Analysis of structure sign and play in the discourse of human sciences by jacques derrida

This statement is repeated a little farther on: Still, Derrida stops short of embracing Nihilism. Derrida proceeds to claim that once the opposition between nature and culture is questioned, there is no way to separate nature and culture, and they become indistinguishable.

Jacques Derrida

And it plays the game without security. In consequence, the unity of the myth is only tendential and projective; it never reflects a state or a moment of the myth.

Reciprocal destroyers[ edit ] Derrida depicts NietzscheFreudand Heideggerthree of his greatest influences, as ultimately trapped within a destructive spiral of denunciation.

Structure Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Science

Penguin Books,ff. Derrida differed from other participants by his lack of explicit commitment to structuralism, having already been critical of the movement. The superabundance of the signifier, its supplementary character, is thus the result of a finitude, that is to say, the result of a lack which must be supplemented.

He met with Palestinian intellectuals during a visit to Jerusalem. Derrida asks, "What of this meantime? For example, Whitman writes: Derrida suggests that this model of structure will end—is ending—and that a newer and freer though still unknown thinking about structures will emerge.

In opposition to epistemic discourse, structural discourse on myths- mythological discourse-must itself be mythomorphic.

What is now called "theory" in this country may even have an essential link with what is said to have happened there in The deed, as Hesiod makes clear, is an epochal one that brings the Golden Age to a close and inaugurates the rule of Zeus with his victory over the pre-metaphysical age Titans, crowned by his stealing the metaphysical vulva from the Great Mother and giving birth to Athena, goddess of the age of logocentric wisdom and rationality that will soon follow.

Derrida mentioned, in particular, "everything I say about the media, technology, the spectacle, and the 'criticism of the show', so to speak, and the markets — the becoming-a-spectacle of everything, and the exploitation of the spectacle.

Ethnology is caught up in a similar paradox as the metaphysics of deconstruction. Since the center lacks locus, center is not the center. What is the relevance of this formal schema when we turn to what are called the "human sciences"?

There is therefore a critique of language in the form of bricolage, and it has even been possible to say that bricolage is the critical language itself. I searched the Internet for some stories about Derrida that can shed light on his character.

If one erases the radical difference between signifier and signified, it is the word signifier itself which ought to be abandoned as a metaphysical concept. It describes the form of the relationship between the history of metaphysics and the destruction of the history of metaphysics.

When Levi-Strauss says in the preface to The Raw and the Cooked that he has "sought to transcend the opposition between the sensible and the intelligible by placing [himself] from the very beginning at the level of signs," the necessity, the force, and the legitimacy of his act cannot make us forget that the concept of the sign cannot in itself surpass or bypass this opposition between the sensible and the intelligible.

But the prime objective of deconstruction is not to destroy the meaning of text but is to show how the text deconstructs itself. The one seeks to decipher, dreams of deciphering, a truth or an origin which is free from freeplay and from the order of the sign, and lives like an exile the necessity of interpretation.

Such is the algebraic formality of the problem as I see it. One of them perhaps occupies a privileged place-ethnology. Both belong to a single and same era.

Derrida leaves no doubt as to his position when he indicates that Nietzsche pointed the way. But in no instance can the requirement of a total mythical discourse be raised as an objection.

Derrida insisted that a distinct political undertone had pervaded his texts from the very beginning of his career. All we can do is refuse to allow either pole in a system to become the center and guarantor of presence. Shall we have to abandon any epistemologica; requirement which permits us to distinguish between several qualities of discourse on the myth?

But if nobody can escape this necessity, and if no one is therefore responsible for giving in to it, however little, this does not mean that all the ways of giving in to it are of an equal pertinence. It is possible to keep deconstructing philosophy, language, or anything and still be safe in the world of play.

This is an example of deconstruction, which must continue to use what it is deconstructing.Jacques Derrida first read his paper “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of Human Sciences ()” at the John Hopkins International Colloquium on “The Language of Criticism and the Sciences of Man” in October articulating for the first time a post structuralist theoretical paradigm.

Back to Jacques Derrida, "Cogito and the History of Madness" and "Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences" > Return to the parent page for this online CyberSeminar, "The Continental Origins of Postmodernism.". May 17,  · [ix] See “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences,” in Jacques Derrida, Writiing and Difference, trans.

Alan Bass (The University of Chicago Press, ), esp. This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 17th, at pm and is filed under Uncategorized.

Structure Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Science The present essay can be regarded as the manifesto of post modernism, deconstruction and post structuralism.

Jacques Derrida Structure Sign and Play in the Discourse of Human Sciences Jacques Derrida () first presented ‘Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of Human Sciences’ as a paper in a conference titled ‘The Language of Criticism and the Sciences of Man’,held at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, USA in This lecture was later published as a chapter in one of Derrida’s seminal.

"Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences" Jacques Derrida, Writing and Difference, trans.

Alan Routledge, pp Perhaps something has occurred in the history of the concept of structure that could be called an "event," if this loaded word did not entail a meaning which it is precisely the function of structural-or structuralist-thought to reduce or.

Analysis of structure sign and play in the discourse of human sciences by jacques derrida
Rated 5/5 based on 64 review