He isn't answering the question of "Being" but rather explaining how he would approach the question. This is exactly what I needed. It's so simple, but our brains go for the most complex way to address our existential angst and get lost in the thought. Thank you, Mr. Derrida.
This is excellent. I love the way Derrida thinks. He has the unique ability to really get at that essential thing. The great thing is: it is accessible to anybody.
Fuck yeah, that's awesome, thanks (a dozen years later... yow). That's an outtake? Jesus, that's the most I've ever felt like I understood what my man is up to. Thanks again to the past you that is something other than the modified present you. ;)
Poor Derrida, he must've been an overthinker who can't sleep, sometimes it's more efficient to understand and see the truth when you just believe without questioning too much. Reality is of a major question itself rather than the existence or being, the best thing to do is just to be a believer.
Derrida has no ontological understanding of Being becuase Derrida is without Dasein as we witness 'here' with Derrida not being 'there'. Derrida has no presence of the present unable to be present unable to come to presence: Being is not 'interpreted' as Presence: Being is Presenve.
@Grimoire I know very little French, but from what I think you said... You have to understand what he is trying to explain... It is very hard to do by trying to add it all up together.
@Grimoire I think so. His whole point is really in understanding just how different something can be if framed/phrased in a certain way. It makes perfect sense to me, but it is difficult to put into words, which is why so many hate Derrida lmao
You can only understand Derrida if you understand and grasp Hieddeger. You can only truly understand Deleuze or Baudrillard if you understand Nietzche. Also Marshall Mcluhan in some ways.
