What is Derrida Saying to Us?

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Philosophy Now
Posts: 910
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am

What is Derrida Saying to Us?

Post by Philosophy Now » Sat Sep 01, 2018 7:50 pm

Mike Sutton gives us his present interpretation of Derrida’s traces.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/127/What_is_Derrida_Saying_to_Us

Melchior
Posts: 839
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 3:20 pm

Re: What is Derrida Saying to Us?

Post by Melchior » Sun Sep 02, 2018 2:15 am

Don't know, don't care.

User avatar
Duncan Butlin
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:33 am
Location: Chichester, West Sussex, UK
Contact:

Re: What is Derrida Saying to Us?

Post by Duncan Butlin » Sun Sep 02, 2018 6:07 am

Philosophy Now --- Derrida’s principal purpose is to tie everybody’s brains up in knots so he can derogate men and boost women without you noticing. His ‘deconstructionism’ is the deconstruction of man, using terms like ‘phallocentric dogmatism’ (men think with their sexual organs). When I put this to him in 1998, over the phone, he was stumped, and, contradicting his own theory of writing conquering talking, he invited me over to Paris for a discussion (later cancelled, unfortunately).


Please visit my website

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2833
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: What is Derrida Saying to Us?

Post by -1- » Sun Sep 02, 2018 8:48 am

Duncan Butlin wrote:
Sun Sep 02, 2018 6:07 am
Philosophy Now --- Derrida’s principal purpose is to tie everybody’s brains up in knots so he can derogate men and boost women without you noticing. His ‘deconstructionism’ is the deconstruction of man, using terms like ‘phallocentric dogmatism’ (men think with their sexual organs). When I put this to him in 1998, over the phone, he was stumped, and, contradicting his own theory of writing conquering talking, he invited me over to Paris for a discussion (later cancelled, unfortunately).


Please visit my website
"...principal purpose" ought to be "...principle purpose".

I figured out so far that male philosophers -- good or bad, famous or non-name, professional or amateur -- are men on the autism scale.

I haven't figured out female philosophers yet. All I can tell you about them is that they are much more heavily into practical ethics than men, and they are completely happy to be "halfway there", that is, they are happy to establish a theorem or hypotheses, and they are not as hard-nosed about an inner need to prove their theories true, as men are with their own.

Specific female philosophers that come to mind are Greta, Hanna Arendt, VegetarianTaxidermy. Specific male philosophers that come to mind are all male philosophers, here on this site and elsewhere, with the sole exception (to my knowledge) of Hume. QuantumT and Dalek Prime seem to be too light-hearted and not blood-thirsty enough in their endeavours to win arguments to fit the bill of real philosophers. But they are nicer, much easier to get along with, and they can brighten up your day. Uwot, on the other hand, has the blood-thirst, but he camouflages it with his kind sense of subtle humour. I am definitely a ravaging wolf-bull-rhinoceros mix.

You, Duncan, stick to your theory, despite your outside kindness and politeness, like a tick to a coon dog. You are not alone in this on this site. All of us are like you, except for the politeness (only a few others can muster enough gumption to stay polite), and except for the theory you represent. It is highly unfashionable what you stand for, it is outdated, it is proven false, and you are making a fool of yourself, but hey, who am I to stand between you and your free speech.

Nick_A
Posts: 4293
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: What is Derrida Saying to Us?

Post by Nick_A » Sun Sep 09, 2018 12:10 am

-1-
I haven't figured out female philosophers yet. All I can tell you about them is that they are much more heavily into practical ethics than men, and they are completely happy to be "halfway there", that is, they are happy to establish a theorem or hypotheses, and they are not as hard-nosed about an inner need to prove their theories true, as men are with their own.

Specific female philosophers that come to mind are Greta, Hanna Arendt, VegetarianTaxidermy. Specific male philosophers that come to mind are all male philosophers, here on this site and elsewhere, with the sole exception (to my knowledge) of Hume. QuantumT and Dalek Prime seem to be too light-hearted and not blood-thirsty enough in their endeavours to win arguments to fit the bill of real philosophers. But they are nicer, much easier to get along with, and they can brighten up your day. Uwot, on the other hand, has the blood-thirst, but he camouflages it with his kind sense of subtle humour. I am definitely a ravaging wolf-bull-rhinoceros mix.
Sadly I have to agree. Philosophy is now celebrated as the way to destroy intellectually. "Blood lust" is an essential quality in order to be considered superior modern philosophers. Winning is of supreme importance for modern philosophy even if only in appearance.

I miss the old days of Socratic ignorance where the purpose of the Socratic dialogue was to reveal our collective ignorance rather than the celebration of blood lust. I know this is insulting for modern philosophy which revels in expressing its intelligence and finds peak enjoyment in crushing the ego of its imagined inferiors. Valuing Socratic ignorance may be an increasingly vanishing value but it may be like a person remembering an old lover and beginning to realize what they have lost.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: What is Derrida Saying to Us?

Post by TimeSeeker » Tue Sep 11, 2018 5:06 pm

What Derrida calls 'deconstruction' is what software engineers call debugging. It is directly related to the symbol-grounding problem and how all non-regular/non-rationalg languages (e.g those that don't fall under the Chomsky hierarchy) are entirely open to interpretation.

What regular languages (logics)give us is a set of objective rules for interpreting meaning thus solving the symbol-grounding problem.

Atla
Posts: 2491
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What is Derrida Saying to Us?

Post by Atla » Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:48 am

-1- wrote:
Sun Sep 02, 2018 8:48 am
I figured out so far that male philosophers -- good or bad, famous or non-name, professional or amateur -- are men on the autism scale.
My theory is that autistics, savants, and autistic savants have some kind of synchronization problem within their neocortex. So their thinking kinda jumps back and forth between the left and the right side of their neocortex. But paradoxically this constant back and forth jumping is exactly what creates a very real "I". Is there really anyone home in a normal human's head, to ask existential questions, or are those humans basically just reacting to stimuli?

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: What is Derrida Saying to Us?

Post by TimeSeeker » Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:50 am

Atla wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:48 am
My theory is that autistics, savants, and autistic savants have some kind of synchronization problem within their neocortex. So their thinking kinda jumps back and forth between the left and the right side of their neocortex. But paradoxically this constant back and forth jumping is exactly what creates a very real "I". Is there really anyone home in a normal human's head, to ask existential questions, or are those humans basically just reacting to stimuli?
I am on the Asperger spectrum. At the risk of being pedantic I think the word "problem" is influencing your thinking. Whatever the cause/ontology of this thing we call "autism" is - I recognise that it gives me abilities that neurotypicals don't have (emotional detachment). And it also presents some challenges for social adaptation. Which is why we herd together in technology companies.

Is that good or bad? That depends in how you conceptualise morality.

Happy to answer questions. But the first question I would ask you is this: "What is your paragon for 'normal human'"? In the language of statistics - what is your baseline?
Last edited by TimeSeeker on Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

Atla
Posts: 2491
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What is Derrida Saying to Us?

Post by Atla » Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:59 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:50 am
At the risk of being pedantic I think the word "problem" is influencing your thinking.
Not sure what you mean.

I've seen many Aspies who only use one definition for every word, which makes communication almost impossible since most words have multiple meanings depending on context. But you are the first person I've seen who actually seems to think in computer code.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: What is Derrida Saying to Us?

Post by TimeSeeker » Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:01 am

Atla wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:59 am
Not sure what you mean.
The word carries social stigma - so I am careful that you don't bring a value-laden meaning to the table.
Atla wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:59 am
I've seen many Aspies who only use one definition for every word, which makes communication almost impossible since most words have multiple meanings depending on context. But you are the first person I've seen who actually seems to think in computer code.
My metaphysics is computer science/information theory/probability theory - yes. I translate it into English.
I can also turn it off on demand and be very "human" - emotional, caring and understanding and all that :)

We recognise that words have multiple meanings. The problem is that in trying to figure out which context to parse the word in.
Since I am a generalist and I have broad exposure to physics, biology, chemistry, computer science, mathematics, and most recently - philosophy and an exceptionally curious mind (so I have probably left out a number of fields I have grounding in). I have 4-5 meanings for every word in my head. Because everybody develops their own nomenclature (language) for the same damn phenomena it creates far more ambiguity for me than it does for you and so I trip over WSD ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word-sense_disambiguation ).

Also - I do like precision. Innately.

Atla
Posts: 2491
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What is Derrida Saying to Us?

Post by Atla » Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:11 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:01 am
Atla wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:59 am
Not sure what you mean.
The word carries social stigma - so I am careful that you don't bring a value-laden meaning to the table.
Atla wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:59 am
I've seen many Aspies who only use one definition for every word, which makes communication almost impossible since most words have multiple meanings depending on context. But you are the first person I've seen who actually seems to think in computer code.
My metaphysics is computer science/information theory/probability theory - yes. I translate it into English.
I can also turn it off on demand and be very "human" - emotional, caring and understanding and all that :)

We recognise that words have multiple meanings. The problem is that in trying to figure out which context to parse the word in.
Since I am a generalist and I have broad exposure to physics, biology, chemistry, computer science, mathematics, and most recently - philosophy and an exceptionally curious mind (so I have probably left out a number of fields I have grounding in). I have 4-5 meanings for every word in my head. Because everybody develops their own nomenclature (language) for the same damn phenomena it creates far more ambiguity for me than it does for you and so I trip over WSD ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word-sense_disambiguation ).

Also - I do like precision. Innately.
Why do you expect others on a philosophy forum to base their thinking on information theory / computer code? (And binary computation instead of fuzzy.) When did they agree on that?

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: What is Derrida Saying to Us?

Post by TimeSeeker » Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:16 am

Atla wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:11 am
Why do you expect others on a philosophy forum to base their thinking on information theory / computer code? (And binary computation instead of fuzzy.) When did they agree on that?
Well, firstly - my metaphysical language is Mathematics. "Computer science" and "information theory" are just the English phrases for the mathematical bodies of work.

Computation is not binary. That's your misconception. The atomics (bits) are binary. The systems synthesised from such atomics behave in fuzzy, probabilistic, modal, temporal fashion. This is emergence in a nutshell. Which is why we need to recognise reductionism, synthesis and complexity when we talk about "universes" and "quarks" in the same sentence.

Quantum computation atomics (qubits) are not binary. The systems synthesized from such atomics behave in.... quantum(? i need a word here) fashion.

I don't expect you to do anything. Philosophers are claiming to be pursuing "truth". Their logocentrism (and in part - failing to incorporate their egocentrism) is the very thing which stands in their way of getting there.I have a mathematical intuition/conception - most philosophers don't. e.g your thinking is limited by your language.

I speak truth. You can learn from me, or fight me.

Atla
Posts: 2491
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What is Derrida Saying to Us?

Post by Atla » Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:25 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:16 am
Atla wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:11 am
Why do you expect others on a philosophy forum to base their thinking on information theory / computer code? (And binary computation instead of fuzzy.) When did they agree on that?
Well, firstly - my metaphysical language is Mathematics. "Computer science" and "information theory" are just the English phrases for the mathematical bodies of work.

Computation is not binary. That's your misconception. The atomics (bits) are binary. The systems synthesised from such atomics behave in fuzzy, probabilistic, modal, temporal fashion. This is emergence in a nutshell. Which is why we need to recognise reductionism, synthesis and complexity when we talk about "universes" and "quarks" in the same sentence.

Quantum computation atomics (qubits) are not binary. The systems synthesized from such atomics behave in.... quantum(? i need a word here) fashion.

I don't expect you to do anything. Philosophers are claiming to be pursuing "truth". Their logocentrism (and in part - failing to incorporate their egocentrism) is the very thing which stands in their way of getting there.I have a mathematical intuition/conception - most philosophers don't. e.g your thinking is limited by your language.

I speak truth. You can learn from me, or fight me.
Yeah as usual almost every sentence in this comment is nonsensical but I don't care to correct them anymore. Guess you are one of those philosophers who claim to know the truth.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: What is Derrida Saying to Us?

Post by TimeSeeker » Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:30 am

Atla wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:25 am
Yeah as usual almost every sentence in this comment is nonsensical but I don't care to correct them anymore.
How sure are you that anything needs correction?
Have you considered the alternative hypothesis? Your knowledge is limited and therefore you cannot parse my meaning. That is what "word salad" is.

I shall provide you with study material:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
* Introduction to complexity science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8v2Udd_PM&t=9s
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit

Which other parts would you like me to elaborate on?
Atla wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:25 am
Guess you are one of those philosophers who claim to know the truth.
There is no "truth". It's just a concept.

All you need to adjust is that feeling you felt when you recognised the urge to correct me, allow yourself to ask "what am I missing here?" :)
Last edited by TimeSeeker on Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

Atla
Posts: 2491
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What is Derrida Saying to Us?

Post by Atla » Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:37 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:30 am
Atla wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:25 am
Yeah as usual almost every sentence in this comment is nonsensical but I don't care to correct them anymore.
How sure are you that anything needs correction?
Have you considered the alternative hypothesis? Your knowledge is limited and therefore you cannot parse my meaning.

I shall provide you with study material:
* Introduction to complexity science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8v2Udd_PM&t=9s
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit

Which other parts would you like me to elaborate on?
Atla wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:25 am
Guess you are one of those philosophers who claim to know the truth.
There is no "truth". It's just a concept.

All you need to "fix" is that feeling you felt when you recognised the urge to "correct" me, allow yourself to ask "what am I missing here?" :)
I considered such childish views of the world long ago. Also, using binary logic instead a combination of binary and fuzzy, and the constant use of the reification fallacy about information, will get you nowhere. I already explained to you why strictly basing metaphysics into an abstract, dimensionless construct is a massive fallacy.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests