PHILOSOPHY: Jacques Derrida

[@mblasini]

I know this is supposed to be a summary of Derrida and his work, but it is very, very off the mark. For example, this idea that deconstruction involves showing that an idea "is confused and riddled with defects" is completely unfounded in Derrida's work. Deconstruction is not simply about showing how the opposite of an idea has merit or demonstrating how our cherished ideas are actually pretty questionable. Both of those actions require evaluating, which in turn requires precisely a privileging of values. Deconstruction, rather, has to do with opening up a text or concept to the possibility of a different interpretation. For example, it's not the case, for Derrida, that we privilege speech over writing (consider, for example, that the basis for our knowledge and culture today is almost entirely based on writing - the sciences, poetry, novels, businesses, government, laws, websites, humanities, etc.). The problem for Derrida is that the relationship between writing and speech reveals an interpretation (logocentrism) that we have firmly held onto for millenia: that language ("logos") can somehow reveal the truth ("logos"), the true meaning, about life. This interpretation, Derrida says, produces an anxiety around writing, since writing is something that can last throughout history (it doesn't die off as soon as it is expressed, like speech does) and thus can afford many different interpretations and translations, depending on the different cultural and historical forces at play. For Derrida, the anxiety we have about writing offers up an opportunity to interpret language (text) differently - not as a "source" (center) of meaning, but as a field of socio-historico-economic forces in which many different significations can be produced. I know this comment is long, but I just had to address this very critical issue I see with your interpretation of Derrida.

[@MrNickdino]

Mark Blasini that was... nice, helpfull. So strange i understand it and parts of it are things i came to think of without reading or hearing of derrida.. when i was around 19 or 20 years old, 16 years ago.

[@mariozarate5993]

Aren't you interpreting his words in a logocentric way?

[@jazechun7184]

@Socrates yes but you seem guilty of gatekeeping ideas and the problem of stating an oversimplification is a problem in itself unless you enumerate the dangers of such

[@brian91613]

Now I'm really confused

[@brian91613]

@Socrates well no one authentic intellectual video. What's the point of his content of not one can see it...

[@imwritingapoemaboutit]

I've always found it very hard to come to solid conclusions on certain ideas and topics, and thought this made me an indecisive simpleton but this makes me feel better. The notion that it is okay to be confused because life is complex and there are seldom any clear answers is very comforting to me.

[@gregmiller9710]

...so the answer is...there are no answers...only notions..

[@TheLowsofSolipsism]

I think its more to do with perspective. Say if you are really good at killing people. You can either be a murderer or join the army. Everything can be seen in more than one way. There is a right and wrong in everything, making nothing better than the other, and we should stop treating (Say A banker) superior to another thing (a high school teacher).

[@imwritingapoemaboutit]

+TheLowsofSolipsism yes, I agree. things are never one dimensional, which I think is beautiful really

[@imwritingapoemaboutit]

+Greg Miller that's what I think. But I need to work on my critical thinking so my thinking might be flawed on that one

[@imwritingapoemaboutit]

+Yasmine is a Hot Mess which is kind of a flimsy way of thinking lol but I'm still working on the way I view everything since my world essentially collapsed after I lost faith in my religion

[@WonderingAboutThat]

He had such a profound influence on me in my early 20's when I was moving away from the worldviews that I was raised with as a child. 20 years later I still greatly appreciate his point of view.

[@jacobhiller6731]

This blew my mind. It explained so eloquently why it seems like the older I get the more confused I become about social issues.

[@Mr.Monta77]

Really? Please update me on the state of your mind. Did you reconstruct it back together again, after the up-blowing?

[@N0Xa880iUL]

Exactly the same happening to me.

[@beansandpeas2029]

which Derrida books do you recommend?

[@N0Xa880iUL]

@@beansandpeas2029 He said nothing about reading Derrida books. The comment is based on the video content.

[@nyk3334]

There is no equality. Human beings stack up at the bottom. No time has ever seen equality. That’s the whole point of this authoritarian doctrine. We need power until 1+1=3. No thanks.

[@juniperj]

I'm surprised these videos don't have more views. They are so so well made and creative and give such great understandable and precise explanations and analyses, I think they're just so great!

[@manualvarado2212]

It's quite interesting that Camus and Derrida, who were both born in Algeria, have some things in common. Both were good looking, with good taste for clothes, both enjoyed soccer and "simple" things. Wonderful video, as always! I have been waiting for a new philosophy or literature video c':

[@yat282]

wouldn't this mean that if he was right, he's also partially wrong and the exact opposite is also partly true too?

[@ralfkruger300]

Yes, but only in higher dimensions of thought :)

[@Grayhome]

Yes, in fact Derrida maintained that Deconstruction was also a text that deconstructed itself.

[@ralfkruger300]

+Tyler Graham but the fact that deconstruction works, would prove not him, but the idea itself. It is also what it is not.

[@K03R53]

You just understood a very important point of Deconstruction :-)

[@japanjapan3102]

the oppsite of his argument is dichotomous thinking as you put it. and it is not somehting that has been "socially programmed". i bet you that if you examined a large number of feral children commnunites, that is to say if could find a lot of unconnected isolated groups of humans they would develop dichoutmous thinking. that is just the way the mind works. and there is nothing wrong with that. it is like questioning why humans see things in colours, the answer is becuase it is useful and reflects something about the real world. so "binaries" are the most natural thing in the world. art maybe messy even naturalist or romantic art. but nature is orderly.

[@captop12]

I'm really digging these short bios. Thank you for engaging my mind.

[@freddie7981]

really amazed by the knowledge of those creators (either writers or editors) who include such great reference images to the narration. The sort of detail which could go unnoticed.

[@sierra750]

"I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing." -Socrates

[@theuberman7170]

Humble but not practical. We only 70-80 years on earth. We need to give truth a shot.

[@abecadlo66]

@@theuberman7170 but you have to start somewhere, and acknowledging that you know nothing is the best start

[@DOUBLEWIDEVEGAS]

@@theuberman7170 what is truth? there are billions of people with their own ideal interpretations of what the truth is... You will NEVER see the real truth

[@abecadlo66]

@@DOUBLEWIDEVEGAS Well, but some truth are more practical than others. The truth that 2+2=4 has led to civilizations being built, whilst the truth 2+2=5 has led to some philosophical discussions at best. Not downplaying the role of philosophical discussions, but you can see how you can assign value to statements about truths.

[@nielsdevos8695]

@@DOUBLEWIDEVEGAS there is a truth in that there are billions of truths.

[@EdwardDavian1]

I love Derrida's philosophy and have read all his books. He was a very fascinating man who really knew about human behavior and the meaningfulness of life. I wish more people would accept and practice his ideas, the world would be a better place. Thank you for the video :)

[@IntellectuallySuperior2U]

Derrida is the Milli Vanilli of philosophers. Scientists, physicists, etc. regard that pseudo-philosopher as nothing more than a charlatan who thought he could attack objective truth with goofy, unnecessarily abstruse, and esoteric sounding phrases. Even good ole' Noam Chomsky sees him as a perfectly self-conscious charlatan (as well as Lacan and others of his ilk).

[@Bkesal14]

Where would you suggest someone starts with his work?

[@NeelamSharma-bv1rk]

Ohh no. There was only one person like he is. But his admirers are also there

[@misticocristao5088]

The School of Life has set a high standard for me intellectually. The eloquent and descriptive language, as well as the philosophical, psychological, and historical viewpoints of these films has proven to bestow upon my psyche interesting and attention-grabbing ideas to consider, in addition to even helping me in a few scholastic endeavors. Many thanks, School of Life!

[@demianhaki7598]

What I find troubling about how Deconstruction seems to be handled by many who talk about it today, beyond the sensible point about seeing alternative perspectives etc, is that some people tend to use it in ways that render any clear thought or practical decision-making almost impossible. If parts of our thinking or reasoning or our reliance on certain axioms is indeed unjustified, one should at least be able to explain exactly how and why that is the case. In that regard, there seems to be a lot of superficial, pseudo-philosophical "anything goes" talk out there nowadays, with some people trying to sell random, unexplained scepticism in established concepts as intellectual wit. Secondly, even if an effort of deconstruction convincingly reveals the arbitrariness, convention or imperfection of certain utilized concepts (e.g. the way we transfer meaning through language or use reason to evaluate certain aspects of the world), the critic still has to demonstrate the practical relevance of this new insight, unless it's only meant to be a trivial observation. After all, several concepts that we rely on have practical purpose in the pursuit of our everyday life, and so it seems to be insufficient to occasionally pull the rug from under people's feet and leave them in a state of confusion that doesn't allow for everyday decision-making. After all, I would argue, people care most about the individual and collective pursuit of certain goals and interest and are happy to agree on certain concepts as conventions/tools/axioms to help that purpose, unless certain conventions prove unjustified, harmful or unhelpful in that pursuit (either for all or some involved). Then there is good reason to deconstruct AND replace such concepts. Beyond that, it may just be mental exercise for its own sake and the fun of deeper insight into our reality.

[@Revan579]

Deconstruction is meant to reveal how a concept came to be 'given' as axiomatic, as a privileged point around which objects can be determined and organized. The 'object' itself is one of those privileged points. The goal isn't necessarily to dismiss or replace, but to demystify. Moreover, since we're bathed in the language of structure and essence, 'justification' for something is itself another mode or test for legitimate thought. The modelling of thought after some apparent universal ("everybody agrees") is itself something hidden in the language of structure and essence. What does it mean to say that the 'practical relevance' of an insight needs to be demonstrated? The only 'good' thought is the thought that both offers solutions, and of those solutions, only practical solutions. Practical for whom? For everybody. And what is 'everybody'? The goal-oriented vision of individual and collective entities. In other words, practical goals fit to be the object, organizing principle, or central authority which defines all people in its orbit. In other words, God is reincarnated in the form of practical reason and as its object: the supreme goal of thought is to define that which is practical in relation to a presupposed ultimate ideal. Deconstruction, generally speaking, is used to uncover the privileged and hidden virtual center that organizes all explicit thought in its divine image. Moreover, in doing this the same privileged point is discovered of deconstruction as it works itself out, and hence, it topples the reign of the model image of thought along with itself, making way for new ideas to creep into the void.

[@VII0777]

It's so interesting. All of this is really heady, intellectual exercise. But it when it comes down to it, all these ideas are tested by one thing. Individual lives. When people live out these ideas, does it work out for them? Do they get what they want? However that might be defined? So even without a center, even if logocentrism has an arbitrary and deconstructable element, there's still the fact that we are all here and have to live and make it through life in a desirable way. Does Derrida's philosophy help us do that? Or does it confound and confuse us when put into practice? Even if all is interpretation, life makes a limited and limiting set of demands on us. Even outisde of society, outside of culture, and construct, life makes her demands. Many interpretations, but how many are actually viable? How many forestall death? Or produce flourishing of the body and mind and spirit? Of society? Of your loved one? And how iterable are they? Very few indeed.

[@SomboonCM]

At this point, I am only interested in hearing from people who clearly see the contradictions in "whatever you want to call this brain rot now". It is not light material, partially because you have to wade through the superficiality. I appreciate your perspective. The problem I have with the ideology is that it ended up becoming what it despised the most and its most ardent followers have no ability to see this. It does not take much intelligence to spot the flaws in a institution set up by humans, flaws will always be there. Using his own logic, you could say that just because someone is astute at pointing out the obvious, doesn't mean they have much else to offer the world. In other words, there is no "there" there with this type of thinking.

[@samo917]

Lol what baloney! "pseudo-philosophical"??? Such a thing does not exist!

[@scythermantis]

@@SomboonCM I mean, Derrida wrote 40 books; how many have you written lol? And I'm not a particularly huge fan of the guy but I've actually learned a lot even from the *negation* or what is conspicuously left out in my opinion from what he said, which I think is also the point. The antithesis is just as important as the thesis; we all need something to 'brace ourselves against', after all.

[@meredithbradfield7158]

Thank you for making this. I was having a hard time understanding "The End of the Book and the Beginning of Writing" and this helped

[@בניהוהרשמש]

תודה לך, אני הייתי באמצע לראות הסרטון ותגובתך גברתי ובכן סייעה U GO ALL DO A GOOD-A-DAY@

[@jdzentrist8711]

What a magnificent summary of this great man's basic ideas, attitudes and loves. Thank you.

[@bagandtag4391]

People should listen to what this guy trully meant. Looking at both sides and thinking about them but not being stuck in the "Everyone is equally wrong" thing that is predominant in the internet.

[@Dantick09]

I can't believe how you put out this much content of such high cuality

[@sunshizzleyou]

Dantick09 - ok, when delving into and reading some of the greatest thinkers of the past hundred years I'm always coming across words I don't know. So....when I see a word such as, ”cuality” I believe this is an actual word and not a misspell. So after 53 likes perhaps it's time to correct!?....

[@GlorifiedTruth]

@Choraldiscourse--STFU, please.

[@johnclhugyugihjbvgbkj9729]

Glorified Truth 🤔

[@jameselias8955]

I can't believe how far q is from c on my keyboard

[@1247111]

DUDE, YOUR FRENCH ACCENT IS GOLD

[@ibperth]

Thank you for this presentation. I do not understand why Peterson is so against Postmodernism. Is it because others have taken it beyond what Derrida intended? As a professional scientist I would equate these ideas with Einstein's quote: "Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler". It would seem Derrida cautioned not only against "things being made too simple", but also that there were benefits to be obtained by considering the breadth of the complexities. Hard to argue with that.

[@spiritualconnection4807]

I have discovered Derrida thanks to this video, so I wanted to express my gratitude. I love the concept of "Aporia".

[@StevenPalmer1]

"The highest values devaluate themselves." - Nietzsche

[@johnarbuckle2619]

+

[@S2Cents]

Nihilism

[@milascave2]

Yes, Derrida was influenced by him, as were so many others.

[@milascave2]

No. The video explains that it is not that.

[@MD-np2nk]

+2cents Nietzsche was an existentialist, not a nihilist.

[@DeadWhiteButterflies]

Alas Derrida my nemesis, we meet again! Where was this when I was spending my darkest days in Analytical Perspectives class? This is exactly the info I needed for my essay! I spent waay too many classes trying to wrap my head around this guy's thoughts, and it wasn't sinking in. Luckily, I did get it in the end, but this would have SUPER helpful back then. Now it's like four months too late, haha. Oh well.

[@averyrijos3079]

Hey, The School of Life! You should really do a video on "Eastern Philosophy- Dōgen". He has a lot of important things to say about life and how to best live it. Or just more Eastern Philosophy in general. There is so much that can be said from their perspectives as well.

[@archiewoosung5062]

Have you done this yet?

[@Mr.Monta77]

I could not agree more. The eurocentrism of this channel is very limited in scope.

[@robinhampshire8923]

So much of western thought is standing on far eastern shoulders

[@Cantbuyathrill]

I have just discovered Derrida. Thank you SchoolofLife, thank you.

[@rclproductions5961]

Most pleasent voice I've heard all night 💆🏻‍♂️💆🏻‍♂️💆🏻‍♂️

[@JL897139]

It would be nice to see videos on Peirce, Chomsky and Zizek

[@S2Cents]

CS Pierce is America's greatest philosopher by far.

[@JL897139]

+2cents his philosophy is very interesting, but nobody remembers him. I learned him in class and he's very profound. I'm not american but he goes very deep.

[@S2Cents]

T3MP0 Philosophers all know him and pretty much consider him the greatest American philosopher, and so should the public.

[@S2Cents]

Ha Kou ..but.. Well it is debatable.

[@TriggeredPeasoup]

Zizek and Chomsky along with Bookchin are by far the lft mightiests thinkers. Also Zizek is the imperial memelord.

[@jvstAsYouAre]

"Bloody postmodernists" -Kermit the Frog

[@A.A.Albert]

@The Sperminator Did he say that about Derrida too? I've only seen a clip of him bashing Foucault in those words. I don't really wonder why both of them do so. I think both JBP and NC are just saying that PoMo is essentially a lot of fuzz about obvious things. Who ever argued against the notion that we can't really know anything for sure and that all sides might have merit.

[@dellyish]

Albert A NC?

[@virvisquevir3320]

dellyish - Noam Chomsky.

[@neilolson3220]

Kermit ....= .... JB Peterson? Just sayin’

[@salemfathi2532]

talking just like a high school drop out

[@ZAPPABABURUUU]

I really enjoy this channel, it's among my favorites. Thank you for the consistently great content.

[@larianton1008]

Probably one of the the school of life's best! Extremely clear, and hitting on all of the major points. Maybe the intellectual backlash would have been good to mention, and the rise of post-modernism. I throughly enjoyed this one.

[@whiteshadow59]

god, i could watch this channel all day. So this guy is my favourite

[@charliebridges3584]

I like Derrida's work. His greatest insight, developed from Nietzsche, Heidegger and Saussure, is left out of this video. Language comes before the various meanings that language is employed to communicate. This is the essence of Derrida's thought.

[@JoeLackey]

The problem with always looking for different interpretations is that you almost never take the author at their word. It’s like, what’s the point of literature if there’s no single objective meaning readers across time and space can get out of it to apply to their lives?

[@matthewjonas8952]

Everything always has to have a point. I think that need produces a lot of unnecessary anxiety in humanity. Things have to have points and we need to know them! Because!

[@edmontoraptor]

That's a good point, but I'll give you another. What about music? Especially instrumental music, music without words. It seems to me that these pieces have an importance to them that cannot be easily communicated. The feeling you get when listening to Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata will not be the same feeling someone else gets, it may be similar (melancholy, sadness, depression, catharsis) but not the same. So who is to say that your interpretation of that piece of music is more correct or better than someone else? Sometimes I see a sense of logocentrism in music, where people refuse to listen to music if it doesn't have any words from which they can derive meaning. Which, as a musician and composer, I think is a shame. Anyway, I'm not saying this applies to everything else, but I think music is a good avenue to explore Derrida's ideas.

[@tear728]

Literary Critics assume they are experts on every topic. Let's be honest, criticism is just a synonym for "shitty opinion".

[@thelstan8562]

Being open to multiple interpretation doesn’t always mean the meaning is lost. I think he just argued that we should care about other perspectives and other interpretations, if such interpretation is viable.

[@samo917]

You are assuming there is a point. You are assuming you know what their word was. You are assuming the word of the author can be known.

[@lukejanis2016]

If you keep thinking in circles where would you end up?

[@Mark-po2xx]

Luke Janis I don’t know, but maybe I know... Maybe it’s not a bad thing not knowing but maybe it is bad. Someone help me please

[@eddygci8]

Via Veritas Vita bro you are literally thinking like a version of me. If you think you actually want someone to talk to about this hit my @

[@Mark-po2xx]

Edward Garcia hahahah great bro 👍🏼

[@gabrielabernal5596]

You will keep thinking

[@sw.7519]

In mental hospital

[@serano5023]

Everything bit of this video is worth listening to. I am lucky to be seeing this.

[@libertyrose4719]

Very easy to follow video with ideas clearly explained. The voiceover and visuals were incredibly helpful in aiding my understanding of the topics. Thank you

[@JT-oh7pq]

"he was initially slow at school, and harboured dreams of becoming a professional sock" woah

[@tput1]

Oh shit, he IS like me!

[@virgiliomorquecho3357]

Algerians philosophers tend to be very handsome and have great fashion sense.

[@SomboonCM]

Well at least there is that...

[@robkirchhof133]

I will try to re: member him. Re:member. Memor/eyes. For, get.

[@ydbn272_92]

Easily my favorite channel on KZbin

[@bhagyashreekotwal2933]

The most Beautiful and lucid way to explain such a philosophy.

[@brycepulley6044]

Deconstruction seems like an more sophisticated version of "living an examined life". Why do I believe what I believe to be true? Aka put down the bias and analyze further. Everything is a footnote to Plato, amirite?

[@calvinj.1926]

Amen.

[@brycepulley6044]

+Juan Fernandez you shut your damn mouth, son.

[@brycepulley6044]

+Taxi DriverAppleChapel just because you aren't deep enough, maaaan, doesn't mean it is nuts.

[@K03R53]

I guess Derrida would have strongly disagreed in some points. He turned against all classics as all classical philosophy was confined by the metaphysics of presence and logocentrism. From Plato to Saussure, every philosopher founded his thought structure on an absolute and unmediated point, from which everything was mediated: god, reason, truth, logic, mankind, the universe, matter, language etc. His aim was to dismantle this "origin's" structure and to reconstruct it to this end ( hence "De-construction"). This video actually lacks one of his most important concepts (I guess due to time limitations): the différance. Do some research on it (he wrote an essay called " the différance", which is far from being self-explanatory, but which provides some of the most condensed thoughts on this "non-concept"), and this will illuminate alot. However, turning against his predecessors does not imply that you cannot find parallels and overlaps. He deconstructed alot of classical texts, but always highlighted these kinds of parallels. Hope, I could help you!

[@quantammechanic3489]

It sounds like you know quite a bit but have to disagree with one point: "I guess Derrida would have strongly disagreed in some points. He turned against all classics as all classical philosophy" This is completely, profoundly untrue. Derrida had the highest respect, reverence even, for classical philosophy. "However old I am, I am on the threshold of reading Plato and Aristotle. It is a task that is always in front of me, before me." Deconstruction is not an attack against philosophy. In the very first passage where it appears he says it clearly, it is not a "demolition, or a destruction, but a de-sedimentation, deconstruction" (I'm recalling these quotes from memory so probably not perfect). What he was doing was offering new ways of reading old texts. He wanted to open philosophy up to continued innovation and invention. He wanted to both awaken us to an understanding of the legacy of our inheritance, our debt to the great philosophers, but also to show how we might continue to get new meaning out of old books. Bryce was right, deconstruction is exactly like that, a call to live an examined life, a call to question everything, to continually examine every concept no matter how sacred, a call to ask precisely this question, why do I believe what I believe to be true? And yes, he also would have probably agreed that his texts could be described as a footnote to plato. Insofar as his texts are always inscribed within or around other texts, many of them attributable to Plato, they were perhaps more literally like footnotes than this phrase normally implies.

[@sahilrwt29]

This world is on the diagnal and Jacques Derrida is the balancing point. - Vaas Montenegro

[@hughmck7734]

Have you people at School of Life considered a music series (ie a video for a band/artist)

[@smokingmarinara9995]

start with queen

[@calabiyau9269]

Most likely they'll do a safe pick like Bach, Brahms, or the Beatles. I'd love for them to do a really pioneering artist like Brian Eno, Popol Vuh, Velvet Underground, or The Ramones.

[@lennartik]

queen? g2b joking.

[@smokingmarinara9995]

nope, it's one of the greatest bands.

[@alexjones1017]

+The School of Life Please do newer artists like Flume who don't need really fit into a genre. He's producing interesting tracks that sound very different, but are still beautiful.

[@NickCarrel]

Thanks - a good gradient of a very polarizing thinker...

[@JB-wh3we]

Derrida is simply the father of deconstructism as a weapon/ control in power dynamics, best utilized in the linguistic mobility provided by a Foucalt world view (societal constructs, power decides truth). The genius of Derrida is that you're perfectly validated in answering a question, by asking a question. The rejoinder question seeks to expose the motivation for the person asking the original. There's a video of him literally doing this when asked to explain deconstructionism.

[@zetetick395]

"Anybody who *isn't* confused doesn't know what's *really* going on!" lol

[@leslawrenson]

Then again, those "wise" men who tell us, with absolute certainty, how things should be are usually, in the fullness of time, proven completely wrong.

[@mrflyingturtle9447]

Love these, keep it up!

[@MichelG]

You obviously didn't get to analyse what you are saying first of all!

[@sawlens]

If I understood this correctly, Derrida is saying that people oversimplify complex subjects by turning them into binary opposites or a hierarchy of value when the reality that is not necessarily true and observing subjects in this way undermines their individual value? There are however, some subjects where some things are better than others. People’s tendency to polarize obscures the truth because some truth can be found on both sides. People need to be more open to different ideas which may lead to some confusion. Confusion will at least make people be proactive to discovering truth instead of being comfortable with their first impressions. Maybe I misunderstood, but these ideas sound obvious. I’ll have to look more into his work. I was just curious what postmodernism is about and it seems to be misused these days.

[@mariozarate5993]

I think you understood it well. It may seem obvious to great thinkers like yourself but I think Derrida was simply trying to slow it down for everyone

[@MyColdDeath]

I guess PoMo philosophy is always a bit redundant

[@JosephMelendrez007]

LOL! This is so buffonish: "...people oversimplify complex subjects by turning them into binary opposites or a hierarchy of value when the reality that is not necessarily true and observing subjects in this way undermines their individual value?"

[@jazzychamp]

Your editing is artful! Bravo 👏

[@jackwheeler27]

Stunningly clear and beautiful. I hope to be able to write like that one day.

[@seanmillea3475]

As someone who struggles to focus when reading stuff like this I really appreciate these videos. I’m sure Derrida would approve- it seems like written word has it’s downfalls and video essays have their perks! (But don’t think one is inherently better than the other)

[@SquareSquidStudios]

It is too early... Brain doesn't want to listen~

[@26DarkSector]

haha! I literally just watched that video, went back to my homepage, and came here. The youtube algorithm is scary..

[@atree88]

vox is for retards

[@mohamedlouchiri]

Stating that the philosophy of deconstruction is a direct response from his personal life is literally against the premise of deconstruction. As Derrida said: "There is no outside-text."

[@hamburjer1939]

Where did he say this? Is it from one of his books? I'm trying to read more about his contributions to literary theory.

[@SomboonCM]

Why do you assume his premise was correct? As if we are to challenge all beliefs but his. Talk about a glaring defect in the philosophy.

[@djobjet]

Thanks yet again, Alain.

[@mecapoonslayer4245]

Seriously though thanks for starting this series it's been rather educational and aesthetically pleasing. kudos on your part.

[@big30o6]

I'd love to see a video on Minimalism. "The life house" suggests you have particular knowledge regarding the lifestyle. A video on the subject juxtaposed with our current social/commercial lifestyles would be interesting.

[@sammuel1971]

Derrida's idea of aporia is a soothing one

[@unlostm8]

Derridon't know what ur on about but I feel more clever having listened. Cheers!

[@anirudhsingh2354]

Thanks for creating this. I dint know of Derrida till now and now I am a fan.

[@beingandslime]

great video, well put. Thanks!

[@geoffaldwinckle1096]

I was priveledged to see him at a public lecture in New Zealand in 1999. Brilliant man.

[@maleexile9053]

Nietszche is my favorite philosopher

[@FourDogs1111]

Nietzsche is shit, like bertrand instead

[@Drinckx2]

'There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya 'bout the raising of the wrist.'

[@Pj676]

although I love Jordan Peterson, and (even somebody who isn't particularly religious) I do share his worries about (moral) relativism, " the death of god" and the implications of them, and I do love to listen to him handeling these topics, I haven't heard him saying enough on these postmodernists at all. he just keeps repeting a few sentences, but it lacks depth. Thus and furthermore I am starting to get annoyed by people who just seem to be parroting him with simple one-liners like, "bloody Post-Modernists", "Go sort yourself out!" " go to hell bloody Marxists!" (even though probably most of you, us, don't even know what Post-Modernism or Marxism is) I have a weird feeling this is becoming something dull and a somewhat SJW'esque thing too ( blatant-finger-pointing) , even though I felt it started as something beautiful. please, my fellow Room-Cleaners, read, write, think, stay critical ( also about yourself, and not only pointing to "the other side") and above all, stay interested. lovvvv you.

[@BobBob-lr5re]

unknown. If you dont know what Marxism is then read lol

[@Rotek10000]

I agree that this slogans are not helping anyone. But if you are a critical thinker you would also note that The School of Life video is more like a hagiography than syrious analysis of Derrida philosophy. Peterson actually did analyze his works in detail, for ex. with his chat with Stephen Hicks. I personally recommend to check Derrida original writings and also book: Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science.

[@BobBob-lr5re]

Russ V.Winkle he states he will gladly use these pronouns out of respect for another individual, by his own decisions. He refuses to be compelled by the government to use words though.

[@deeplorable8988]

Russ V.Winkle You will forever refer to me as *King Dee*. And if you do not, I'll consider that a lack of respect for my preferred title. And if you insist on not referring to me as *King Dee* I will enact speech codes, enforced by the government, that puts you in violation of hate speech laws.

[@TheCommonS3Nse]

It's funny, I see a great parallel between Peterson's critique of Sam Harris (that he lives by the tenets of the Judeo-Christian faith while arguing against those very religions) and Peterson's own positions towards Post-Modernism. Peterson argues fervently against post-modernism but at the same time he applies deconstructionism to everything in his life. He is so focused on recognizing the values in both sides of an argument but he rarely acknowledges that this approach is one of Derrida's fundamental premises. The way I see it, every argument has some base level truth behind it. The issues between arguments arises from the conclusions drawn from that truth. The truth about post-modernism is actually that point exactly. The issue with post-modernism is when the truth from one side is disregarded because it is seen as being connected with power dynamics. As soon as you disregard a truth you have lost all credibility in your argument. My own personal philosophy is that you have to take a dispassionate accounting of the truths on both sides and only then can you apply your own personal values regarding which truth is of a higher priority to you. When you have acknowledged the facts on both sides of the argument you are far more likely to reach a reasonable conclusion.

[@pomstar1711]

Fantastic video! Really helped me understand this concept..its beautiful by the way

[@mackam17]

I may not have understood this fully as I’m a latecomer to philosophy as a discipline, but one of the applications I see is that it speaks to the way in which we conduct argument and discourse, especially in the age of social media, which often betrays a confidence that we know more fully than we actually often do. For many, the goal of an argument on Facebook or KZbin for example is to win the interaction because we privilege being right over actually learning something (which is self-defeating because if we actually learned something we may find ourselves being right more of the time). On the one hand, we fossilize beliefs too quickly because something stated concretely with confidence is obviously more effective at bashing others over the head with. An appreciation for how long it takes to develop better informed opinions seems to be a rare gift in today’s context. The other side of this though is sometimes more subtle and maybe more destructive. If it’s true, and I am assuming something here which may be wrong, that all our communicative actions towards other people are rhetorical (in that they carry persuasive force) then it seems to me that the attempt to hide this in an appeal to demonstrate no investment in the outcome is perhaps more subtle and destructive in the long run because we are deceived by the perceived humility with which some one communicates. Take for example the way I have just communicated above. At certain points I intentionally used language that mitigated any sense of surety. But I didn’t do that out of humility, I think it just seemed as though, even a little ironically, it would actually strengthen the force of my words rather than mitigate them. But upon reflection, there is no way that I am just disinterestedly exploring ideas. When I open my mouth my desire is to influence, which is not inherently a bad thing because not all rhetoric is violent. Some of it can be loving. Maybe I just need to stick to what mum said to me: “Use your powers for good.” So is it possible or even wise to be transparent about what we desire in communication? Or does the power of our words lay precisely in our ability to conceal that desire from others.

[@Swiatlocien]

Derrida in 4 words: devil's advocate is important.

[@roguegenesis7020]

Lmfao yes

[@davidsheriff9274]

So all opinions should have the same weight?

[@elijahragland8498]

Lol, that tiny reference to Hitch Hikers Guide. I caught that!

[@liljdabscrazy]

When y'all gonna do Oscar Wilde 😤👊🏿

[@enlightenedanalysis]

This was an excellent video. A very fair and accurate representation of Derrida’s thought in my view. Thank you

[@emmatyler4375]

His ideas are very reassuring.

[@swagpeach9850]

Isn't this guy Jordan Peterson's archnemesis?

[@nullnull6120]

That's exactly why I'm here. Heard Peterson mentioned him in a talk and figured I'd get a perspective from the other side.

[@13e11even11]

Who’s archnemisis?

[@SamiShah2004]

@@nullnull6120 After watching this, I've realized how misunderstood Derrida is even by intellectuals.

[@jovitabhengra]

@@nullnull6120 cultural Marxists 😣

[@johnrobie9694]

@@SamiShah2004 or... how apologetic this channel is to collectivists (postmodernists / deconstructivists).

[@sarrabouabdali1197]

Please School of life, do a video on Baudrillard :'(

[@Farvai0]

What is intresting about Jordan Peterson and his attacks on postmoderism, is that 1. It has made people more knowledgeable about postmodernism, as it is something people have not known so much about. 2. He proves the point of most postmodernists, by using language in a way to dictate how people think and feel, and by shrouding it in unclear metaphors, to claim to be misinterpreted. The postmodernists would try to understand the world as clearly as possible, while religion often shrouds. Peterson needs things to be unclear, so that himself can go fourth as the one "making everything clear", by distrubting critical thought. He is a charaltan indedd. Good video on Derrida; I often think that school of life is a great way of surface introduction, so that you can easier learn about these thinkers later.

[@perrywidhalm114]

LOL You wrote, "Peterson is a charlatan 'indedd'"? Child, Jordan Peterson's main focus is personal responsibility, competency and veritas. He's as far away from being a charlatan as you are from understanding Derrida's philosophy of utter nonsense.

[@Farvai0]

Haha, what a weak typo from my side. I am probably misunderstanding alot of Deridda; the criticism of his "nonsensical philosohopy" seems fitting, as he is often hiding behind complex sentences and strange metaphors. To me, Derrida just helped me understand the underlying problems of how language functions within a culture. I do not use his theories and methods to much, but it was a perspective I did not know about. So to me, he is helpful to trying to see the problems behind the surface. I don't intend to become a "derridaen philosopher", however I like his perspective. Peterson, on the other hand, is soley trying to make people conform to his own idea of the ideal citizen. I dislike Peterson, not because he tells people to clean their room and take responsibility for their lives and those around you(I do however dislike the idea of only learning about these virtues by being told them), I dilsike him for his utter disdain for nonconforming thought, like feminism and post-modernism. His attacks are unfounded, filled with self-centred hubris and misunderstandings, trying to craft a picture of the problem he FEELS are the main issues. In doing so, he creates unrealistic enemies like postmodern neo-marxism, which sounds awful and is, because it would not function given the characteristics of these ideas. They can not function togehter, so when JP is trying to create these enemies, he is only attacking the idea his wants them to have. I call him a charlatan because speaks "wisdom" yet tries to shut down ideas he dont like, which are the ideas that would be the most effective counter-arguments against him. He tries to meet them in advance rather than answering, and that is because if you put his ideas to scrutiny, he falls short. This is one of the reasons he is popular with laymen rather than professionals. torontoist.com/2016/12/are-jordan-petersons-claims-about-bill-c-16-correct/ I also find his attempts at trying to prove moral and social truths from nature to be a tragic attempt at deflecting the utter absurdity of reality.

[@mattgutierrez2942]

This is my favorite so far.

[@spanglestein66]

Brilliant channel…..thank you

[@LuvNotH8]

God this comment section is jam packed with Peterson fans who have most likely never even read a fucking line that this guy wrote.

[@gfally96]

A big thanks to the School of Life team! Great job on this one. Could you make a video on the philosophy of Henri Bergson? I've having a hard time understanding his key concepts of "duree" and "intuition". Thank you! I'm a big fan of your philosophy playlist!

[@velushiuotpir3485]

What is the difference between Derridas view, that "both sides are on to something" and Hegel's dialectics?

[@JuanPabloSelvaje]

Pterodaktol Daktopterol There isn't necessarily a dialectic in Derrida's philosophy, and Hegelian dialectics would be especially anathema to Derrida because they make a metaphysical claim about the nature of history. Derrida would want to denaturalize the concept of the dialectic and examine its simplications, erasures, and paradoxes. Also, unlike in Hegel, there is no sense of resolution -- things just become increasingly more tied up and complicated. It's also not a fair characterization to say "both sides are onto something." It's more like "each side has an incomplete view, or a view that is linked precariously to other unstable ideas."

[@esthertyler-ward9209]

Ironically encapsulating the clarity of Derrida's embracing of Aporia!

[@mariod1547]

I really appreciate this video. Always had problems comprehending what his objective was.

[@alonso8458]

love ths channel, such an interesting topic, as others have said, Derrida would be proud! as a side note, have any of the peterson minions that are bashing Derrida's work in philosophy even read any of his works? or are they just mindlessly repeating whatever thing their cult leader said about "le post modern thinkers"? please refrain from philosophy and clean your rooms guys.

[@user-oo8xp2rf1k]

I tried to LIVEwhat I understood to be Derrida's works, for twenty years (everything is just a patriarchal habit, born of wrong language) . That is why Peterson is such a breath of air. Philosophy doesn't have to be banging your own head against a grey wall.

[@MrMikkyn]

Derrida is a lot deeper than just comparing opposites and greater concepts with lesser ones. There's his concept of hyperreality where reality is defined by symbols of symbols and that there is no objective truth, only symbols of the truth. He also speaks of the meaninglessness of words how the word Tree does not actually represent the idea of tree, it is just an arbitrary decision that someone decided to make and have the word tree represent a brown trunk with branches and leaves. So he is really deconstructing language, he is saying that language is a human construct in which people use to understand reality, and for us to understand realities we are to be aware that we are using a limited system called spoken and written language. Symbols and sounds which are used to represent meaning, but nevertheless are arbitrary symbols and arbitrary sounds which when deconstructed can be strange. He is pretty much in the realm of metaphysics and non-language.

[@gaboqv]

But you can attribute that mostly to Wittgenstein, with all the important consequences and ways of thinking already explained in some videos around here, there's a video in 8bit philosophy about why a cat is called a cat

[@MrMikkyn]

***** I love 8bit philosophy, unfortunately though I'm not too well versed on Wittgenstein.

[@4grammaton]

In the traditional male dominance hierarchy, those who win, still lose. The only one who wins is the female.

[@4grammaton]

" It sprang from marxist classed-based identity politics and in some ways that's what post-modernism was, an attempt by males who couldn't compete in the traditional male dominance hierarchy to tear down the entire system" Weren't they all playboys and celebrities though (along with the existentialists)? I don't think the postmodernists had any problem getting women and competing in the "dominance hierarchy". If anything, the used their philosophy as a type of "game", in the PUA sense. It seems you should be comparing them to PUA rather than MGTOW. A MGTOW wouldn't give a shit about this arbitrary crap.

[@4grammaton]

" The existentialists playboy celebrities? " I was thinking more Sartre than Nietzsche. Also, I'm very skeptical about Jordan Peterson's views on post-modernist philosophers. I actually agree with you.

[@mathieukprout8187]

A major figure of french 20th century philosophy, together with Foucault & Derrida, is Gilles Deleuze. Hopefully School of Life will shed light on his dense philosophy!

[@thomasmurphy9429]

DELEUZE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@MrWalker1000]

i feel like I didn't understand sthit about derridas philosophies. Im still confused lol.

[@frederickpasco7607]

A major figure of poorly translated philosophy from a small Parisian neighborhood that no one in France gave two shits about.

[@josephivernel2078]

Don't forget Albert Camus, Jean Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Simone Weil etc etc.

[@joseaas213]

Many Thanks. You are competent and quality producers. 👍☝🏾🤗

[@tahacherradi599]

You should do a podcast! your voice is so relaxing :)

[@heinzlandgraf7311]

It is very good to rescue the true meaning of Derrida's ideas, since they have been distorted and twisted to support extremely biased political doctrines.

[@thejew1789]

Ironic.

[@braedenwilliams6339]

By his 'logic' he'd want your comment to include that his ideas are also represented clearly and accurately as the inconcise, circulatory justifications of people who want the ability to copout of, or manipulate anything and anyone. Then agian start back with how he remains so misrepresented and his 'true' (LOL) meaning has since been twisted etc..... *repeat over and over.

[@mossside1094]

I watched this because Derrida is a name that keeps coming up. The video seemed to be a good primer, since I know next to nothing about the guy. Then I googled him, and found this (admittedly on Wikipedia, but other entries seem to support the truth of what follows). See what you think. "In 1992 some academics at Cambridge University, mostly not from the philosophy faculty, proposed that Derrida be awarded an honorary doctorate. This was opposed by, among others, the university's Professor of Philosophy David Mellor. Eighteen other philosophers from US, Austrian, Australian, French, Polish, Italian, German, Dutch, Swiss, Spanish, and UK institutions, including Barry Smith, Willard Van Orman Quine, David Armstrong, Ruth Barcan Marcus, and René Thom, then sent a letter to Cambridge claiming that Derrida's work "does not meet accepted standards of clarity and rigour" and describing Derrida's philosophy as being composed of "tricks and gimmicks similar to those of the Dadaists." The letter concluded that: ... where coherent assertions are being made at all, these are either false or trivial. Academic status based on what seems to us to be little more than semi-intelligible attacks upon the values of reason, truth, and scholarship is not, we submit, sufficient grounds for the awarding of an honorary degree in a distinguished university. In the end the protesters were outnumbered-336 votes to 204-when Cambridge put the motion to a vote; though almost all of those who proposed Derrida and who voted in favour were not from the philosophy faculty." What do people think? Seems pretty damning on the face of it.

[@virvisquevir3320]

Moss Side - The "Analytical Philosophers" that opposed Derrida are even more silly than Derrida himself... At least Derrida speculated, threw a new bone out there for people to chew on, though a bone without much meat... The Analytical Philosophers haven't added or resolved anything in almost 100 years of trying. While Derrida might seem like a smokey dreamer, a naughty little boy kicking over all the cans, the Analytical Philosophers are rigorous bureaucrats, humourless grammarians, jealous linguarians, kind of like librarians but instead of cataloging books, they catalogue propositions... There's a world beyond language... There are biological drives and spiritual ideals... There are scientific hypotheses and models that are constantly being tested...

[@RobMackenzie83]

Love the repeated Douglas Adams '42' references in your videos.

[@danstracner9053]

An excellent overview of an important and often misunderstood thinker.

[@evaristodesouza712]

commentary ,voice and over all video with information is great

[@Juventinos]

i m pretty sure he wanted to play football not soccer...

[@FrickoMode2]

This is why Europe is crumbling....

[@cristianfabianavila4138]

05:58 42: the answer to life the universe and everything

[@kengillespie7797]

But the point is, what's the question to the answer?

[@jensyao5875]

@3:13 why is urban meyer in here?

[@axelsempe7593]

Well, at the beginning of the video you explain that he is one of the most importante French figure of philosophie... this might be true in the US but world wide it is not the case. Actually he sold so little books in France that he moved to the US. Indeed his philosophie contradicts one of the premises of the French way of thinking : universalisme.

[@Vorador666]

Beautiful video, thank you so much for creating it.

[@S2Cents]

See Kevin MacDonald's "Culture of Critique"

[@S2Cents]

***** So?

[@S2Cents]

+Slayedjudas666 MacDonald is worth checking out.

[@S2Cents]

***** I read his articles and appreciate some of the interesting discussions spawned by his work. mpcdot.com/forums/topic/58-whos-afraid-of-kevin-macdonald/

[@wunderdoggy]

What does he say about Derrida?

[@TuxedoTalk]

Sounds like he missed the point of IQ tests. His complaint is essentially that they don't make a proper measurement of what they're not designed to measure.

[@user-vv4lo5yz3h]

I think the over valuing of I.Q. is what he was getting at

[@hamonteiro]

How about Russel next?

[@MeTubeVIRUS]

yes russell

[@yumyom1]

and Alfred North Whitehead after that!

[@viniz200]

Žižek!

[@devongiguere3721]

*Sniffle* I'd *sniffle* like that *sniffle*

[@Cinqmil]

Wittgenstein. And then shut up about it.

[@daedra40]

Derrida is brilliant - thanks for showing this for us. And for me, I believe this video was also very brilliantly done. Loved every second of the video.

[@singgeek]

So helpful! Thank you for taking the time to make this video :)