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
