[thetrizzard]

Yeah, I’m looking at it as my first Wittgenstein guide more than anything. I will look for more on Derrida elsewhere to contrast with this book. Do you have any recommendations for understanding Derrida more comprehensively, now that I get the basics?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Deconstruction engages key philosophical texts, these texts are strategically targeted as they have been instrumental in perpetuating specific themes / claims in Western Philosophy, his method of Deconstruction (which draws from many thinkers especially Nietzsche, Heidegger & Lacan) is a method which unpicks these texts and exposes their unconscious logic….Given the many influences in his work and Derrida’s style, he is notoriously difficult to pin down, this is partly intentional…having a good knowledge of these influences / thinkers is essential really….but secondary sources are a good way in, it would be prudent to read a few of these to get a feel for him rather than taking the first person you read ‘as gospel’….I found this book useful

Derrida (Fontana Modern Masters) https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0006860575/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_pJuEybP03P3AE

After that I’d recommend Derrida: A Critical Reader by David Wood

[thetrizzard]

Thanks for the link, I will bear all of that in mind when reading it. I’m still waiting for my copy.

I’m not sure I follow the ‘no metaphysics’ view towards Derrida’s philosophy, yet the introduction book you bought me says it’s a metaphysical materialism.

The fact that the authors of this book persistently refer to Derrida as dealing with literary texts rather than ‘doing philosophy’ tells me that they haven’t grasped the importance of his ideas which are of fundamental philosophical importance, I’m dubious that the authors of this book have a full grasp of Derrida’s project and struggle with his challenge to their notion of ‘philosophy’, especially in relation to truth in the post-Nietzschean landscape

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[thetrizzard]

http://www.newtongarver.com/?q=node/8

[thetrizzard]

Meaning is a relationship between two sorts of things: signs and the kinds of things they mean (intend, express or signify) is the usual view of language, whereas I see being as structured like a language. You can have body language for example, which is movement and stance which can convey a meaning, but it’s self-referential.

From my understanding of what symbols and language seem to be in general occult-speak, the symbols evoke or invoke from beyond, so the symbols refer to something. My new approach is to view the language and the things as one and the same, as the structure is the same.

So I would see the first structure as I—–>Language/Symbol—–>Object, so it goes from inside to outside
I see the second explanation as I and Object structured as symbols and language and it’s all on the outside within language (being).

There needs to be a distinction drawn here between the ‘Object’ being real, imaginary or merely symbolic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[thetrizzard]

Metaphysical materialism is an excellent term to bridge the gap between philosophy and the occult for me. Especially when language is seen as the ontology, this sheds a light on symbolism in occultism – the power of symbols as a determinism.

What do you mean by language as ontology?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[thetrizzard]

How would ‘Metaphysical Materialism’ render the claims of the occultist?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[thetrizzard]

The authors of the book ‘Derrida and Wittgenstein’ seem to be making the claim that Wittgenstein is somehow clearer in making the point about the errors of using language as a representational model (I’m sceptical about this WWF approach to philosophy because I find both equally important and it doesn’t have to be an either / or) I do however appreciate the fact that Derrida is interdisciplinary and engages with a wide variety of thinkers from different fields that intersect and in doing so revitalises their contribution to Western thought and enriches our understanding of their work, whereas Wittgenstein doesn’t particularly do much of this. His work is mainly in response to problems posed by Kant and the atomistic errors made by the Logical Positivists

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Author]

Posts