Derrida

Like Lambert, my instincts are informed by Derrida, but I think Derrida points toward an alternative approach. In my reading, although Derrida complicates the concept of religion in terms that intersect with recent scholarship in religious studies. Even though he is not “religious” in any obvious sense, Derrida draws on upon Jewish and Christian texts (among others) in developing his project. In this way, he suggests that the relation between these traditions and modernity is too complex to be captured by the opposition between religion and its other.

بخش اول این مقاله بحث مختصری‌ست در فلسفه‌ی مقاومت و نسبت‌ش با قانون که به دو بُعد نظری مهم مفهوم مقاومت می‌پردازد: ایده‌ی ناممکن و ایده‌ی اکنون. در بخش دوم تلاش کرده‌ام تا از خلال بررسی بعضی متون و مواضع روز اصلاح‌طلبان، هم مصادیق عینی به‌محاق‌رفتن آن دو بُعد مقاومت در نظر و عمل اصلاح‌طلبی روشن شود و هم ادعای مکرر واقع‌بینی و عمل‌گرایی این گروه مورد ارزیابی قرار گیرد

This paper examines Jacques Derrida's deconstruction of Giorgio Agamben's account of the history of bio-politics in the Beast and the Sovereign. According to Agamben, the 'threshold of bio-political modernity' is identified with the collapse of an allegedly immemorial distinction between life and the law. As Derrida argues, however, this in-distinction between life and the law, which supposedly marks the historical emergence of the bio-political, is in fact an originary event. Agamben, therefore, announces a bio-political modernity that has always already existed. In this essay, I argue that Derrida, in the Beast and the Sovereign, fails to grasp the significance of one of the principal figures employed in Agamben's theory of the bio-political, the 'threshold'. This figure, which Agamben opposes, elsewhere in his writings, to the Derridean notion of difference/deferral, does not refer to either an historical beginning or something that has always already existed. Rather, the threshold is defined as a particular moment in which an originary phenomenon becomes a decisive historical norm. In his 'history' of the bio-political, therefore, Agamben identifies the modernity of the latter in terms of the historical normalization of an in-distinction between law and life that has always already occurred.

Głównym celem artykułu jest zbiorcze ukazanie wizji, trudności, problemów szkolnictwa wyższego w Polsce. Przedstawiam hipotezy o pęknięciu społeczeństwa wychowującego, o którym pisał Zbigniew Kwieciński, izomorfizacji kierunków i homogenizacji dyscyplin, z równoczesnym poglądem o interdyscyplinarności kierunków. Poboczne tematy, które omawiam, to m.in. branding, podwójne wykluczenie, erozja klasowa, Polski Współczynnik Wpływu, wahadło Polanyiego, przymus pracy rozumiany za Michelem Foucaultem jako pozbawienie prawa do wolności majątku, narzucanie własnych poglądów na temat rozumienia rzeczywistości. Niniejszy artykuł porusza też możliwe rozwiązania problemów w sytuacji polskiego uniwersytetu, m.in. Derridowską dekonstrukcję rozumianą jako krytykę wszystkiego (rekonstrukcję starego i dekonstrukcję tego starego na nowe) – w ramach uniwersytetu bezwarunkowego, łączenie starego z nowym, zdobywanie środków finansowych czy wdrażanie ludzi do nieposłuszeństwa.

In this paper I critically examine Heidegger’s interpretation of Trakl, focusing in particular on a possibility it opens up but just as soon forecloses: namely, the idea that spirit is inherently and insuperably riven. Rather than allowing for the inevitability of discord, distress, and dissemination—as his own logic seems to demand—Heidegger tranquilizes the pain of being, turning it into a force of gathering and an actor in a rather conventional three-part drama about ontological history.

Col Mito non bisogna andare di fretta
(I. Calvino)

La leggerezza di Calvino è la leggerezza della struttura
e la leggerezza del Mito.
Medusa, Pegaso, Le Metamorfosi di Ovidio e quant'altro. I riferimenti sono innumerevoli.
Capire che la leggerezza è struttura e mito significa capire che la leggerezza sta all'Origine. La nostra Origine, l'antica Grecia. Odisseo e Polifemo e "Il mio nome è Nessuno".
La Matrice di tutte le Storie fino a Beautiful e oltre.
Ovviamente dentro tutte le Storie c'è la Metafisica
(Eco sosteneva che il Giallo è un genere Metafisico, perché ha a che fare con la ricerca della Verità)
Ovviamente ce l'ha spiegato Derrida, giocado il gioco contemporaneo "Chi ha davvero superato la metafisica?"
Gioco che Heidegger gioca con Nietzsche e poi, appunto, Derrida Giocherà con Heidegger.
(Per inciso, quando conferirono a Derrida un premio filosofico gli Analitici contestarono la cosa sostenendo che "Questa è Letteratura". Infatti Derrida primeggia tra i letterati come una stella polare, e con la Decostruzione, forse, ha raggiunto davvero un punto fondamentale).
Ricapitoliamo.
Struttura, Mito, Decostruzione.
Queste tre cose sono la Leggerezza.
E la Decostruzione, per l'appunto, decostruisce.
Cioè scompone un discorso nei suoi elementi costitutivi e lo ricombina secondo l'Isotopia scelta dal lettore.
E così di lettore in lettore il Testo originale genera tutti i discorsi possibili, come la Biblioteca di Babele, il che ovviamente genera il Caos.
Ma il Caos non è affatto quella cosa brutta che tutti pensano.
Al contrario il Caos è anch'esso l'Origine (E anche questo lo dicono i Miti)
E l'Origine è ciò che noi stessi siamo, qui e ora.
La nostra Essenza (L'Essere dell'Esserci)
l'Autenticità
la Temporalità (E anche questo è Heidegger)
Si diceva Struttura, Mito, Decostruzione.
Ebbene ecco che ciò che resta
è la Decostruzione, che è Derrida che rinvia ad Heidegger che rinvia a Nietzsche e così via.
Perché tutto rinvia a tutto
come nesso Semiosi Ermetica.
E anche questa è l'Origine.
Ma di questo, forse, un'altra volta.

Derrida’s intellectual itinerary shows a progressive reconciliation with Lévinas’ ethical thinking. “Violence and Metaphysics”, one of Derrida’s earlier essays, was highly critical of Lévinas’ “phallotheology”, whereas his later works were more receptive to the Levinasian analysis on hospitality, “cities of refuge” (villes-refuges) and justice. This essay will discuss the mutual terminological exchanges between Derrida and Lévinas as well as some divergences between the two thinkers regarding the deconstruction project. Finally, we will see how Derrida distinguishes himself from Lévinas’ ethics by bringing an end to the search for the conditions of possibility of experience in favour of a more radical experience of the impossible and the inconditional.

In the wake of "The Gift of Death" by Jacques Derrida, I wish to present, in this essay, a theological and philosophical "precision" of sorts, whilst highlighting the very specificity of its nature. In other words, I will attempt to be precise regarding a theological issue whose subject is "precision". I will do so using central theological terms - such as “The One", "the Binding", "Sacrifice" and "the Self" - employed under the logic that bind them as well as their supporting theological systems.
Emulating the psycho-conceptual analytic process expressed in the works of Derrida, Levinas, Lacan and Freud, I attempt here to examine a number of philosophical and psychoanalytic possibilities regarding the conceptualization of the One and of faith in the One. To this end, I will offer and analyse the different and varied logics at work – like the logic of "repression", "inclusion", "supplement" – as well as others that serve an ad hoc analytical purpose.
My goal is to understand the relation between the religious procedures that are considered monotheistic - including the formulation of the idea of “The One” - and the concept born out of an infamous Biblical story. This story and concept lie at the heart of the monotheistic dynamic, with different emphases given in each of its manifestations within the different monotheistic frameworks. Needless to say, the story and concept in question are, of course, that of the “Binding of Isaac” ("Akedah" in Hebrew which, as we will see, is inaccurately translated as “sacrifice”), the act which knows how to both harness and simultaneously harm.
In a certain manner, it is the meaning of that “of course” which will be examined. For the Biblical story of the “Binding of Isaac” binds together the figures of God, the Father, the Son, the Mother and the Animal, whilst simultaneously also causing them harm. However, it also performs the same double movement of binding and harming to the three historical derivatives of the infamous religious procedure that although intended to serve “the One” also retroactively inscribes differences between what we now call Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Working from personal interest and from an existential moment – one that also stems from a critical Jewish sensibility – the logical relations between the conceptual sisters “Judaism” and “Christianity” will receive special attention, and be examined as the ramifications of a historical religious existence.

Resumo: Este ensaio aborda a questão do animal no filme “Au hasard Balthasar” (1966), de Robert Bresson. A discussão proposta inspira-se em reflexões do filósofo Jacques Derrida no livro O animal que logo sou (1999), e também nos estudos de Maria Esther Maciel sobre animais e animalidade. A partir da análise do filme, é possível argumentar que Bresson apresenta uma forma disruptiva de representação do animal, optando por manter a alteridade do burro Balthasar e se se recusando a tratá-lo como mera metáfora para o humano. O ensaio se estrutura com base em alguns pontos do texto derridiano, a saber, os que dizem respeito à nomeação, à linguagem, ao olhar, e ao sofrimento.

El objeto del presente artículo es hablar sobre el fundamento del perdón, y en con- secuencia de los actos de perdón, como los que se consideran en el Derecho Penal. Para ello, se realiza en primer lugar una semblanza histórica, donde se muestra que el indulto ha estado presente en todos los tiempos de modo casi paralelo a la comi- sión de los delitos. Posteriormente se distingue, para explicar las líneas de justifica- ción de la clemencia, entre un modelo racional y otro “irracional”. En el primer caso, se apunta (a) a la equidad —como búsqueda de justicia en el caso concreto— y (b) la idea de bien común. La segunda fuente de justificación opera sobre la base de la deconstrucción del concepto de perdón, y su asociación con lo imperdonable, lo que descentra su racionalidad en sentido esencialista, y lo sitúa en la línea de la noción de “huella” que propone Jacques Derrida.

In the essay "Language in the Poem," Heidegger situates the entire body of Trakl's poetic work under the banner of a restricted conception of detachment (Abgeschiedenheit). Nearly every key term in his essay is subjected to etymological scrutiny; about the origins of detachment, however, Heidegger remains silent. In this paper I make use of Derrida's way of reading other important terms in "Language in the Poem" in order to argue that detachment is one of the most problematic, most deconstructible concepts in Heidegger's text. And yet it is not, for all that, an exclusively problematic concept. Rather, when loosed from the strictures that Heidegger puts on it, detachment may be a useful way to think about the very work and love of deconstruction.

ÖZ
Bu makale Jacques Derrida’nın dekonstrüksiyonu tarafından önü açılan politik olasılıkları araştırmaktadır. Derrida’nın siyaset felsefesine doğrudan değinmemesi bu amaca ulaşılmasını güçleştirmektedir. Ancak Derrida, Carl Schmitt ve Walter Benjamin gibi önemli figürlerin felsefelerini dekonstrüksiyona uğratmaktan çekinmemiştir. Bu nedenle, Derrida’nın Schmittçi ve Benjaminci felsefeleri ele alışının incelenmesi dekonstrüksiyonun siyaset açısından konumlandırılabileceği bir alan sağlayabilir. Fakat, böyle bir çaba büyük ihtimalle başarısız olacaktır. Nitekim, herhangi bir dekonstrüksiyon çabası dekonstraktif bir okuma veya metin şeklinde ortaya çıkar ve bu tür bir dekonstrüksiyon çabasının tekrar dekonstrüksiyona uğratılması mümkündür. Yine de bu tespit yalnızca dekonstrüksiyonun nihaî bir siyasî uğrağının olmadığı anlamına gelmektedir.

ABSTRACT
This article inquires into political possibilities opened up by Jacques Derrida’s deconstruction. The fact that Derrida did not contact political philosophy directly renders the task at hand difficult to accomplish. Nevertheless, Derrida has applied deconstruction to the political philosophies of important figures like Carl Schmitt and Walter Benjamin. Therefore, examining Derrida’s account of Schmittian and Benjaminian philosophies may provide an area where deconstruction can be located in terms of politics. Such effort will however most likely fail since any effort of deconstruction has to appear as deconstructive reading or text and it is possible to further deconstruct a deconstructive effort. Still, such determination only means that deconstruction does not have a terminal political resort.