Wish this came out when I started my dissertation lol respect all the same my guy

I remember how I first heard Michael's Jackson's song "Black or White" and I couldn't put my finger on what was so wrong with it. Then I realized: it's the word order! It felt right to say "white or black", but it felt intuitively wrong to hear him sing "black or white". I'm white, and he was black... So I drew the conclusion that we always put what is more important to us as the first of such a dual binary. But I didn't think of it in terms of privilege or deeply enough. Although the fact that in books I'd always read "men and women", "boys and girls", but never in reversed order, annoyed me. I remember meeting a woman once who said "women and men", in that order, and I instantly knew that she paid attention to the word order, too, because otherwise she'd say "men and women" automatically. My guess was confirmed when she used the same word order once again, it was certainly not a fluke. ;) P.S. Now that I'm a cat owner, it never fails to create a passing feeling of confusion whenever I read "dogs and cats". It's subtle, yet it feels wrong to me. Like, how could anyone EVER write "dogs and cats"?! Do they care for boring dogs more than for magnificent cats?! :D

i've been listening to the podcast the whole time and now i see the video. fantastic. i have no word to describe how i have been benefiting from the lectures. how can you do so much reading. thank you thank you..

Your channel is the best school of philosophy on earth. And yourself is the best teacher of philosophy on earth in our modern time.

thank you for rhis! it really helped. understood more than i did from an entire semester of college.

I cannot thank you enough!!!!!! This really helped me better understand Derrida and now I feel better writing my essay for ENG362. Thank you thank you thank you :')

Love this glad i found your channel. You really make Derrida more clear than other philosophy youtubers

Thank you so much! I would never understand this without your video 😁

Thank god for you, everyone else i watched on this subject just waffled on about rubbish, you were so helpful.

Loving your work my bro.

Also looking forward to your dig into grammatology.. really enjoying this impartation of the binary and its analysis. This idea is starting to take root in my mind

That's actually one of the best and clearest explanations of the term I've heard on KZfaq. Did you ever think of making a video on Niklas Luhmann's system theory?

Beautiful explanation.. Keep it up.

Great channel, subscribed!

This relationship between binaries reminds me of when the joker tells batman "you complete me"... and he goes on to say that him and the batman aren't that different, despite being opposites they still share something in common in that they're both freaks. There would be no such thing as light without dark, there would be no such thing as hot without cold, and there would be no such thing as happy without sad.

that was very helpful thank you 🙏🏻

Thank you for this comprehensive short lecture on deconstruction!

Just found your channel, very good stuff!

Dude. Thank you. I can read shit and listen to my professor ramble on and it sounds like just a random word generator. This makes sense. Thank you.

You're doing an impressive job, 🤞

Could listen to you all day! lol

Hi, thanks for this, good to see this kind of stuff on KZfaq. I just wonder what your references are for the section about speech and writing? I ask because I don't quite recognise what you're thinking of in the section on writing and speech. You use the word "frivolous" which sounds like maybe "Archeology of the Frivolous", which I haven't read... the clearest version of JD on speech and writing that I've seen, which I perhaps wrongly thought was *the* text on that theme, is "Signature Event Context". Maybe you could do a video on that?

Seen a few other comments alluding to this, but i would love if you could explain, or point me towards an explanation, of how this is different from dialectics? Seems like nothing new is being said here by Derrida, but I assume I'm missing something important

Thank you for this clear explanation; but on the point of speech and writing, Derrida does not argue which precedes the other. He is just saying that they are complementary and superimosed.

you are awesome man, keep it up 😃👍

You are obviously very bright and I appreciate the incite as I attempt to understand postmodernism. I normally would not spend so much time in Alice in Wonderland but you need to try to understand this insanity if you are attempting to understand 2024 less alone 1984. With most of Postmodernism's contradictions its incredible that Derrida would rely on speech and writing to communicate his theories and that we would be able to comprehend it. It all seems like an absolute abandonment of logic and reason. This reminds of conversations where way to much dope or lsd was consumed. I should of wrote all down and sold it. I do thank you for taking the time for the presentation. It was very well done.

At first I watched it because you were a pleasant distraction... like the binary of hot vs cold, you being the preferred ;) but turns out you are articulate as well. icing.

I've recently become more aware of how much certain people hate French philosophers and I'm trying to make sense of it all. Chomsky was pretty brutal towards them. I don't really agree with everything he said, but I kind of understand where he's coming from. I wonder if you would consider doing some kind of a video on that.

All binaries are dependent upon each other in order to exit at all. There is no up without down, black without white, left without right, male without female, etc. So I don't see how either one could ever be primary and the other secondary, because that would mean that one came first, but since they depend upon each other in order exist, they must co-arise. Like, imagine "up" being the cause of "down". That is inconceivable because one cannot imagine up existing at any point without down also existing. As far as whether or not binaries exist in nature, I think that depends in part on how one conceives "nature". If nature is meant as only the physical world observed by the senses, then maybe they don't. But if ones concept of nature includes the Interior/subjective element of existence, then they could be considered to be an aspect of nature by virtue of existing in the psyche.

This is quite good

To step back from the already-made decision and undecide.

Your words have more presence with the visual -- easier to understanding.

Thank you for the video. Out of curiosity, do you consider Derrida a great thinker outside of his historical important (i.e. influence)?

Great contact man! Really insightful. Where are you from? You sound Canadian!

Thank you!😉

Not really any further interested in Derrida after this (wasn't before either), but i appreciate someone speaking in relatively clear terms about what they've encountered in their surely arduous journeys through the mists. One interesting question that seems overlooked, is under what circumstances would a dichotomy/binary be a good enough model in order to reason well and efficiently, and make decisions, and when do we need more differentiation and to emphasize commonalities. We surely only need to make _enough_ sense of the world in any particular situation, simplifications have their time and place. Good/bad, sane/crazy, order/chaos, thumb up/thumb down - the context decides whether applying either of these does a good enough job. Usually they work in practical decision making situations, but it may be that these binaries are so useful and used so habitually that they pander to mental imprecision and bigotry. The idea of binaries imposing command begs explanation. I'd argue that a simplistic understanding or discussion of things in binaries could be the opposite of imposing command. Think in black and white about how your enemy or nature works, whenever nuance and subtlety is important, and you'll likely lose, you will have command be imposed over you. However, whenever that's not important, there's a massive practical advantage in being clear, quick and decisive by thinking in simplest possible terms, including using binaries. The use of the word "privilege", commonly used to denote institutionalised and unfair advantage, to one of the pair, also begs explanation.Obivously, if you have two different things they won't sum up as equally positive or attractive, why bring in the concept of privilege here? Is good "privileged" over bad? Why not just call it "preferred"?

Great content! Sounds like dialectic relations ... Where do dialectics (Lacanian-/hegelian) and deconstruction part ways in terms of negativity/negation?

Any plans on covering Marshall McLuhan? Love your videos by the way!

You are great!!!!!

Have you uploaded the video on Of Gramatology?

I do think Rousseau has a point when it comes to speech and writing. Speaking is a more "personal" experience and can convey more than the written word. But I also agree with Derrida that speech and writing are not so different, both flow from the same source and can be seen as "the same". I also don't think writing will destroy civilisation. But I do think not talking to each other is a danger. And that speaking is more "natural" or "innate", though we've already questioned what being natural even means.

Awesome

which book would you suggest to understand the deconstruction better?

Could you talk about Jean-Luc Marion?

That thing about "subordinating binaries" is interesting to me as someone who's often thought "isn't listing man first in Man and Woman a bit sexist?" So I will try and mix this up a bit. I also notice I tend to say Black and White since that's how I learned. So I think this is both the idea of privilege and habit. Also, this also makes me think of the concept of Yin And Yang: two seemingly opposite yet complimentary forces that cannot exist without the other.

David is theory daddie omg

I don't think this is a "discovery" per se. Hegel already talked about the dialectic, Derrida merely seemed to show a method of synthesis without drawing a conlcusion. Even before him we knew of the hermeneutics. The only thing he added to this mix seems to be scepticism towards understanding anything from the process of construction and deconstruction. He basically played himself by contradicting deconstruction to construction, he should have seen them as the same thing, or just part of the process of understanding. But then he would have realized all he did was playing dialectic with himself.

Can someone please explain this part to me? At around 7:25 you say "primitivism, archaism all of these kinds of isms that are meant to subordinate so-called natural living to cultural living". How can primitivism and archaism subordinate natural living? Aren't these pro natural living? By hearing that I seem to get the idea that primitivism and archaism are against natural living? I would like to have some explainations.

Did the Of Grammatology video ever happen?

This is my favorite ASMR channel!

can you give me theses or dissertations using deconstruction, thanks for the help Sir...

Passive verbs typically do not facilitate understanding. When you state, "It was imposed on the world," the obvious question is "who" imposed it?

This guy is great. Natural

Richard Feynman once said: "IF YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN TO ME WITH CLARITY WHAT YOU KNOW, THEN YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING." That is a lesson Jacques Derrida NEVER learned; and I know, because I took a course with him at Yale

Don't mind me I'm just here for my most favourite combination: gun show and academia

Binary is more benign than dialectic and duality. Positive and negative are different yet equal ( necessary) parts of energy. A circuit being a specific effect from cause created by one or the other together, -Codependancy. Language therefore in the relationship or circuit inevitably becomes a self fulfilling prophecy . Change or decnstruction doesnt happen, it just expands.

Looking forward to Of Grammatology!

seriously, thank you so much!!!!! :(((

Why does being primary imply being privileged in the binary necessarily? Humans evolved from animals, but this belief doesn't affect the hierarchical relation of value between the terms with humans remaining the privileged term in circles where evolution is universally accepted.

Great video. Thanks. Ok, but is this not semantics? Language is just a way to categorise experience into useful categories. So we have the concepts of man and woman because it is very useful to make this distinction in certain circumstances. Was Derrida suggesting that we eliminate these distinctions? That is a concept is created by a list of necessary attributes things must have in order to belong to a certain group. The binary of a particular concept will lack some of those attributes. I can see how a binary can be subsumed under a more general category (man vs woman under human for example) or how some binaries are a spectrum and boundary between the boundaries can be blurred at some points. Maybe he is right that there is no archetype or platonic ideal or anything. But on the level philosophy of language I'm finding it hard to see his contribution - which may probably be due to my lack of knowledge of his work.

Derrida is just trying to re-define "oxymoron". Oxymoron is like saying "the defeaning silence". The same can be said with "the Urban Jungle".

8:05min Because it happens when you raise a child. The process of rearing, the extent of relevance of the mother, and father, are crucial for the kid to get access to language, and become a social subject. The prohibition to incest occurs, in that empirically precise sense, before they develop their capacities to enter culture: develop a set of linguistic faculties. The same applies to speech. It by necessity must take place before writing. It is not possible to learn how to write first, and then learn how to speak.

I wonder how Derrida defines originality. The repressed term is still opposed to the dominant one, has no meaning without it. Isnt this distinction just the result of empiri-positivist engagement with cultures of speech? I mean, how do we actually know which term is the repressed one? And how can this justify actual claims about power relations as Spivak does?

That chapter

so is deconstruction kinda sorta like a dialectic?

Hey hey

The lower class has a word for "deconstruction". It's "bitchin'"

black and white

You left a lot to be desired

Did you just explain sinthome!?

Thank you for explaining, however, now I understand more completely I now conclude more strongly, that it is a load of complete nonsense. The emperors new clothes.

Gurdjieff : Triamazikamno Ouspensky ::Law Of Three

Ok

MILP (Man I love philosophy)

“La déconstruction est avant tout la réaffirmation d'un "oui" originaire.” What does Derrida understand by this sort of transcendental “yes”? It seems quasi-religious.

You know, I could parrot back what you said when arguing with a postmodernist and they would say I don't understand it and you can't define it. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying leftists will never allow it to be defined.

Real(buddhism) and Truth (Western philosophy). Real is priviliged. Truth is the Non-priviliged. but as we have it the Truth is always accompanied with Falsehood. and the hight of Western Thought (is not philosophy) its the Computer. (tho in history in dialectic perhaps Real and Nothing may have overcome Computer.

What is the practical application of deconstruction ?!! What is Derrida's solution of the binary say , black/white. White is superior , black means inferior or "other" ?! This culture of Black/white is pretty much a part of Western culture for centuries. We normally say black/white where black is inferior , white is superior in general. So would differ with you a little regarding your logic of binary logic.

Deconstruction is the Ying Yang symbol

Deconstruct the holy Bible, ohhhhh, that’s right. My job on behalf of the whole. Like to hear it, then here it go. The task, finding god or no god between the pages of the book. If you find no god, you will also find a law of no god that is equal to being of good morals and ethics with fidelity to that which you believe. If you find god you will find a law of god that is equal to being of good morals and ethics with fidelity to that which you believe. So between the search for god is a seminal truth of the message which is stated as: non-violence (more precisely stated as non-aggression). If you fail to keep faith with Constitutional positives then a judiciary is supposed to get you. If that Judiciary does not perform then Karma will - or so we think. Don’t we, boss. Folks we are setting up for WW III but Deriada buys us some time with the idea of Deconstruction. Now maybe I’m wrong or missed something. I’ll go back and double check. Nope. The problem is aggression and the solution is non-aggression. A lot to think about without considering a lot, especially for those whom have sought to betray that which was spoken loudly and was known to be accurate. The essence or shall we say truth between the pages comes forward to haunt those whom would relegate it to the junk pile of written history. Power to the people, with a little help from Derrida and friends.

so his whole argument is based on a metaphysical (and incorrect) concept of how language works.

Jordan Peterson should watch this, since he doesn't understand jack shit about Derrida.

The binary between men and women is sex, not gender.

First

When you apply pure logic to this..does it really make sense..?

I thought I could spare 16 mins to understand the fashionable idea of deconstruction. Unfortunately this video did not help. The idea of binaries was simple enough but you didn't explain why this was useful and the examples used didn't clarify. Why would spoken words be any different to the written word, both convey the same meaning with the only difference that if its complex then writing gives you the opportunity to re-read. I suspect that the people who praised the video already knew what deconstruction was.

.

Writing is non-Godly?? Hello??? The bible????

Strange how you politically corrected yourself to say "white and black", even though I have heard people say black and white a million times and this is the first time I hear it in the form of "white and black". What's strange about it actually is that you are putting white in a privileged position by means o which you are appealing to the claim that black is always subordinated. :D Not sure if on purpose or unconscious.

Thanks. Now I understand why ivy league students know nothing.

♊️♓️☯️☪️🆎️binaries (+,×)(-,÷). When I first heard the term deconstructed used, it seemed rather fatuous. Oh, Deride not Derida... But, truly, what a load of waffle. 🤮

There is NO GOOD REASON TO DECONSTRUCT ANYTHING. STOP IT!😡

i love you not

Never really been impressed with Derrida. There is some truth to his 'binary' argument, but on the whole it appears to be contrived. Of course there are obvious overlaps between a biological male and a biological female-both are humans among many other things. But there are also very distinct characteristics that clearly distinguishes the two, the chromosome difference and the reproductive system for example. Biological sex is explicitly binary (notwithstanding the very rare cases of intersex).

How seriously do people take Derrida? I'm sure there are things in his work that are useful, but the central thrust seems pretty ridiculous at first glance. I haven't read anything of his but have heard learned a little about it from other sources. It feels very academic, and I mean that in the worst possible way. Is it not just the silly meditations of an academic who fails to actually contend with the real world outside academia? I have the same opinion of a few of the other thinkers in this vein as well like Baudrillard, but for them I find much more of value in their thought as well. What are Derrida's most valuable insights? Anything?

do not read this!

Terrible explanation! Not recommended. This is a very poor explanation of deconstruction.

Derridas entire philosophy of meaning,words and language turns out to be a vicious regress. It is generated by the principle that one’s coming to know the meaning of a word must always be based on a prior understanding of other words (where no word recurs in the series). If this prin- ciple is correct, then one can know the meaning of a word w1 only on the basis of previously understanding the meanings of other words (w2 and w3). But a further application of the principle yields the result that one can under- stand these words (w2 and w3) only on the basis of understanding still other words. This leads to an infinite regress. Since no one understands any words at birth (or an infinite number of them), the regress implies that no one ever comes to understand any words. But this is clearly false. Since the existence of this regress is inconsistent with an obvious truth, we may conclude that the regress is vicious and consequently that the principle that generates it is false, Derridas BS philosophy.