Is A Cat A Cat? (Derrida + Double Dragon) - 8-Bit Philosophy

[@GBart]

2:15 - it's almost like our minds are composed entirely of tiny things that just connect to other tiny things, which themselves don't contain any information about the things they're describing, and meaning somehow emerges from this network rather than being inherent to whatever the network is describing.

[@interco-23]

Huh I wonder...

[@ForgottenFirearm]

I have a job where all I do is disassemble machines, and sort the components into their respective bins. One day I'm asked to train a new worker on the same procedure. As I'm showing him the procedure, he asks me the names of several of the parts as I remove them and sort them. To my mild frustration, I can't give him a straight answer on many of the parts because I've never actually thought about what these parts were called; I simply know them by sight. I only know what they look like and feel like, and that this little black piece goes in that bin --though never actually conceiving of it by using the words "black" or "small" until just now as I write it to convey the idea to you. In other words, while each piece is definitely part of a visual (and perhaps haptic) vocabulary, and I know them thoroughly, not all of them have a place in my linguistic vocabulary.

[@mjamesharding]

Have you ever read Walker Percy's The Loss of the Creature? You would certainly see yourself in it! (As should we all)

[@TeamAlphaPanda]

We live in text, that much is true. Ironically, however, without text, we could not discuss whether words mean anything in the first place. So either we accept that 'cat' represents the animal we name cat or -

[@bebopbountyhead]

Or violent disagreement en masse, forever.

[@ghostunix731]

Jamie McGuire wrong sir binary is universal and we live binary lives of good and bad least we get board and are basically dead as not doing a task to get to another state is not living.

[@elvinmeng4905]

i think you just repeated Derrida's point

[@NextToToddliness]

Elvin Meng EXACTLY!!! There is nothing outside the text. It informs itself.

[@johncaccioppo1142]

Referencing a physical object is a straw man argument against deconstruction.

[@mrpengywinz123]

YOU'RE MY ONLY FRIEND, ZNUTIGUNRGK JAX!

[@nathanthompson4613]

Enlightened Penguin Best word for cat EVER

[@exxelsetijadi5348]

How to read : zutig'nu'ginjax

[@HenryCasillas]

😽

[@Kingcob7]

Unrelated. I find it interesting that both Albert Camus and Derrida are from French Algeria. I wonder what the culture was like there.

[@AizwellOfficial]

Born in raised in Algeria, the culture at the time was not that rich really, since native Algerians were constantly oppressed, unallowed to learn Arabic in school or teach Quran. The Pied Noirs, like Camus / Derrida grew up in a poor culture aswell.

[@deshmystery3294]

Perhaps that means that cultural oppression helps to initiate philosophy? Oppression is terrible, and terrible things make one think. Hard.

[@AizwellOfficial]

Otis Martin The Piednoirs weren't opressed tho, they lived relativly well

[@bebopbountyhead]

Des Mystery Oppression is a philosophical term, so no. You put the cart before the horse again.

[@samyarabi9033]

@@AizwellOfficial are the algerians arabs ? they were oppressed and colonized by the arab ! and before and before and before ... etc

[@goatshagger]

Never thought I'd laugh so much at something that has anything to do with Derrida and his deconstruction. This was really helpful and funny.

[@sageeye1253]

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." - William Shakespeare

[@beingsshepherd]

I doubt perfume manufacturers would agree.

[@HellDevRisen]

ive never seen anything that complex explained so simply. im stunned. wow. thanks

[@vlogerhood]

Turtles all the way down, my fav philosophy joke. Strong work.

[@deshmystery3294]

The Noubfingest gerlnigei I've seen on this hlurlbiquid yet!!

[@harveyg.syrinfellow8528]

IKR!!!

[@elasiduo108]

The answer to Derrida is trivial. The word "Cat" is a symbol in a greek sense. "Symbol" comes from the greek word "Symbolon". When two greeks made an agreement, an alliance of mutual aid, they used to take a medal, an statue, or anything really, and they split it in two. Each person kept one half. The piece each one got was called "a symbolon", which was "the reminder of the agreement". Of course, anything can be a symbolon, the only thing relevant is that the thing can be splitted in two. With words, it's the same thing: they are "reminders of agreements". The word "cat" has no meaning in itself, that's true, but the meaning of the word cat derives from the usage in a community. When you learn to speak, adults and other people use the word "cat" to refer to that thing, and the usage gives meaning to the word. Of course, if you want, you can "refine" the word, which actually means just to stack more words upon it "feline", "animal", "pet", etc. using different criteria. The criteria is arbitrary, but that doesn't mean is meaningless, because the meaning derives from usage in a community.

[@ShawnRavenfire]

While I agree that language is arbitrary, it is still necessary in order to (somewhat) effectively communicate one person's ideas to another.

[@beingsshepherd]

I think there's actually some practicality and even poetry involved. No useful language would employ a thousand syllables for cat and I thank you for putting a conventional comma after _arbitrary,_ which was a welcome civilised pause for clear and comfortable reading.

[@hopebringer2348]

Yeah Derrida agrees

[@Thecuriouscurator]

The idea that thoughts cannot exist outside language reminds me of 1984's Newspeak. Orwell's novel was published before Derrida published his most famous works, so I guess he can't have been an inspiration, but it's interesting to think that they were both working along the same line of thought.

[@ruwanweerakkody5411]

Actually the roots of these ideas were hovering about in the Modernist era. Derrida finalized them.

[@tikiux5]

turtles all the way down..I love that quote

[@VegetasCorndog]

So our perception of life and the world is limited by the way that we think in language?

[@FerroNeoBoron]

I don't think this was trying to assert what's now known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. It seems that it was trying to assert that we don't receive the meanings of words from what they reference but by their relationship to other words. For example, you've likely not had an experience that lets you say you've observed an angel so you have no referent especially not of a "prototypical" angel. However, you've likely had someone describe or depict one with the characteristics that it must look humanoid, have wings, be a servant of a god, and so on. So you understand what an angel is based on other concepts like "appearance", "humanoid", "possession" (as in having), "wings", "to serve", and "god" some of which are more abstract than others. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity

[@DanielAvelan]

In short, yes. In less short, or in bit longer, it is necessary to comprehend that language is much broader than english or spanish. Language, in essence, is a tool which a human uses to express something to someone. Language as two different barriers: the rules of the language and the perception of those who communicate. Words need to appear in a certain order, otherwise it's just illegible gibberish. Math problems have to resolved in a certain way (multiply and divide before add and subtract), or a same equation can have many different results, becoming useless. In the same way, it doesn't matter how hard she tries, Concetta Antico (an artist that can see 100 times more colour than the average human being) can not describe me those colours I can't see. Since the capability of expressing thoughts is so damn important to us, we tend to limit our though process by the languages we use to express ourselves. Or so do I think, at least.

[@MSOGameShow]

2:36 - Takeshi's challenge! Well, more like, "Derrida's Challenge" in this case...

[@gabriellagonzalez9577]

This is really interesting. I always rely upon the written word to explain what I am thinking or feeling better than actually speaking. So, this idea that we only live in text and must rely on context within the text because we see things with multiple meanings intrigues me.

[@Xtoff]

This is the primary idea of Orwell's 1984. The way language shapes our thoughts and actions.

[@trolololololll]

Man these videos are so awesome.conglaturations (ghost goblins style)

[@minusone5162]

It's like finding the definition/meaning of a word in a dictionary and subsequently finding another from that same def/mea ... the 'eternal' inter-play of the sign by means of its signifiers/signifieds.

[@CaptTerrific]

Oh fun, epistemology!

[@Voltanaut]

Frédéric de Saussure: Google him. The Signified is the concept of a Sign (a word) whilst the Signifier is the actual physical sound of a Sign. This is why all cultures know what a smile is, a certain sensation, even what a cat is, even if the Sign, the word "smile" is different depending on the language used. Derrida's Différance reminds me of Structuralism, how concepts relate to one another and can be traced backwards through human invention. Language, in these terms, is no different. Is a cat a cat? In theory, yes, I suppose. As a signifier, however, no. In French, for example, 'cat' is spelled "chat" and is pronounced with an accent different to that of South African, Canadian or Scottish.

[@BigSpoonyBard]

Derrida is, in a sense, responding to structuralists like Saussure. Saussure, in defining the concept of the sign, admits that the signifier is arbitrary in nature but then claims that once a culture selects its signifiers, they are imposed on all members of the culture, thus making them constant. Therefore, a sign (the word "cat") = a signifier (the letters spelling out "cat") plus a signified (the idea of a cat) forever and always. However, that invariability is what Derrida takes issue with. Derrida claims that the chain of signification goes deeper than that because the signified (the idea of a cat) is implicitly based on a cascading series of significations (feline as opposed to canine, hair-covered as opposed to scale-y, etc). So while Saussure believed that the sign was a one-level proposition with a definite set meaning, Derrida argued that there is no way to decide where that process of signification ends. As a result, we must be aware of the instability of language, which is the ultimate point of deconstruction.

[@nathanaeledward_b]

HarryIsTheGamingGeek BigSpoonyBard Yes, all of this. It's important to also know that language constructs our social reality and those significations heavily affect the "everyday philosophy" of hegemony (as Gramsci would put it), through what Barthes calls the "third order signification." Would very much like to see more episodes about this and post-structuralism. Maybe Wisecrack can do an episode on Deleuze and Guattari's rhizome? Would make sense if we're interested in post-structuralist metaphysics. The comments for such a video would be especially hilarious - many thanks to the producers for bringing accessible and sometimes radical continental philosophy to a bunch of angry youtube commenters :)

[@matthieufernandez6871]

Ferdinand* de Saussure. I'm just correcting this in case someone actually googles him. His major contribution to philosophy of language is his 'Course in General Linguistics' which can be found here: archive.org/details/courseingenerall00saus

[@denisherlock3023]

Wow, i didn't know Derrida was also a kung fu master...

[@FatherOfGray]

So basically, he's just saying "a rose by any other name is just as sweet"?

[@ruwanweerakkody5411]

he said other things as well

[@TaiChiKnees]

So I have a serious question: There's a famous piece of art by Magritte, a painting of a pipe (that you smoke tobacco with) with the words (in French: Ceci n'est pas une pipe): "This is not a pipe", the idea being that the painting is not itself a pipe. The painting is a painting of an image. Is that the same idea that this Derrida had, namely that the word is a representation of reality? Or is it more that the words can be interpreted in so many different ways that the word doesn't matter? Or is the idea not centered on the word but rather the idea of the word? I'm a little confused. By the way, I've only read a little philosophy and I really love these little lectures.

[@eyesocketplug6989]

I'm not really sure but I think that it was meant to illustrate lack of relation between image and the word, so in sense it is related to what derrida says, pipe is not pipe simply because we can can point our finger on it, while traditional philosophy emphasises the idea that all 'representations' of an object/ being have common origin in either material world (science, naive realism) and are attained by us through process of empirical practice

[@eyesocketplug6989]

(continuation) or in some world of objective ideas which guarantees meaning

[@TaiChiKnees]

LOL!!! No, Jai Guru, tell me how you really feel. Don't hold back! :-)

[@TaiChiKnees]

***** I wasn't being indignant! I liked your definition. I just thought the way you worded it was really funny and so I was joking back! (This is why internet conversations go south; you can't see me smiling while I type!) :-)

[@TaiChiKnees]

***** Sorry! I'll try to be more inflammatory from now on! ...uh... jerk! :-)

[@DaemonEX0]

Semantics. Words point to agglomerations of ideas, but ideas are tricky to translate into a limited language. Doesn't mean it's not possible, it simply depends on the language and the complexity of the idea. There is no divine truth in this, because we don't 'know' the truth. To understand all that is a cat; it's evolutionary history, it's biology, the chemistry that makes it tick, the sub-atomic particles it consists of.. it's nearly infinitely complex, anyway. Then again, we don't need to understand things in order to live a good life. It helps, but it's entirely subjective.

[@bradmodd7856]

What are you saying here? You started off strong then went into a tail spin

[@TheCanterlonian]

It "turtles all the way down." Okay, you've got to know by now that we've heard these phrases before! XD

[@xenshia]

language => symbol => symbolic interaction (the symbol of language is used when we interact with others) => socialization => how we make sense of the world, through interactions with others. Therefore, language gives meaning to reality.

[@dordogne]

Also from Wikipedia ... (Derrida argues that it is not enough to expose and deconstruct the way oppositions work and how meaning and values are produced, and then stop there in a nihilistic or cynical position regarding all meaning, "thereby preventing any means of intervening in the field effectively".[33] To be effective, deconstruction needs to create new terms, not to synthesize the concepts in opposition, but to mark their difference and eternal interplay. This explains why Derrida always proposes new terms in his deconstruction, not as a free play but as a pure necessity of analysis, to better mark the intervals. )

[@ilkeryoldas]

How is this philosophy though? It doesn't matter what word/shape/logo you use, as long as you can get your point across in the given context, and the other person can understand what you mean. It seems to me he was more worried about the nuances of linguistics. Also, anyone, please explain to me this sentence in page 73 from his book "Of Grammatology" because it looks like he just enjoys putting random words together and hates everyone who tries to make the world more meaningful: 'That the signified is originarily and essentially (and not only for a finite and created spirit) trace, that it is always already in the position of the signifier, is the apparently innocent proposition within which the metaphysics of the logos, of presence and consciousness, must reflect upon writing as its death and its resource.'

[@tarico4436]

The lie (or the untruth) is that if we were to take away the name "cat" from that there cat over yonder that it would cease to exist. It becomes a cat because we attach the logos or the name of cat to it--is a lie, or not true. That there is even a trace of truth that that cat needs to be called a cat for it to be a cat is a lie, or untrue. We are given this proposition--that a cat ain't a cat unless we call it a cat--as if it were all innocent, but it ain't innocent cuz it's a lie, or untrue. When Derrida wrote "the metaphysics of the logos," I think he was referring to that deal where he says that sometimes syntax drives (or helps to determine) thought, and other times thought drives (or helps to determine) syntax, and there is always some back and forth (between the frozen-in-time meaning of something, and--wait for it--its new meaning). "...Must reflect upon writing as its death and its resource..." means that you may have a thought there in your head, but as soon as you write it down, that thought dies and a new thought is born; why? because the thing/sentence you wrote down is different than your original thought a few seconds prior. LSS, no, I really don't know what he was trying to say there exactly. In part because I can't really explain what he meant by "...of presence and consciousness...". No, ilker yoldas, what appears on page 73 is not a word salad. But I haven't quite figured it out yet. Some of the problem might be attributed to the fact that Derrida wrote in French. I could mull this one all day. I already see many mistakes in the above, so I'm stopping soon. Helpful (?) clarifications: a cat to me is a housecat plus a tiger plus a lion (plus like a cool dude in a smoky jazz lounge, plus an Earthmoving piece of heavy equipment, plus many others); a cat to a three year old human (who hasn't been to the circus yet, hasn't seen bigger cats on the telly) is a housecat only. If I think "cat," OK, there's one (meaning); if I write down or say "cat," and no one reads or hears me, there's two (meanings); if that three year old can read a little English, and reads what I have written (I wrote "cat") or overhears me say "cat," OK, there's three (meanings). Weirdly enough, the word "of," the of before "presence" in the above, is throwing me, is bucking me off more than anything else. Like a bull in a China shop, I can bluster my way through the rest of what's on page 73. But this is one of those passages that just might require a cadre, a phalanx, as it were, of bilingual French/English speakers who are super fluent in both languages to be able to work through and, at some point, be able to corral some kind of all-encompassing meaning. (A meaning that would be somewhat ballpark similar to what Derrida was shooting for.) I don't get it. It's not a word salad, but whatever it is beats the heck outta me.

[@BaresarkSlayne]

Well, he is essentially saying that a cat by any other name is still the same. We call it a cat, and that is the name it was given in language, so that helps us recognize the thing. We recognize it because of what the word cat means what it does not mean. He deliberately juxtaposed much earlier philosophers such as Plato, who believed in an absolute idea of a "cat" that existed in the Ether. He said there was no objective truth on what a cat is, but we know what a cat is in the context of language because that is how we think, in language. We had spoken language long before a written language after all. Also, all areas of study are philosophy.

[@dordogne]

Its fundamentally philosophy because its Epistemology. Its about what we know and what we CAN truly know.

[@AlexGoldhill]

You'd be surprised how much of modern Western philosophy, in both the Analytic and Continental traditions, ultimately boils down to the nuances of linguistics. The 20th century marked what is usually referred to as the linguistic turn in philosophy.

[@mulpex]

Best channel on youtube, no question.

I would have to agree with this. There is only so much language can do by itself. Language is imprecise and prone to fallacy when describing a thing, person or event. Translations of ideas are messy and sometimes non-existent when translating them to different languages. People like Derrida are important. They make us think critically about what it is we are trying to communicate with each other.

[@DontMockMySmock]

I don't understand how Derrida is supposed to make the leap from "we use language, an imperfect system, to comprehend truth" to "there is no such thing as objective truth". Language does not equal reality.

[@sheveksmath702]

That is more 8-Bit Philosophy's fault than Derrida's. But to their defense, it is difficult to capture entire critiques of western philosophy in a few minutes of video. If you want to learn more about how those points connect together, I suggest you seek out Derrida from other sources - 8-Bit Philosophy is more of a taste rather than a main course meal.

[@nathanaeledward_b]

We cannot know reality directly - this is something Kant describes (and he's about the least "radical" philosopher you can read, in some sense). We understand reality through representations - phenomena - versus the true essence of the thing-in-of-itself, which is noumena. Noumena is inaccessible to us, so we rely on things our sight, our hearing, and the representation of language to make sense of the unknowable. Heidegger describes the ultimate truth as "aletheia" - a process of "disclosure" (discourse?) which conceals some forms of understanding while concealing others. Barthes talks about signs as polysemic - they move towards a single idea through the exclusion of others (very similar to what Derrida calls différance). A man is a certain type of person, but he is not a woman - our understanding of it is shaped in a way that practically excludes some definitions. However, this concealment and exclusion is ~exclusive~ and can be revised as the situation warrants, though usually it take a lot of pain and confusion. A man is not a woman but a man may ~become~ a woman, or a woman may be born a man - these definitions are in flux. Derrida is one of the people who reveal this flux of understanding, and the socially constructive, or subjective epistemology, we have towards "reality."

[@swordofsteel]

sheveksmath well said

[@destructself]

***** I would say we comprehend by experience, and then sometimes that's not enough, because our senses are flawed.

[@donoteatmikezila]

>Language does not equal reality. This is the precise point. Language doesn't equal reality, but if I asked you to explain reality to me, what are you going to do? You're going to use language to explain it. In this way, we have no way to perceive and ponder reality, but via language. That is the simplified heart of the concept.

[@XxlolmazterxX]

whole video went right over my head

[@WallPaintProductions]

That is completely ridiculous, there's this thing called context. If I'm at the bank and I ask the bank teller to check my balance I'm pretty sure she'll understand what I'm talking about, she will not lift me into the air. How is it that I am able to paint a picture and someone else's head using language.

[@WallPaintProductions]

Language is like money, if everyone agrees that $100 bill is worth $100, then it is worth $100. If everyone agrees that the word cat means the word cats then it is a cat. A cat is not a goats, or a human, or a flimflam or a Jack a wanker that's completely ridiculous.

[@the120cxx]

I always wondered this in middle school, & there was never a class on it. cool.

[@JimmyCarlinSk8]

I find this interesting, but your understanding of significance and trace is unfortunately quite limited. You seem to pose Derrida as a structuralist, while he is a post-structuralist, and the importance is the lact of origin, of a transcendental signified, which you do not seem to appoint sadly. Even so, a bit more controversial, Deconstruction seems to be more than a word play on construction and descrution, which i agree on, but also a Traceial (differanceial) reference to Heideggers Destrukt, or errasure, of errasing a word's meaning because it has a meaning but not the sought out meaning, it needs more like, Dasein, than what is ordinarily looked for. like with deconstruction, its the understanding that al words have a field of possible meanings, that it can be understood within, and thus sour rassure (pardon my french). In short awesome films but it seemes to bee a bit to limeting.

[@Lazergaz]

Wittgenstein!!!

[@wagz781]

this video is making me picture historic philosophers as characters from JoJo's Bizarre adventure... just imagine plato shouting "ZA WORLDO" and then crushing karl marx under a steam roller and you will understand my feelings about this situation

[@lmckeown123]

Great video Wisecrack Reminds me of ethnomethodolgy. What fun that was!

[@MrLeito48]

There's no a better way for understanding Derrida than this...

[@yamjamjam]

I love your channel! Sorry some people like to take these videos as personal insults. I'm a bit of a masochist and truly do enjoy questioning everything. It makes me feel like I know more about myself in the end. (Not sarcasm by the way.)

[@joao1989john]

[@ghassandabbour9677]

simply put: because objectivity is attained by consensus through languaging more than it is attained by the actual physical thing itself, it becomes possible to re-order the understanding of the thing by critically engaing (deconstructing) in languaging

[@JaymiHeartless]

whoa...that name... zuntigunrax jak......thats a mouthful...

[@davida715]

Love these, it's the only reasoned i subbed xD

[@AlexGoldhill]

Now try explaining Wittgenstein using Mario Cart.

[@DeltaXXI]

Jacques Derrida - my new favorite superhero.

[@MRKetter81]

An interesting concept proposed by Derrida, but I would conclude that some 'words' are beholden to higher defined concepts than others. For instance, "chair" has no meaning outside of particular dependencies such as 'shape', 'color', 'space', 'time... as I would challenge anyone to think of a 'chair' completely outside those principles; ie imagining a chair that exists in no place, no time, with no shape, no color, at no time. However you can imagine a chair outside of the thought of ever bringing up the concept of cat.

[@mathieuleader8601]

a great example of Jacques linguistic theory is the differences between American Football and soccer and the original football itself

[@Gamez7Machinery]

That Takeshi's Challenge cameo tho...

[@FerroNeoBoron]

The semantics of first order and higher logics would tend to agree with him. In first order logic there are an infinite number of labels, functions and predicates and none of them, formally, mean anything except through their logical connections to each other. However, language doesn't just transmit dry semantics. If it did that wouldn't explain the "Bouba/Kiki" effect and it would ignore the preference for humans to use shorter words, contractions and acronyms for more common concepts as well as redundancy built into the grammar of a language (even though the video is about lexicons). Although, the moderate success of constructed languages like lojban probably indicate that these considerations aren't terribly important. So I guess if it walks like a cat, swims like a cat and quacks like a cat I'd call it a cat. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouba/kiki_effect

[@tarico4436]

Philosophy always was this search for some grander truth, or a capital t Truth, an objective truth or The objective Truth. To not mention the soldiers pointing guns at the toddlers inside of the sandbox, and those soldiers telling those toddlers to not mention them or what's outside of that play area is what Philosophy has become. "Go study language," is what the man said to those playing after growing tired of the student uprisings of the 60s. Soon, philosophers everywhere began asking, "Is sand sand?" and "Why swing?" And voila! now if you want to study Philosophy in college you won't be mentioning the soldiers or else you won't be studying in those ivied towers. Philosophy used to be important; now it's a sort of "linguistics +".

[@tarico4436]

***** Right before I composed my comment I actually thought it was perhaps too simplistic. Went ahead and wrote it anyway, figuring this is a Twittered world we live in, and I should learn how to condense my usual novel-lengthed answers down into bite-sized morsels.

[@victoracevedo8668]

The limits of my language means the limits of my world. -Ludwig Wittgenstein

[@ghostsharklegs6687]

Because I can understand an consept, it must be possible for people to understand a consept. Because people are physical objects, it must be possible, at least in principle, to make one from scratch through some process. Because you can make a person from scratch, it must be possible to understand how people work. Because I can know how people work, I can use normal laws to define people and therefore, concepts by extension. You can use this argument to prove that anything which exists must follow a set of rules that are the same for everything, even if you don't know what they are.

[@m17guy]

this was a very good video, it gave me a lot to think about

[@mouwersor]

So how do you get the first concepts if you only get knowledge from other concepts?

[@criticalxxthoughtxx2916]

Heh. Did not expect Darrida. Good times.

[@nonotreallyok]

you gotta do ferdinand de saussure and ludwig wittgenstein. i need more channels like this. are there others?

[@mehdisejdiu4331]

school of life

[@mehdisejdiu4331]

kurzgesagt, V sauce , etc

[@kevincruz7958]

I'm gonna get that Derrida's book.

[@netwolfe]

The end of the video, did we really need him to punch the girlfriend? Was that really necessary?

[@beingsshepherd]

I was grudgingly funny though.

[@eggboye352]

I showed this video to my cat, Derrida. She meowed six times to tell me that my phone can not be as a sign of an established sign, and only a signifier. Then she tore apart my copy of the purloined letter, and shit in her litter box, which we now just call a Lacan in light of these recent troubling events.

[@alejandrodpg]

This is how a philosopher tries to explain Gödel's incompleteness theorems without using mathematical terms. Maybe because of not having a clue about Math, or maybe because he did not even know the fact that this had already been described and proven independently on that field, and published in 1931 when Derrida was a baby. All those comments saying that Derrida (whose name I had not heard until tonight) is inherently wrong and his point stupid, are either missing Derrida's point entirely, misunderstanding it, or rejecting it following an obsolete dogma, like if they were defending their position against the existence of the number zero.

[@gibbityhibbity9855]

I loved the ending! XD

[@ellieblight9416]

Awesome vid guys!

[@RaySquirrel]

“As the novelist Walker Percy quipped, a deconstructionist is an academic who claims that texts have no referents and then leaves a message on his wife’s answering machine asking her to order a pepperoni pizza for dinner.” Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate.

[@ForgottenFirearm]

Also consider: when I tell my wife "don't forget to buy shampoo," the image that forms in both of our minds is (hopefully) a bottle *containing* shampoo. BUT when she says "go ahead and put shampoo in the baby's hair," I don't think about weaving a large plastic bottle into his hair. Why? Because spoken or written word is good at *pointing to* or *indicating* concepts --including concepts of tangible objects like shampoo bottles or just liquid shampoo alone. It is the *mind* that *interprets* what to do with the indicated concept (e.g. associate "cat" with "feline," "pet"). In other words, vocabulary is just part of a total language system, and the total language system includes many non-verbal vocabularies, including spatial, haptic (what a pine cone feels like, for example), olfactory, and auditory (bird calls for example).

[@ForgottenFirearm]

***** Right on.

[@woodsofchaos]

I'm not really sure about this. The fact that there is a multiplicity to meaning of the words (not just the dictionary meaning, but also the image that pops in your head when you hear the word), does not mean that the words are meaningless. For example, your wife may think of a different shampoo bottle under different contexts, but never will she think of a tree when you say the word shampoo. Similarly, even when the stranger tells her "don't forget to buy shampoo" she may have an overall different interpretation after bringing things into context, but never without skipping the actual understanding of the word shampoo into some sort of a bottle thingy. As for the different kinds of shampoo bottles, it is because of the multiplicity of meanings (including mental images) we hold for a word for different contexts, and due to our own everchanging nature (our minds, memories and understandings are changing every second, and so may our understandings of the words). But you could still ascribe "shampoo" to the category of objects that it refers to, and not call a dustbin a shampoo.

[@jordanarnold71]

This is the grisle. Of existentialism. Essentially we sort of mull over our various fears. Collect them. For later I suppose.

[@tyrannosaurusrx5464]

Maybe I'm not grasping it but I feel like Derrida is right if you don't include context. Context helps makes sense of words, right?

[@Anthestudios]

Context is still mediated through language! You can never escape the system of language, so you will never get to the 'true sense'.

[@dordogne]

From Wikipedia ....(Perhaps Derrida's most quoted and famous assertion,[48] which appears in an essay on Rousseau in his book Of Grammatology (1967),[51] is the statement that "there is no outside-text" (il n'y a pas de hors-texte).[51] Critics of Derrida have mistranslated the phrase in French to suggest he had written "Il n'y a rien en dehors du texte" ("There is nothing outside the text"). Critics have widely disseminated this mistranslation to make it appear that Derrida is suggesting that nothing exists but words.[52][53][54][55][56] Derrida once explained that this assertion "which for some has become a sort of slogan, in general so badly understood, of deconstruction (...) means nothing else: there is nothing outside context. In this form, which says exactly the same thing, the formula would doubtless have been less shocking.")

[@kooldjself]

absoutely brilliant. I'm watching all of these. so good. thanks!

[@jamesnubz]

well these days the "truth" only exists to fit one's narrative if seen beneficial. Also Derrida knew that words and definitions were descriptive, not prescriptive. There could never be a definitive definition for any word because the way culture works is that words meaning varies from culture to culture. However, I do wonder in this age of language and discourse among people about language, what would have to say about that? For example what would Derrida say about political correctness? would he find it meaningless, because one word could have different meanings based on culture? could some help me answer this, I would love the help.

[@beingsshepherd]

Mathematical truths are now tactical? Imo, political correctness disputes are typically based on differences in tribal tolerances rather than _misunderstandings._

[@gandalfthegreat713]

Nice job

[@endlesswonders5798]

Going across genres is good idea, perhaps start with The Death and Life of Superman by Roger Stern?

[@sigmagrey3236]

Fascinating. That blew my "gufligindophuble."

[@Gamespectives]

Wisecrack: is a cat a cat? *explains in a lengthy video about language" 3yr olds, associating a cat by a kitty theyve observed by sight: "Cat is cat!"

[@ZozoInferno]

8-bit philosophy has made me question so many things I've understood as truths, and made me question my very existence on many occasions. Seriously, life is complicated XD

[@theproofessayist8441]

Everything defined in terms of relations to other ideas. Think this somewhat describes nature of axiomatic systems in mathematics pretty well though for Derrida's case there is no need for the reference to be non-circular/nonrecursive/not self-referential.

[@bigronnie9629]

What if C.A.T really spelled DOG? -Booger: Revenge Of The Nerds 2

[@dinathefossilfighter]

A word can have a different meaning depending on who is using it. Many trolls call a person who likes anime a "weeb", even though the official term is someone into that kind of stuff WAY TOO MUCH. Also those flamewars whatever anime are cartoons or not. Don't forget that.

[@olivier7865]

This was actually hilarious i had to re-watch to pay attention lol

[@forkittens]

for the bit at 2:07 you switch from non-enemy to enemy, so everything past that is deconstructing a negetive so the end result of "not cat" is actually saying not, not cat or just a cat... so a cat is just a cat

[@DougRobertson]

Great food for thought. Tonight I'm gonna deconstruct my cat.

[@FirstRisingSouI]

We can totally think in terms that are not words. We just can't talk about it without words, because words are the best way we have come up with for communication. There may be a time in the future when we invent brain-to-brain interface, and then words will be rendered obsolete. You could expand the idea to include not words alone, but all mental constructs, and you would have a fair point. But you would have no basis to claim there is no way that concepts can be grounded in objective reality, and you can make the case that it is statistically more likely that they are than that there is no objective reality.

[@ChamberACR]

"OH NO! IT'S JACQUES DERRIDA!" "YOU GUYS ARE NOT RIGHT!" Best. Line. Ever.

[@pumplesdorskiner]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Aristotle believed in an objective truth. His entire ethos was to refute Plato's claim of an objective truth obtainable through interrogation (Plato and Socrates' notion of philosophy) and instead tries to understand reality through observation of natural phenomena. He is sometimes credited with creating the scientific process for this very reason. Otherwise, really helpful!

[@johnyossarian5226]

Or there isn't just one strict truth to everything there's a bunch of things going on around that truth. I guess he's basically revealing how objectivity is just completely chaotic.

[@SycrosD4]

"There is no objective truth." Is that objectively true?

[@djinvinceable]

Try then to explain infinity. We have no framework or reference of how to understand it, other than "it goes on forever". But we really have no idea of what that really means. Death confounds what could be our understanding of infinity. Does that mean that death is the only universal objective truth (or at least one of them)?

[@hurclazo456]

0:13 Charmander cry

[@metallipwn]

Takeshi's Challenge lmao

[@himanshuwilhelm5534]

When you watch a small jumping spider hunt, there does seem to be something going on behind that cute face. If we can know the thoughts of other creatures, we can solve this issue.

[@thujoluvenuh1905]

The video is so interesting that I couldn't concentrate at first. lol

[@TheEndofZombieShakespeare]

You guys should do Wittgenstein next.

[@armitx9]

Takeshi's Challenge?

[@Dinuial]

General semantics made for a fun side line in SF.

[@koji8123]

I

[@DiatonicVids]

Language being subjective does not make the truth subjective. If anything, it only can affect how we understand the truth, but the truth itself remains unaffected. The animal is the same regardless of whether you call it a cat or a "znutigunrgkjax", or as Shakespeare famously put it centuries before before Derrida, "that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet."

[@Pebkio_Nomare]

We know what a "cat" is because we have set up a descriptive data set that's been generally accepted. It's generally accepted because we are taught the data set over our youngest years and form with an acceptance of that rule. Any entity that we observe that fits the data set is *described* as a "cat". These don't have to be subjective to other names we give other data sets. They just have to follow the axiomatic language that we all use. The very *purpose* of language is to differentiate between entities, concepts, and events that we observe so as to abstractly reference them. We can change any data set whenever we want to whatever we want, fair enough. But just speaking whatever gargleshit you want isn't "just as good" on a practical level. He can point to a cat and go "argle barge zarglflex thpppt" and the only thing anyone is going to get is that he's talking about the cat. But wait! "Pointing" would also have arbitrary meaning assigned to a pointless action and any other action else is just as good. So he'll lick a random wall and say "argle barge zargflex thpppt" and just hope that we know he's talking about the cat. He can then eat the cat and proceed to constantly question everything anyone ever says to him. But they won't realize he's doing that because he's in the corner yelling gibberish at the floor. I also imagine that he rubs feces on his face.

[@DamianReloaded]

I believe the problem is to think that we experience the world only through words in our minds. And that's not true. We experience life through sensations and feelings. Words are just a cosmetic convenience for social interaction. We could very well live our entire lives without abstract thinking at all but just communicating by the use of stares and wailing. If words are good for anything though, that would be lies and misleading.