Jacques Derrida was one of the most influential and also one of the most polarizing philosophers of the twentieth century. With his method of "deconstruction," Derrida provided critiques not only of literary trends and philosophical ideas but also political institutions. He won many followers among humanists, but analytical philosophers tended to be skeptical that Deconstructionism was anything more than a fancy name for a mélange of half-understood ideas. John and Ken take on Derrida and his ideas with Joshua Kates from Indiana University, author of菲尔丁·德里达:哲学、历史和其他领域的解构。
Joshua Kates, Professor of English at Indiana University, joins John and Ken for an exploration of Deconstruction, Jacques Derrida's most important contribution to philosophy. The conversation begins with some contentions surrounding his work. As Ken points out, Derrida worked in the Continental tradition of philosophy, a style that conflicts with Analytical methodology. Ken notes that since both he and John trained in the latter practice, they feel a predisposition to criticize, and maybe even dismiss, Derrida's ideas. With this in mind, John reminds us Philosophy Talk exists to challenge prejudice. Therefore, we must set aside our personal biases as we explore this controversial but seminal figure.
With regard to the study of language, Analytic and Continental philosophers have been at odds for quite some time. Analytic philosophers adopt a logocentric approach to the study of language, meaning that they aim to elicit meaning from the elements of the language, such as syntax and context. Additionally, they value speech over the written word. To justify this preference, consider an analogy. Suppose that a pair of individuals fight face to face. When this happens, they establish a direct, interpersonal relationship with each other. Now, consider a similar scenario in which one person throws a rock at another. With the help of a tool (the rock), the thrower is able to act at a distance. Certain interpersonal elements depart from the original relationship such that direct relation is no longer necessary. This example, John states, is analogous to the development of the written word, such that people no longer need to speak directly in order to communicate.
Although the previous example raises interesting questions regarding the effectiveness of written language, Kates replies that Derrida intended to reevaluate not the written word but the entire hierarchy itself. To do this, Derrida proposed deconstructionism, a new technique for literary interpretation. He never questioned the factuality of speech arising before the written word. However, to structure speech and writing hierarchically is to adopt, in Kates's words, a “narrow teleological approach to language.” Privileging speech over the written word forgets that language can also exist independently of the speaker, thereby neglecting one of language's essential characteristics.
解构主义的内在运作仍然是一个问题。根据凯特的说法，解构文本并不是把它分解成它的组成部分，而是在这个过程中构建一个新的意义。德里达想让读者不仅从内容的角度，而且从它所缺乏的内容的角度来看待一篇文章。例如，如果一篇美国历史文本省略了关于奴隶制残暴的信息或评论，那么这篇文本实际上代表了这个主题，但与包含这个主题的文本是以不同的方式呈现的。肯仍然持怀疑态度，重新阐述了西方经典名著在被解构后是否仍然具有相关性的问题。虽然我们从未得到一个结论性的答案，但凯特从德里达对美国宪法的批评中提供了一个解构的例子。以序言的第一句话为例，“我们人民……”凯特评论说，德里达提出了这样的问题:“在他们写文本之前，‘人民’是否存在?如果存在，他们是谁?”以及“在开国元勋们写下这个国家存在之前，它是否存在过一个国家，或者其他类似的东西?”最后，经常听哲学谈话的格雷格·斯莱特(Greg Slat中国伊朗亚洲杯比赛直播er)给解构主义下了一个定义，即“识别文本所基于的潜台词假设”。这个解释似乎让持怀疑态度的人感到满意。
