Jacques Derrida

@JDerridian

That philosophy died yesterday, since Hegel or Marx, Nietzsche, or Heidegger—and philosophy should still wander toward the meaning of its death—

Beyond the grave
Vrijeme pridruživanja: srpanj 2009.

Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @JDerridian

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @JDerridian

  1. 5. velj

    For the current representation, to which we are referring for a start, sovereign and beast seem to have in common their being-outside-the-law.

    Poništi
  2. 4. velj

    it is the exceptional right to place oneself above right, the right to non-right, if I can say this, which both runs the risk of carrying the human sovereign above the human, toward divine omnipotence.

    Poništi
  3. 3. velj

    and, because of this arbitrary suspension or rupture of right, runs the risk of making the sovereign look like the most brutal beast who respects nothing, scorns the law, immediately situates himself above the law, at a distance from the law.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  4. 3. velj

    I can say this, which both runs the risk of carrying the human sovereign above the human, toward divine omnipotence (which will moreover most often have grounded the principle of sovereignty in its sacred and theological origin)

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  5. 26. sij

    it is the exceptional right to place oneself above right, the right to non-right,22 if I can say this, which both runs the risk of carrying the human sovereign above the human, toward divine omnipotence

    Poništi
  6. 26. sij

    The question is all the more obscure and necessary for the fact that the minimal feature that must be recognized in the position of sovereignty, [...] is, as we insisted these last few years with respect to Schmitt, a certain power to *give, to *make, but also to *suspend the law

    Poništi
  7. 24. sij

    Is the law that reigns (in a way that is moreover differentiated and heterogeneous) in all the so-called animal societies a law of the same nature as what we understand by law in human right and human politics?

    Poništi
  8. 24. sij

    So it is the concept of law, and with it that of contract, authority, credit, and therefore many, many others that will be at the heart of our reflections.

    Poništi
  9. 24. sij

    “Social animal” does not necessarily mean political animal; every law is not necessarily ethical, juridical, or political.

    Poništi
  10. 22. sij

    Every time one puts an oppositional limit in question, far from concluding that there is identity, we must on the contrary multiply attention to differences, refine the analysis in a restructured field.

    Poništi
  11. 20. sij

    / law, physis / nomos, God, man, and animal or concerning what is “proper to man” [no more to rely on commonly accredited oppositional limits] than to muddle everything and rush, by analogism, toward resemblances and identities.

    Poništi
  12. 20. sij

    The only rule that for the moment I believe we should give ourselves in this seminar is no more to rely on commonly accredited oppositional limits between what is called nature and culture, nature / law, physis / nomos,...

    Poništi
  13. 16. sij

    the limit between avoidance and interdiction will always be difficult to recognize—just as there is also, in human societies, some inevitability about incest, if one looks closely, in the very place where incest appears forbidden.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  14. 16. sij

    for some time now I have been emphasizing the fragility and porosity of this limit between nature and culture, and the fact that there is also avoidance of incest in some societies of so-called great apes—

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  15. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    15. sij

    A psychoanalyst should find it easy enough to grasp the fundamental distinction between signifier and signified, and to begin to use the two non-overlapping networks of relations that they organize.

    Poništi
  16. 15. sij

    for some time now I have been emphasizing the fragility and porosity of this limit between nature and culture,

    Poništi
  17. 15. sij

    Of Spirit, “Eating Well” in Points . . ., “The animal that therefore I am,” in L’animal autobiographique, and For What Tomorrow . . ., read, and follow up the references given in all the texts in L’animal autobiographique),

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  18. 15. sij

    as everything I nicknamed carnophallogocentrism (among the most recent and the most recapitulatory texts I permit myself, for simple reasons of economy in order to gain time in this seminar, to refer to:

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  19. 15. sij

    Among all that modern primatology has taught us, and among all the features that—forgive me for recalling this—I have been emphasizing wherever (i.e. just about everywhere) I have been interested in the great question of the animal and what is proper to man,

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  20. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    12. sij

    Jacques Lacan claims that the spontaneous attitude of a human being is that of “I don’t want to know about it”—a fundamental resistance against knowing too much.

    Poništi

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·