Arquivo para fevereiro 28th, 2018
Deconstruct, structure and language
28
fev
Since Derrida began to be linked to the concept of deconstruction, began the questioning
of the term, he knew this and tried to clarify.
First, it is better to use the term in the plural and justifies: “Deconstruction in the singular can not be simply appropriated by whoever or whatever.”, Because it is linked to what he called ” appropriation “(Derrida, 1991, p.194).
New caution because appropriation refers to language, so much so, that in his 1998 work “Fidélité à plus d’um” stated: “if I were to risk a single definition of deconstruction, I would simply say: more than one language” (p.253), this means studying the phenomenon of communication in a plural world with plural interpretations, which brings it closer to Husserl.
But the problem is intra-language, such as the methafor of bliblic mythical God´s in Babylon, and in this we see the strategy adopted in Husserl’s translation, which seems to forget that he is French, states in one of his translations of the master of phenomenology: “the translation of the usual concepts of Husserlian language, the uses consecrated by the translation the great works of Husserl “, which is in the “Introduction” of the translation of ” L’origine de la géométrie” made in 1962.
According to Derrida, the translation “when mercy seasons justice” of the work of Shakespeare The merchant of Venice, could not be translated like “when le pardão temperes the justice”, as did Victor Hugo, but ” or le droit) “, that is,” when forgiveness brings justice (or right) to this, to exemplify the problem of translation beyond the questions of structures and mythologies as proposed by structuralism, that is, within the cultures themselves questions that escapes the structures and from them “translations” are removed.
That is why the question will be asked when a translation is “relevant”, and the term itself is questioned, which in Derridanian language (I am taking into account its thinking), concerns the law of economics, the possibility of translating a word taking into account the greater number of possible sense games.
So to separate the structure, the form of meaning is only to confuse even more, although we have the debt with the structuralism to penetrate the study of cultures to understand that the sense in the set of one is very different from the content of one situation in another, but the idea of the interpretive translation of the sets of meanings is lacking in this conception.
According to the philosopher Simon Blackburn, structuralism is “the belief that the phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations.”hese relations constitute a structure and, behind the local variations of surface phenomena, there are laws cultural extract”, Roland Barthes and Jacques Derrida in applying the literature have discovered that there are variants, which we see are phenomenological.
of the term, he knew this and tried to clarify.First, it is better to use the term in the plural and justifies: “Deconstruction in the singular can not be simply appropriated by whoever or whatever.”, Because it is linked to what he called ” appropriation “(Derrida, 1991, p.194).
New caution because appropriation refers to language, so much so, that in his 1998 work “Fidélité à plus d’um” stated: “if I were to risk a single definition of deconstruction, I would simply say: more than one language” (p.253), this means studying the phenomenon of communication in a plural world with plural interpretations, which brings it closer to Husserl.
But the problem is intra-language, such as the methafor of bliblic mythical God´s in Babylon, and in this we see the strategy adopted in Husserl’s translation, which seems to forget that he is French, states in one of his translations of the master of phenomenology: “the translation of the usual concepts of Husserlian language, the uses consecrated by the translation the great works of Husserl “, which is in the “Introduction” of the translation of ” L’origine de la géométrie” made in 1962.
According to Derrida, the translation “when mercy seasons justice” of the work of Shakespeare The merchant of Venice, could not be translated like “when le pardão temperes the justice”, as did Victor Hugo, but ” or le droit) “, that is,” when forgiveness brings justice (or right) to this, to exemplify the problem of translation beyond the questions of structures and mythologies as proposed by structuralism, that is, within the cultures themselves questions that escapes the structures and from them “translations” are removed.
That is why the question will be asked when a translation is “relevant”, and the term itself is questioned, which in Derridanian language (I am taking into account its thinking), concerns the law of economics, the possibility of translating a word taking into account the greater number of possible sense games.
So to separate the structure, the form of meaning is only to confuse even more, although we have the debt with the structuralism to penetrate the study of cultures to understand that the sense in the set of one is very different from the content of one situation in another, but the idea of the interpretive translation of the sets of meanings is lacking in this conception.
According to the philosopher Simon Blackburn, structuralism is “the belief that the phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations.”hese relations constitute a structure and, behind the local variations of surface phenomena, there are laws cultural extract”, Roland Barthes and Jacques Derrida in applying the literature have discovered that there are variants, which we see are phenomenological.
Derrida, J. Limited Inc. Portuguese translation: Constança Marcondes César. Campinas: Papirus, 1991
Desconstrução não é destruição
28
fev
Enquanto o público leigo pensa na o chamado mal-estar da pós-modernidade; ou o não
-estar da pós-modernidade, já que só declara inexistências, ausências e impossibilidades, é em ultima instância o reconhecimento que já está na pós-modernidade, que algo deva ser superado.
-estar da pós-modernidade, já que só declara inexistências, ausências e impossibilidades, é em ultima instância o reconhecimento que já está na pós-modernidade, que algo deva ser superado.Porém este novo tipo de niilismo, a compreensão é enganosa e às vezes superficial da desconstrução não é destruição, menos ainda “fim da história”, uma vez que sempre se está afirmando, como nos nossos posts anteriores, dentro do pensamento anglo-saxão a ligação da desconstrução com a literatura e a maneira de refletir o trabalho historiográfico de Munslow.
Sobre a escrita da história não significa que não possa ser realizada para nos informar a leitura de Balzac ajuda a entender a França revolucionária e o pensamento antimonárquico, assim como sobre o passado e as culturas míticas que antecederam as atuais, parte do pensamento estruturalista ajudou a compreender melhor o que se seguiu ao pensamento da modernidade, .
Então mesmo no pensamento anglo-saxônico a desconstrução é uma maneira de refletir sobre o trabalho historiográfico, sobre o processo de transformação de evidências e informações do passado em história, porém é agora inevitável o questionamento histórico, o trabalho atual dos historiadores de entenderem e explicarem o passado através de fatos das evidências, ajudará a construir o futuro.
Se há uma demanda clara por mudança, há uma necessidade clara de mudança de mentalidade e de pensamento sobre a própria maneira de indagar a história, de reler a literatura, e principalmente, de apontar novos caminhos sólidos para a mudança, a compreensão da desconstrução como destruindo a cultura e o favorecimento a desinformação geral é parte da barbárie e não semente da mudança em curso.
Sobre a escrita da história não significa que não possa ser realizada para nos informar a leitura de Balzac ajuda a entender a França revolucionária e o pensamento antimonárquico, assim como sobre o passado e as culturas míticas que antecederam as atuais, parte do pensamento estruturalista ajudou a compreender melhor o que se seguiu ao pensamento da modernidade, .
Então mesmo no pensamento anglo-saxônico a desconstrução é uma maneira de refletir sobre o trabalho historiográfico, sobre o processo de transformação de evidências e informações do passado em história, porém é agora inevitável o questionamento histórico, o trabalho atual dos historiadores de entenderem e explicarem o passado através de fatos das evidências, ajudará a construir o futuro.
Se há uma demanda clara por mudança, há uma necessidade clara de mudança de mentalidade e de pensamento sobre a própria maneira de indagar a história, de reler a literatura, e principalmente, de apontar novos caminhos sólidos para a mudança, a compreensão da desconstrução como destruindo a cultura e o favorecimento a desinformação geral é parte da barbárie e não semente da mudança em curso.
