Derrida vs. Foucault

[@BasedPeter]

Derrida vs Foucault: Heated Debate Kant vs Schopenhauer: *Violent Fistfight*

[@lostintime519]

Kant was Schopenhauer's waifu

[@moch.farisdzulfiqar6123]

More like Hegel vs Schopenhauer

[@robertamagdalena8224]

@@moch.farisdzulfiqar6123 yeah so much

[@robertamagdalena8224]

Or Hegel vs Kierkegaard

[@florenzini7212]

@@moch.farisdzulfiqar6123 except it’s just Schopenhauer frustratingly writing angry comments under Hegels KZbin videos

[@NKK-cj4fo]

I liked your explanation of deconstruction through the example of what is lost in every instance of communication. there was one point tho that i think is very important and that i would understand differently: it is correct that Derrida turns around the relationship between writing and speech and says that speech is in fact derived from writing but he does not stop there. And i think its quite important to press that point even in a short summary (which is impressively concise btw!). Now Derrida's point is not to simply turn the relationship around - in Of Grammatology he criticizes Nietzsche for stopping short there - but to question the idea of an origin that smth else could be derived from altogether (that really is the point of deconstruction at large I would say: to uncover the desire for full presence in the lost original moment). Now when he does indeed speak of voice being derived from writing this is possible because he differentiates between two kinds of writing: écriture and archi-écriture. I would say that archi-écriture is a figure that must necessarily be introduced in our way of origin-thinking, that is, because we (Derrida, you, I, etc.) are unable to think without an origin. The way we perceive the world is through an origin and deconstruction cannot simply go beyond that but must go through that. And archi-écriture is now the figure to go through the origin with that is already beginning to - for lack of a better word - destroy the origin. In other words: there is no direct line from the metaphysics of presence to another way of thinking and being. Deconstruction is a way of reading certain texts that are at the same time affirming metaphysics while also going beyond them (this is why and how he reads Lévi-Strauss and Husserl for example). To get beyond the logocentrism of our philosophical tradition Derrida introduces the grammatology, the thesis: first was writing. but he does that not to make that the new centre; the new signified that governs a system; he does that in order to get to a position from which the world as play already looks a bit different; where now there has already been a small shift. hope that makes sense! thx for your videos!

[@ASMRTheory]

Useful summary! Looking forward to the coming videos

[@kazz970]

Exactly! They're saying the same thing! Both have the exact same consequences of how Cartesianism directly effected the knowledge of madness during the enlightenment.

[@anupamdebnath1884]

Please make a video on the debate between Derrida and Gadamer..

[@brunischling9680]

Yes please!

[@joshuaim254]

In a way, Derrida’s deconstruction kind of parallels Foucault genealogy because they both use history to demonstrate the unstable foundation that an idea or binary is found upon

[@joshuaim254]

I do agree with their difference about madness but am not so sure about that last distinction of Derrida being concerned with the original moment regarding logocentrism rather than specific moments

[@joshuaim254]

@Stefano cousin, I guess what I meant was that deconstruction implies history because the approach to the binary oppositions, where the subordinated part is what holds the binary together, holds the binary because it was created first which implies a historical aspect to the binary

[@magnuskarlsson8655]

@@joshuaim254 One term was not born before the other, they exist nonoppositionally which means that their co-determination is originary; this is the meaning of Derrida's concept of "arche-writing". This originary relation to the Other is what opens up the very space of historicity, contextuality, sociality.

[@Unfunny_Username_389]

@@magnuskarlsson8655 Thanks for this comment.

[@brunischling9680]

​@@magnuskarlsson8655 o

[@Him__Downstairs]

I like what Chomsky says about both of them.

[@reangrittangtongpol9931]

your cat is too cute it steals my attention lol

[@jakecarlo9950]

Well done and much appreciated.

[@rayan5150]

You are a legend

[@freecharles3902]

Great video subscribed!

[@shahmathahir8555]

I hated this topic. I kept watching, because you were lookin' good. Now I understood!💕

[@joelmacdonald8332]

LOVING this channel!!!!!!!!!!! The last month I have been doing a deep dive into nineteenth century scientific queerphobia which Foucault is really key to understanding, but I find his material difficult. Your videos are helping me a lot!

[@alicepractice9473]

What do you mean by queerphobia? That's a relatively new term

[@joelmacdonald8332]

@@alicepractice9473 Urban Dictionary defines it as "An umbrella term concerning fear and hatred of things not heterosexual and cisgender (homosexuality, bisexuality, pansexuality, transgenderism, asexuality, genderqueer). General animosity towards anything that does not meet a culture's heteronormative standards."

[@robertamagdalena8224]

Foucault actually have many books but most of it was oral teachings (like in the college de France or other places) but most of it isn't translated to English

[@CNFBGB]

It’s such a shame

[@robertamagdalena8224]

@@CNFBGB gotta learn French

[@whereisawesomeness]

Most of his ‘Lectures at the Collège de France’ have been translated and published in English. There’s one volume left, coming out quite soon (edit: November 23rd, 2021, at least in the US). Heaps of his other writings, lectures, etc. have been published in English elsewhere, but they can be difficult to find

[@robertamagdalena8224]

@@whereisawesomeness thx for the information ;)

[@melmikhail1777]

where can I find the other videos?

[@hulakan]

You said "about". You revealed yourself to be Canadian.

[@thaysee3059]

Can you put subtitles in english, please?

[@schizotypal4966]

Foucault - had a style, could write. Derrida - had no style, could not write.

[@sligiseesi5393]

play dough

[@36cmbr]

Hummmmm, seems pretty good. In regard to idea of repression in derriada, I think it is not there. Derriada is spot on about a single text, but not about the entire concept of historicity. He is not challenging Marx or others. Marx produced a proactive analytical method reinventing methodology that would change our prospective about cyclical war. I always understood there was a binary methodology in Derriada which had to be a correct approach to textual readings; it is not and cannot be a correct approach to understand historicity as a singularity. Can Marx do that for us? It’s debatable but it does give us a chance. Evidence demonstrates in Socrates that a powerful oral tradition was torn down. It is an improper investigation as to whether we would kill Socrates as it is an elliptically redundant question. We should ask why the proposed universal of historicity is on life support or at least not thriving. In Foucault we have that answer: ignore the diagnosis and focus on the problem. Such a conclusion is in line with positive thinking, NLP problem solving approaches. When the problem is fully acknowledged the problem will find solutions a plenty. This will to power conundrum problem is what Arendt dealt with regard to social justice, over again until she became 'the one' so as to focus the solution upon 'the many'. Some reverse Oedipus stuff. Derriada may be doing the same. Arendt was not aunty-Semitic nor Derriada a doom-kauf. The problem is the universal. It couldn’t kill Socrates and his truth makes him free. Sounds like some biblical shit until it doesn’t.

[@adamqadmon]

You completely misread Derrida. Read again. And he didn't say "there's nothing outside of text". He said there is no outside-text (externality, no truth outside of context). He wasn't a solipsist.

[@gavinyoung-philosophy]

It’s not solipsism to say that knowledge is relative to textuality or a discourse, it’s just acknowledge a subjective relation between a subject and the objects of his/her knowledge.

[@23secondsofsauce65]

drama channel lol

[@Gurra_Gforce]

Two horrible monsters & and the way they have made impact on destroying civilisation

[@hyacinthoides]

❤️👄❤️

[@johnbatson8779]

it is hard to get past the fact that Foucault was a sadist who fantasized about self-harm and sexual deviancy

[@hectorlagos8937]

Why does it have to be binary though, it isn't all infinite posibilities?

[@maddyup8542]

but isn’t it fun to identify as many as you can? like stars

[@owensuppes1]

Who cares. Neither of these "theorists" cared to falsify their assumptions, and so, if their paralogical claims survive rigorous scrutiny, it will be blind luck.

[@john-lenin]

Thanks for the moron perspective!

[@owensuppes1]

@@john-lenin how would you frame it differently?

[@gavinyoung-philosophy]

Foucault provided detailed historical analysis which is clearly relevant to today. It’s not science, so they’re not exactly laying out a syllogistic hypothesis - although feel free to try to refute their philosophy (which is the definition of a falsification criteria).

[@owensuppes1]

@@gavinyoung-philosophyas far as I can tell, Foucault assumes power is an encompassing social-political forcing. Power is pervasive and found everywhere. I would like to know, to what measure is power a forcing? What is the scale and scope of the problem? Is power a primary forcing? Is it secondary? Are all hierarchies and social structures assembled to sustain the hegemony? Is power the only forcing? And so what are the attributions? There is no precision to Foucault's reasoning. He is too cynical to be imaginative. And too lazy to check his own work. A good social scientist would refrain from leaning on impulsive assertions as if these were evidence. We have to ask the question, what tools do we have to properly measure a person's motivations? Has either Derrida or Foucault bothered to employ a proper analytic toolkit? The idea of falsifiability comes from Popper. To achieve a supportable theory, a person must vigorously attack their own theory until all reasonable attacks are exhausted. This is done to counter the laundry list of biases and faulty thinking we all fall victim too. Foucault vs Derrida reminds me of an episode of Joe Rogan; he and Candace Owens got into a heated debate over climate change. They were entrenched on either side of the debate, so they thought. And neither of them had a hot clue. Nothing they asserted was supported in the literature. Because to be in receipt of theory they would have had to actually read something. It's amazing to watch two people moralizing each other, while neither can represent a valid argument. To me this encapsulates all of Continental philosophy