. I just got into Derrida and it seems to me that dissolving the reliance on The Written Word helps maintain the liberal order and makes room for more voices to partake. After all, if use your prescription and we re-enshrine the opposite: THIS is the word, THIS is the way, etc. We open ourselves up to compromising the integrity of a multi-cultural, multi-religious, multi-ethnic society. And while you as a Christian might be tempted to say "Well, yeah, that's what I want (minus... any racist implication)"; I as a Christian (and fellow protestant) want to remind you that our spiritual values came out of an inconclusive civil conflict in England (the origin of Anglo culture). We maintain our respect for each other by allowing a free flowing interpretation of the Word, and lots of other words. The Word, can include a Lutheran Word, a Quaker Word, a Baptist Word, a Presbyterian Word, and a Catholic Word. Before the modern era it didn't and the result was violent chaos. It also allows for a Hindu Word, a Jewish Word, and a Muslim Word, and even an Atheist's silence. And while it creates discourse that may be uncomfortable, or decisions you disagree with, it doesn't result in Protestants being hacked apart, Catholics being hung, Jews being gassed, or Muslims being bombed (at least not within our borders). True, it creates the opportunity for a Gay marriage that you see as not being transcendent, but you probably cant see see transcendence in a marriage between Muslims, or Hindus, or Catholics either. And while freedom of religion allows that opinion, even if I disagree with it, the one push back you desire is the same argument that an Evengelical government would use to make those marriages illegal as well as Gay ones. You're rejection of Derrida doesn't secure respect for a protestant faith, it endangers it. Unless you think you can win the inevitable conflict of Baptists vs Presbyterians vs Catholics vs Muslims, etc. that would happen (like clockwork) if liberal permissive society didn't exist. You and I have the modern privilege of practicing a style of Christianity without Priests within a permissive society. In a more strict religious society, if we lost the bloody war that founded it, our acts of tradition, marriage and charity would be as vilified as Drag Queen Story Hour. And thus, any society where you'd win would come at the cost of many Christian lives (as well as Muslims, Gays, Hindus, etc etc etc etc...)
Not all religions are based on religious texts. There are plenty where texts are a secondary importance, at least. Like the Quaker religion, which is basically communal mysticism.
He's not really attacking Christianity he's just making it known that sticking to the text as we have been doing is incorrect. Look how much Christianity has changed in the last 2000 or so years and we're all using the same text this should tell you right away that something's not right.
LOL You haven't understood an iota about what whole movement of post-modernism stands for. He is not telling you what you should do, he is only pointing out that the cherished truths of western philosophy are arbitrary. And if revolting against those arbitrary truths benefits you, you can try smashing them. You don't need a "proof" for refuting something, you just need to point out the contradictions in the "truth".
@@saimbhat6243 that’s exactly what I was trying to do. I was trying to point out contradictions in his truth and in his methods and from what I understand he greatly benefited from his truth. In other words, from my uneducated position he used the tools he rejects to create a movement that uses power to oppress others, something he accused other of doing.
@@RstRlx Yes, you’re largely correct. The caveat a post-modernist can bring out, though, is that they don’t care about consistency to begin with. So, they don’t need to make arguments consistent with their worldview.
@@levifox2818 I think postmodernism mistakes edges of logic, language and understanding with them being untrue, unusable and incorrect. Gödel’s theorem pointed out the limits of mathematics but mathematicians didn’t say that the whole mathematical endeavor is suddenly untrue or wrong, they just became more humble. I see postmodernists as Gödel who points out to the limits of our understanding and tools we use in it but this doesn’t warrant that our tools are bad or wrong or that our understanding is nonsensical, they make wrong conclusion.
@@RstRlx you might be referring to people who took Derridas work and did silly things with it. But Derrida is not an activist. Deconstruction is not a demolition but a de-solidifying of identity. Derrida is philosophically precise. He criticized structuralism for believing meaning can be generated by something with no meaning. If you haven’t read Derrida, why criticize him? It’s not wise to destroy a straw man, because eventually you look weak, and their position is still standing. Everyone has something to say about postmodernism, but know one knows anything about it.
Maybe it‘s just me, but I feel that Derrida is rather… shallow? I may not have read him, and I was rather curious to see what Dr. Cooper would make out of him, as he usually seems to make a rather sound representation of the general positions he might be critical of, but even after watching this lecture I find no attraction towards the guy. And I‘m still wondering, whether this is due to Derrida himself, or because of his obvious dismissal by Dr. Cooper. - Is it really the case that the emperor’s clothes are just that? There is just so much that he seems to be missing, and I don‘t think I can make someone’s philosophy the centerpiece of my worldview when I immediately get the impression that his perspective is lacking in so many ways. This is astounding, especially when you think of his influence. - Epistemologically speaking: I don‘t find the shift towards semiotics and language very convincing, and if you don‘t buy that part of the package, the rest of it will not be very convincing, either. So it‘s not really surprising that he ends up with radical conclusions, which some of us might deem as inacceptible when some of his axiomatic assumptions aren‘t acceptable from the beginning already. It reminds me of a quote by John Maynard Keynes, which was originally directed at someone else, but I think it is appropriate and worthwhile to transfer it onto Derrida: „[Derrida], as it stands, seems to me to be one of the most frightful muddles I have ever read, with scarcely a sound proposition in it […] , and yet it remains a [philosophy] of some interest, which is likely to leave its mark on the mind of the reader. It is an extraordinary example of how, starting with a mistake, a remorseless logician can end up in bedlam.“ Edit: In that sense, I am very thankful towards Dr. Cooper. As always. It‘s just puzzling to me that this is „all“ there is.
You have clearly missed the point by a mile. Derrida is the philosophical grandson of nietzsche, he is not presenting any supposed "truths" ( he is not an idealist or empiricist or structuralist or pragmatist) therefore he doesn't have any axioms. He is just highlighting the inner contradictions of other philosophies or "truths".
@@saimbhat6243 Then please enlighten me. I‘m aware of most of the things you‘ve said. And I‘m not of the opinion „to have clearly missed the point“. - Would you be so kind to characterize the kind of mistake that I‘ve made? Meaning: please tell me what you have perceived to be my position and why that position is wrong.
@@peterpedersen3988 You are looking for a systematic philosophy to make it a "centerpiece of your worldview". So, you naturally want to start with the axioms/presuppositions of derrida's philosophy and then go on to his conclusions and ideas. Like what you would have found in hagel or plato or kant. But the whole point of post-modern philosophy is that all philosophical systems are contingent, ad-hoc and rationalizations. If there is any axiom of post-modern philosophy, it would be: EVERYTHING, EVERY PHILOSOPHY, EVERY SOCIAL INSTITUTION, EVERY ASSUMPTION ABOUT HUMAN NATURE, EVERY CLAIM TO KNOWING TRUTH, EVERY CLAIM TO ANY METAPHYSICS IS NOT VERIFIABLE THUS ARBITARY. ALL METAPHYSICAL CLAIMS CAN BE QUESTIONED AND DEFEATED. Every philosophy and every "worldview" has an expiry date and after which it seems obviously false and becomes literature and ceases to be philosophy. Post-modernism is an ocean of nihilism and skepticism, which i am sure cannot be "centerpiece" of your worldview. All philosophy is just words and ideas, which are true when they seem PLAUSIBLE and become false when they cease to seem plausible. In 5th century, any argument against existance of god would have seemed gibberish. In 10th century any argument for equality of genders would have seemed gibberish. In 15th century, any argument against soul would have seemed gibberish. In 19th century, any argument against human rationality would have seemed gibberish. In 20th century, any argument for human goodness would have seemed gibberish. In 21st century, any argument for existence of god seems gibberish. In 22nd century, any argument against some current taboo would seem gibberish to people of that century. Same positions and ideas can be viewed as gibberish or universal truth depending on the social/economic/cultural/historical etc evolution of the society Every metaphysical truth is contingent.
@@saimbhat6243 Aren't these claims that you have collected arbitrary, ad-hoc? I fail to understand why postmodernism is not self contradicting. Even if these claims of postmodernism negate the possibility of having any truths, is this not a claim about truth of truth? You seem to be very knowledgable, can you please elaborate to me what I am not seeing?
is there some reason why people big on Deconstruction never aim it let's say black lives matter, minority rights, lgbt issues, leftism, feminism or socialism?
Because they see them through the lens of deconstruction. Most of the arguments for socialism aren’t really for socialism they’re just against the current system. Practically speaking there is very little to stand on when it comes to reconstructing the political and economic system after you’ve accomplished your goals of tearing it down.
I would say the West privileges text over speech, not the other way round. Also, why would reading Ulysses lead you to believe that authorial intent doesnt matter? Ulysses is barely a book, its ONLY intent. Its an implication by the author transmitted through book form.
Thank you for your perspective, but I think your bias against Derridah shows a bit too harshly on this video. The video and analysis is basically logocentric itself, I'd say. There is no omage to the details of Derridah, but in attempting to paggage into some coherent meaning, you miss the entirety of the point of what Derridah was trying to advocate; we can't privilage reason over "unreason" (sorry for a bad use of words). I'm not a scholar, but even I see this (in my mind very basic) idea in Derridahs work. Thank you regardless for sharing your thought and research.
Love the dogmatic insistance on naturalizing human heiarchies. No skeptical inclination at all just a blanket "the way things are is the way they must be." Pitiful capitalist adoration!
Also, no one's "personal" life is separate from their ideas. If you preach an unheard of strict sexual morality but commit adultery, your ideas are clearly wrong and you shouldn't be followed. If your parroting someond else, they might be right, but you clearly aren't, if you invented this, you're a fraud. If someone is a peoedhile, everything they say is illegimate. Sure, immoral people can say moral things that others posit, but if you invent a new idea and you are immoral that idea must also be rejected.
One thing I've been surprised by on several of these thinkers is that basic middle school science refutes major pillars of their argument. Ie, "we can only understand 'black' as it relates to 'white'." Well, sure that's one way to understand it. We also know, as a pigment black absorbs light and doesn't reflect it, and is the amalgamation of all the other pigments. In light rays, black is the absence of light or any color in the visible spectrum. White can still be defined primarily as the opposite of this, but black would be black regardless. As an, albeit extreme, member of a spectrum, an opposite will of course exist. But, that existence is only one aspect of the thing's definition, not the entirety of it.
My Philosophy Department was nothing but Derrida, Foucault, Badiou, etc. This video gave me intense flashbacks.
Another excellent video, Dr Cooper! I've watched/listened to all the videos in this series from beginning to end, and have found them all really helpful. I focussed on philosophical hermeneutics in my MA in Theology and read works by most of these thinkers, and yet I still learned a lot from what you have produced. Would you be willing to go into such thinkers as Gadamer and Ricoeur in future videos?
Yes, I have considered that. No definite plans yet.
Thank you so much, Dr Cooper, a short digest that helps by putting words and roots on the world we face today. It is important to understand the enemy as Christians in the western world and pedestrians like me struggle to go through the minimum study to resist.
Thank you, Dr. Cooper! Any plans for a video on philosophical Pragmatism?
Likely, but I have a number of other things to do first.
@@DrJordanBCooper thank you for the reply, sir!
@@DrJordanBCooper I would also be interested in a video on this. A lot of people at my philosophy department are some kind of pragmatists, and it’s hard to know how to seriously engage with people who claim with a straight face to think there’s no “truth” or “reality” out there without just dismissing them entirely
It might be the case that you overlooked Derrida's later ideas. I believe that his thought has a very strong ethical current, which was mostly expressed in his later works in notions like democracy-to-come, justice-to-come, or Messianicity without Messianism. These are, imo, derived and modified theological structures. His ethics of the wholly Other is also dependent on the thought of Emmanuel Levinas, whose ethical work is almost explicitly theological (i.e depends on the command of God). Levinas was a transcendentalist, and Derrida as well, the wholly Other is as transcendental as one can imagine (i.e always beyond what one can imagine).
Derrida's work on hauntology and ghosts can also be understood as a deep concern for heritage and his own avowal of belonging to a tradition (both philosophical and Jewish) (I recently read the text Archive Fever, which, I believe, in part says exactly that). So I don't think that it's just to understand Derrida only by those most famous concepts that were later weaponized by "postmodernists".
5:30 Where? Have you recorded but not published it yet? Or is it not part of the MotMW series?
17:58 Sorry, but this was an equivocal explanation and is wrong. For starters, the “sign” consists of both the “signifier” and the “signified”. Also, it has nothing to do with one’s brain, like you said😂. If you are talking about psychological structuralism that is nearly a completely different subject.
This video and the one on Foucault were great, thank you!
Any plan to explore Rene Girard?
He's not that influencial but some are trying to offer him as an alternative to all those far left intellectuals. I would love to hear your opinion of his thought.
That was a really nice lecture, very well done.
I might want to add that karl marx doesn't reject inherent heriarchies in human abilities and capacities. Not everyone can be a physicist or a great athlete or a great poet. Marx rejects hierarchies that come because of virtue of being born in a certain social class but he doesn't reject the inherent hierarchies due to different abilities of people.
if people pass on the ability to become wealthy anyway, why should the government stop people from passing on some wealth as well?
@@deutscherritter344 I am not a marxist. But i agree with marx that in a capitalist( and modern consumerist) economy, Poverty of the class you are born into, follows you with all its demerits like a birth defect. And many communities fall into the cycle of poverty and desperation, which is later passed on to their children. They grow with low quality food, low quality health care, low quality education, low quality work ethics etc. IT WILL BE OBJECTIVELY BENEFICIAL FOR A SOCIETY TO PREVENT A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF ITS POPULATION TO FALL INTO THE VISCOUS CYCLE OF POVERTY, because with good living conditions you will have a larger population which can function more efficiently and have higher potential and productivity.
So yes, If having compassion for children born to generations of poor parents is marxism, i might be one.
I was born in just such conditions and 90-95% of the cause of the cycle is not material.
You say the reason we call a tree a “tree” is arbor-trary? My world is rocked.
I think you're being a bit hard on Derrida. Culture isn't largely preserved through texts. Most of our mind is subconscious, and our dispositions come from our immediate experiences of the world unmediated by text or traditional language.
You should look into John Vervaeke, he has some interesting things to say about participation and the subconscious.
Foucault and Derrida literally destroyed Western civilization
You are aware that Dr. Cooper is not only aware of the existence of Dr. Vervaeke, but has spoken to the guy? 😄
@@peterpedersen3988 That doesn't mean they are in agreement.
Derrida is critiquing the same sort of thing that Vervaeke does on some points.
40:30 Is the p-word censored by UA-cam?
It is, yes.
It depends on what you mean by the p word.
Instead of saying Derrida is wrong about that he should probably say I disagree with this. It would seem more balanced.
Maybe it's a misreading, but I get the impression that with many of these 20th c. thinkers sex is always present at least on the background, idk it feels weird
Yup.
Why should sex feel weird though?
Thank you dr. Cooper!
very interesting talk. I just got into Derrida and it seems to me that dissolving the reliance on The Written Word helps maintain the liberal order and makes room for more voices to partake. After all, if use your prescription and we re-enshrine the opposite: THIS is the word, THIS is the way, etc. We open ourselves up to compromising the integrity of a multi-cultural, multi-religious, multi-ethnic society. And while you as a Christian might be tempted to say "Well, yeah, that's what I want (minus... any racist implication)"; I as a Christian (and fellow protestant) want to remind you that our spiritual values came out of an inconclusive civil conflict in England (the origin of Anglo culture). We maintain our respect for each other by allowing a free flowing interpretation of the Word, and lots of other words. The Word, can include a Lutheran Word, a Quaker Word, a Baptist Word, a Presbyterian Word, and a Catholic Word. Before the modern era it didn't and the result was violent chaos. It also allows for a Hindu Word, a Jewish Word, and a Muslim Word, and even an Atheist's silence. And while it creates discourse that may be uncomfortable, or decisions you disagree with, it doesn't result in Protestants being hacked apart, Catholics being hung, Jews being gassed, or Muslims being bombed (at least not within our borders).
True, it creates the opportunity for a Gay marriage that you see as not being transcendent, but you probably cant see see transcendence in a marriage between Muslims, or Hindus, or Catholics either. And while freedom of religion allows that opinion, even if I disagree with it, the one push back you desire is the same argument that an Evengelical government would use to make those marriages illegal as well as Gay ones.
You're rejection of Derrida doesn't secure respect for a protestant faith, it endangers it. Unless you think you can win the inevitable conflict of Baptists vs Presbyterians vs Catholics vs Muslims, etc. that would happen (like clockwork) if liberal permissive society didn't exist. You and I have the modern privilege of practicing a style of Christianity without Priests within a permissive society. In a more strict religious society, if we lost the bloody war that founded it, our acts of tradition, marriage and charity would be as vilified as Drag Queen Story Hour. And thus, any society where you'd win would come at the cost of many Christian lives (as well as Muslims, Gays, Hindus, etc etc etc etc...)
"religious are dependent on religious texts" - that's Derrida's whole point! He's attacking religions, Christianity especially.
Not all religions are based on religious texts. There are plenty where texts are a secondary importance, at least. Like the Quaker religion, which is basically communal mysticism.
Christianity certainly is, but Shintoism isn't.
He's not really attacking Christianity he's just making it known that sticking to the text as we have been doing is incorrect. Look how much Christianity has changed in the last 2000 or so years and we're all using the same text this should tell you right away that something's not right.
Did he use logic to prove his point? :) Did he think that what he was saying was true? Is he self refuting?
LOL You haven't understood an iota about what whole movement of post-modernism stands for. He is not telling you what you should do, he is only pointing out that the cherished truths of western philosophy are arbitrary. And if revolting against those arbitrary truths benefits you, you can try smashing them.
You don't need a "proof" for refuting something, you just need to point out the contradictions in the "truth".
@@saimbhat6243 that’s exactly what I was trying to do. I was trying to point out contradictions in his truth and in his methods and from what I understand he greatly benefited from his truth. In other words, from my uneducated position he used the tools he rejects to create a movement that uses power to oppress others, something he accused other of doing.
@@RstRlx
Yes, you’re largely correct. The caveat a post-modernist can bring out, though, is that they don’t care about consistency to begin with. So, they don’t need to make arguments consistent with their worldview.
@@levifox2818 I think postmodernism mistakes edges of logic, language and understanding with them being untrue, unusable and incorrect. Gödel’s theorem pointed out the limits of mathematics but mathematicians didn’t say that the whole mathematical endeavor is suddenly untrue or wrong, they just became more humble. I see postmodernists as Gödel who points out to the limits of our understanding and tools we use in it but this doesn’t warrant that our tools are bad or wrong or that our understanding is nonsensical, they make wrong conclusion.
@@RstRlx you might be referring to people who took Derridas work and did silly things with it. But Derrida is not an activist. Deconstruction is not a demolition but a de-solidifying of identity. Derrida is philosophically precise. He criticized structuralism for believing meaning can be generated by something with no meaning.
If you haven’t read Derrida, why criticize him? It’s not wise to destroy a straw man, because eventually you look weak, and their position is still standing. Everyone has something to say about postmodernism, but know one knows anything about it.
Maybe it‘s just me, but I feel that Derrida is rather… shallow? I may not have read him, and I was rather curious to see what Dr. Cooper would make out of him, as he usually seems to make a rather sound representation of the general positions he might be critical of,
but even after watching this lecture I find no attraction towards the guy. And I‘m still wondering, whether this is due to Derrida himself, or because of his obvious dismissal by Dr. Cooper. - Is it really the case that the emperor’s clothes are just that?
There is just so much that he seems to be missing, and I don‘t think I can make someone’s philosophy the centerpiece of my worldview when I immediately get the impression that his perspective is lacking in so many ways. This is astounding, especially when you think of his influence.
- Epistemologically speaking: I don‘t find the shift towards semiotics and language very convincing, and if you don‘t buy that part of the package, the rest of it will not be very convincing, either. So it‘s not really surprising that he ends up with radical conclusions, which some of us might deem as inacceptible when some of his axiomatic assumptions aren‘t acceptable from the beginning already. It reminds me of a quote by John Maynard Keynes, which was originally directed
at someone else, but I think it is appropriate and worthwhile to transfer it onto Derrida:
„[Derrida], as it stands, seems to me to be one of the most frightful muddles I have ever read, with scarcely a sound proposition in it […] , and yet it remains a [philosophy] of some interest, which is likely to leave its mark on the mind of the reader. It is an extraordinary example of how, starting with a mistake, a remorseless logician can end up in bedlam.“
Edit: In that sense, I am very thankful towards Dr. Cooper. As always. It‘s just puzzling to me that this is „all“ there is.
You have clearly missed the point by a mile. Derrida is the philosophical grandson of nietzsche, he is not presenting any supposed "truths" ( he is not an idealist or empiricist or structuralist or pragmatist) therefore he doesn't have any axioms.
He is just highlighting the inner contradictions of other philosophies or "truths".
@@saimbhat6243 Then please enlighten me. I‘m aware of most of the things you‘ve said. And I‘m not of the opinion „to have clearly missed the point“. - Would you be so kind to characterize the kind of mistake that I‘ve made? Meaning: please tell me what you have perceived to be my position and why that position is wrong.
@@peterpedersen3988 You are looking for a systematic philosophy to make it a "centerpiece of your worldview". So, you naturally want to start with the axioms/presuppositions of derrida's philosophy and then go on to his conclusions and ideas. Like what you would have found in hagel or plato or kant.
But the whole point of post-modern philosophy is that all philosophical systems are contingent, ad-hoc and rationalizations.
If there is any axiom of post-modern philosophy, it would be: EVERYTHING, EVERY PHILOSOPHY, EVERY SOCIAL INSTITUTION, EVERY ASSUMPTION ABOUT HUMAN NATURE, EVERY CLAIM TO KNOWING TRUTH, EVERY CLAIM TO ANY METAPHYSICS IS NOT VERIFIABLE THUS ARBITARY. ALL METAPHYSICAL CLAIMS CAN BE QUESTIONED AND DEFEATED.
Every philosophy and every "worldview" has an expiry date and after which it seems obviously false and becomes literature and ceases to be philosophy.
Post-modernism is an ocean of nihilism and skepticism, which i am sure cannot be "centerpiece" of your worldview.
All philosophy is just words and ideas, which are true when they seem PLAUSIBLE and become false when they cease to seem plausible.
In 5th century, any argument against existance of god would have seemed gibberish.
In 10th century any argument for equality of genders would have seemed gibberish.
In 15th century, any argument against soul would have seemed gibberish.
In 19th century, any argument against human rationality would have seemed gibberish.
In 20th century, any argument for human goodness would have seemed gibberish.
In 21st century, any argument for existence of god seems gibberish.
In 22nd century, any argument against some current taboo would seem gibberish to people of that century.
Same positions and ideas can be viewed as gibberish or universal truth depending on the social/economic/cultural/historical etc evolution of the society Every metaphysical truth is contingent.
@@saimbhat6243 Aren't these claims that you have collected arbitrary, ad-hoc? I fail to understand why postmodernism is not self contradicting. Even if these claims of postmodernism negate the possibility of having any truths, is this not a claim about truth of truth? You seem to be very knowledgable, can you please elaborate to me what I am not seeing?
I'd never guess just from looking at him that Derrida was a philosopher, same problem with Foucault.😂
What would you peg him as? A madman? ;)
how in the world would you guess somebodies a philsopher from "lookign at them"? do they need to have a socratic beard or what?
is there some reason why people big on Deconstruction never aim it let's say black lives matter, minority rights, lgbt issues, leftism, feminism or socialism?
Because they see them through the lens of deconstruction. Most of the arguments for socialism aren’t really for socialism they’re just against the current system. Practically speaking there is very little to stand on when it comes to reconstructing the political and economic system after you’ve accomplished your goals of tearing it down.
They would say those things are not yet in positions of privilege. That isn't true now, they control the West, but they didn't just a few decades ago.
I would say the West privileges text over speech, not the other way round. Also, why would reading Ulysses lead you to believe that authorial intent doesnt matter? Ulysses is barely a book, its ONLY intent. Its an implication by the author transmitted through book form.
you dont need a commentary to appreciate Ulysses the prose style is so good
Thank you for your perspective, but I think your bias against Derridah shows a bit too harshly on this video. The video and analysis is basically logocentric itself, I'd say. There is no omage to the details of Derridah, but in attempting to paggage into some coherent meaning, you miss the entirety of the point of what Derridah was trying to advocate; we can't privilage reason over "unreason" (sorry for a bad use of words). I'm not a scholar, but even I see this (in my mind very basic) idea in Derridahs work. Thank you regardless for sharing your thought and research.
Love the dogmatic insistance on naturalizing human heiarchies. No skeptical inclination at all just a blanket "the way things are is the way they must be." Pitiful capitalist adoration!
Derrida was an excellent bullshitter
Also, no one's "personal" life is separate from their ideas. If you preach an unheard of strict sexual morality but commit adultery, your ideas are clearly wrong and you shouldn't be followed. If your parroting someond else, they might be right, but you clearly aren't, if you invented this, you're a fraud. If someone is a peoedhile, everything they say is illegimate. Sure, immoral people can say moral things that others posit, but if you invent a new idea and you are immoral that idea must also be rejected.
You speak baised..a professor should not favor any religious beliefs while talking on a philosopher
@@feeltheyouwithmassage7200 I'm a professor of Lutheran theology, so that's kinda inevitable.