Thursday was my last
Continental Philosophy lecture, though Professor Gibbs wasn’t there. One of the
TAs, Keagan, who gave the second lecture, took the podium again for this one.
Naama arrived about five minutes
before the start of class. She’d missed the last two lectures, so I said, “Hi
stranger!” She explained that one of her colleagues threw out his back. I
added, “So you had to go look for it!” I said, “I thought you worked in an
office.” She explained that she also works in a bar in Yorkville. I tried to
imagine how someone could throw their back out in a bar and was thinking about
working as a bar tender and bending over to get stuff from under the bar. She
corrected me that she doesn’t work behind the bar but rather as a bouncer. This
was not a surprise to me. I asked if she makes use of her Israeli military
training as a bouncer. She said that she’d actually gotten her certification in
Kradmaga after she was discharged from the army. I had to get her to spell that
out for me. It’s Krav Maga, which is Hebrew for “contact combat”. It was
created by a Hungarian Jew named Imi Lichtenfeld as a way of defending Jews
against fascists in the Jewish quarter of Bratislava, Czechoslovakia in the
1930s.
She said that Krav Maga contrasts
with the French system, which is based on flight over through around and under
obstacles rather than fighting.
At this point Keagan began the
lecture.
In the analytic of dasein, some form
of humanism is present. Dasein is not a measure of Being as ontic Being.
Presence is not derived from a relationship with dasein. This is a hermeneutic
demand. Hermeneutics is the art of interpretation.
Derrida demonstrates lingering
humanism. At the end of the essay he relates back to ends which are understood
the double sense of telos (aim, end, goal, means) and death. Ends and means
implies an inescapable circularity. Another reiteration of the role of death in
Heidegger. In the cycle of ends and means, the tools outlast us. There are two
ends that are not easily identifiable with one another.
The source of meaning is like a
horizon. Not an experience but rather a pervading of all experience.
Deconstruction is a technical term
that is maybe overused. It is a type of critique. Derrida came up with the word
“deconstruction” as a less violent sounding translation of Heidegger’s
“destruktion”. Ontotheology is a term from Kant revived by Heidegger when it
was stated that the destruction of of ontotheology is required in the analytic
of dasein.
Can something be destroyed by
talking? Deconstruction occurs in the text. The object of hermeneutics is a
text that is always mediated by language. Dogma is being brought into question.
Language is always mediating engagement with deconstruction. One can observe
and then go out and analyze.
Some will say that a text
deconstructs itself. Derrida is not deconstruction Heidegger because the
objection is already there. There is no new meaning.
There are other forms of objection. In
positivist argumentation a refutation argues with facts. Deconstruction is not
a refutation. Heidegger is not being refuted or rendered invalid by Derrida. A
dialectical negation preserves the truth of what appears false and rescues the
truth. For instance, in Marx’s statement that religion is the opiate of the
masses he is saying that the expression of religion is false and not its
underlying truth.
Deconstruction does not resolve
contradiction. There is contradiction in appearance and phenomenon. Contradiction
is resolved by negating the falsehood. Sublation – relève – aufhebung – lifting the grain so the mice can’t
get at it. What is true is preserved. Deconstruction does not sublate.
Are history dialectical, social
institutions and even nature? The laws of nature can be contradicted. What if
man is to be preserved? The ends of man are not to be understood temporally.
What occurs in Derrida’s
deconstruction of Heidegger is a questioning of value. Heidegger valorizes
presence as the use and interpretation of language. The deconstruction opposes
text interpreting things as text. Heidegger says that speaking is a presence
different from writing. Valorization is a value for Derrida. The issues of 1968
were about values. Historical context is a question of authority. Meaning is
not guaranteed. Authorized is belonging to the authors but spoken language is
not necessarily from an author.
Concluding is reassembling.
A strategic bet is a wager and a
risk in which the outcome is not guaranteed.
In the metaphor of the terrain,
discourse is a set of true conditions. Psychoanalysis is a discourse and
empirical sciences are discourses. Discourses are analogous concepts with
worlds. Worlds are self-contained sets of truth conditions. Terrain is
discourse. We can tear down and rebuild discourse. There are limitations to
staying on the same terrain after tearing it down because we could end up
rebuilding the same thing. Discourse here is the essence of humanity. Using the
stones of the house and taking them out f context can be used to destroy the
architecture; the metaphysical structure of philosophy. We end up sublating and
repeating with the new edifice. Jargon is professional vocabulary. A
specialized building up of what we’ve destroyed.
Nietzsche says that we need a change
of style. Not a new discovery; not new content; not new methodology; but
something different. Derrida developed a new style of writing.
Zarathustra questions, dismisses,
goes out and burns his text, erases his steps and then laughs. Derrida says
that laughter is important for deconstruction because it engages discourse
without nonsense. Laughter is a tear in the fold of world as text. Laughter
disrupts continuity. Laughter is a question.
Back to Heidegger, the meaning of
Being is to ask about. Asking about pervades the act of making meaning and is
not a separate enterprise.
At this point Keagan declared that
Zarathustra is the ubermensch. I had never heard anyone say that before and I
don’t recall reading it in Thus Spake Zarathustra. In a way it made sense but I
wasn’t sure.
Derrida says that evening is neither
the end of day or the beginning of night.
That was the end of our last
lecture.
Naama said something about someone
talking so much without saying anything. She wasn’t impressed with Keagan’s
lecture. For me it was kind of sleepy. He hesitated a lot and so I had to
really work to pay attention. I indicated his claim that Zarathustra is the
Superman. She said that the Superman is not the superior man. I said that as I
understand it the goal of man, according to Nietzsche is to be on top of man.
Naama commented that she’d always thought the goal of man was to be on top of
woman.
We walked across the park together.
I suggested that we get together for coffee on the day of the exam, after it’s
over. She said that we could probably do that but further suggested that we
could maybe get together before to compare study notes.
I went home for a while. I took a
siesta for an hour and a half and then headed back downtown for my appointment
with Andrew Lesk. I wanted to talk to him about my essay and once I was in his
office I asked what I needed to do to move myself up to 85%. He thought that I
meant on that essay and declared that it wasn’t going to happen. I explained
that I meant on future essays, but he said he didn’t know what to tell me. He
said he’d gone over my paper with a fine-toothed comb and provided me with
extensive notes. I told him I found it hard to grab onto something from all of
his comments and asked if he could condense it down to two or three main
points. He told me I hadn’t had a very strong thesis. I pointed out that
normally if one submits one’s thesis to an instructor, the main thing they will
point out is whether or not the thesis is strong. He said he wasn’t going to
guide me towards a thesis and I argued that to simply say a thesis isn’t strong
is not directing the thesis. We got nowhere. I told him I enjoyed his course
and found that his selections, except for a couple of the graphic stories were
great and showed a wide range of diversity. I suggested a couple of stories and
told him that he should use the quote from Alice Munro that there is no novel
that couldn’t have been better as a short story. He liked that. We shook hands
and I left, feeling like it had been a totally wasted trip.
That night I watched a low budget
porn film entitled, “Delia Tops Zenith’s Boyfriend”. It was the first time I’d
seen Delia outside of still photographs. She’s pretty hot.