Jacques Derrida & Deconstruction

[@AizawlVlogs]

Wow it helped me instantly..despite the continuous class lectures.very helpful and straightforward. Thanks

[@srinidhiiganeishmallyaa3746]

Thank you for this lecture sir. It's up to point and easy to understand. Continue with such explanations on other topics as well.

[@ugcnetenglishidrisbashasir5581]

Sir I became your fan of the hard work you have done to prepare this informative class, thank you Sir 🙏 again and again 🙏

[@KhanVlogg]

Excellent lecture on the topic...thanks

[@kavitayadav8439]

Love the video.... Kindly make some more videos...

[@zinebrz8391]

Excellent lecture!! Please do more lectures like this one about complicated theories like the Symbolic Order of Jacques Lacan or Identity Construction. Bundle of thanks to you.

[@sareetaseeram6025]

Very easy to understand and very helpful! please continue to make these kinds of videos :)

[@ashishpathak1698]

Thank you.

[@swetarumtel8074]

I get your point it's well explained sir thank you so much for this lecture

[@DhanaLakshmi-wp4tr]

thank you so much ....... for your clear lecture.... because I have confused about these theory .....but now I have clear idea about these theory .....👍👍👍

[@srutibhattamishra8423]

Awesomely explained!! Thank you so much sir..

[@xubho1787]

this is by far the best for easy understanding

[@ugcnetenglishidrisbashasir5581]

Thank you Sir 🙏🙏🙏 kindly continue your classes, thank you Sir 🙏🙏🙏🙏

[@zarkoff45]

I don't understand how anyone can say there is nothing outside language because it seems the whole point of language is to point to specific objects, events, and relationships in the external world we all live in, that we have shared experiences of. If I say the word "rock" there may be some confusion as to whether I am talking about a musical genre or one of those roughly shaped stones that are lying on the ground everywhere, but once I say "he threw a rock" it's pretty clear what I mean because we've all seen rocks and those rocks are not words. Metaphysics may be lost in a cloud of metaphors, but when I read a book on how to program in C# and then learn to write computer programs that text I read in order to do it had an obviously clear meaning that isn't as free to various interpretations as some might think.

[@tzenophile]

Let me throw a rock at your argument by drawing your attention to a phenomenon called "metaphor". Some rocks are words.

[@zarkoff45]

tzenophile, If you threw a metaphoric rock at my argument then you missed by a mile. You don't even seem to understand my argument. (Or maybe I don't understand yours). How the hell could language even work if it didn't refer to shared sensory experiences?

[@tzenophile]

Fair enough, man(?) I get your frustration wrt the Derrida thing. But: Language is not a transparent conveyor of meaning. It works brokenly and through metaphors, darkly. You even say so yourself, by questioning our exchange: "You don't even seem to understand my argument." You can program a machine, and it will work. But you cannot program a human being, can you? All Derrida was saying (hah, surely it can't be this simple) was that meaning is fluid, created on the fly, and therefore slippery-slope uncontrollable. Look at the state of the world: Do people understand each other? Truly? Can we communicate without miscommunication?

[@zarkoff45]

tzenophile, The word "rock" is not a metaphor. It can be used metaphorically, it might as well be an arbitrary sound and sequence of letters, but in the end the word "rock" refers to a perceptual pattern that all English speaking people know as a visual and tactile sensation. Yes, when people are not too messed up by philosophy, they manage to communicate lots of useful stuff. Philosophy and politics do seem to be realms where communication is difficult, but that might be because they were designed to be difficult. If computer languages worked "brokenly and through metaphors" in the way Derrida seems to claim, no one could ever program a computer. The fact that you have used a computer to post your comment is evidence of the existence of a language that can communicate instructions precisely: computer languages.

[@tzenophile]

Language is built on metaphors. And meanings slip. (Hint: slip?? How can a meaning 'slip'?) IF you saw the word "Rock" on a wall, would you think of a stone or a kind of music? Senders and receivers have different contexts, and the only way you can control meaning, is to control the context of all receivers of a message. And you can't do that. But humans train themselves to become experts in perceiving the right context for a message. And some are better than others, we call them real smart people. Surely you would agree that "programming languages" are a metaphorical use of "language"? Or do computers themselves speak these languages? The word "language" is derived from tongue, and I never met a computer that had one. To be more serious (but how do you know that I am serious at all?) I can program a computer in a programming language precisely because it is *not* a real human language, but a set of codes with unambiguous context. Philosophy and politics are exceptions, huh? Have you seen a graphics designer and a programmer try to communicate? Have you tried to explain 'love' to someone who has not experienced it? String theory? The brain? Even logic cannot comprehend itself, as Gödel showed. Most human domains are full of miscommunications, because we are not talking about simple material reality, but about things that matter, but differently for each one of us. Human brains are the most complex phenomena in the known universe, so why should communication between them be "straightforward"? (Another metaphor, btw.) Philosophy has large sub-fields devoted to the phenomenon of language, both on the analytical and the continental side, and so you see that this is not a simple matter at all. And you don't have to start with, or even acknowledge, Derrida. Start with Lakoff and Johnson's Metaphors We Live By, then try the later Wittgenstein. To "go" back to the beginning, "there is nothing outside language" is a pretty misleading translation of "il n'y a pas de hors-texte", Derrida, Of Grammatology, p. 158. I would translate it as "the text has no outside" - since language is the tool we use to talk about language, it cannot see itself from the outside. Still incomprehensible? Of course, it is rather ironic that the translation of a claim about the impossibility of perfect meaning got messed up!

[@nagendratimilsina9911]

The paper Structure, Sign and Play..was presented in 1966.

[@trinadhadavikolanu3073]

Well explained in a nut shell.Wonderful effort.

[@pallebhargavi8419]

can provide sign structure and play by jaques derrida

[@rajendrasubedi5677]

Marvellous .

[@saritakeshri4740]

Please make video on gender difference theory and socialisation theory

[@jenuferjenu9234]

It's very helpful.. thank u for this lecture..

[@c.p.mishra4095]

Hello sir good evening. How are you sir. I know you because I have attended your class in prayagraj.

[@geetharamesh7531]

Nice explaining sir

[@nazrinchaaru749]

Awesome tutorial

[@ashokkaul4740]

Good attempt,simple,brief but very clear. supplementation should be with critical evaluations.

[@gandalfs284]

Logocentrism (not logocentricism), phonocentrism (not phonocenticism) and différance (not differànce).

[@ourclock]

gandalfs284 can you explain these terms in colloquial language, as they seem really hard to grasp.

[@anubhavsharma1388]

Thanks. To the point and precise explanation 😀👌

[@pallebhargavi8419]

I want only sign structure and play by jaques derrida for seminar purpose in 1 page

[@shivanirathod4944]

So nice ur teaching sir tq

[@saritachand9052]

plz keep publishing more video about literary theories ...Thank you its helpful!!

[@ashishpathak1698]

Sure

[@sukuralimollah7616]

Please makes a good vedio on Jacques Derrida in hindi specially on stracture sign and play.

[@shobhaagnihotri9985]

Thanks a lot sir

[@jayraskin]

Very nice. Thank you.

[@beachhouse9662]

thank you so much sir.

[@saritakeshri4740]

Very nice sir

[@shihabshaun3787]

Fantasticks

[@basavarajbhajantri1050]

Super

[@sachingowda1441]

Nice one

[@incarnated8911]

1968 or 1966 every teacher is giving different date for structure sign

[@digitalarchitecture4956]

well explained thank you sooo much

[@ashishpathak1698]

I agree with gandalfs284. It is...cenrism. Derrida delivered 'Structure, Sign..." in 1966. Please mend it. Thank you all.

[@soniabaez1]

Thank you!

[@sohaseliem5236]

Thanks. God bless you :)

[@TheBest44]

thanku soo muchh.. it helped me a lot..... keep it up.sirr..

[@catchmanisha]

Wow, well explained.

[@muchandrea7475]

Thankyou, gràcias!

[@ashishpathak1698]

Thank you

[@gulnazali8563]

Is post structuralism n deconstruction equal?

[@ritumaurya5397]

Thanks sie

[@mgf_cancermaria894]

gr8t ....waitg for new vdos

[@optimisticabid8796]

Well

[@santubanik633]

The conclusion is fine.

[@Huma191]

thanks

[@nupurvyas165]

very well written

[@infinitafenix3153]

Well done!

[@awdhesh1073]

Thanks sir structuralism ka vido banaye

[@sumanghosh8109]

Thanks it's nice

[@9841509146]

aporia means deadluck of meaning.

[@aafreennaaz3444]

Good

[@mertmuratdincer4861]

Thank youuu so muchhhhhh :D

[@DLR22240]

Convenient but needed more explanation.

[@elliotthovanetz1945]

'Nothing outside the text.' So there's no external reality. Hmm. Derrida should have walked in front of a 'bus' (even though there is no such thing as a bus), and see how his subjective reality plays out. Would have saved western civilization from his nonsense.

[@anonymoussource701]

Derrida - French drivel

[@isaacolivecrona6114]

Non-sense, not "no sense".