Jacques Derrida on Deconstruction (Makers of the Modern World)

This is part of our Makers of the Modern World series in which we look at the ideas of the postmodern philosopher Jacques Derrida and his idea of deconstruction.

[barelyprotestant]

My Philosophy Department was nothing but Derrida, Foucault, Badiou, etc. This video gave me intense flashbacks.

[ts-js]

Thank you so much, Dr Cooper, a short digest that helps by putting words and roots on the world we face today. It is important to understand the enemy as Christians in the western world and pedestrians like me struggle to go through the minimum study to resist.

[rowanwilliams]

Another excellent video, Dr Cooper! I've watched/listened to all the videos in this series from beginning to end, and have found them all really helpful. I focussed on philosophical hermeneutics in my MA in Theology and read works by most of these thinkers, and yet I still learned a lot from what you have produced. Would you be willing to go into such thinkers as Gadamer and Ricoeur in future videos?

[internetenjoyer]

you dont need a commentary to appreciate Ulysses the prose style is so good

[michaelblum]

One thing I've been surprised by on several of these thinkers is that basic middle school science refutes major pillars of their argument. Ie, "we can only understand 'black' as it relates to 'white'." Well, sure that's one way to understand it. We also know, as a pigment black absorbs light and doesn't reflect it, and is the amalgamation of all the other pigments. In light rays, black is the absence of light or any color in the visible spectrum. White can still be defined primarily as the opposite of this, but black would be black regardless. As an, albeit extreme, member of a spectrum, an opposite will of course exist. But, that existence is only one aspect of the thing's definition, not the entirety of it.

[anomos]

5:30 Where? Have you recorded but not published it yet? Or is it not part of the MotMW series?

[drewpanyko]

Thank you, Dr. Cooper! Any plans for a video on philosophical Pragmatism?

[alexp]

It might be the case that you overlooked Derrida's later ideas. I believe that his thought has a very strong ethical current, which was mostly expressed in his later works in notions like democracy-to-come, justice-to-come, or Messianicity without Messianism. These are, imo, derived and modified theological structures. His ethics of the wholly Other is also dependent on the thought of Emmanuel Levinas, whose ethical work is almost explicitly theological (i.e depends on the command of God). Levinas was a transcendentalist, and Derrida as well, the wholly Other is as transcendental as one can imagine (i.e always beyond what one can imagine).

Derrida's work on hauntology and ghosts can also be understood as a deep concern for heritage and his own avowal of belonging to a tradition (both philosophical and Jewish) (I recently read the text Archive Fever, which, I believe, in part says exactly that). So I don't think that it's just to understand Derrida only by those most famous concepts that were later weaponized by "postmodernists".

[Nephelokokkygia]

17:58 Sorry, but this was an equivocal explanation and is wrong. For starters, the “sign” consists of both the “signifier” and the “signified”. Also, it has nothing to do with one’s brain, like you said😂. If you are talking about psychological structuralism that is nearly a completely different subject.

[Archon-gt]

Instead of saying Derrida is wrong about that he should probably say I disagree with this. It would seem more balanced.

[anyanyanyanyanyany]

40:30 Is the p-word censored by YouTube?

[Carlos_Lenz]

This video and the one on Foucault were great, thank you!
Any plan to explore Rene Girard?
He's not that influencial but some are trying to offer him as an alternative to all those far left intellectuals. I would love to hear your opinion of his thought.

[Magnulus]

I think you're being a bit hard on Derrida. Culture isn't largely preserved through texts. Most of our mind is subconscious, and our dispositions come from our immediate experiences of the world unmediated by text or traditional language.

You should look into John Vervaeke, he has some interesting things to say about participation and the subconscious.

[themasterofcontent]

You say the reason we call a tree a “tree” is arbor-trary? My world is rocked.

[saimbhat]

That was a really nice lecture, very well done.
I might want to add that karl marx doesn't reject inherent heriarchies in human abilities and capacities. Not everyone can be a physicist or a great athlete or a great poet. Marx rejects hierarchies that come because of virtue of being born in a certain social class but he doesn't reject the inherent hierarchies due to different abilities of people.

[BlueRockBill]

very interesting talk. I just got into Derrida and it seems to me that dissolving the reliance on The Written Word helps maintain the liberal order and makes room for more voices to partake. After all, if use your prescription and we re-enshrine the opposite: THIS is the word, THIS is the way, etc. We open ourselves up to compromising the integrity of a multi-cultural, multi-religious, multi-ethnic society. And while you as a Christian might be tempted to say "Well, yeah, that's what I want (minus... any racist implication)"; I as a Christian (and fellow protestant) want to remind you that our spiritual values came out of an inconclusive civil conflict in England (the origin of Anglo culture). We maintain our respect for each other by allowing a free flowing interpretation of the Word, and lots of other words. The Word, can include a Lutheran Word, a Quaker Word, a Baptist Word, a Presbyterian Word, and a Catholic Word. Before the modern era it didn't and the result was violent chaos. It also allows for a Hindu Word, a Jewish Word, and a Muslim Word, and even an Atheist's silence. And while it creates discourse that may be uncomfortable, or decisions you disagree with, it doesn't result in Protestants being hacked apart, Catholics being hung, Jews being gassed, or Muslims being bombed (at least not within our borders).

True, it creates the opportunity for a Gay marriage that you see as not being transcendent, but you probably cant see see transcendence in a marriage between Muslims, or Hindus, or Catholics either. And while freedom of religion allows that opinion, even if I disagree with it, the one push back you desire is the same argument that an Evengelical government would use to make those marriages illegal as well as Gay ones.

You're rejection of Derrida doesn't secure respect for a protestant faith, it endangers it. Unless you think you can win the inevitable conflict of Baptists vs Presbyterians vs Catholics vs Muslims, etc. that would happen (like clockwork) if liberal permissive society didn't exist. You and I have the modern privilege of practicing a style of Christianity without Priests within a permissive society. In a more strict religious society, if we lost the bloody war that founded it, our acts of tradition, marriage and charity would be as vilified as Drag Queen Story Hour. And thus, any society where you'd win would come at the cost of many Christian lives (as well as Muslims, Gays, Hindus, etc etc etc etc...)

[RstRlx]

Did he use logic to prove his point? :) Did he think that what he was saying was true? Is he self refuting?

[paulblase]

"religious are dependent on religious texts" - that's Derrida's whole point! He's attacking religions, Christianity especially.

[CitizenDrab]

Hey Dr. Cooper,
I think your conclusion that Derrida and Foucault has real and serious negative effects on culture is pretty compelling, but do you have an explanation of why the leftist project of creating a society without hierarchies is wrongheaded? I suspect you’ve thought about this a lot, but “that’s just not how things are “ and “that’s not how my kids act” isn’t really an argument. If you have a video on this though, I’d love to check it out.
Also, do you think maybe the reason that Foucault and Derrida have been so influential is not because abuse of their appeal to leftist permissive degenerates, but maybe because they are actually anti solidarity and so completely compatible with existing power structures?

[lorenzomurrone]

Maybe it's a misreading, but I get the impression that with many of these 20th c. thinkers sex is always present at least on the background, idk it feels weird