A Quick Bit of Help With Differance: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » A Quick Bit of Help With Differance » A Quick Bit of Help With Differance

Page: 1 2 3

A Quick Bit of Help With Differance

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 10/16/09 - 02:45 PM:	#11
I much prefer working with the meaning behind whatever utterance somebody uses. It makes much more sense. (if you can of course weedle it out of the symbol...) Difference represents the principle by which language works: that is, the process we have referred to as 'binary opposition,' or the perception of phonemic differences between sounds. As Saussure puts it, 'in language there are only differences.' To differ or differentiate, Derrida argues, is also to defer: to postpone; to hold back; to propose a distinction between entities as will enable one to refer to the other, or to be distinguished from it. That is, it represents involvement in a structuring process. Here, Derrida uses the 'e' system and not the 'a' system. Personally? the 'e' and 'a' in derrida's case at that point is interchangable. The 'i' however should be an 'e'. The arguments for and against the actual statement then becomes much more clearer since the definition behind the word more reflects the terminology behind the placeholder. Again - I start from a different starting point from that which is written by somebody. Let's look at a simple aspect of language. Determining the difference between two cats such that by the mere physical existence - language can actually evolve such that "John and John are sensibly walking down the road." without resorting to nonsense.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

makerowner
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 15, 2008

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 326

Posted 10/16/09 - 04:56 PM:	#12
Cadrache wrote: I much prefer working with the meaning behind whatever utterance somebody uses. It makes much more sense. (if you can of course weedle it out of the symbol...) Difference represents the principle by which language works: that is, the process we have referred to as 'binary opposition,' or the perception of phonemic differences between sounds. As Saussure puts it, 'in language there are only differences.' To differ or differentiate, Derrida argues, is also to defer: to postpone; to hold back; to propose a distinction between entities as will enable one to refer to the other, or to be distinguished from it. That is, it represents involvement in a structuring process. Here, Derrida uses the 'e' system and not the 'a' system. Personally? the 'e' and 'a' in derrida's case at that point is interchangable. The 'i' however should be an 'e'. The arguments for and against the actual statement then becomes much more clearer since the definition behind the word more reflects the terminology behind the placeholder. Again - I start from a different starting point from that which is written by somebody.. You're making me very suspicious that you haven't in fact read anything by Derrida, despite your confidence that his "Difference" [sic] is "extremely limited"... The passage you quoted is not by Derrida, it's about him, as should be obvious from the "Derrida argues". If you had read the text in question (Derrida's "La différance", in Marges de la philosophie) you would know that the 'a' and 'e' are not "interchangeable": the spelling with 'a' is the whole point of the term, derived from 'différant' on the model of 'différence' from 'différent'. Let's look at a simple aspect of language. Determining the difference between two cats such that by the mere physical existence - language can actually evolve such that "John and John are sensibly walking down the road." without resorting to nonsense Speaking of nonsense... Did a sentence get deleted here or something?
For philosophy, Socrates, if pursued in moderation and at the proper age, is an elegant accomplishment, but too much philosophy is the ruin of human life. Even if a man has good parts, still, if he carries philosophy into later life, he is necessarily ignorant of all those things which a gentleman and a person of honour ought to know.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 10/16/09 - 05:31 PM:	#13
Exactly. Divisional derives the difference between the e and the a. No... I re-wrote part of that and missed all the corrections. (I was inturrupted and missed where I left off at.) It should read: Let's look at a simple aspect of language; determining the difference/defferance/differance between two cats. Without resorting to nonsense, use Derrida's system to evolve language to such a degree that you can claim this cat there is not that cat here. That way we can sensibly have John walking alongside John.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 10/16/09 - 06:35 PM:	#14
Let's grab another part then. How about the word Regression? Dog Cat John Walk Is the are all. I agree with PositiveGenius actually - when it comes to the whole absolute thing. I just disagree that it doesn't exist. When we talk about the dog - to - language system... there is definately things left out. Same thing with Running. Things are left out. I just disagree with the second part. Where people argue with Derrida about the regressionary with defferance evolves language is where I disagree. It is the 'left out' parts of Dog and the left out parts of running that we use in order to evolve language. Instead of having dog and running seperate - we acquire "running dog." If we base the evolution of language from Derrida's defferance; what we really claim is that 'nonsense' - or things that have no relationship one to the other is the actual advancement of language. Nonsense creates the formal logic behind actual sentence structure. Which is sort of dumb. By way of Derrida's Defferance we cannot actually claim two seperate John's walking side by side. Simply because the part that is left out is 'which side of which John does which John exist by?" The logic for determining the function of the left out parts negates the nonsense which allows us to coherently claim that the sentence "John is walking beside John" makes sense. Then we land in the defferance area. How do you defer the existence of two seperate cats? Or even better; two seperate cups? Like a Red cup and a blue cup? Defferance exists not by way of color - but by way of 'cups.' We cannot regress two different cups by way of color in order to infer independency. The seperation from cup1 and cup2 disapears as we regress red and blue to 'color'. We arrive at "A colored cup and a colored cup" by way of regression. As such we cannot defer independant cups. If regression doesn't work - we then must expand. We expand mere 'color' to 'different colors'. Since we expand from color - we then can expand singular 'cups' regressionary to include 'different' cups as well. Defferance therefore arises from expansion and not regression. If Derrida's Defferance argues that Defferance comes from regression - then no defferance can truly take place outside of nonsense.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 10/16/09 - 06:43 PM:	#15
I claim Divison and not Regression in order for Derrida's Defferance to actually function.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 10/16/09 - 07:29 PM:	#16
Why then should I read Derrida's work when the build up for defferance is already flawed from the get go? Why bother claiming that Derrida's work is valid if it is based on a flawed concept for regression instead of division? The most likely outcome is that the definition for division and regression have been amalgamated. As such - the things that are not defined would be the driving force behind Derrida's Defferance.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

makerowner
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 15, 2008

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 326

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 10/17/09 - 09:45 AM:	#17
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Are you criticizing Derrida? Proposing a new idea of your own? I can't tell. What are you saying about "defferance"? (A word Derrida doesn't use, by the way, so calling it "Derrida's deferrence" is misleading at best.) What is this "regression" you're talking about? I can't make heads or tails of anything you've written. Cadrache wrote: Why then should I read Derrida's work when the build up for defferance is already flawed from the get go? How can you possibly know that it's flawed if you haven't read the work? There isn't even any such thing as "defferance" in Derrida's work or anywhere else that I know of, so how could his "build up" for it be flawed? Basically I'm saying that if you intend to criticize someone, you ought to at least know what your criticizing, ie. as an absolute minimum, to have read the text. I don't think that's a lot to ask.
For philosophy, Socrates, if pursued in moderation and at the proper age, is an elegant accomplishment, but too much philosophy is the ruin of human life. Even if a man has good parts, still, if he carries philosophy into later life, he is necessarily ignorant of all those things which a gentleman and a person of honour ought to know.

Vigotski
The catcher in the rye

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 15, 2008
Location: Unknown Russia.

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 77

Posted 10/18/09 - 10:30 AM:	#18
makerowner wrote: Basically I'm saying that if you intend to criticize someone, you ought to at least know what your criticizing, ie. as an absolute minimum, to have read the text. I don't think that's a lot to ask. True.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 10/19/09 - 06:01 PM:	#19
Anyways... next topic. If I quote PositiveGenius and claim I disagree why is it that I disagree with someone else? It doesn't matter in the least if Derrida never even wrote anything. I am disagreeing with what PositiveGenius wrote. Pay closer attention to whose who. As well as the word if. IF Derrida's Difference If this... if that. Then I disagree. But since you want me to argue against one of Derrida's work... 1. Does Derrida make a claim that Defferance must function through Regression? 2. Does Derrida make a claim that Defferance must go through Regression? 3. What is the differance to outcomes between the two? Stop arguing 'the authority' and actually get down to talking about Defferance. At the moment I think we should leave the differeing 'my opinion' portions alone.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

quickly
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 29, 2007

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 233

Posted 10/20/09 - 07:24 PM:	#20
makerowner: I didn't mean to suggest that Derrida invented or discovered differance to specifically disprove anything; nor did I state he was a pragmatist. I still maintain that differance is a structuring principle of any type of structure such as those proposed by Saussure or Levi-Strauss or structuralism in general, a definition of which is not necessary now. Because I've been studying early modern and critical philosophy recently, I personally find that I should hold each "lesson" (of which I said differance "disproves") intimately close to the ever deferred and differing self. Derrida begins to be a canvas into which any view of some compatable "type" can be read - from some of the more recent trends in analytic philosophy to the continental post-Heideggerians. While I personally believe a "mitigated deconstruction" is a useful methodological tool, I don't think it is anything more than that. My point is: your insight is illuminating, but I don't (a) have the access to Derrida's texts I'd like to at the moment; and (b) don't feel like wading through Derrida's texts if I had access to them at the moment. Other than that, you discussion looks familiar and in line with what I know and have read by Derrida, and you're probably right - especially having read Freud after Derrida. I still have no idea what Cadrache is saying or arguing, however (surprisingly, I'd like to think, unlike Derrida).
Sunt bona, sunt quaedam mediocria, sunt mala plura quae legis hic; aliter non fit philosophyforums.com (cf., Martial, Epigrammata I.XVI)

Page: 1 2 3

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.