Between Deleuze and Derrida

Between Deleuze and Derrida

Paul Patton

Language: English

Pages: 220

ISBN: 0826459730

Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub


Gilles Deleuze and Jacques Derrida are the two leading philosophers of French post-structuralism. Both theorists have been widely studied but very little has been done to examine the relation between them. Between Deleuze and Derrida is the first book to explore and compares their work. This is done via a number of key themes, including the philosophy of difference, language, memory, time, event, and love, as well as relating these themes to their respective approaches to Philosophy, Literature, Politics and Mathematics. Contributors: Eric Alliez, Branka Arsic, Gregg Lambert, Leonard Lawlor, Alphonso Lingis, Tamsin Lorraine, Jeff Nealon, Paul Patton, Arkady Plotnitsky, John Protevi, Daniel W. Smith.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Furthermore, since time does not belong to anyone as such - 'one can no more take it, itself, than give it' - neither can the King take her time, nor can she give her time to Saint-Cyr. '[O]ne can only exchange, one can only take or give, by way of metonymy, what is in time' (Derrida 1992c, 3). The whole of her desire is 'this rest of the rest of time, of a time that moreover is nothing and that belongs properly to no one' (Derrida 1992c, 4). Maintenon would like to make a 'present' of this time,

metaphysics that were once opened, only to be quickly closed off again (for instance, the concept of univocity). Deleuze sees his work as being strictly immanent to metaphysics: creation and transformation are possible within metaphysics, and there are virtualities in past metaphysics that are capable of being reactivated, as it were, and inserted into new contexts, and new problematics. Metaphysics itself, in other words, is dynamic and in constant becoming. Put crudely, then, if Derrida sets

understand Derrida's formalism here, we have to recognise that Derrida is defining the simulacrum by the repetition of the word: two contrary senses 'in the same word' (1972a, 111; 1981a, 98; Derrida's italics). The word is 'self-identical5 (1972a, 130; 1981a, 114), 'is at once [a la fois] enough the same and enough other5 (1972a, 195; 1981a, 168). There is a minimal unity to any word, its phonic or graphic form, that must be imitated or repeated if it 70 Leonard Lawlor is to function. In

propositional calculus (rich enough to contain the propositions of arithmetic), Godel arrived at a mathematical demonstration that it contains strictly undecidable propositions, propositions neither provable nor disprovable as true by means available within the system. One such undecidable proposition concerns the consistency of any such system itself, which makes it impossible to prove this consistency by means of the system. In other words, if the system is consistent, this consistency is

uneasy feeling that Derrida could attach his deconstruction and infinite interpretations on whatever we say. To open our mouths and say something is to find ourselves caught up in an infinite spiderweb connecting each word with networks of words, and those to further networks. It is not only our mouth that feels beset upon, forced to utter unending explications of every word, but our bodies. For words energise, prod, badger, poke at, harass, excite, agitate, soothe, hypnotise and stupefy our

Download sample

Download