德里达，至少在某些方面，能够写出表明他是一个劳动的人，而且是以智力方式劳动的作品——表明他与智力之间赤裸裸的语言关系，这表明他是法国人，是一个法国劳动者……德里达完成了写作与智力的基本关系，以及如何思考世界。

我没有读过德里达。看了你的文章后，我不确定我是否应该这样做，因为我对构建比解构更感兴趣。我试着去读康德的书，但没能读懂。在尝试阅读哈贝马斯的作品后，我被告知他是一个混淆论者。我想知道困惑与哲学有什么关系，因为哲学(我认为)应该是关于清晰——或者，至少是对真理的探索。我不太了解那些被视为骗子和江湖骗子的哲学家。哈贝马斯是否属于这一类?我也不知道。
我可能还会研究德里达，但还有很多人不是骗子或江湖骗子。他们的想法和作品似乎更有价值。我现在的时间比四十年前少多了。
Finally, I find it ironic that philosophers, large and small, find ways to diminish each other's ideas and life works. But, after all, it is a competitive world and those engaged in the arts, letters and sciences are no less competitive than anyone else. Dogs eat dogs. Cats are undoubtedly the better for that.

It seems that much of Derrida's later theses depend on Kristeva's intuitions of intertextuality as "borrowed" from Bahktin -- that no text exists in isolation from another. However, this also forms the krux of Derrida's disagreements with Searle as included (somewhat) in Limited, Inc. Derrida (as I read him) assumes that the metaphysics of language determine the metaphysics of space-time, whereas Searle (as I understand him) sees the metaphysics of language as determined by the metaphysics of space-time within biological/neurological constraints. What consequences might follow for something like biological naturalism (or "realism" in any of its flavors) if thinkers adopt such a paradigm of intertextuality? And why do we grant practitioners or scholars in the arts free-reign with such non-falsifiable claims, when we stipulate much more stringent guidelines for the "hard sciences"?

Can I at least see one simple axample of a deconstructed text?
I found your guest to be sincere and a good sport, but I never heard him actually deconstruct even one sentence. John Perry asked him to deconstruct the first sentence of Lincoln's 'Gettysberg Address', but he ducked it. The name 'deconstruction' itself implies there is a procedure for doing it, like an algorithm, or at least a method. So could one of you (or your guest) show me the (written) deconstruction of this (hopefully) simple example?:
"The ball is blue"
But I have my suspicions that it is impossible to actually deconstruct anything in the way that Derrida seems to be talking about. It seems like ultimately any process of deconstruction would either be circular or endlessly recursive. It almost seems like he envisions a 'holographic' explanation of language in which even the simplest statement carries within it all of the unprovable assumptions of the entire language and the culture within which it originated.
无论如何，这就是我对肯和约翰的“解构挑战”:请解构“球是蓝色的”，并张贴解构。
ps:电脑能做解构吗?

ok, screw it. I withdraw my challenge.
I just read the wikipedia entry on deconstruction (that's about as far as I'm willing to take it), and it assures me that deconstruction is 'not a method', 'not analysis', etc.
So it's pretty useless as far as I am concerned. I am interested in philosophy as a method and set of tools for understanding oneself and the world we live in - like critical thinking and the scientific method.
I do find that it is useful and essential to identify the assumptions, biases, etc. being made in any 'text' - as best as one. Particularly in America, where obliviousness, ignorance, and disingenuousness seem to have been elevated to pre-eminent virtues, but beyond that obvious point, I cannot see how Derrida's deconstruction 'event' can lead to anything but hopeless stagnation.
但是请有人纠正我…

THE BALL IS BLUE
First, give equal significance in the process to each word.
?The? : Specifying, objectifying, inclusion (and the resulting exclusion of the ?non-the?). Think about the ways different cultures and individuals, at different times and places, use criteria for specifying, objectifying and inclusion. What methods could we use to produce understanding of how these criteria came about, and how actually impossible it is to make any real conclusions about this; but it is the process of speculating about such things that bring about an understanding of the real nature of ?the.?
?Ball? : What does the word mean? What is a ball? There are so many kinds of balls, so culturally and socially subjective. Imagine yourself trying to describe what is generic about ?ball,? in a language you don?t know, to a native speaker of that language (X). Think about looking those words up in an English/ X Language dictionary. This translation process is akin to the processing by the brain of the word ?ball.?
?Is? : Existence, truth, equivalence: Are there any more compelling philosophical issues than these? Think how culturally and socially rooted these are. All you have to do is remember Bill Clinton?s response to some inquiry about his sex life, when he answered, ?That all depends on what your definition of ?is? is.?
?Blue? : The impact of what is either (and we don?t know which) waves or particles on the retina produce a simultaneous realization in the brain that the waves or particles are impacting the same way as some memory of previous impacts. Think about the process of learning about this similarity, and then think about the range of waves or particles that will produce the ?blue? response, and where the lines between green and indigo, of blue need to be drawn, or are drawn by our brains. What cultural and historical and social forces impact on the drawing of these lines? And how does this get into our brains? Think about this: since seeing is only a mechanical process prior to involving the brain, ?blue? can be said not to really exist at all outside of one?s own consciousness: in reality, ?everything? is dark, though solid. Things are either still, or moving around and bumping off of other things, but nothing is inherently visible, or existing AS a visual thing.
As was pointed out in the show, deconstruction has two elements: 1. taking language apart in this way, and 2. when it is all stripped down, how would we build a new essential language which communicates to twenty-first century people. In the show, Ken criticized deconstruction as resulting in philosophically bad answers; Joshua defended deconstruction as asking good philosophical questions. In this way, the argument was not properly joined. Philosophy seldom concerns itself with answers (except when philosophers courageously draw lines in response to the question ?But where do you draw the line?), but relishes all methodologies of questioning. Deconstruction is just one more methodology whose process is fertile ground for exploring. It recognizes that we will NEVER achieve 2. (above), because it is impossible to reach, but the process of 1. with the object of 2., and just THINKING about and pondering the process is so much fun, and such good exercise ? doing it is ?doing philosophy? at its best.

Mr. Savinar is always thoughtful, never disappointing, and provides some pretty enlightening commentary. Ideal traits for an afficionado of philosophy---no so bad for philosophers, come to think of it.
Note to Heisenberg: I think the word is OBSCURANTIST, although I do not know where it came from. No matter. I have no time to try to decipher Habermas either.

寻找真理?
"The ball is blue" deconstructed:
"is"
=

Please show me precisely where Derrida claims to have 'permanently' moved the conversation beyond the central problem of logos? Because I'm pretty sure he never claims anything of the kind.... in fact, he states quite clearly that we are always imbricated in logos, in language and its strictures, and he himself says he is always delimited by the word. Please give an exact source so I can read this for myself. Thanks.

A philosopher matter, when the various branches of art, especially music, are being influenced by their ideas.

"We execute a sort of reversal. We privilege texts, that is, writing, over speech. The benefit of that move is that unlike speech the text is constituted as much by what it excludes as by what it includes, by absence as much as presence."
This kind of reading of Derrida is ASTOUNDINGLY simplistic and truly inexcusable from professional philosophers such as yourselves. This reading, unfortunately, seems to be the dominant one among literature circles. If Derrida's work simply promoted a privileging of writing over speech, he would be a charlatan and a hack.
The part of Derrida's project being misread here is much more nuanced: the very condition of the possibility of inquiring after anything (being, for example) is simultaneously the condition of IMpossibility of ever answering that question at all (this, of course, shows the overwhelming influence of Heidegger in Derrida's thought). The point is not to undo "logocentrism" by doing the opposite--we should do away with the opposition as such.
I don't fully agree with Derrida, but his project and oeuvre are perhaps the most misunderstood in the 20th century (To be clear, I recognize the irony of even using the phrase "misunderstood" with regard to Derrida). For a credible account of Derrida's thought see Zizek's _For They Know Not What They Do_ or Rodolphe Gasche's _The Tain of the Mirror_
Finally, if adequate explanations of "deconstruction" seem absent from Derrida's work, it is because it was not central to his philosophy. Derrida himself expressed wonderment at how it came to be synonymous with his name. But, if you must have it, his best definition is: "Deconstruction, if such a thing exists, is the experience of the impossible" (I believe that's from _Deconstruction in a Nutshell_, which is an extended interview Derrida)

我承认读德里达需要花很多功夫。为德里达辩护“反对”那些自称为英美哲学家的人可能需要做很多工作(尽管——我们不是已经越过了这个分水岭了吗?? ?)所以我不会在这么短的篇幅里为德里达辩护。
I would like to say that the tone of the introduction to this podcast was incredibly off-putting. IF there is supposed to be an attempt here at doing justice to every question, foreign or familiar, "Continental" or "Analytic", then it is not enough to say, "I know, I know. There?s a long story about how [Derrida's theory] works," in one of the most pejorative and dismissive tones of voice I've heard on the radio in a while (and that's saying a lot, given the current state of the union...).
I'd like to ask, please, for a great deal more neutrality - or journalistic integrity. Especially since there are non-philosophers out there listening, who might enjoy access to new ideas. Even ideas that you don't, personally, find compelling.

GO, KELLY, GO
Methodology is everything. Here is Derrida, strange sounding and difficult, but hinting at much. Philosophers should give such thinkers much consideration and leeway, because, even if they are at the very worst,"wrong," just the act of studying them and their positions will broaden our thinking, and improve our critical abilities. I follow a methodology I call "B12K1." Put yourself in the mind of the subject under study, try to understand, not by historical study, but by committing to the position, see where it leads, see how it feels: "Be One to Know One." Be a Muslim, or a Deconstructionist, or a Poet, or a Philosopher, to know how it feels. Start there.
That was the purpose of my little work on "The Ball is Blue," to illustrate the advantages of "trying" over "rejecting."

如果你要写德里达，请读他的作品，请试着用严谨、尊重(传统/背景/语言等)和他对所读和所写的文本所表现出的爱来读他的作品。
你的介绍，正如本布鲁尔指出的，确实代表了对德里达的一种哲学上的天真的阅读，这种阅读在历史上被“接受”，因为所谓的“分析”哲学家认为他的工作是毫无价值的(从无知的立场出发——不质疑自己的预设，行为很像那些给了苏格拉底铁毒的人，肯定不是哲学上的行为)。
你对德里达的“阅读”是直接从诺里斯的第一本书或类似的。如果文学“教授”从根本上误读了德里达的作品，那么谁该为此负责呢?文学教授或他们在哲学系的同事，他们的工作之一是澄清科学的句子(因此也包括社会科学)。
“说一点德里达式的话，可能会说，就像我们古老的以肛门为中心的，以阴茎为中心的，以标志为中心的哲学家特权标志?也就是说，意义、理性、精神——按照意义的顺序，我们认为言说先于写作。通过重视演讲而不是写作，我们重视存在而不是缺席。"
And in as much as Derrida, in Of Grammatology, seems to be 'priviliging' writing over speach he is doing the same, (which he narrowly avoids by evoking differance which is to be understood as a concept without an extension, an unsaturated concept which represnts a relationship of force, an infrastructural logic) thus he is demonstrating how the binary opposition speach/writing functions within his text, which is both a reading and a writing, and how binary oppostions function in texts generally. He does not want to critice you for taking speach as prior, he wants you to consider what in speach is 'like text', the mark etc, he is evoking contexts etc, and a world/field of refferents, hence quasi-transcendental.
Also he is not difficult, I am a 'layman' and he is perhaps harder than Ryle, perhaps easier than Wittgenstein. But more than anything he is utterly transparant, because rather than write ABOUT for instance the production of a concept he produces a concept.
这里有个线索。他的很多作品都是演示的和表现的，例如在《论语法》中，他关注的是在他自己的文本中展示他自己的形而上学的工作(在某种意义上，你的阅读已经停止了，只是缺乏理解)。你可能会说他“一切如常”。
“也就是说，如何超越一种压抑的存在形而上学，这种形而上学排斥、边缘化并无法承认那些不存在的、不同的和他者。例如，想想所有历史上在西方哲学经典中缺失的声音。女性、黑人、同性恋、穷人的声音，还有很多很多。通过佳能吗?它赋予存在的特权，却不承认什么不存在，什么不存在。"
读读《有限公司》和《人类的终结》这篇文章就知道了。
Thank you.