Talk:Jacques Derrida

Latest comment: 2 months ago by EEng
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 17, 2008Peer reviewReviewed

Influenced: David Foster Wallace — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B02E:3E49:E106:B3FA:9EB4:C102 (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).== Translations ==

I think the article needs a section on how to translate Derrida's ideas into terms intelligible to people here on earth. EEng 08:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

It is all just rubbish, but useful, because if you read anything that quotes him, or Heidegger too, you can just chuck away what you are reading. Esedowns (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Whew! That's very reassuring. I thought it was just me. EEng 17:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
The Criticism from Anglophone philosophers section does a good job of demolishing his would-be status as an philosopher. The quote of Roger Scruton says it all: "He's difficult to summarise because it's nonsense. He argues that the meaning of a sign is never revealed in the sign but deferred indefinitely and that a sign only means something by virtue of its difference from something else. For Derrida, there is no such thing as meaning – it always eludes us and therefore anything goes." Carlstak (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I had the opportunity to study under Roger Scruton during his tenure at Birkbeck, and I distinctly recall him expressing admiration for Derrida's intellect, even admitting to a sense of envy. Moreover, any earnest student delving into Derrida's philosophy understands that the core of deconstruction is to illustrate how meaning is perpetually deferred. 94.205.38.119 (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Which of course is vacuous bullshit masquerading as profundity, but what else is new? EEng 00:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply