What is Deconstruction? | Jacques Derrida | Keyword

In this episode, I try to explain provide an introduction to Deconstruction.

If you want to support me, you can do that with these links:

IG: @theory_and_philosophy

[roberthorsfield]

Wish this came out when I started my dissertation lol respect all the same my guy

[angeltrazo]

PhD student in Cultural Studies. I don't necessarily have to read Derrida directly, but he gets cited a lot in Cultural Studies papers I use for my dissertation. Grateful for this video because of its clear explanation of Derrida's concepts. Thanks, David!

[fatememurdoch]

i've been listening to the podcast the whole time and now i see the video. fantastic. i have no word to describe how i have been benefiting from the lectures. how can you do so much reading. thank you thank you..

[Popularshortschannel]

Thank god for you, everyone else i watched on this subject just waffled on about rubbish, you were so helpful.

[ethansadberry]

Love this glad i found your channel. You really make Derrida more clear than other philosophy youtubers

[adaml.jensen]

Seen a few other comments alluding to this, but i would love if you could explain, or point me towards an explanation, of how this is different from dialectics?
Seems like nothing new is being said here by Derrida, but I assume I'm missing something important

[Mimi]

I cannot thank you This really helped me better understand Derrida and now I feel better writing my essay for ENG362. Thank you thank you thank you :')

[vallarishivkumar]

thank you for rhis! it really helped. understood more than i did from an entire semester of college.

[formidablefriend]

Dude. Thank you. I can read shit and listen to my professor ramble on and it sounds like just a random word generator. This makes sense. Thank you.

[williamkoscielniak]

All binaries are dependent upon each other in order to exit at all. There is no up without down, black without white, left without right, male without female, etc. So I don't see how either one could ever be primary and the other secondary, because that would mean that one came first, but since they depend upon each other in order exist, they must co-arise. Like, imagine "up" being the cause of "down". That is inconceivable because one cannot imagine up existing at any point without down also existing.

As far as whether or not binaries exist in nature, I think that depends in part on how one conceives "nature". If nature is meant as only the physical world observed by the senses, then maybe they don't. But if ones concept of nature includes the Interior/subjective element of existence, then they could be considered to be an aspect of nature by virtue of existing in the psyche.

[props]

Clear explanation. Just stumbled upon your channel and love your work. Thanks mate🙏

[EmptyKingdoms]

To step back from the already-made decision and undecide.

[AVeryHappyFish]

I remember how I first heard Michael's Jackson's song "Black or White" and I couldn't put my finger on what was so wrong with it. Then I realized: it's the word order! It felt right to say "white or black", but it felt intuitively wrong to hear him sing "black or white". I'm white, and he was black... So I drew the conclusion that we always put what is more important to us as the first of such a dual binary. But I didn't think of it in terms of privilege or deeply enough. Although the fact that in books I'd always read "men and women", "boys and girls", but never in reversed order, annoyed me. I remember meeting a woman once who said "women and men", in that order, and I instantly knew that she paid attention to the word order, too, because otherwise she'd say "men and women" automatically. My guess was confirmed when she used the same word order once again, it was certainly not a fluke. ;)

P.S. Now that I'm a cat owner, it never fails to create a passing feeling of confusion whenever I read "dogs and cats". It's subtle, yet it feels wrong to me. Like, how could anyone EVER write "dogs and cats"?! Do they care for boring dogs more than for magnificent cats?! :D

[maniak]

That's actually one of the best and clearest explanations of the term I've heard on Youtube. Did you ever think of making a video on Niklas Luhmann's system theory?

[BlindEyeJones]

Your words have more presence with the visual -- easier to understanding.

[williamcallahan]

At first I watched it because you were a pleasant distraction... like the binary of hot vs cold, you being the preferred ;) but turns out you are articulate as well. icing.

[boukhentacheslimane]

Thank you for this clear explanation; but on the point of speech and writing, Derrida does not argue which precedes the other. He is just saying that they are complementary and superimosed.

[thornspitfire]

I don't think this is a "discovery" per se. Hegel already talked about the dialectic, Derrida merely seemed to show a method of synthesis without drawing a conlcusion. Even before him we knew of the hermeneutics. The only thing he added to this mix seems to be scepticism towards understanding anything from the process of construction and deconstruction. He basically played himself by contradicting deconstruction to construction, he should have seen them as the same thing, or just part of the process of understanding. But then he would have realized all he did was playing dialectic with himself.

[MyFashionstylist]

Derrida’s deconstruction theory shares similarities with the concept of duality in Buddhism, which has existed for over 2, 000 years. It is possible that he drew inspiration from Eastern thought, as early 20th-century Western culture began engaging with ideas from Eastern philosophy. Below is a summary of their key similarities and differences.

Similarities

1. Challenging Binary Oppositions
Derrida’s deconstruction aims to question and break down hierarchical binaries like speech/writing, presence/absence, and male/female. He argues that these oppositions are unstable and interdependent. Similarly, Zen Buddhism and Taoism challenge rigid dualities, such as good/evil or self/other, emphasizing that these concepts arise interdependently and have no fixed meaning.

2. Non-Fixation on Absolute Meaning
Both frameworks resist the idea of a single, ultimate truth. Derrida asserts that meaning is always deferred and contextual, while Zen Buddhism stresses the impermanence and emptiness of phenomena, including concepts.

3. Interdependence and Fluidity
Taoism’s idea of yin and yang illustrates that opposites are interconnected and fluid, constantly transforming into each other. Derrida’s différance similarly implies that meanings are never fixed and are defined through difference.

Differences

1. Philosophical Objectives
Deconstruction is primarily a linguistic and philosophical tool to critique structures of thought. In contrast, Zen and Taoist Buddhism are spiritual paths aimed at transcending conceptual thinking altogether, often through meditation and direct experience.

2. Language and Experience
Derrida focuses heavily on language and the endless play of meaning. Zen Buddhism, on the other hand, encourages practitioners to move beyond language and intellectual reasoning to attain direct enlightenment (satori).

3. Purpose
Deconstruction often leads to critique and skepticism. Zen Buddhism aims for liberation and inner peace by dissolving attachment to dualistic thinking.

Conclusion

While there are profound conceptual resonances between Derrida’s deconstruction and the duality concepts in Buddhism and Taoism, they operate in different domains—philosophy versus spiritual practice. Both, however, invite us to question rigid binaries and explore deeper, non-linear forms of understanding reality.

[kellyrankin]

I've recently become more aware of how much certain people hate French philosophers and I'm trying to make sense of it all. Chomsky was pretty brutal towards them. I don't really agree with everything he said, but I kind of understand where he's coming from. I wonder if you would consider doing some kind of a video on that.