As a mathematician, I find myself intrigued by the inherent ambiguity of language-a theme central to Jacques Derrida's lectures and work. In mathematics, our 'primitives' or foundational concepts are defined by their properties and dynamics, forming a language of precision and unambiguous communication. Yet, in the human linguistic sphere, as Derrida often explored, words or 'primitives' are more fluid, shaped by sensory input and complex associations. Take, for instance, the multifaceted nature of simple words like 'speech' or 'address.' 'Speech' can refer to the act of talking or a formal oration, and 'address' might mean a formal speech or a physical location. This polysemy, the coexistence of many possible meanings for a word or phrase, is absent in the mathematical lexicon, where each term has a clearly delineated boundary. Derrida's deconstructionist approach sheds light on this ambiguity. He emphasized how words are not merely vessels for pre-existing meanings but are active participants in meaning creation, constantly in flux. This is evident when considering a word like 'dog.' In its basic form, it refers to an animal, a meaning established through direct association. However, the moment it's used metaphorically-say, to describe an unfaithful person-the word's meaning shifts, embodying the very essence of linguistic ambiguity that Derrida examined. What captivates me about philosophy is its rigorous examination of the very essence of ambiguous language. Philosophers venture beyond merely acknowledging the existence of multiple definitions; they probe deeply into the implications of this ambiguity. In doing so, they unravel the intricacies and complexities of human communication. Their approach is not just about facing the proverbial 'devil in the details' but engaging with it, dissecting and understanding each nuanced aspect. This thorough exploration is what I find most compelling.
The major concepts of all the major Western philosophers are the basic ideas of Plato, Hermetic occult philosophy and Hegel, over and over again. Structuralism, Post-Structuralism, Deconstruction; these all have their analog in Hermetic philosophy. It may seem a waste by way of unnecessary duplication but it is actually better this way. Since such ideas are difficult to grasp and hard to pin down in language, having different versions and takes of them from widely different perspectives, can only help our understanding and clarity ultimately.
Man, it's unbelievable how much work You are putting in this, despite obviously not being a really popular channel. I am certain that You will gain more and more traction, just because of the sheer amount of quality and clarity that I see in the production. Keep up the good work. There are real people out there that appreciate Your work!
Really appreciate this comment. I currently have Plato/Socrates, Deleuze, and Mark Fisher ready I just need to find time to record them...the pandemic is crazy
@@SimplePhilosophyReeceGoscinski Yeah don’t mention it... I’m among the lucky ones who can easily work from home. Really looking forward to Mark Fisher!
Your channel is a treat to me! Just came across this, having rummaged the youtube for a good explanation on Hauntology. Keep on posting and I request you to upload lectures on Deleuze and Heidegger.
Thanks for watching! Deleuze is coming for sure! Just trying to find time to record as the pandemic is making work crazy...stay tuned hopefully next month
I don't get it, every other source says signified vs signifier the other way around. So the signifier is the word/image etc. which refers to the signified (the mental concept, the "actual dog")?
Intellectual maturity admits it doesn't have a solid understanding of everything. Re: Derrida Noam Chomsky wrote "I found the scholarship appalling... Nietzsche, "there are no facts, only interpretations. Derrida follows through with Nietzsche's premise. Wittgenstein, meaning is use...I hear Trumps remarks as racist and someone else doesn't hear it that way at all.
relative to Derrida thinking , one after listening to this,,, will chase ( trace ) down other podcasts on Derrida so to clarify a meaning that in fact does not exist ,than stream another etc. One learns his game than becomes lost when playing it .One has to wait ,find a work of choice by a author than you overtake it ( Hegel slave master dialect ).later in a failed attempt used by Marx. That is in fact the danger of reworking original meanings intended by the author . Not the fact that people misused Marx . Truth it was Marx through his own mind that ran with Hegel doctrine than falsifies it under the banner of Freedom ( even lured Sartre) just as Heidegger did not apologize for his support of the Natzi horror machine . Why ? Because it gave active meaning to his doctrine of being in time. Where Germany is the world that your being exists ( thrown into ) in at this time . Jews do not matter that is the other world just as authors words don t matter ,your job is to overtake ( Nietzsche ) overthrow them . Bottom line without them you are nothing ....cant have that !
![Rick Roderick on Derrida - The Ends of Man [full length]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LvAwoUvXNzU/mqdefault.jpg)
Time stamps avaliable in the description!
Marvelously presented and summed up in such a short time. Many thanks! Hope to see more content coming up.
Thank you! I'm currently recording Mark Fisher, Plato, and Socrates which will hopefully be out soon
As a mathematician, I find myself intrigued by the inherent ambiguity of language-a theme central to Jacques Derrida's lectures and work. In mathematics, our 'primitives' or foundational concepts are defined by their properties and dynamics, forming a language of precision and unambiguous communication. Yet, in the human linguistic sphere, as Derrida often explored, words or 'primitives' are more fluid, shaped by sensory input and complex associations.
Take, for instance, the multifaceted nature of simple words like 'speech' or 'address.' 'Speech' can refer to the act of talking or a formal oration, and 'address' might mean a formal speech or a physical location. This polysemy, the coexistence of many possible meanings for a word or phrase, is absent in the mathematical lexicon, where each term has a clearly delineated boundary.
Derrida's deconstructionist approach sheds light on this ambiguity. He emphasized how words are not merely vessels for pre-existing meanings but are active participants in meaning creation, constantly in flux. This is evident when considering a word like 'dog.' In its basic form, it refers to an animal, a meaning established through direct association. However, the moment it's used metaphorically-say, to describe an unfaithful person-the word's meaning shifts, embodying the very essence of linguistic ambiguity that Derrida examined.
What captivates me about philosophy is its rigorous examination of the very essence of ambiguous language. Philosophers venture beyond merely acknowledging the existence of multiple definitions; they probe deeply into the implications of this ambiguity. In doing so, they unravel the intricacies and complexities of human communication. Their approach is not just about facing the proverbial 'devil in the details' but engaging with it, dissecting and understanding each nuanced aspect. This thorough exploration is what I find most compelling.
You are such a great teacher. This was so useful. Thank you!
The major concepts of all the major Western philosophers are the basic ideas of Plato, Hermetic occult philosophy and Hegel, over and over again.
Structuralism, Post-Structuralism, Deconstruction; these all have their analog in Hermetic philosophy.
It may seem a waste by way of unnecessary duplication but it is actually better this way.
Since such ideas are difficult to grasp and hard to pin down in language, having different versions and takes of them from widely different perspectives, can only help our understanding and clarity ultimately.
Man, it's unbelievable how much work You are putting in this, despite obviously not being a really popular channel.
I am certain that You will gain more and more traction, just because of the sheer amount of quality and clarity that I see in the production. Keep up the good work. There are real people out there that appreciate Your work!
Really appreciate this comment. I currently have Plato/Socrates, Deleuze, and Mark Fisher ready I just need to find time to record them...the pandemic is crazy
@@SimplePhilosophyReeceGoscinski Yeah don’t mention it... I’m among the lucky ones who can easily work from home. Really looking forward to Mark Fisher!
Your channel is fantastic. Nice work.
I can finally begin understanding Hauntology! Thank you very so much!!!
Your channel is a treat to me! Just came across this, having rummaged the youtube for a good explanation on Hauntology. Keep on posting and I request you to upload lectures on Deleuze and Heidegger.
Thanks for watching! Deleuze is coming for sure! Just trying to find time to record as the pandemic is making work crazy...stay tuned hopefully next month
This was an excellent presentation that was both clear and concise! Good job!
I don't get it, every other source says signified vs signifier the other way around. So the signifier is the word/image etc. which refers to the signified (the mental concept, the "actual dog")?
true
this was a very helpful video! thanks a lot!
Brilliant. Thank you so much for this!
Did you mix up signified and signifier? Surely it's like meaner and meant, the image, word, sound, or symbol, and the idea it conveys.
Thank you for the video!
Thank you so much! That was very very comprehensive 🙏
Thank you! Glad it helped, hoping to do the same with Deleuze
Thank you so much for this. Very helpful! :)
Thanks for watching! Glad it was helpful 🙂
Personally, I always appreciate explanations of Heidegger.
Intellectual maturity admits it doesn't have a solid understanding of everything. Re: Derrida Noam Chomsky wrote "I found the scholarship appalling... Nietzsche, "there are no facts, only interpretations. Derrida follows through with Nietzsche's premise. Wittgenstein, meaning is use...I hear Trumps remarks as racist and someone else doesn't hear it that way at all.
relative to Derrida thinking , one after listening to this,,, will chase ( trace ) down other podcasts on Derrida so to clarify a meaning that in fact does not exist ,than stream another etc. One learns his game than becomes lost when playing it .One has to wait ,find a work of choice by a author than you overtake it ( Hegel slave master dialect ).later in a failed attempt used by Marx. That is in fact the danger of reworking original meanings intended by the author . Not the fact that people misused Marx . Truth it was Marx through his own mind that ran with Hegel doctrine than falsifies it under the banner of Freedom ( even lured Sartre) just as Heidegger did not apologize for his support of the Natzi horror machine . Why ? Because it gave active meaning to his doctrine of being in time. Where Germany is the world that your being exists ( thrown into ) in at this time . Jews do not matter that is the other world just as authors words don t matter ,your job is to overtake ( Nietzsche ) overthrow them . Bottom line without them you are nothing ....cant have that !
Woof
grrrr!"