Ok, I posted this in response to some comments on the previous post, but im not sure if you all are looking at those posts. So here it is again, with further comments
( Read more... )
what is meant by "the tracing of the trace"... frankly I have read little of Derrida (Specters of Marx, begrudgingly for a class) and I find it so hard to follow at points that I often just give up. I think I get "Ontology is language par excellence" but how can something be "supplemental and yet more originary"... this is doublespeak, is it not? Derrida does this all the time in the quest to deconstruct the world, but I find it really... self-indulgent to a point.
your point about deconstruction being "politically dangerous" is so true. I utilize "Marxism" just because I see an influence from Marx in Capitalism and Schizophrenia, how could you write a book about Capitalism and not be influenced by its greatest critic. However, the 20th century was marked by philosophy of language, that is the working out of aporias within texts was somehow seen as sufficient praxis, meanwhile the world was and still is on the verge of complete destruction! Something more urgent needs to be done, immediately. On the other hand, perhaps studying philosophy and pursuing the monastic life is the only thing a person can do in these crazy times. Once you show that fascism is similar to democracy then you see that the problems are much more dire than we first imagined. In this sense deconstruction is pretty bleak stuff.
Comments 3
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Leave a comment