Episode #119 ... Derrida and Words

Get more:

Find the podcast:

Be social:

Thank you for making the show possible. 🙂

[sriramkarthik]

One of the most underrated channels on YouTube

[markrutledge]

And I should add that I am enjoying these podcasts like so many others. I will probably support it through Patreon.

[JuliusAhenkora]

Thank you! Just in time for a pivotal moment in my life, I really needed this!

[nigelpierre]

The baby who hasn't uttered their first word yet doesn't need language to ascribe meaning to their bottle. The baby cannot yet articulate their feelings toward the bottle, but he/she can have a meaningful experience with it.

This is the distinction between articulation and sense perception. The former needs language as its vehicle; the latter doesn't need language at all.

[Isabellaliev]

Im utterly obsessed with the content of this channel - AWESOME job and contributions.

[Undrtow]

just yesterday I was wondering where you went & I had to double check that bell was rung!

[josephbuccati]

Errors abound in this episode – not least of which is a complete misinterpretation of a central Derridean tenet: namely, that, absent language, reality itself is imperceptible. This is incorrect. As another commenter pointed out, it's not that without language the tree will not appear to the eye, or that its brown bark will somehow be rendered indistinguishable from its green leaves; it is rather that, as Derrida argues, only within the pregiven sign-system within which one exists can one ever ascribe meaning to external reality. – Language is the precondition of meaning, not of raw sense perception.

[RohitPant]

• Logical positivism, also called logical empiricism, a philosophical movement that arose in Vienna in the 1920s and was characterized by the view that scientific knowledge is the only kind of factual knowledge and that all traditional metaphysical doctrines are to be rejected as meaningless.

[thomasrobert]

Had to listen to this one in .75 speed

[citizenusa]

Derrida did NOT say there is nothing outside the text—he said there is nothing without context, and that mistake constantly creates too much distance between post-modernism and phenomenology.

[AdvaitShinde]

The proposition that “because the meaning of words changes over time that it’s impossible to discern the meaning of words” seems wrong on so many levels:
1. Just because meanings vary, doesn’t mean they vary infinitely.
2. The word “sun” is not typically learned in terms of a dictionary definition. Instead it’s learned through the felt experience of the actual sun. The association of words to felt/shared experiences breaks the “circular reference” that Derrida seems to be so worked up about.
3. Language can be viewed as a mechanism that allows for collaboration via the representation of abstract ideas. Just look around to see the progress of civilization as a measure of the effectiveness of words to convey stable meaning.
4. All of the people reading this sentence will not have an infinitely variable interpretation of it. There’s certainly some variability but it’s limited. The limits of this variability implies an inherent stability in the words used.

Perhaps I’m completely missing the point here? Would love your thoughts/guidance!

[imasciencegeek]

My captions think you're speaking portugese! When I click "auto-translate: English", it's still trying to read off Portuguese, but then translate the Portuguese to english! :P

[elijahnnonde]

lost my Spotify app.. and you stopped uploading . Thanx for the return !!

[josephholland]

Linguistic schitzophrenia. How interesting. But utterly impractical.

[toobakhanani]

You are the best. Subscribed for eternity!

[andrewbowen]

If what you say about Derrida is accurate to his ideas, I would have to disagree with them. Without language, there are still ways to understand the world. Semiotics is not just about words and text. There are images, gestures, and emotions as well. With the "lone human" example you provide in this video, they would put meaning into a tree, but it would not be explained in a language. The tree would provide shade, a respite for birds and insects, a source of nuts and fruit, etc., all these things that could not be expressed, but would be understood in the mind of a person who experienced the tree. There was a time before language; how could we create words and language if we had no concept of meaning that they express?

Think of animals, and in particular, Pavlov's dogs. Dogs have no language. Yet, the sound of the bell symbolized the arrival of food. Thus, the sound of a bell ringing had meaning to the dogs. If Derrida's ideas (as you have described them to the best of my understanding) are to be taken as valid, this could not be possible since there is no text or language.

Regarding the notion that language cannot be undone, that we can never revert back to a prior way of explaining meaning by forgetting language, I think that this is true on a societal scale. For an individual, though, if they spend enough time away from others and refrain from using language for a number of years, it would be possible to unlearn language, or relearn sensual (i.e. pertaining to the senses) meanings.

[RenegadeJedi]

This was absolutely amazing. What book by Derrida would you consider to be fundamental to explore more in depth his semiotic theory?

[virginiavalente]

Thank you so much for your podcasts. You make me feel free during labour hours :)

[rodrigodiazcasas]

The problem with constructivism and postmodernism, i think, is that they use the word "perception" as if it meant "understanding". We, as humans, can project meaning we want over things, and that IS actually up to time and geography, or in other words, to culture. But perception is a much much more simple process. If any of us was sprinting (or even any animal), and after turning a corner were faced by a giant wall, wouldnt we all stop? Either a cow, a human or a bee, we all PERCEIVE a wall, and we all know that if we hit at full speed, we would at best get slightly hurt. This is no construction, this is not up to culture. The way we perceive enviroment, the way we relate to it and our basic needs, the way we realte to basic laws of phisics, that is constant, not only through humans, but to the entire nature. Plants and animals evolved and adapted to a certain atmosphere, and a certain gravity, amongst other factors that were involved. Our percetion evolved through millons, and millions of years, since we were a tiny cell photosinthesizing (or however its spelled, im sorry im not native in english) and floating in the vast ocean. There is no such thing as a human perception. Our perception is almost the same of apes (and i would dar to say of all mamals). The difference is the MEANING we cast over that wich we perceive: our UNDERSTANDING of the world.

[markrutledge]

If Derrida is correct then this whole podcast is a waste of time. At 15:10 Steven West says "You're starring at a tree." I think when Steven says this he expects the listener to understand what he is referring to. If this kind of "naive" communication is not possible then human relationships and community become impossible.