Poststructuralism: WTF? Derrida, Deconstruction and Poststructuralist Theory Explained

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Thanks for watching all! If you’ve enjoyed this video, please do share to anyone else who you think might like! And, if you’d like to check out my Patreon, that’d be much appreciated: patreon.com/tomnicholas

[@maipineapple8049]

Hey, it was a really interesting video! However I think I might watch it a few more times to understand that deconstruction theory! Thank you for that interesting insight ☺️

[@mogarrah8265]

what is the differences between constructivism and post-structuralist

[@deepsleepist9097]

Aah, so this was the term for my gut feeling of 'how language might not fully gives its meaning and ideas of a person to another'

[@yesway]

Tom, you always look so happy when presenting this stuff, and I want you to know, that this is very inspirational c:

[@adibigdrip1887]

100 percent! Need more of this energy in my life!

[@rogofos]

For every random thought you have at 4am, there is a philosophical theory...

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Haha, you’re probably right there!

[@snackspositive]

hence the quote "all men are intellectuals, but not all men have in society the function of intellectuals."

[@stephenpowstinger733]

Funny i should read this at exactly four a.m.

[@JohnMoseley]

And acid-heads are never the blindingly original geniuses they think they are in their epiphanies.

[@JohnMoseley]

@@snackspositive Or Deleuze's: 'We are all philosophers, it's just that most of us are very bad ones.'

[@Dorian_sapiens]

Post-structuralism and postmodernism are frequently attacked for supposedly being anti-reason anti-Enlightenment. These theories invite you to consider whether or nor your language and your ways of thinking are accomplishing what you set out to accomplish with them. Anyone truly interested in reason and truth should be not just willing but eager to consider that question. To dismiss those theories that focus on the question seems like the cowardly act of someone who suspects they won't like the answers they uncover.

[@Tom_Nicholas]

I can kind of understand why those who have a knee-jerk reaction of wanting to ignore some of this stuff do so. I'm sure, at one point, I probably liked to think that I "saw through the bs" by just thinking of it as silly, overwrought academese. But, as you say, the overall advisory of skepticism towards what truth we can come to know through a linguistic and epistemological system which has clear flaws and biases is actually pretty sound.

[@Dorian_sapiens]

@@Tom_Nicholas Oh, I definitely used to think of it that way. My post is, on one level, me working out my frustration with my past self!

[@rlrnilecroc]

They are. It's called analytic philosophy.

[@BigHenFor]

@@deadeaded If so, then it is an hypothesis that perhaps predates the Enlightenment notions of certainty as Plato's Allegory of the Cave applies to language too.

[@Lingalemon]

I think it would be less immediately threatening and alienating to otherwise reasonable people if it didn't lead off with the radically strong conclusions that it's useless to try to figure out what an author meant by a text (not the words exactly, but what I got from them toward the begging, and what I've gotten from some people as a sort of defeatist pessimism). I reject that formulation, but I wholeheartedly agree that we must be aware of the many pitfalls and the fact that we must accept a disappointingly lower level of confidence in any particular attempt to understand one than we'd like.

[@veejayroth]

11:20 to further support the hypothesis discussed at the timestamp, the word "high" for example can also be contrasted not with "low" but with "sober" instead.

[@pravoslavn]

You have been blessed with outstanding talents as a presenter. But more than being simply a good voice reading from a script, you have a depth of understanding of your topic, and present it with enthusiasm. No one could ever go to sleep in one of your lectures. EXCELLENT JOB ! More, More, More ! ☺

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Thank you, those are very kind words indeed!

[@StefanTravis]

"It is impossible to speak in such a way that one cannot be misunderstood." - Karl Popper

[@thenowchurch6419]

But what exactly does he mean by that ? LOL!

[@rw8185]

@@thenowchurch6419 and what do you mean by asking that?

[@thenowchurch6419]

@@rw8185 Right back atcha !

[@rw8185]

@@thenowchurch6419 lol

[@evelynbaron8357]

Love Popper. His essay on paradigm shifts was seminal.

[@CuriousFascination]

One thing I really love with your channel, is that you always provide the source of your information, so that the viewer can go and check it out for themselves. This makes your videos really useful for helping me understand a certain topic or theory better, when writing an assignment, as I don't really have to take your word for it, because you provide the source of your info both in the video itself, and in the description. Too many channels, while really great at communicating their content, lack any real source of information, so the viewer just has to trust that they know what they are talking about. You're always very professional and academic with your content, which is why your channel is the one I resort to the most, when I want to get into a new academical topic.

[@o0o0ii0o0o]

It feels like with postmodernism and post structuralism there is no where else to go in terms of "moving beyond" that line of thinking. Like we have come to the conclusion that there is no objective truth or reality, so now what? In terms of visual art at least, i feel as though i am seeing a lot more work being produced that is focused on personal narrative, the communication of individual truths and experiences. Not that that hasn't been around for a long time, but it seems especially popular in contemporary society. I just wonder where we go from here. Great video! I love your work, it's always so thought-provoking.

[@Tom_Nicholas]

One of the primary critiques of poststructuralism and postmodernism is that, in their scepticism towards all "metanarratives" (or, in short, totalising conceptions of the world) they tend to be quite pessimistic and, as you rightly identify, focus on small, individuals truths rather than anything that can usefully be applied to the world as a whole. Part of this was a response to the various despotic regimes of the twentieth century. I think, however, we are beginning to see a shift away from such a mode of thinking in society at large and a return to a belief that it is possible to conceive of a better world. How that might be framed theoretically, however, is perhaps beyond the ability of a single KZbin comment to get in to!

[@joshdavis8381]

I think in more recent times we are starting to see somewhat of an answer to this. I would say that while a lot of works still deconstruct a lot of narratives we may have taught growing up, it seems to be followed by sincere expressions of thoughts or ideas. They don't merely embrace the chaos like a lot of Adult Swim cartoons from the 2000s did.

[@zef9066]

thank you for this!! my prof makes absolutely no sense and you're a life saver.

[@Tom_Nicholas]

No worries, hope it was helpful!

[@raisa_cherry35]

True indeed.

[@evelynbaron8357]

In the house of Post-structuralism/postmodernism are many mansions; while reading Roland Barthes in the original or English translation is a delight (Mythologies is an absolute joy) Derrida is one big intentional headache; his own style absolutely and intentionally produces the effect of profound ambiguity which has annoyed countless readers, so yes Tom is a rara avis indeed.

[@fortyeu789]

Your channel needs to blow up now! You do such a great job explaining the nuances of these post-modern movements without a hint of bias, while at the same time correctly using the overly-esoteric language deconstructionists use to make it incredibly easy for a layman like me to understand clearly.

[@yesway]

that moment, when you're about to enjoy some delicious theory, and then remember, that Derrida already ruined it for everyone

[@allypoum]

Great idea to frame Derrida etc. in part through discussion of the film Get Out. Just saw it for the first time a couple of weeks ago & it continues to resonate! Great work and as ever, liked & shared.

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Yeah, I think there’s the temptation to look at stuff like this with reference to literature but think it tends to be more engaging to do so with reference to more contemporary stuff. And thanks, I always appreciate your generous comments!

[@lynnixvarjo9150]

¡Viva la POUM!

[@davidguo9575]

Thank you! I'm writing a paper on post structuralism in Waiting For Godot, and this came at the perfect time.

[@LillianaNorthman]

Thank you so much, I have been struggling to understand my Lit Theory course for weeks now, and talking to my teacher hasn't improved my understanding. None of other Lit courses have spoken about any of these thoughts or ideas, and just allowed me to analyze literature. I have always been able to understand and explain any given text, and the outcome has always been my teachers expounding my natural ability for understanding complicated literature. For whatever reason though, within the bubble of Lit Theory I feel like someone is reading stereo instructions that no one can really understand. Your video helped provide me with valuable insight, don't get me wrong I may watch it a few times to make triply sure that I understand, but it was the first time I have felt comfortable with my course and upcoming assignments in weeks.

[@bernardheathaway9146]

I appreciate how easy it is to understand all this complex stuff through your videos. Thank you!

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Thank you, really glad they've helped you out!

[@harryburganjr.969]

You deserve more subscribers this channel is fantastic!

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Thank you for saying so Harry, that means a lot!

[@roman_dimaggio]

Tom Nicholas is a Tom Scott doppelganger from a parallel world where Tom Scott does praxis.

[@heridanielsen9485]

I'm in awe, with how well articulated you are. You have a gift, when it comes to getting a point across!

[@jacksaliba1455]

You're very skilled at building up information to audiences (such as myself) that are unfamiliar with these sorts of theories. The energy you bring to your explanations helped me, a person with ADHD stay focused and engaged. Incredible job!

[@WillJBailey]

I did my English degree at Leeds Uni in the late 90s and it was very much focused through the lens of post-structuralism. I remember the first lecture even now. It was on Death of the Author. They told us to unlearn the parroted fixed meanings of A Level English, to contextualise and ultimately disregard the canon, and to trust our own judgement and analysis. Was pretty mind-blowing. Is it still taught like this?

[@lojupitermoon]

I study comparative literature in Germany and I‘m in my first semester and perhaps the introduction to these ideas weren‘t quite as epic as your experience yet we have covered both Barthes and the canon in a similar fashion

[@lojupitermoon]

I study comparative literature in Germany and I‘m in my first semester and perhaps the introduction to these ideas weren‘t quite as epic as your experience yet we have covered both Barthes and the canon in a similar fashion

[@johnoestmannmusic]

This video has actually helped reshape the way I think about writing music for audience and for clients. So just wanted to say thanks from someone on the practical ends of these philosophies!

[@calebweintraub1]

Just recently stumbled across your channel. Your delivery is clear and consice. Thank you for the work you put into your videos and for presenting information in an energetic and animated way.

[@FabianRWhite]

You are an absolute legend. It's great to just watch you while you talk too (it's hard to write that without it coming across as a little odd perhaps?), your expressions and gesticulations really add to the energy in such a positive way.

[@esotericadventuresastrology]

Thank you, finally someone who explains it well and who speaks at a pace that hinders me from falling asleep.

[@codacreator6162]

Peter Barry’s Beginning Theory is the text I turned to in my graduate Literary Theory class. Coupled with a world-class professor and study groups, I wrote one of the most difficult essays of my life. Derrida provided the tools, Marx provided the lens, Don DeLillo provided the subject of my scrutiny, and Barry, the guide (along with a Lit Theory text thicker than a 1970s LA phone book) I followed to maintain the correct path. I’m not sure how many of your viewers are students and how many, like myself, just love the theory and practice of critical thought at this level? But, your explanation was spot-on - articulate, direct, and intuitive - delivering an accessible understanding that should be accessible by everyone with an interest in the social and cultural clashes we face every day. Unfortunately, there is an entire segment of our society who do not or possibly cannot see the correlation between language and behavior, just as they seemingly cannot see the long-term consequences (intended or otherwise) of the obsessive pursuit of their own desires at the expense of society, itself. It’s remarkable to me, for instance, that Ron DeSantis, an American governor from the state of Florida, graduated Harvard University with a degree in History and Yale with a Juris Prudence degree, yet vilifies Crtical Race Theory as some liberal progressive attempt to “rewrite history” and “brainwash [our] kids.” There are only two possible reasons for this absurd interpretation: either Ivy League schools in America have lost the quality that made them desirable for over a century, or DeSantis somehow managed to graduate summa cum laude/cum laude, respectively, by pretense executed so convincingly that it fooled the faculties of two of our most highly respected institutions of learning. Or, he managed to skirt the subject of theory through choice of courses. I’m not certain if that’s possible, but seems reasonable given what I know about the applications of theory in my own degree programs. The final possibility, that he’s just pandering to an audience terrified of what they call “the elites” - smart people with high levels of education, massive fortunes, and membership in some phantom cabal or another - in order to further terrorize them into a dependence upon him to save them. It’s like the Salem witch trials of the 17th century, though I’m not sure the people who started or perpetuated the myth of witchcraft were angling for political power while doing so? The irony of the situation is not lost on me, however. The “elites” they fear, just as the Salem witches, don’t exist. There are smart people who understand society, culture, and lament their deterioration; others who are ruthless, manipulative, business people whose only goal is the accumulation of ever-greater sums of wealth through exploitation and manipulation and at the expense of society, itself; and there are politicians on a spectrum between them. The irony is that the smart people in academia are the witches, the wealthy business people, the witch hunters, and politicians, their prosecutors - the people most well-equipped to save America are the people that growing segment of the population openly fears. They trust Rupert Murdoch and the single-syllabic modes of communication they receive from people who are openly, unapologetically manipulating them straight into their own demise while the rest of us stand by shaking our heads and wondering if we’re entering an American Dark Ages by willful ignorance?

[@kylerodd2342]

I’ve yet to read Derrida. I have watched some videos of him talking. I’ve watched countless videos about him and his ideas. This was a fantastic video from what I can judge. I’ve yet to understand how to articulate the structure in which you present your perspective but I can tell you that I enjoy it very much and will often come to your videos for summaries before I start delving in further. Thank you so much for your work! I appreciate it greatly!

[@holliereynolds3817]

Thank you so much for this video! Philosophical paradigms always seem far too abstract for me, so I really appreciate you explaining this in such simple, easy to understand terms.

[@sancharidas9468]

You explain everything with a smiling face and so much expressions. It's so good altogether!

[@gedde5703]

I absolutely love your crystal clear way of articulating complex matters, as well as your passion. Thank you.

[@ThirdInTheQueue]

That's a nice introduction! I have a problem though. If we start from: 1) the impossibility of determining with a 100% certainty what the author meant; following it with 2) skepticism about final or objective meaning of any text and 3) a reader (or a critic) shifting to the role of PRODUCER of meanings in the text then why the poststructuralist criticism of any text/discourse is not just the criticism of what a reader/critic himself MAKES of the text in question?

[@jsm_]

I'm so glad your channel exists! I'd love to see a video about Bourdieu's habitus and Turner's liminality :)

[@sarahmouhoub8494]

Same here

[@kerryg9573]

I get a real 'ah I see' moment with theories from your videos. If you have any plans for ecocriticism / Romanticism WTF's my undergrad grades will be forever grateful. 👍

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Thank you! Definitely got plans to do ecocriticism at some point soon(ish). It’s something I need to do a fair bit of reading up on though as it’s a little bit fresh to me!

[@kerryg9573]

I'm just being cheeky asking. Your whole series is incredibly informative and easy to follow though. Hugely appreciared .

[@tdesq.2463]

Very bright Young man! Keep up the Noble Work, Good Sir! Your ability to explain the most complex concepts in a way easily grssped by ordinary blokes like myself is a most singular talent that demands notice. Thank You!

[@0211brucetube]

Brand new sub. Just watched the videos on structuralism and this one, some of the most accessible takes on these topics I've ever seen. Thanks!

[@Ingens_Scherz]

This is terrific. I wish you'd been one of my professors 30+ years ago when, as a 19 year-old undergraduate, I was trying to navigate this field, which felt like an ocean voyage with no compass or, indeed, destination most of the time. Maybe that was the point. Even so, I still love it.

[@funkychords]

I wish ( some ) my university lecturers were as clear and engaging as you are Sir!

[@lesfreresdelaquote1176]

In France, there is a specific kind of work in French classes, where you have to write an essay about a specific topic. The topic is usually given as a short paragraph of one or two sentences or as a short text written by a famous writer. The passages that your teacher thinks are out of the scope with the topic are usually highlighted in red as "hors-sujet". "Il n'y a pas de hors-texte" in this context means that no interpretation can be deemed wrong as long as this was what was understood by the reader... If you brought as a student this interpretation to the text, then no one can criticise you as being out of scope, because this is what you saw and thought...

[@Rudenbehr]

Love your videos dude. I think about language and etymology too much sometimes. And it's good to know other people think as deeply as I do about mundane words as I do.

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Haha, thanks!

[@benediktzoennchen]

For me, as a computer scientist, the problem of the flaws of language seemed obvious early on. Sometimes I teach a beginner's course at the university and one of the first tasks for my students is to write down an algorithm to sort cards. They have to exchange their notes and execute what they receive (using their hands and some cards). The lesson here is clear: it is damn hard to be unambiguous, in fact, without context, it is impossible. As programmers, we always assume a given context (the machine, a programming language, a software library) and we never really know what is exactly (within each register, and so on) going on when the code is executed. Of course, this is not the same thing but it gives me the impression that Derrida has a point.

[@LeonCouch]

Once again, excellent, clear, and appreciated summary. I wish your videos were available when I tackled these ideas and texts basically on my own prior to the rise of resources like yours on the internet.

[@CG0V]

Excellent, I am applying for a master's degree in literature and these help solidify my understanding of these concepts, thanks!

[@properoldschool]

Mr Tom Nicholas, I cannot thank you enough for the explanation you gave in this video. I was really struggling to understand deconstruction and in just over 20 minutes you have taught me more than my lecturers have done in the last 8 weeks. (deconstruct that lol)

[@firamclight8833]

Exactly what i needed right now! Thank you very much Tom. Sending you love and virtual hugs from Indonesia. Xoxo

[@Tom_Nicholas]

No worries, hope it was helpful!

[@thavishchetty6376]

Superb Video! Your snippet about Apartheid was excellent as someone coming from South Africa

[@lukehardin9]

One of the best videos I’ve seen on this topic, well done!

[@V4_lgtwins]

Thank you from South Korea! I've never quite understood deconstruction before, but this video is amazing,,

[@tarekar74]

Brilliant man. Your videos are so full of energy, clear examples, explanations and visuals

[@sarabresciani3888]

I don't know how I have literally only *just* found your channel, Tom. Awesome video -- I'm gonna go watch all of them!

[@rezamirabi1758]

I am really excited about your videos and the way you unfold the rather complex topics. Thanks a lot for this! Wondering if you could do a video on Metamodernism?? as that might become a quite relevant continuation on postmodernism and especially poststructuralism!

[@Juicie_goosie]

I have a Lit exam later today, this is actually a godsend

[@jenhalbert3001]

Thank you so much, Tom, I've always kinda wondered what post structuralism was but of course never bothered to look into it. Seems like most things are really analyzed in a post structuralist way, really, except by people in lit classes.

[@InaudibleWhale]

Brilliant and thought-provoking, as always. Thanks Tom! I'm really not informed about any of this work but two things struck me as I watched the video. Firstly, in countries where the language contains fewer gendered terms (e.g. Chinese), sexism is still rampant. So how much responsibility can English's gendered terms take for societal gender imbalances? Is sexism more extreme in Spain, France, and other European nations because of their language? My gut reaction is no... Secondly, how do some of these authors deal with the irony of writing and publishing their ideas? I'm a writer by profession and sweat over word choice for hours, is that even necessary if my work is simply going to be distorted by the reader's mind? :D

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Thank you William, I appreciate you saying so! In terms of your first point, it's as much about the conceptual dualism as the grammatical. The example of the "less" suffix perhaps sold things a little short there. I'm afraid I'm a bit of a monoglot so not able to comment in depth about other languages but I'd imagine that similar conceptual dualism exists even if there is a greater amount of "gender neutral" language. To your second point, that irony was not lost on many of the poststructuralist scholars. Derrida went through at least a period of not allowing himself to be photographed to avoid him being fetishised as a scholarly figure over people just celebrating his ideas. Also, I spend a loooooong time stressing over word choices but, in the end, the difference between two terms actually probably doesn't matter that much!

[@JohnMoseley]

I think there's a high risk of people putting this to relativistic use, but a lot of that may be spurious. When you get into some of Derrida's 'plays of difference' within a text - which you can do, as I have, just from the beginner's guides - you find he's having to strain the language quite a bit at times to make it say both the things he claims it does, or he even has to create neologisms. I don't say that to put him down, much less debunk him, because I think he's an incredible thinker, but just to suggest that the idea that poststructuralism means our one method of making meaning is such a metastasising web of multiple meanings that meaning becomes impossible is possibly a straw man, as well as likely containing a sort of internal contradiction. EDIT: and I'm clearly no expert, but my understanding is that Derrida's primary aim is to call the foundations of philosophical meaning making into question, specifically, although it also seems to me his work is a continuation of things like Kant critiquing pure reason, Hegel debunking the law of non-contradiction, and the Wittgenstein of the Philosophical Investigations. But deconstruction's not a bad reminder that there be dragons of misinterpretation for us writers everywhere, which is precisely why obsessing over word and syntax choices is often a very good idea not a futile one. Arguably, as per the Popper quote someone else posted here, one can never be entirely sure of being understood. But surely also the pleasant surprise - especially if you've bought into post structuralism at all - that can result from careful writing is that you can find you really have been understood as you intended at times, that clear communication actually, apparently, can happen.

[@OysterQueeen]

ahhh i found this video during my study of judith butler and this video just drag me into another deep mystery ..... looking forward to see you talk about judith butler!!!

[@romakumari1981]

thank you for your positive and enthusiastic attitude

[@Statick107]

As a post structuralist, this was a fantastic explanation of the concept

[@thenowchurch6419]

Thank you, Tom. This is one of your best and most illuminating videos. BTW, yes the latter explanation of Derrida's 'There is nothing outside the Text", (that the Text subsumes the whole rest of Reality) is the correct one; Foucalt be damned !

[@dann10000]

This was indeed an interesting video! But I still wonder about this question: if there are limits to language, if they have inherent biases and favors "binary", how can we be sure to have understood Derrida right? Could be that we totally misunderstood him at all right? And by the way I totally misinterpreted "Get Out" until you cleared that up :D

[@ramas3611]

i have a literary criticism final exam tmrw and this video helped so much, thank you!! :)

[@CosmicHobo2]

A useful summary but light on critical analysis. Huge gaping holes can be driven through the work of Derrida, Butler and Foucault especially and similarly through the critique of this work.

[@megaFREEdom24]

Tom, you are a powerhouse of knowledge !! Finally, I understand this theory and it makes so much sense now. THANK YOU!!

[@christinakcover]

This is so helpful Tom! Thank you for all of your work making theory more accessible to all!

[@baggerjanus]

Very glad I stumbled upon this channel. You're going places friend. Thank you for the lovely work.

[@kindredspirit9703]

Worth noting that language is helpful or perhaps needed to understand and empathize with other people. For all it's problems, perhaps the flaws of language are beneficial in forcing people to consider how other people view the same word or idea they want to express.

[@badtoxxin7909]

Notes for me: Structuralism poses that everything fits into a system that allows us to properly analyze it. With films we analyze it by applying already existing cinematographic techniques and devices. Post-structuralism as it suggests in half of its name is a postmodern approach to structuralism. It abolishes these systems that everything fits in and instead decides that nothing is linked nor can be correlated to anything else. In the death of the author it says that we must act as if the author never existed and not be so focused on trying to understand the authors intention but instead to make up all sorts of intentions and meanings for the text.

[@Caitlin_TheGreat]

Interesting topic. So, as a person who has never been able to really pursue a higher education (I'm talking about college), I don't have a lot of jargon in my vocabulary and there are a lot of topics I may have found my way to but without realizing it's a well established (and well trod) academic topic, but I do have a tendency to wander into subjects such as this where I at least get a grasp of some of the surface level stuff. In the last few years I've had a pet peeve about the inherent difficulties of communication, where even with the best of intentions on both sides (the person transmitting or conveying the message and the person receiving the message) problems can arise that result in a garbled message. Someone doesn't use quite the right words, or someone misinterprets those words, or maybe even both. But what frustrates me is when people become flippant about communication and stop trying to be clear -- assuming that they must be infallible and that the onus is on the receiver to decipher the message correctly. Or there are others who will assert that as a receiver they need not put any effort into understanding the message and so the onus is entirely upon the transmitter to put forth a perfect message that cannot be misunderstood. And of course these problems compound when you have _gremlins_ tampering with the language machine. In other words, people actively trying to disrupt communication by sprinkling in confusion or misinformation. Or those who will act like an interpreter of sorts -- that instance where two people are attempting to communicate and a third person butts in to help clarify matters -- and purposefully provide a poor interpretation that introduces impertinent and extraneous information or even twists words into false information. As a person who has often worked with language, as I quite fancied myself a "writer" in my late teens and early twenties before Work ate up all my time and energy and now I barely scribble out a story in the span of a whole year, I became quite well aware that language (English at least, but undoubtedly this is inherent to all language) is imperfect as it is an abstraction. Our thoughts have to be translated into words, and the "key" for this is reliant solely upon our personal understanding of what words means and how they must be strung together. Then that translation of our thoughts (with all the potential errors in our personal translation) is passed onto someone else who breaks the words down into what they personally have interpreted those words to represent. It's an inherently flawed system. And I strongly suspect that language only works because we are very adaptable creatures and can make corrections for small translation errors. We do it all the time -- when you hear or read a sentence and pause as you consider "what does that mean?" I believe that's our brain trying to correct for a translation error by matching various other close translations against what we've heard/read until there's a match that we deem "makes sense". It's second nature, though, so we aren't fully conscious of this process and don't give it much thought. Until we get something that we either cannot make sense of, or that when we do "figure it out" we're met with an unexpected reaction from the person we're talking.

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Some really good points here and some very insightful reflections on language!

[@BigHenFor]

Nothing means much unless you have context, and not only does that mean the subtext that the creator may have, but the audience comes to the communication with their own perspectives. Thus communication is a creative act between creator and audience. The product is a composition where the elements come from both parties. To think that language is the basis of truth is to deny that "Chinese whispers" is a closer analogue of communication that we would like to believe. I'm a subscriber to Art Education channels, and the figurative art fundamentals show this tendency the artist trying to use the language of art to communicate with concepts rather than words. Yet, both visual concepts and words are employed in the same way. The artist chooses the elements of language most appropriate to get over what they want to communicate, relying on the audience to draw on their own frameworks of references and "get it". René Magritte's 1929 painting "The Treachery of Images" illustrates this position very clearly.

[@sandrorossi6485]

I'm trying to improve my English and your videos are really useful as well as being clearly and effectively argued!

[@mestery.j378]

Many of the mentioned ideas in this video agree with Stuart Hall's notion of signifying practices and cultural representation

[@lilies_are_nice2610]

I have an exam tomorrow on structuralism and post structuralism but I'm already tired after studying and trying to understand structuralism so I'm off to sleep and will watch this video in the morning tomorrow before I go

[@harsukhkaur1919]

This was a very insightful and useful information for my exams, thank you for making this!

[@Acquavallo]

As a native french speaker, my interpretation of Derida's quote "Il n'y a pas de hors-text" is really around the way that "hors-" is used in other contexts, like "hors-scène" in theatre which designates everything that does not happen on stage, everything left out of the story. Applying this logic to structural considerations, I would almost say that this could mean that "Il n'y a pas de hors-text" means "there is no outside-of-text" or maybe no intertextuality?

[@Hyphaen]

Have you heard of the psychologist Lisa Feldman Barrett? She applies this kind of thought to the way we understand and process emotions/diagnosis and I think it’s one of the most potent examples of how language has failed us

[@albadejuanilopez1184]

you are saving my masters thesis THANK YOU

[@luanaestevam1062]

Oh God, my brain is ON FIRE after watching this video!! Very enlightening...

[@assses-3216]

Can not wait for the Judith Butler episode!

[@jesterfrombeyond1776]

This channel is pure gold keep it up mate!!! Would love to see a video about Zizek by you.

[@juanitopantuflapantufla2605]

I think a very good example of post structuralism is thinking about how the same trivial things, like gestures or even a haircut will be understood differently depending on the actor's social identity, racialization, gender etc

[@moulishree6428]

Relating it with get out really helped in understanding it

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Thank you, I'm really glad!

[@geraldaugustus739]

I'm very much new to philosophy (academically). Every time I'm learning about a new theory it feels like it's either, a fairly simple theory, or a theory saying the last theory was too simplistic.

[@JAYDUBYAH29]

I love and appreciate your work, mind and mode of communication. Thanks Tom! The inherent self contradictions (perhaps performative contradiction?) seem plentiful here, given that you are using language to explain a way of pointing out the inadequacy of language. How is your interpretation of what Peele is doing post-structuralist, rather than ordinary smart analysis of the text and it’s meaning-which is what makes the movie so good, because Peele has deliberately crafted art that evokes those thoughts and feelings. Even if your reply is that I didn’t understand what you really mean, why would that still be important? I think it still is. Good authors and educated readers can come both to a shared sense of the story and it’s subtext or symbolism, as well as perhaps inevitable unintentional themes that exist as part of the given context, time, or just being human. To me the road many go down with postmodern philosophy is one of using reason to argue against reason. That or just wallowing in relativism. I come away from this video still thinking that way, but am open to changing my mind. By the way, curious if you have thoughts about the 1977 letter published in a major French newspaper signed by Derrida, Foucault, Barthes, de Bouvoir, and Sartre, calling for the age of consent to be lowered from 15, because this would be liberating for both adults and minors? Seems like they all got something deeply and disturbingly wrong.

[@richhasnip5374]

Thanks for this Tom - I always enjoy your videos. As a beginner in reading Derrida could you just elaborate on why, if language is as flawed as is suggested, we can't read any text any way we want. In other words I can see how objective certainty is removed by this approach what I can't see is how any meaning beyond the entirely subjective could ever be reached. Any thoughts would be welcomed. thank you!

[@peternicolai5580]

Thank you for an informative and pedagogic (didactic) explanation of yet another complex concept! Can you do meta-modernism next?

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Cheers Peter! I definitely want to do an "after postmodernism" video at some point covering some arguments as to what the theoretical tendency of the present might be. Might be a little while off for now though as I've got a big list to work my way through!

[@peternicolai5580]

​@@Tom_Nicholas Thanks Tom, that's great! I'm looking forward to your next videos, as always.

[@doublenegation7870]

Derrida was the most rigorous reader and writer of philosophy in the 20th century. If his texts are difficult, its due to his unrelenting determination to pursue the analysis of a question or interpretation of a text all the way to the point of paradox. If this lead to undermining certain authors or philosophical conventions, Derrida would reply that, properly considered, the text undid itself, since the ambiguity or 'differance' at the core of any signifying system was already there implicitly. All he did was merely play a little with language in order to shake the meanings loose.

[@Rednines]

Channels like this are what the internet is for

[@Minjaaa123]

Thanks Tom, you honestly saved my life.

[@anir1996]

An absolutely wonderful video on the basics! You're doing some great work here, Tom! You deserve more subscribers.

[@unnunn12]

DUDE! After years of casual KZbin viewing, pondering over my year 10 English teacher's overly simplistic explanation of what he called 'postmodernism', and even listening to a prog metal album, though now evidently entirely unrelated, I finally have a solid foundational concept as to what Deconstruction is about. I always though it was just trying to explain away how a text exists away in some spirit realm and is merely summoned into being by an author, and everyone has as much authority over meaning as anyone else and there's no truth bla bla bla. That's what a Christian education gets you I suppose. This has helped me greatly, thanks cutie ;*

[@alexfalconer9564]

Youre like a young version of the old guy from the gadget show, and its fantastic

[@YoungMommy14]

Good job! This topic isn't exactly what I'd qualify as 'Rudimentary Western Philosophy'. Complex as it may be (or more accurately stated... 'almost certainly is) I think that 'language and communication' warrants a great deal of philisophical attention, inquiry, evaluation and best of all... contemplation. When it comes to 'The veritable foundation' of Western Philosophy... 'Epistimology' and 'Metaphysics' in and of themselves, I think we've essentially said all there is to be said. But, then again, all it would take is one 'groundbreaking quantum physics discovery' to once again render both disciplines once again the subjects of much contention. When it comes to what I find to be the most fascinating philisophical topic likely is 'immediacy' or 'degrees of epistemic immediacy' in all it's permutations. One of those said 'permutations' without question would be the matter of 'language and communication. One really fascinsting topic of relevance to the relation between 'definition' and 'meaning'. The language / communication oriented philosopher that I'm most acquainted with is Wittgenstein. I have a good degree of respect for him, but I'd be lying if I claimed to percieve his work as 'Earth Shattering'. Although, Wittgenstein's thoughts on language / communication did not remain completely 'static' throughout his career, his approach towards and position on language / communication was anything but 'radical' or 'terribly stimulating' IMO. I think that Philosophy Enthusiasts who I'd qualify as 'Conservative' or better yet 'Traditionalists' are predisposed towards loving Wittgenstein. These are the same people who would scoff at the mere mention of almost all Relativly Recent French Philisophical Paradigms be it Structuralism, Post-Modernism, Post-Structuralism, Et. Al. I haven't studied Derrida in much detail. That being said I think that he and a bunch of his 'similarly minded' French Contemporaries' raised some very fascinating questions in reference to language / communication that have significant Academic Merit despite many 'Conservative Purists' attempts to lambaste them all as 'Philisophical Extremists'. One great question among many in my estimation is 'Is Meaning Objectively Absolute' or perhaps a better phrasing is 'Does Objective Meaning Exist in the arena of language/ communication? The first time I heard this question posed, my instant, somewhat visceral response was in line with how most people reportedly INITIALLY respond. 'The Objective Meaning is whatever the issuer believes it to be regardless of how good or poor their linguistics comprehension is'. When I revisited this question, however my mind was flooded with a cascade of reasons why my initial response was 'flawed'. I thought about 'Fruedian Slips'. I thought about Derrida's position that denotative definitions have more to do with 'words' relation to other words than 'isolated conceptual meaning'. As a Big Time Fan of Jean Paul Sartre, I was already very much acquainted with the concept of 'Negation in Truth'. It's by no mere coincidence that we can't define phenomenon that exists in 'isolation' with nothing else possessing the requisite 'Conceptual Symmetry' to grant us the ability to 'define' what it IS by what it ISN'T. If we've been 'defining' words incorrectly the whole time, what does that mean? Anyway... Ultimately, I asked myself, 'Is it possible that meaning is 'Objective', but sometimes (under specific conditions) it's the recipient rather than the issuer that understands the proper meaning? I deemed this to be very possible. Take an angry person who is ranting and raving about all sorts of abjectly trivial nonesense. How many times have we witnessed this? How many times have we done this? I once saw a guy go 'ballistic' because someone left a 'coffee mug' on a 'coffee table'. No joke. Here's the thing... In that moment of 'Anger Overload' the Subject 'Genuinely BELIEVES that the coffee mug on the coffee table is the one and only TRUE message that he's communicating. EVERYONE witnessing the 'episode' knows otherwise, though. This is why it's so vital not to conflate 'definition' with 'meaning'. The True Message is NOT 'I'm angry that a coffee mug is on a coffee table' or 'a stranger neglected to hold a door open for me when I entered the coffee shop, or even 'I live in 🇨🇦 Canada 🇨🇦, but the fact that it's raining in Bangladesh is really PISSING ME OFF'. No... The message is 'I am extremely frustrated, angry and / or hurt due to something OF SUBSTANCE, but I have an issue with expressing my emotions / allowing myself to feel vulnerable, so I'm 'raging' like a Lunatic about things that no one could conceivably care about. That's the message being articulated and once the subject CALMS DOWN the odds are very good that he will make that concession if you 'call him out' with compassion and tact. So... The philisophical matter of language/ communication has so much depth! It's truly one of my favourite topics in the entire 'Western Philisophical Canon Pantheon'.

[@devhen077]

Great video, excellent examples and clarity of thought.

[@TheLincolnrailsplitt]

Thanks for producing such an informative video. Derrida's deconstruction is sophistry. Except for die hard university colleagues, who else would seriously live their lives based on his recherche ideas. Do any trained pholosophers believe his work make sense?

[@snekpolice7310]

I've been watching you videos for the last couple of days, superb work! I need to know if you've played The Beginner's Guide, I find that game relates to topics you've described like: Death of the author, semiotics, postdramatic theater, spectacle, and it even narrates the experiences of a games developer. Cheers!

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Thank you! I haven't actually. I've heard a lot about it but haven't got around to playing it myself. Perhaps I should at some point (likely need to wait until I get a new computer though as I'm not sure my current machine would handle it very well!

[@mathiasnielsen3502]

Could I hire you as a guest speaker at my university? This makes indefinitely more sense than what we were presented with!

[@thenowchurch6419]

"By a Magus is this writing made known through the mind of a Magister.The one uttereth clearly, and the other understandeth; yet the Word is falsehood, and the Understanding darkness. And this saying is Of All Truth." Aleister Crowley, Liber B vel Magi. Crowley a super genius and notorious occultist who expired in 1947, foresaw all the developments of Wittgenstein and PostModernism, in his own writings.

[@allmhuran]

As an academic endaevour undertaken by thoughtful, well versed participants, post structuralism )and even, rarely, post modernism) makes important observations and can be a useful tool. the question of whether we can arrive at objective truths when we use our expressive media - like language - is an interesting, and difficult, and by its own logic likely unanswerable question. Problems arise when a key clause in that sentence is ignored, that clause being "arrive at". Whether or not we discover an objective truth and then express that unambiguously in some medium is completely different from the question of whether an objective truth exists in the first place. To take the example of a work of fiction, it seems clear that a reader will never fully and unambiguously understand the mind of the author, and it seems reasonable to postulate that the author themselves could never perfectly represent their mind no matter how much time they spent trying to do that in their language of choice. But that does not mean the author did not objectively have some particular ideas that they were trying to express, however imperfectly. When people make the mistake of conflating those two very different ideas they run the risk of concluding that since there is no truth, there is therefore no need to make any effort in pursuit of that truth, and so you end up with phrases like "all opinions are equally valid", "reality is a social construct", and other such nonsense. These mistakes don't get made by credentialed philosophers engaging in a post structuralist analysis. But unfortunately these are the quips and catch phrases that emerge from the field after it is boiled down to a concentrated, bite sized, instantly gratifying morsel that is appetizing to the vast majority of the modern audience. To wit, the example of "actor" vs "actress" is absurd. The claim is that "actor" is the default term, whereas "actress" is a modified version which carries the implication that the actress is somehow lesesr. But that is, ironically, merely the invocation of a predisposed bias - a "bias to see bias". Because we can, quite clearly and equivalently, claim that "actress" is the root term, and is modified with the "or" ending in actor to represent male actors, which would imply that the actor is somehow lesser. The only reason why one would prefer the former narrative over the latter is because of a predisposition to find sexism in favour of men and against women. This predisposition is rational - there often is such a bias in the world. But allowing that predisposition to be applied uncritically is, itself, a bias. And this gets to the fundamental issue with these various post-prefixed philosophies: Their logical positions undermine themselves by their very nature.

[@stephanklein5784]

Thank you very much, Tom. You actually could make sense of a very complex theory.

[@ideaaddict923]

Also to explore the "many interpretations" of a book etc is great but just because the language is imperfect doesn't mean that an original meaning is not intended. If I say the same thing 3 ways using different words, you will more easily discern what I men through their commonality than by throwing your hands up and saying I could have meant anything you want to interpret.

[@jaderossiter1965]

Thank you so much! That has really helped. I like your engaging approach, too!

[@carolinedixon4257]

Thanks for the summary! This is super helpful ☺️

[@Whxyte]

Not sure where I read this but I remember Derrida's quote is actually often mistranslated, actual translation is "There is no context", instead of "There is nothing outside the text". Small distinction but the difference is huge.

[@EagleSlightlyBetter]

I love the way you present!