Phil2005: Derrida in relation to Gadamer Ethic behind Gadamer's approach (to motivate dialogue) is to come to an agreement/understanding.
* Although this end result is realised as impossible.
=> Assumption of universality

Derrida: that the text has no exceeding coherence. There remains, beyond coherence, excesses/dissonances/eruptures.

Gadamer: even though we achieve understanding it is NEVER definitive.
+> there will always be excess meaning that will escape interpretation.
---> this is why interpretation is always ongoing,
+ texts contain a latencey of meaning
---> that is that meaning within a text may retreat beyond a specific interpretation and shows itself to another. Elements of meaning lie in different recesses to be brought into light from different angles of interpretation.

Therefore...there are limits to interpretation.

DIFFERENCE: those limitations DO NOT constrain understanding according to Gadamer.
*If we know that our interpretation is never complete then we continue to learn.
BUT: we still aim for (complete) understanding
=> (an ideal becomes the motivating factor) that there is a disclosed meaning in text.

Gadamer: the text itself is a grounding commonality for all interpretations. the text has an inherent coherent style arranged to be understood.

Gadamer: That all texts are making a claim for reality (a point of the human condition).
-. this is a (the) reason why people read texts and (attempt to) interpret texts.

Baitaille's reading of Hegel is an attempt to break free of Hegel. However Derrida questions whether it is anti-hegelian.

Derrida: Gadamer's concept to unify meaning (interpretation of text) is totalising. A violent conquest of the other.
That Hegel should be understood as a dialectic of contradictions. The system of understanding that Hegel proposes is a machination of contradictions in which everything is contained.
-----> key term; Aufhebung: lifting while supressing -> sublation

Differance: articulates differences in a pattern that we may understand. we can never get a synthesis that wholly contains meaning. Understanding is derive from the whole - acknowledging the differences in dialectics.

Derrida: can re-read philosophical texts to show the ruptures => re-insert instability.
That the present is not a necessary synthesis of the past but a derivation of instability.

Bataille oppposes Hegel's notions of negativity and labour. Suggesting that there exists a non-knowledge -> that which cannot be incorporated into the machine of contradictions because they do not function in oppositions.
* Not functioning as oppositions but as disruptors - installing instability. Such things as emotion and leughter do not have oppositions, and are subjectively known to their subject.

Derrida: enjoys Baitaille because it challenges the core of Hegel without breaking free of the Metaphysics of Presence (the system) => which you cannot escape rom because you are situated with meaning.

READ _ "For What Tommorrow" - Derrida *Dialogues and discussion

Derrida: Every act involces my past, and (the) my re-evaluation (disruption) of my past to make a decision (the decision is a disruption in itself).
~> this must take place for experience to take place.

Labels: philosophy

  ¶ 7:55 pm