Derrida, His Life and Philosophy

Visit my new website: www.wescecil.com A lecture delivered at Peninsula College by Wesley Cecil, Ph.D. on the life and philosophy of Jacques Derrida. Part of the Modern Philosophers lecture series.
Download the lecture handout at www.wescecil.com/derrida-his-l...
For information on upcoming lectures, essays, and books by Wesley Cecil Ph.D. go to / humanearts
www.wescecil.com

[@wescecil3920]

One of his central points is that we are never done reading. We can't ever stop and say, "I understand this completely and my understanding is equivalent to Socrates' understanding of what he said."

[@carolinec7389]

For me, t'is as Simone Weil, 'staying open' attentive to. Continual depthing out experience, within Simone's labyrinth where Derrida's 'l"avenir' occurs, when you least expect it. Simone says Love is a direction, not a state of the soul. Love, a depthing out experience, as Derrida's 'wound' he never wants to heal. Thank you Wes.

[@rauldempaire5330]

An outstanding Lecture...The role of a lecturer is critical in keeping students engaged, Wes Cecil does just that.

[@keshmamaharaj5971]

What an enjoyable lecture! Thoroughly enjoyed it. Thank You.

[@warrennotes3575]

Great lecturer - a rare commodity! Thanks for posting.

[@TheGuzmandaniel]

Hey bro. I love what you do. I've listened to all your lectures already, but I would love to see more.

[@zibomaru]

I love your lectures .Great stuff .

[@AudioPervert1]

Hauntology ! Derrida Rocks ... His theory of Hauntology can explain so much of electronic music and the related culture today - 30 years later.

[@markbrown4260]

This was a really enjoyable lecture thank you for sharing!

[@CommeMoi100]

It makes sense now ;) Thank you so much! And again: great lecture!!!

[@CommeMoi100]

This is an awesome lecture!!! :) Congrats! Rock on, Derrida :P

[@randallmiron3925]

A very enjoyable lecture! Derrida's critics, at least some of them, it seems to me, just don't get the depth at which he engages with the questions of philosophy. Wes Cecil gets this and conveys it, balancing gravity and levity so finely.

[@algernondammassa8675]

Might not be as authoritative as one very familiar with Derrida might prefer, but it is an entertaining introduction for the non-initiated. A lecture like this would arouse curiosity and might lead to further investigation by the curious.

[@erickaparicio6118]

Most definitely. Personally, Mr. Cecil's lectures really sparks in me an interest in the subject matter he teaches, and a curiosity that leads me to other lectures, and further research into the matter, such as the writings of the philosophers/thinkers he presents in his lectures.

[@gaynomadic]

Well then, as a self-professed initiate, do you have your own lecture uploaded so that we can compare and evaluate your erudition on the subject? If so I would like to see it.

[@algernondammassa8675]

Oh come on, Gaynomadic. One doesn't have to make movies to make critical observations about a movie. One doesn't have to have a medical degree to make some observations about a doctor's performance. One doesn't have to write novels to have opinions and preferences about literature. And likewise one doesn't need to be a degree in philosophy or literature to make mild evaluations of the effectiveness of a professor's lecture on those subjects. Incidentally, I'm something of a fan of Wes, so if your comment is in response to mine, I think you're overreacting.

[@gaynomadic]

Did I say you could not make observations or judgements? I don't think so. It's just that your rather condescending comments about him being "entertaining for the non-initiated" and "might arouse curiosity" suggest you had greater knowledge and a better lecture to give. I mean, really, either you can praise genuinely and comment on the strengths and weaknesses or say what's actually lacking, rather than damning with very faint praise as you have done. I know the tone of voice in these comments is not always easy to pick up on but surely if you're an academic or teacher or scholar of any sort you understand the value of actual, constructive criticism rather than generalised withering remarks. And if you can make a video with your own knowledge of Derrida I would genuinely like to see it. That's all I want to say.

[@algernondammassa8675]

That's a surprising interpretation of what I wrote. I suggested that for people not familiar with Derrida (or even who are familiar) this would be an entertaining lecture. How is that condescending? It is an entertaining lecture and a good introduction to Derrida's writing, which is what the lecturer intended. How is it condescending to state this? Likewise with "might arouse curiosity." Is that false? Is that somehow bad? I honestly don't know how you have arrived at such an uncharitable interpretation of my intent. Your assumptions about my attitude are projections. I am quite fond of Wes Cecil's lectures, including this one, and do not hold a condescending attitude towards him or anyone listening to it. And if you are going to assume I have that attitude anyway, there's no reason for me to discuss anything further with you. Good day.

[@mfossoli]

Nice work! Enjoyed it.

[@zhraa2601]

This is a very good lecture. thank you

[@platochannel2502]

Thank you, Professor!

[@lingtong-fc6te]

Dr. Cecil gives great pleasure to philosophy.

[@teporeliot]

What tripped Russel up was the set of all sets that don't contain themselves. This set is a paradoxical construct since it would contain itself if and only if it did not contain itself. If it contains itself, it can't contain itself; but if it doesn't contain itself, it must contain itself. This set torpedoed Russell's project.

[@AllanBurlesque]

A superb lecture

[@gaynomadic]

I love this.

[@kcconnor5085]

fantastic!

[@DPoner]

This guy is great! 👌

[@gsingh5267]

very good information

[@apexxxx10]

Kiitos!

[@cheri238]

Derrida, one can not be bored at all. He hung himself strung out on a limb and enjoyed every minute of it. People were furious and I love it. He was acid on words. Great lecture on this one, Wes, Laughing all the way through. I would have been the one going to his lectures speaking in bad French and listening and not understanding French. I know Derrida enthusiastically enjoyed it all. In conclusion, philosophy is everything. (Lol)

[@shannonm.townsend1232]

Wes, do you have any insights on Gabriel Rockhill (a former student of Derrida's) and his work concerning the French school/ critical theory?

[@odiram]

I always thought I didn't like Derrida, but I guess it turns out I never liked the way Derrida was explained to me. In this explanation he reminds a lot of Jorge Luis Borges, whose work I love.

[@gagandeepsingh-mq5vn]

After listening to this lecture ... Jacques Deridda...I am your fan .....or... am I ?

[@JamieHumeCreative]

Derrida used applied logic to provoke mindfulness. He used logic 'speak' to draw attention to semiotics in creative works and life generally. The lecture is interesting but a little convoluted. Nothing is irrelevant, the speaker is trying to give a more holistic ( oh there's a word!) view of the context of the mans work. Thank you for posting.

[@markhoneycutt1263]

Read Gorgias' Trillema, and you'll have a better understanding of his point. The more we read, the more we have been exposed to; therefore, the broader our horizon. Just as when we experience a book differently from one age to the next, we do so because we have broadened our experiences. Derrida believed the meaning of life was to continually expand.

[@camiloadrianfrias4521]

I think this is an ok introduction I'm surprised the lecturer says that derrida never wrote explicitly about his "background" cause he does in several books.

[@alan2here]

Could make the law elegant, minimal and robust. As a coder I can vouch for other desirable properties like things being generalisable then falling out of this for free, something similar applies in mathematics. If and when anything at all breaks you can roll things back while permanently remembering the tree of changes you've been building, and explore other branches further towards the root of the tree.

[@uchihamadara8693]

What specially attract my attention is that you can cough freely in past days and after that people can laugh normally

[@asdkfjasdl_kfjas]

Hahaha :D >

[@Per_se]

He was born in 1930 in Algeria and left at the age of 19 years old.. Algeria was still French and he was originally from Spain…his family were from Spain for 500 years…. In 1830, estimates put the number of Jews in Algeria at around 15,000: this figure made it the second largest Jewish population in North Africa before Tunisia and after Morocco. With the exception of nomadic farmers and herders, very close to their Arab-Berber neighbors, Jews generally lived in cities where they occupied neighborhoods reserved for them. Either, in Algiers, Bab Azzoun, El Biar, Bouzaréah, Bab el-Oued

[@xappuxok]

If I were you, I would stick to my part time job on the adjunct faculty at Peninsula College in Port Townsend, Washington

[@MT-2020]

Derrida The Troll... I Really dislike in College Levi Strauss deSaussure...Thnkx Dr. Cecil, another amazing and liberating lecture.

[@harrissimo]

I like Derrida.

[@lLenn2]

Awesome lecture! I want to know more about Derrida and his philosphy, are there any books you recommend?

[@readingwithjc4689]

Jacques Derrida: Basic Writings (to play around with some shorter works); Of Grammatology (a big one); Writing and Différance; and, an important one, Positions.

[@lLenn2]

Jc Amorini thx

[@rustyjohnson5018]

Students Right to Philosophy!

[@mitchellmcgill138]

Derrida is a transcendental idealist.

[@RamismTamoid]

SoldierofFortune07 . He meant: French is my one of my ordinal number languages and when I speak with friends or with foreigners I pronounce a french parole as it would sound in a foreign language because I don't want my friends or foreigners to think I am "putting on nitrogen, or helium or oxygen or hydrogen".

[@commandZee]

I dig this cat Derrida, reminds me of Duchamp and/or the Dadaists.

[@outtanuttin]

What a boss

[@uneedtherapy42]

listen to Scritti Politti's tune about Jacques it's quite hilarious

[@willowbell3756]

He's got a twinkle in his eye in the picture. I guess he was getting his own back for all the stuff he and his people went through, when he was young. I think his view is quite popular at the moment, because a lot of people are claiming their own truth, but as you say no-one knows where the theory stems from, but worse it is unclear if they have come to a truth through deconstruction or soaking up a other people's half baked theories. Great talk, like Derrida when I did my MA but didn't really understand where he was coming from, just dipped into some of his theories.

[@joejohnson6327]

It's safe to say that most of them haven't come to their own truths through any kind of rigorous process.

[@anamor293]

odlicno

[@CrucifiedDionysus]

which is of course, why I'm a huge fan of both Derrida and Foucault. One can forget the disrobed and embarrassed due to size-Dick Dawkins and his "four horsemen." I like to think Nietzsche, Bataille, Foucault, and Derrida would be a better cast. Great lecture though!

[@sidogr9854]

Derrida : the ultimate stranger

[@edgelivecam]

"unless you came over in the last weekend" ,, epic comment ! yes exactly right n my opinion

[@edgelivecam]

35.00

[@SoldierofFortune07]

Ahh it's just a matter of personal preference really. I know friends who actually go to the effort of pronouncing correctly the words that are nigh impossible for anglophones to pronounce ("grenouille" for example). I've noticed these friends of mine come from an upper middle class background whereas I myself come from a working class background. I know my last remark was off topic but like I said, it's a matter of personal preference.

[@CrucifiedDionysus]

Derrida is the Jack Nicholson Joker. Foucault is the Heath Ledger Joker. I think the influence of Nietzsche and Bataille is very important to mention regarding the poststructuralists. I mean Nietzsche had stated that we lived in a world of interpretations of interpretations.Bataille and his unfinished system of non-knowledge and base materialism. I like the rereading, I just prefer to reread Nietzsche and Bataille... of course Derrida/Foucault are almost a rewriting of Nietzsche and Bataille.

[@CommeMoi100]

How comes that Derrida says, on the one hand, that we must re-read the classics all the time (Rousseau, Socrates, Hegel), and on the other hand, that after we read a book we should move on to the next one? The classics do not fit into this category, the second one?!?

[@CrucifiedDionysus]

I understand this central point... I understand that he realizes we can NEVER say "I understand this as the author understood it." Hell, just from my own unpublished writing, I find myself as "author" being discontinuous in the meaning of previously written text. Derrida falls into his own trap though... it may be pessimistic or plain laziness, but why not just listen to Derrida and give up on truth and even on what the ethnomethodologists call "intersubjectivity."

[@toshinquetzalcoatl7314]

20:45

[@saxfreak01]

This lecture is entertaining but very simplistic and almost dumbed down. And sometimes just wrong. For a start: deconstruction does NOT entail subsequent reconstruction. It entails "constructing something else". Derrida was quite clear on this (for example in "Jacques Derrida: Section 2" on this site). Also, you can't discuss Derrida without referring to his idea of "differance". It's more important in Derrida than even deconstruction. In fact deconstruction is predicated on differance.

[@ellisfmorton4086]

Just commenting to say none of your 'philosophers' series is playable for me, does anyone else have the same issue?

[@sand41088]

What is objective?

[@samsonwilkinson8090]

One of the FIRST precepts in lecturing is to learn how to pronounce your protagonist't name.

[@tonyjames8805]

There is something in Derrida’s approach which is of use but : (a) it isnt really original other than in the manner/style it is expressed; and (b) it is for the most part sophistry

[@thejew1789]

I don't think he'd see either one of those as criticisms.

[@post-structuralist]

Derrida would laugh and elegantly kill your system

[@benardheffmann5313]

Now that a guy I would like to split a quart of Rum with.(or two).

[@paulmarathon5301]

34:20

[@doublenegation7870]

This was a very entertaining talk, but I fear flippant remarks like Derrida gives up on truth, rigor, or that he was a liar, is really just painting a caricature. He was in fact one of the most rigorous and honest philosophers of the last hundred years.

[@northwind9657]

Surely he did not cut the page out, He lies for "purpose."

[@angelahull2311]

why?

[@JML689]

He seems like a Zen Master from France lol

[@NYCBG]

Did I hear Mr. Cecil (I assume it's him) say, "JacqueS Derrida" at 0:01? JacqueSSSS ??? And, who is HusserALL ( 5:00) ???

[@saxfreak01]

I have to question some of the anecdotal content too. Derrida gave lecture tours in the US speaking only in French? Derrida was fluent in English (or near as dammit) all his adult life. Why would he have spoken French in the US? Citation needed, I suggest. Contrary to the lecturer's flip remarks, Derrida is often difficult to read, but rarely, if ever, incomprehensible. Of Grammatology, Positions, and 1 or 2 others are really not difficult at all. Oh, and you don't pronounce the s in Jacques!

[@yasha12isreal]

so was he religious?

[@SoldierofFortune07]

French is my second language and when I speak English with friends or with strangers I pronounce a french word as it would sound in English because I don't want my friends or those people to think I'm "putting on airs".

[@AudioPervert1]

Hauntology ... What he theorized came true across mass culture (music, movies, videogames etc etc) The future was cancelled ...

[@Whatdahwhere]

Dante influences Derrida

[@saxfreak01]

Hmmm... I can understand that if you refrain from using a French accent, but surely you should still respect the original pronunciation? If our lecturer chum is doing what you suggest then he should be pronouncing it "Jacks", rather than "Zhacks", shouldn't he?

[@publicme]

Can't we have some degree of trust in the work of those who came before us and closely read those texts, probably debated endlessly, and formed some areas of agreement about the meaning of those text. Don't those efforts deserve some credibility in informing our present research. Though it would be good to go back and read the originals, maybe it's not always necessary.

[@LiamPorterFilms]

well put. Although I respect the lecturer I'm not content with the moral that we ought to give up the idea of coming closer to the original intentions of the authors of great works and coming closer to the spirit of certain ages. And I'm not convinced that Derrida was cryptically trying to encourage the reading of great texts in the original languages, since he spent all his life undermining scholarship through anti-rational doctrines. The natural conclusion of this is apathy towards reading great texts and learning to read languages in the original. Cecil seems like a rare Derrida fan who took the man;s work as a challenge to increase his stock of knowledge rather than a license to learn less.

[@Over-Boy42]

Derrida is the like the Willy Wonka of philosophers!

[@montanasalvoni]

I respect and appreciate what you're doing, but the characterization of structuralism that you offer in this lecture is uninformed to the point of being simply incorrect. I suggest reviewing Jameson's 'The Prison House of Language' for a nuanced and well researched account of structuralism which will substantially improve understanding of both structuralism itself as well as Derrida's response to it.

[@jdcole57]

An adequate surface-level introduction to Derrida.

[@dburak]

The real lesson here is this: If you believe that the written thought of a thinker is not understandable, then do not attempt to give a lecture on him. Otherwise, you will come out very, very silly.

[@SoldierofFortune07]

Much like any use of language, non? Ha ha. I like when I find people I can have a civilized discussion with on youtube.

[@creepycrawlything]

It is, in all probability, wrong to say that: deconstruction was authored solely by Derrida; and that concomitantly, conceptions of deconstruction that differ from Derrida's, are wrong because misunderstanding of Derrida's construction. Probably more sensible to understand that a collective tends to come to discovery or invention, at multiples points by various persons, somewhat simultaneously. Further, ideas are developed and evolved and made fit for purpose, across usage. Deconstruction is, understood generally, whatever people do as deconstruction. What an idea is, is not confined to what academics and scholars make of it in particular settings. Rather the idea also includes what is made of it out on the street, and elsewhere. Phrased from another angle, elitest understanding that all comes from a privileged centre, is simply an ideological presumption; a presumption that tends to be misleading.

[@brunischling9680]

Is it just me who finds Derrida‘s thinking as it is presented here trivial? So, the hemlock which Socrates drank was called a pharmacon that could cure or kill. Since Socrates had accepted the death sentence and knew that the stuff would kill him the context directs the meaning. Does Derrida give a more convincing reason than this speaker why he considers a interdependence of speech and writing from the beginning. The evidence that oral culture precedes written culture is incontrovertible. Or does Derrida have something else in mind? And what about the fatuous claim that philosophers don‘t gp back to the original sources. . This absolute nonsense. It‘s been done for centuries in European traditions. Maybe the Americans don‘t do that. From this lecture I get the impression that Derrida was an entertainer and trickster but I fail to see anything more of significance than that he is considered to be significant .

[@joejohnson6327]

I'm with you.

[@shannonm.townsend1232]

I thought the French structuralists came to America through the auspices of the Ford Foundation

[@R_e_d_L_i_o_n]

Should have been a lawyer

[@firstal3799]

French are intellectually Regarded basically.

[@erickverran653]

Obsequious audience of retirees who attend lectures and give themselves a pat on the back...

[@freedomandliberty93]

Why do you say that, Mr. Verran?

[@erickverran653]

freedomandliberty93 Exaggerated laughter indicates one "gets it," &c.

[@freedomandliberty93]

Erick Verran OK, now I understand the message you conveyed and the reasoning that it's founded on.

[@erickverran653]

freedomandliberty93 It's the same with the theatre. All's vanity, you know.

[@freedomandliberty93]

Erick Verran Was not aware of that. Thank you for the insight, Mr. Verran.

[@johngulino2651]

Professor Cecil, someone might misinterpret when you say “Nobody likes the Jews, right?” I comprehend what you mean, but others might not. 😀

[@loudogg3367]

So basically Derrida was a Troll.

[@jonathanspengler8913]

Luis Black No-basically he id misunderstood....

[@peterrulon-miller814]

Jonathan Spengler LOL by his own design maybe.

[@penpaper4850]

Luis Black Absolutely monstrous. Our kids are drowning in his stew of bull. Well done. Our lost teens who have no logos are literally dying. Pointless lives. Well done. We need to reveal this guy as the ass he is. Try raising kids in a society designed by this guy. Why on earth did the universities hang on to this?

[@picaweltschmerz6357]

I think when the uninitiated think of today’s antagonistic philosophical stances, or “post-modern neo-Marxism”, they conjure basic and oft incomplete cliff notes of the central tenants of this man’s work, plus Marx...and probably that godless proselytizer Nietzsche, you rat scoundrels! This is a blanket assessment, and therefore likely wrong...so ha.

[@firstal3799]

Basically French culture is troll.

[@toolbox14]

he's a philosophic troll!

[@gg3675]

His argument that writing and speech co-developed is almost certainly definitively wrong, sorry.

[@moopy141]

is there a microphone pointed at the audience or something? it's very annoying listening to every little cackle, ooh, and aah that come out of them.

[@tomdriver8012]

Derrida's ideas on race would now be more problematic for the left, who are obsessed with diversity quotas and reparations for slavery. Would people be awarded compensation according to a colour chart like in a paint shop? It would be interesting to hear his views on hate speech laws.

[@grandmasterqz]

Derrida was basically a foozie, or might as well have been, lol!

[@1persme1persme-it36]

just a little bit moronic "L. Althusser is the prime example for going wrong" guy's a clown and the kids react to him accordingly " .. structuralist attempt daesn't work out well of course" ?? before I read anything I better ask this lecturer whether it " works out" save me a lot of time that way

[@ROGERWDARCY]

The Muslims are soft on God!

[@katherinekelly6432]

Derrida is the Milo Yiannopoulos of his time.

[@mjcard]

Katherine Kelly Hopefully Milo's influence is to encourage people to be realistic, unlike Derrida, whose influence has proven to be pernicious and annoying to say the least.

[@robertclayton7493]

false. better luck next time, nazi troll.

[@leewohlfert5462]

His listeners guffaw on cue over comments not really funny.

[@joejohnson6327]

Writing & speech evolved at the exact same time? Homo sapiens sapiens couldn't speak before writing was invented? 🙄

[@newdawnrising8110]

So why study Derrida if he basically had nothing to say?

[@laglendareed8086]

Right I totally agree he was so overrated big time and a big time waste of my intelligence reading about this guy who had nothing to say!

[@penpaper4850]

Any idea how devastating his ideas were? ARE? We are all like cats chasing laser dots....this is monstrous. Not funny. Sets us up as a Degenerate society. Where anything goes... maybe that's why we like cat videos. No identity society can be mislead and will follow any ideas even if it leads to hate. Good job.

[@johnbizzlehart2669]

One step less wrong 😂

[@laskji]

So Derrida uses language to refute language? It seems his only real contribution was to reveal how ridiculous philosophy can be, and how unintelligent intellectuals can be! Didnt anyone realize his big lifetime project was just huge embarrassing contradiction?

[@drewflemingmusic]

+Linus He didn't refute language. He didn't deny that it can carry meaning. Of course it does. His claim is that meaning in language is not founded upon an underlying (transcendental, metaphysical) truth.

[@laskji]

Well the idea language can be founded in any ultimate truth is not necessary. But surely it refers to things in the external world of concrete objects?

[@jonnycollison]

try to imagine a world without language but where we could all see each others thoughts all at once. language is secondary.

[@laskji]

Yes this makes sense. Language is a more or less effective tool (means) for achieving subjective human ends. It's actually a bit amazing that words are as effective as they are given the differences between people(s)

[@jonnycollison]

That's right. Before I type this I have to verbalise it somehow and put it down in symbols. I can't really be confident you understand my thoughts because we are two different people but I still try to express it with the limitations of words we both understand.

[@BlindEyeJones]

I like your approach and humor though I think there was something sinister underlying Derrida's humor: a conscious attempt to destabilize language, to weaken the dominant language or the hegemony of the United States. I think he was a communist or socialist in his youth (many of the post modern thinkers were communists/socialists: Foucault, Lyotard, Rorty, etc.) and, therefore, there was a political agenda. I personally don't believe that truth is relative, as many of the post moderns do, and I privilege certain cultures as having a greater grasp on the truth. If I got sick I would go to a western doctor than a witch doctor from Africa. In other words, going to the moon is not on the same level as putting a bone through your nose. So I don't buy into the equality of culture as proposed by socialist thought. Still I enjoyed your lecture and humor. All the best!

[@saimbhat6243]

Well Mr. Genius. If western medicine cures your illness, it means the medicine works in doing what it is desired to do. So the claim that "western medicine is better at curing that illness" is true, because it clearly works. These are called empirical truths, e.g. iron is denser than water or water turns into ice when you freeze it. What derrida is attacking are metaphysical claims. For example, going to moon means we are better, well you are better at going to moon, but that doesn't make you better in everything. E.g. you are not better at having bones through your nose. Maybe an African when he gets to know that you don't know how to bone knows, he might consider himself and his culture better. YOU DEFINE WHAT IS BETTER, AND THEN YOU CLAIM YOU ARE BETTER. Similarly, someone can define quite differently what is better, the obviously he is better. Better is always defined, by people, and most often the better thing is the thing that they do, rather than the thing that they don't do. So yes, if the "primitive" tribe in an isolated island, find your mission to moon meaningless and waste of resources, same way you find their stuff meaningless or inferior, then how do you know objectivity, for certain, which one is better, you seem to like yours and they seem to like theirs. Now it is only through the obtained capacity of the west to dominate others that makes them better, you are better at dominating others, and that has mostly to do with more focus on technology of warfare and more focus on material wealth. Now if a culture believes that not dominating others and not valuing material wealth is better, then again, you seem to like yours and they seem to like theirs. Yours is better for you and theirs is better for them.