Of Grammatology

Of Grammatology Jacques Derrida s revolutionary approach to phenomenology psychoanalysis structuralism linguistics and indeed the entire European tradition of philosophy called deconstruction changed the face of

  • Title: Of Grammatology
  • Author: Jacques Derrida Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak Judith Butler
  • ISBN: 9781421419954
  • Page: 284
  • Format: Paperback
  • Jacques Derrida s revolutionary approach to phenomenology, psychoanalysis, structuralism, linguistics, and indeed the entire European tradition of philosophy called deconstruction changed the face of criticism It provoked a questioning of philosophy, literature, and the human sciences that these disciplines would have previously considered improper Forty years after OfJacques Derrida s revolutionary approach to phenomenology, psychoanalysis, structuralism, linguistics, and indeed the entire European tradition of philosophy called deconstruction changed the face of criticism It provoked a questioning of philosophy, literature, and the human sciences that these disciplines would have previously considered improper Forty years after Of Grammatology first appeared in English, Derrida still ignites controversy, thanks in part to Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak s careful translation, which attempted to capture the richness and complexity of the original.This fortieth anniversary edition, where a mature Spivak retranslates with greater awareness of Derrida s legacy, also includes a new afterword by her which supplements her influential original preface Judith Butler has added an introduction All references in the work have been updated One of contemporary criticism s most indispensable works, Of Grammatology is made even accessible and usable by this new release.

    One thought on “Of Grammatology”

    1. This was too hard to understand, therefore it didn't make any sense therefore it is stupid therefore anyone who liked it is stupid therefore I am smarter than anyone who liked it therefore there is a huge conspiracy where well-read educated people are not really either of those things because they responded to this differently therefore definitions of "well-read" and "educated" are totally undermined by therefore being revealed as artificially constructed determinants in the grammar of elite pre [...]

    2. This book gets five stars from mebut this review (which I initially made as a comment to another review), is in response to the Derrida/Searle debate, and the Searle quote that is so often cited as the wooden stake to Derrida's deconstructive heart. Here we goSearle willfully misreads Derrida, or at the very least, doesn't take the time to understand his theory properly. The supposed limitation of deconstruction, the idea "that deconstruction deconstructs itself," is a "limitation" that Derrida [...]

    3. I need a bucket. This is the a-hole through which there has flowed a river of anemic pretentious francophilic crap for three decades. Derrida seems to have little of Foucault's erudition and a strange compulsion to make the same empty gestures over and over again. Everything Schopenhauer said about Hegel applies here (that the guy is a charlatan selling his own image in the guise of a new philosophical language). Maybe other books by Derrida are wonderful; I've only read "Of Spirit," "Limited, I [...]

    4. well, i read the first chapter, but i have almost no idea what it said even though i tried very hard to know what it was saying. then i went back to read the translator's preface. thanks for nothing, spivak. i'll keep trying.

    5. Yes Derrida tends to be a bit verbose and redundant. However once you get past the syntax you will find a philosophy that is deep and inherent in our postmodern society. Sometimes I say to myself while reading this, "why can you just use plain clarification like Ferdinand De Saussure?!" Derrida tends to explain the explanations with more confusion.I will paraphrase the context here in brevity to help clarify. Foot notes, cliff-notes, other books and lectures served me well with the grappling on [...]

    6. Derrida's Of Grammatology aims to think the structural conditions of possibility which organize the coherence of metaphysical thinking. In this regard, thinking what Derrida labels writing is central. A main point in Of Grammatology however, is that Derrida is speaking of two different sorts of writing: that which writing is traditionally understood to be, that is, marks on a page or writing conceived in the narrower sense Derrida will say, but also, and more centrally in terms of the book's the [...]

    7. a) Revised 40th Anna Edition.b) Maybe I really should read it this time. I love this shit.c) If you've not read this, don't say "deconstruction".d) If you've not read Husserl, don't say "deconstruction".e) You like it simple? Derrida does nothing more than continue the Heideggarian project of Destruktion.f) If you've not read Hegel, you don't know Derrida. Like all those Lit=Crit folks from Yale you like to talk about all the time.g) This has nothing to do with your Empirical Sciences. Your Empi [...]

    8. How does one write a "review" when the word itself is a "supplement?" To begin writing the review is to say I do not intend on coming back to the text, I do not expect to re-view this book again, so what I am willing to review will "supplant" the "catastrophe" that the text ruptured in my being. Many have cursed this text (and I'm sure many others before and after) because Derrida evokes a prose that brings many to their wits end. Jacques Lacan with similar complaints about his texts not making [...]

    9. I enjoyed reading the other reviews on this book and empathized with those who found Derrida unnecessarily dense. His essay, "Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences," for example, though important, certainly lacks a riveting prose style.In my own (possibly simplistic) interpretation, deconstruction works--impossibly, of course--at ground zero. It is an attempt to flatten preconceptions. Derrida explains in Of Grammatology, how Rousseau's writing subverts the nature/cult [...]

    10. Derrida is difficult. I read this to write a paper on Aretxaga'sShattering Silence and found it to be quite illuminating once I read every sentence four times.

    11. "The science of linguistics determines language — its field of objectivity — in the last instance and in the irreducible simplicity of its essence, as the unity of the phonè, the glossa, and the logos. This determination is by rights anterior to all the eventual differentiations that could arise within the systems of terminology of the different schools (language/speech [langue/parole]; code/message; scheme/usage; linguistic/logic;phonology/phonematics/phonetics/glossematics). And even if o [...]

    12. This book is based on both deconstruction that Derrida expands and improves here and construction which he performs after untangling the ideas of both Ferdinand de Saussure and Jean Jacques Rousseau. Derrida reveals the paradoxes existing in both writers' works and the way how they stick to binary oppositions and resting everything upon the centre or origin, which, according to Derrida does not exist at all. Later he acquits that side of binary opposition which has always been othered or, as Der [...]

    13. If you were easily impressed by Socrates getting alot of cred simply for being a troll, you'll find alot to love here.But otherwise, never before has so little of such small impact been said with so many words, expended from the text like the spore cloud of a dying mushroom.'Postmodernists parade their relativism as a superior kind of humility — the modest acceptance that we cannot claim to have the truth. In fact, the postmodern denial of truth is the worst kind of arrogance. In denying that [...]

    14. The best way to read this is by skipping Gayatri Spivak's useless and ponderous foreword. The rest is a pretty banal but I guess unique observation on the supplementarity of writing to the spoken word wrapped up in a ton of hackwork. Compared to Limited Inc, this, and Writing and Difference, Derrida's later works are generally more easily comprehended, like Work of Mourning, Acts of Religion, etc. Like Foucault, Derrida enjoyed a late but breathtaking conversion to something like liberalism, and [...]

    15. Derrida is difficult. But it's almost the difficulty that makes him worth reading. His prose is multi-layered and at times profoundly performative. This text in particular rewards very careful perusal - an idea essential to his project as a whole. Deconstruction for Derrida is about un-building in order to see the elements of language in pieces and thus be better able to grapple with and understand the connections and significations they make as a whole.

    16. A definitive classic. Don't let philosophical conservatives deter you from reading this book. It may be a challenge, but it changed the rules and redefined the limits of what philosophy is in the Western tradition. A must read!

    17. My claim to have read this MoFo is a flat-out lie. What HAS read ? Who indeed CAN read it ? I couldn't finish page one. Can you help me ?

    18. no one realizes that there is a significance to the fact that rousseau preferred jerking off to having sex.

    19. Had to start the review provisionally considering my thoughts here were too long for a update: will revise.The pagination of my book is different, so, to clarify, I'm on only on p 14 of the primary text, which begins on page 6 after the Exergue in the Chakravorty Spivak version. Note: Spivak's preface is 79 dense pages! Here are some of my thoughts thus far:On the second page of the primary text I find myself both tempted to dismiss Derrida's argument on the basis of his expansion of the concep [...]

    20. علم الكتابة جاك دريدا تتسابق الموضوعات على أن تأخذ صفة العلم ، لما كان للعلم من دقة نظرية وعملية في فضاء الواقع الإنساني ، فإذا كان علم اللغويات يراهن على ان يصبح علما مؤسسا على حقائق علم اللغة كذلك الكتابة تطمح لهذا التشريف بالقدر نفسه خصوصا وأن الكتابة واللغة في تكوينهما ق [...]

    21. First, what Derrida is not saying. He is not saying "Everything is relative." He is not saying, "There are no absolutes." That's what the American university professor believes, but that's not Derrida. So in one swoop 99% of Conservative Culture Warrior criticisms of "postmodernity" are false.French Postmodernism is not as difficult as it may appear. Derrida does a good job in defining his terms, and as long as we keep those definitions present, much of what he says is not only coherent, but qui [...]

    22. To venture only a simplistic analysis of this text - the involuted implications of whose language destabilize any sense of certainty in an interpretation - Derrida's /Of Grammatology/ is a meditation on absence, negation, or the subjective other as a structuring necessity, inherent within the classical metaphysics which predicates its notion of being upon transcendent presence. By following the internal contradictions within critiques of the written - that is to say, re-presentative - form of la [...]

    23. Derrida is not only frustrating to read but exceptionally dull and abstract. His thoughts are not that hard to understand. The essential issues are pretty straightforward, but he makes it extremely difficult to follow. In any case, I need to say that, though textual analysis is a decent strategy, Derrida himself didn't furnish clear printed examinations with adequate references in this work. We would need to read long pages with no reference despite the fact that he continues alluding to the wor [...]

    24. thank god for this bookshelf so i can take my time coming back to this. one of the concepts from saussure that continues to pester me regards how the sign's arbitrariness proves its motivation. i get that the subject is the object, but how does the aleatoric express intent? the last half the book is strictly thinking with rousseau (writing an origin story about writing origins) to unpack the metaphysical baggage of enlightenment anthropologisms regarding binarisms and the fantasy of presence. th [...]

    25. I didn't finish the book. I got to page 289--27 short of the end--and just couldn't go any further. So if there was a brilliant insight located in the last 27 pages, I missed it.This book was an utter waste of my time. That's not necessarily a reflection on Derrida. It may be that I am an idiot. Either way, I got nothing of value from it, so there's not much more that I can say about it.My guess is it's Derrida, though. I would suggest you stay away from this book unless 1) you're required to re [...]

    26. A wonderful exploration of Derrida's early work with an introduction to many notions he will develop in other works (e.g. supplement, trace, etc). The significance of certain portions--such as his exploration of harmony and melody in Rousseau--escaped me. However, in the end, he returns with powerful conclusions about indispensability of representation, the desire for presence (via the image versus via the alphabet), and the West's expanding influence (what we call globalization). However, I'm g [...]

    27. :D This book 'Completes' the Nietzschean critique of metaphysics by way of Heidegger. It's extremely repetitious and the author sees himself as a critic of everything but once you get the hang of it it's actually quite fun, and certainly devastating to philosophy. This book has a subversive radical feel that I'm very much attracted to. It's unfortunate that he uses the word 'text' all the time, because it is very definitely a work of philosophy in the Romantic tradition of Hume/Schopenhauer/Niet [...]

    28. I had to read this for a critical theory course in graduate school. The impenetrable prose made me want to pull out my hair, and I'm pretty sure the emperor is naked in this case. I only made it through with the help of Harry Potter--a chapter of Derrida and three chapters of The Prisoner of Azkaban.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *