Chapter 5.4: Jacques Derrida, no one ever gets to clarity

[@shwetasingh3428]

OH MY GOD! This has to be the most comprehensible educational video on YoutTube. Beautifully explained through well articulated examples.

[@anxiousapien31]

Not even my prof ,a Harvard graduate could make it more understandable to me as you did. Your channel and the content is so simple and makes it clear in one go. Thanks a lot 😊

[@gwinocour]

I have been around the block with philosophy videos. For anyone that wants to get their feet wet, this guy doing these videos is THE BEST!

[@nicolaseugene3746]

i know im asking randomly but does anyone know of a way to log back into an instagram account? I was dumb forgot my password. I would appreciate any tips you can give me.

[@jesseenoch861]

@Nicolas Eugene Instablaster :)

[@Jebusite100]

Finally, someone on KZbin who makes sense.

[@rogersyversen3633]

Did it become meaningful to you?

[@HappyWeekendCFDOTA]

This video deserves to be watched over and over again

[@michaelpisciarino5348]

1:08 Presence and Absence 2:30 Concept 3:45 What does x tell about y? 4:14 What is the difference between owning x rather than owning y? 5:57 The Traditional Theory of language cannot be right 7:07 “You cannot have the full meaning of any concept present to your consciousness.” 7:24 “Language projects structure into the world.” 7:56 Meanings don’t exist in our minds. 8:21 Meanings are nowhere. 9:14 There is nothing outside the text. Meaning is relations between words. 10:10 Traditional Hermeneutics mistake 10:44 No one knows fully what they are saying. 11:00 Interpretation

[@iandonnelly522]

I think this is the closest thing to perfect clarity from Dr. Gijsbers! Brilliant lecture!

[@TheChannelofaDisappointedMan]

Best explanation I have heard. Great series.

[@mellowbirds4777]

Thank you so much for putting something across so clearly. So many people will get wiser based on it. Brilliant. ❤️

[@soliloquiesbyshailja5416]

Thank you so much for clearing this complicated concept by Derrida . The best lecture so far 🫶🏻

[@Kevindsprong]

Wow! I loved Dr. Gijsbers lectures on Foucault - a philosopher I could not understand, at all, untill his lecture made his writings so much clearer. Now Derrida is clearer, and absolutely facinating, the way this guy lectures. Thank you. Thank you Thank you!

[@manaschakraborty9192]

Now, tell me how Derrida's theory helps to solve some realistic problems in the West like a binary pair White(superior)/ Black (inferior)?!! I find his theories are just exercise of brain. It blocks the effective way of communicating with others. Pretty nutish theories !!!

[@manaschakraborty9192]

You are awesome to explain this pretty much nuttish theory !!! Can be frustrating at times that even if you understand Derrida , you will not find a language to express that you actually understood him !!! Crazy man this Derrida !!!

[@muzboz]

These videos are fantastic. Can't stop watching them all! They're inspiring me for story / theme ideas for my [computer game that will change the world]. :) THANKS!

[@intiillimani8673]

Sounds like Bandersnatch.

[@RekzaFS]

What a fresh breath of air

[@nickgood9593]

Good explanation. Easy to understand. Thanks.

[@z.a.hayder8482]

You are a good teacher indeed.

[@Jpbremner]

loved that little nod at the end :D

[@reneperez2126]

this guy's amazing he made this so often difficult subject look like a child's play, i would have liked he had done baudrillard ,because i think after derrida ,baudrillard would be a pretty logical sequence ,though i know well he blew the language issue out of proportion

[@ranashafique929]

Just out of the world!

[@MSA-uj7cp]

Wow. So clear, thank you!

[@sgt7]

Why did Derrida not speak like this? I think this man understands Derrida better than Derrida understood himself.

[@monikatolani5233]

Haha 👍

[@gregorykavivya875]

To answer your question I'd say probably because Derrida, as the author, didn't have a clear idea of his intention

[@bluemountainschool5484]

Nicely explained

[@nopenope1834]

Watch Jacques Derrida on American attitudes, it is 3 minutes and really answers your question in an indirect way. Why is it that he is expected to have clarity? He is simply sharing his views and has no obligation to be as clear as others would like him to be. He can only be as clear as he can be, which I am sure he was, as it's unlikely that anyone would intentionally make themselves less understood, it often becomes a disservice to oneself to be that way. All this aside, this video is excellent. He has an amazing ability to explain difficult concepts.

[@mjamesharding]

Derrida also applied his ideas in his writings, so he didn't just write about an idea, he wrote through and with that idea.

[@KenAssemi]

Dude you nailed it, that must be the perfect interpretation ; ) ... or at least a very good one.

[@randenpederson4784]

this Derrida guy is the first person you've mentioned that seems silly to me. Who the hell needs a "full concept" in their mind. You don't need a whole cow for supper. A steak or a burger is enough.

[@thinking3954]

Well explained! The question is: if Derrida believes no one ever gets on clarity does that include his own theory ? Which then puts the possibility of one has it on clarity back to existence!! After this video I feel that Derrida was just philosophically mastrubating !!

[@kirbycairo]

I think that if we assume that there are no "right" interpretations, then consequently we must also assume that there are no "better" or "worse" interpretations either. Because what other meaning can we assume here for the word "better" than that it implies "closer to something." And it can only be closer to something that we assume is optimal (or 'right'). Of course, if by 'better' we only mean closer to an interpretation that promotes a certain (explicit or implicit) goal (say, ideological or even literary), then 'better' makes sense, but only if we agree with the goal.

[@kylerodd2342]

Indeed. Watch the Rorty video from this series and you’ll be satisfied.

Nice one, thanks for sharing, much appreciated.

[@ravanarbabi140]

Language can often be based on a specific object as a starting point! So all the adjectives that distinguish this from other objects. Like color, size, being standing or moving and even being dangerous or useful, also further and further! perhaps toward the abstraction and extraction of abstract words that seem independent but can still be traced back to the physical origin.

[@thetruthoutside8423]

Excellent.

[@IIImobiusIII]

Language is no more than a tool. It can be used to create poetry, it can be used to mislead and obscure. Who said perfect clarity is reliant on words at all. The affection I see in my doggos eyes are beyond words. I see a little faith, I see a little hope. Doesn't matter, good doggo. Let's go for a walk.

[@elainegoranov998]

That was nice.

[@SeanPFarley]

VERY helpful. Thank you so much.

[@pertjacanape]

If nobody ever knows with perfect clarity what they are saying, neither could Derrida have so known when he said that.

[@shanemunro311]

I wanted to read a few of the comments before I wrote my own. I see that they are very complimentary. Their language honestly gives me a fair bit of context. After seeing the video I feel like I understand how these people feel haha. You explain things beautifully and concisely and each video I watch, which you present, I feel like I am learning something new- this feels really good. Thank you. I have never subscribed to a KZbin channel before. This will be the first.

[@pertjacanape]

If the structure defining any object is too large and complex to be apprehended in a single instance, we seem too have come full circle to the reasons given for rejecting Augustine.

[@kevinrombouts3027]

If Derrida is consistent, then there cannot be better or worse interpretations only different ones. Why - because interpretation is entirely subjective. There cannot be any standard by which we judge interpretations then.

[@matthewcaldwell8100]

The banal point that no one ever gets to the total pellucidity beyond the need to contextualize, explain, or the possibility of misinterpretation is not made less obvious by Derrida's pyrotechnic obscurantism.

[@nicholassimpson518]

I love this bloody hippie!

[@inadewinne697]

Amazing explanation!

[@USERNAMEfieldempty]

When the words, ''Brilliant Geeky Young Professor with Mad 1970s Hair'' suddenly appear in our minds without any choice by us... we realise that we don't have true control of our mind's processes. Do you rule your thoughts or do your thoughts rule you?

[@martindebiasi6818]

Is there a you outside of your thoughts?

[@USERNAMEfieldempty]

@@martindebiasi6818 is there a you?

[@AlwaysGrowAndLearn]

How do we know Derrida meant that

[@paganiyah]

Exactly… attempts to normalize Derrida are shocking

[@daspsych3156]

Sorry if this has already been said, but, @1:59, I thought "The elephant not in the room."

[@rogersyversen3633]

I believe that language and concepts are different processes, like how it is for people with autism, the autistic traits in humans is the thing that is at the forefront of creating language. The rest of the human spectrum of consciousness is conservation of language, religiously. If you know philosophy really well, please give me some references where the language turn and the reasons for it is explained, because I need to investigate if modern philosophy is built on the wrong premise.

[@monashakra5380]

Thanks alot Will you please do a video on Baudrilarrd and his theory of simulation Thanks in advance

[@NoOne-uh9vu]

Plot twist: language itself appeals to transcendentals outside of language itself preceding the use of language. Its impossible to think a thought or make an argument without unconsciously accepting and appealing to transcendentals like meaning, math, order, reason a priori. If that wasnt the case we could question meaning itself, but how do we understand our own words without meaning? Self negation isn't possible therefore language is posterior to transcendentals. Derrida was sorely mistaken

[@smithmann5616]

Double negation: what do you mean by "transcendentals"? Perhaps "transcendentals" ("transcendental signifieds"? "transcendent objects"? What do you *mean*?) are by-products, side-effects, after-effects, of the referential function of language? Not sure how you expect to carve-out a stable field of experience from the flux of sensation that constantly bombards us without language. We *sense* colours, textures, shapes, etc,. but we *see* houses and cars. Perhaps language isn't merely descriptive of the world but is instead constitutive of our filed of experience or programs in advance the structure of our sensorium?

[@NoOne-uh9vu]

@@smithmann5616 Most animals have no language and clearly live in stable field of experience. Sense making and reasoning is apriori to language.

[@smithmann5616]

@@NoOne-uh9vu "Clearly"? And you know this how?

[@NoOne-uh9vu]

@@smithmann5616 what does it look like to you? Do they need help? Do you deny that animals form complex societal structures and are capable to navigate life successfully without language? It would be news to them

[@smithmann5616]

@@NoOne-uh9vu Not exactly sure how an appeal to my immediate experience suffices to prove your point. It's akin to Dr. Johnson kicking a stone and exclaiming "I refute it thusly" and thereby dismissing what he took to be Berkeley's idealism. It's circular. And, in any case, how it "looks to me" is hardly the point. It's how it looks to animals that's at issue. And that I can't know.

[@muazam6079]

Is Derrida's deconstruction criticism of Structuralism?

[@macattack1958]

Could someone explain how it would be possible to judge there to be better or worse interpretations of a text without referring to the goals of the interpreter?

[@rahafd5003]

Hats off!

[@z0uLess]

9:00 Lets see what quantum computing and machine learning will say about that.

[@ZoiusGM]

Informative video. 6:43 Yes it is possible, why is it out of the picture ? Also, even if it is not possible to think all of these at once, what about in a time of multiple thoughts ? 7:44 A tree carries the concept/meaning of the tree despite the fact that there are multiple ways to say the word 'tree'. Moreover there is not infinity of concepts literally; a lot, yes, but infinite, no. It is probably what he meant🤷🏽‍♂. 8:00 I disagree with Derrida again here; the meanings are basically information about the thing that is thought about or talked about - in this case a tree - which is in the brain and in the thing itself; this knowledge of the tree, no matter how vast, is the meaning of the tree and every concept.

[@skarlan2210]

So how does one have perfect clarity of Derrida?

[@Surokkh]

According to his own theory, one simply _couldn't_ . From what I understand, Derrida's theory implies that even Derrida himself didn't (and couldn't) have full clarity and understanding of what he was saying and the meaning he was trying to convey. He, and his readers, could only have a more or less better interpretation of his words, but never reach the perfect meaning behind them (assuming there ever was one!).

[@skarlan2210]

I appreciate your responding. As a student and later teacher of literature, I had to grapple with Derrida among others. The notion that meaning cannot be divined with certainty because of the complexities of language is not particularly troublesome in the analysis of literary texts but in legal documents such as contracts the belief that absolute clarity cannot be achieved would lead to gamesmanship. In any event, I subscribe to the saying in T.S. Eliot’s “Sweeney Agonistes,” : “I gotta use words when I talk to you.”

[@kylerodd2342]

S karlan In case you haven’t noticed the whole legal system is one big gamesmanship.....

[@bengt-akegustafsson5129]

Or does Derrida himself has a clarity of himself or/and what he says/writes (texts)?

[@adaptercrash]

That's nothing compared to Husserl, you have take all these courses and anti-psychotics to deal with the autistic mind and produce clarity in the mind of the thing in itself or it'll kill me, and I even have Buddhist bots he picks them up. These are the most reliable people I've known my entire life. As for meaning, the question is not a immediate concern, it's a process, if before the meaning of anything was intention, because the intention is desired, thoughts are a form of desire that synthesize idealisms into projected foreign forms of intentional mental states of psychoanalytic inversions and forms of being-there, these idealism are possible and therefore a direct threat to the subject. And this is just in everyday existential life. As for language, structuralism, it's for self-deception and they just want more.

[@bene4tr]

Clarity of thought, then clarity of expression. Though man is a thinking reed, it may be bruised and bent, the process of forming concepts is not automatic, it requires effort. There is a teleological progression. It is intentional, the will has the appetite to know. Total enlightenment may not be accessible, illumination does dispel ignorance. Full clarity may escape us, yet in the dimly-lit corridors of the mind, sense and intelligibility is constructed, man cannot but make meaning of things, it is almost impossible to speak no-sense for a human being endowed with the faculty of reason. Derrida may have grasped the limits of knowing anything for sure, thinking too much must have created nebulous, chaotic cumulus of doubt.

[@nopenope1834]

I love this, I think so too.

[@99tonnes]

I don't think JD would have claimed that "all interpretations are equally good"! On the contrary, he protested about this kind of misrepresentation many times - for example in Limited Inc and the afterword to the book version of that paper. Just sayin'.

[@99tonnes]

But good work, thanks! The last few minutes were the best.

[@ClickbaitGrifting]

link in the description doesn't work

[@anthonyeyler5505]

I have no one with whom to discuss these kind of topics, so first, I'm loving these lectures. But second, I'm going to shoot my queries into the void in hopes of critique. As I understand Derrida is claiming that the correspondence of the concept "cat" is a fiction because the thought evoked by the term does not/cannot fully encapsulate the breadth of the concept "cat" but merely a fraction of that concept. If my understanding is correct, then, the word "cat" is at best only partly true. Going a step further, the statement "a cat is on the table" is also at best only partly true. So here's my question: Is the tautology "a cat is a cat" more true than the word "cat" itself? Put another way: (Concept x) < truth but (Concept x is Concept x) = truth

[@ABCDEFG-mj3np]

I would suggest that it is the concept of truth which isn't clear here. The phrase "only partly true" refers to a complex concept which, in my opinion, can't be translated to an expression with a relational operator so easily. What would the structure of "truth" be in this equation? In the second equation, the term "truth" refers to another concept, i.e. logical truth, which is a basic principle of language. That doesn't mean it is true in a metaphysical way, but it is a presumption that we make. If structuralists define the concept of a "cat" as being "not a dog", "not a horse", "not a ferrari", then they used the concept of logical truth: (cat != dog && cat != horse && cat != ferrari) == true.

[@kirbycairo]

It is surely only 'more true' in the sense that it conforms to a certain language game. But someone might argue that it is simply not a useful observation. I'm thinking now in terms of William James' concept in his Pragmatism where he says (and I am obviously only paraphrasing) that a question is only relevant if, upon deciding one way or another, we get something out of it.

[@radioactivedetective6876]

No no, your premise is not correct. Structuralist and post structuralists never claim that there is no objective reality. And I think "fiction" is not what Derrida is going for. The word fiction has this bineristic connotation of non-fiction/reality. The concept of cat is a construct via language, not the real thing or a specimen of the real thing, which exists in an of itself. But we make sense of the world through language - and language works by creating concepts via negativa as in what it is not (dog, moon, car, anger), what it is different from (lion, child), and also what it is related to (like pet, milk) - so there is this huge, gigantic structure of interconnected concepts that an individual has picked up & when u make the sound "kæt" then at that instant all these interconnected conceptual structure is not consciously thought by us. the "cat" example (or any other singular common noun) is a basic example coz it helps to explain the basic idea of Structuralism & Poststructuralism. But for the more philosophical deductions like truth, meaning, etc of these theories u have to go for more complex concepts - just common noun objects will make it seem like semantic games... Also, the presence-absence thing is also related to saussure's speech over writing idea, which derrida did not agree with.

[@lambpuppyoww3239]

Weirdest Ford Focus advertisement I've seen today.

[@AstroSquid]

Believing this, that words dictate reality, is a very left brain way of thinking.

[@sedeslav]

One of the first philosophical thoughts in my life was said by my grandpa. He said: "You can't read a book which you don't have in your mind already." I was young boy and very puzzled with that . :) he was just a fisherman without any formal education.

[@lukeskirenko]

Yeah, erm, there are big problems in the Derridean angle... to the extent that I understand it. It appears to fail to ask the question as to how communication is possible at all, and so while it claims to avoid extreme/totalising relativism, it doesn't bother to explain how the network of differential relations is anchored such that communication is possible. And that appears to be why we're in this mess now of the 'culture wars', where Derrida is accused of being the prime sophist. There are errors in this youtube presentation, in that it fails to make the distinction between practical clarity, and a hypothetical total/cosmic clarity, and it also fails to make it clear that there isn't a singular network of e.g. the cultural meaning of a car, but rather there are just experiencers who experience those cultural meanings based on their own position in the network, and that the language they use is also a product of their experiences of the other communicating agents that they have come into contact with, and hence the language is constantly being remade by the criss-crossing interactions of all agents. So there is no meta 'cultural meaning'... and this might kind of be actually the point of what Derrida is saying... and yet the video ends by giving the impression that there is this weird activity of generating abundant different interpretations of 'texts'. But in the real world, for practical purposes, we often have something specific in mind in terms of figuring out authorial intention, and we can satisfy that, because language is anchored enough to do pretty amazing things, like design and manufacture microprocessors. The question then is, how is it anchored? How could it be that a network of criss-crossing concept-generating actors can do things like make microprocessors etc.? Masturbating over the 'play of signifiers' tends to paint the wrong picture.

[@yastradamus]

This is brilliant!!

[@jaydeepchipalkatti]

The explanation is very clear. However, if this is really what Derrida was saying, then it is not a particularly original insight. Since time immemorial, people who have thought about language or used it creatively have known that semantic concepts are fluid or that they need context or that they relate to other concepts, and so on. Shakespeare or Samuel Johnson would have yawned at much of this.

[@Androbott]

difícil pensar sin hablar

[@phillipjameson2599]

Ceci, n'est pas un youtube comment.

[@TheDionysianFields]

There are more and less lucid interpretations of any literary work (in relation to the time in which it was written or is being interpreted), but it's true that the author never gets the final say. In some ways, Derrida's correct. In others, he's a complete buffoon.

[@nopenope1834]

How is he a buffoon? And why can't you critique an idea rather than attack the person making it? Is it really beyond you to make such distinctions?

[@TheDionysianFields]

@@nopenope1834 I will retract my statement. The postmodernists have their place. It's just too bad they couldn't imagine up any replacement for the world they burned down.

[@ZoiusGM]

10:43 I disagree; it sounds absurd to me that authors are not sure or do not understand what they are writing or want to say. Each person with the knowledge he has of the things he is talking/writing about is or can be sure that he knows and understands what he is talking about.

[@TheChannelofaDisappointedMan]

He said a complete understanding, not no understanding.

[@danielleach9432]

I like example of your neighbor purchasing an inferior Ametican car. I see that it does present a complex cultural meaning, although it looks like a simple concept. Also, I hope your neighbor doesn't get too much unwanted criticism for it 😅

[@ronzbronz6043]

hmm...

[@SociallyTriggered]

Fuzzy logic solves the problem.

[@smithmann5616]

What problem?

[@stinkystealthysloth]

You look like earthling Ed and Brad Pitt had a baby

[@adaptercrash]

Derrida was just nonsense about reversing the genesis of processes or concepts, and that's kantians version of hospitality. He clearly explained it in a paper and Of hospitality.

[@44aske]

Fooly understand :)

[@johanh.vanderstegen5315]

probeer maar eens iets te construeren zonder woorden & of schrift...