Jacques Derrida Interviews Ornette Coleman (1997) [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: Jacques Derrida Interviews Ornette Coleman (1997) [pdf]

#41

Post by coldtea » Sun, Dec 07, 2014, 3:08 AM UTC

mynameishere wrote: post #26

sighsigh wrote: post #16

Derrida spoke of the absurdity of deriving meaning from an infinitely recursive and self referent system of language. Pureness of axiom isn't detectable in a mergable feedback loop. However, his critique doesn't show the shortcomings of how we neurologically handle symbols, it shows the incompleteness of human cognition. Derrida is to political epistemology as Turing is to serial bits or Godel is to arithmetic. Keep…

infinitely recursive and self referent system of language No idea if this is actually what he said, but when I say the word "dog" while pointing at a dog, the recursion of language stops. It's amazing how so much philosophy is almost intentionally incorrect.

It's not about what you point, is about how you define "dog" (and it can get much worse than dog, e.g. freedom, humanity, etc).

It's amazing how people think they can understand/debunk/solve philosophical problems of ages with a moment's hasty thought that doesn't even understand the full issue in the first place...

Re: Jacques Derrida Interviews Ornette Coleman (1997) [pdf]

#42

Post by coldtea » Sun, Dec 07, 2014, 3:19 AM UTC

TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #10

sysk wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kind of agree with you. I've seen some of his interviews on Youtube and tried to read some of his work but couldn't find anything of substance. On the other hand, many smart people seem to disagree so it's very possible I am missing something. There's been a few debates on HN about deconstruction and both sides had good arguments.

Noam Chomsky summarized as follows: "As for the "deconstruction" that is carried out (also mentioned in the debate), I can't comment, because most of it seems to me gibberish. But if this is just another sign of my incapacity to recognize profundities, the course to follow is clear: just restate the results to me in plain words that I can understand, and show why they are different from, or better than, what others h…

A number of these "deconstruction" texts are bad, like any other philosophy or attempt in any field. Not because of how it's written - the thinking behind it is bad.

Other of these can indeed be stated in simpler words, and remain enlightening and profound observation (what Chomsky asks).

But in general, what Chomsky says is BS. It's analogous to: this Charlie Parker jazz piece is meaningless. Play it to me with conventional harmony, and show me how it's better than John Phillip Soussa. Oh, and stick to 4/4 and triad chords.

The whole idea behind those philosophical attemps is that they work in the limits of the language, e.g. in "advanced mode", and deal with stuff that's not relatable with "plain words", the same way "fuck my life" is not analogous to "oh, how unfortunate I feel at this moment", even if they mostly convey the same message.

Re: Jacques Derrida Interviews Ornette Coleman (1997) [pdf]

#43

Post by coldtea » Sun, Dec 07, 2014, 3:26 AM UTC

TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #11

Derrida is one of those guys, that if you find a fan of his, you have almost certainly found someone who has a love of complicated verbiage over simple straightforward explanations. Derrida takes a really simple concept and then dresses it up in so much complicated irrelevant nonsense that you have to take 30 minutes to deconstruct and understand an essay, that could be sufficiently restated in perhaps a paragraph of…

>Derrida takes a really simple concept and then dresses it up in so much complicated irrelevant nonsense that you have to take 30 minutes to deconstruct and understand an essay, that could be sufficiently restated in perhaps a paragraph of clear English.

Can you give an example? Because I've read Derrida (and other continental and US philosophers) and I've not seen that.

It should be easy. Just post an essay of his, and then your paragraph of clear English that "sufficiently restates" it.

I find that most people conflate "sufficiently restates" with something like Cliffs Notes.

Or with "seeing the movie" (e.g. War And Peace) instead of reading the book.

Or even worse with some general "plot", like: "War and Peace is the story of some families in Russia when Napoleon invades and a guy that tries to kill him" as opposed to the whole philosophical, artistic, literature, poetic etc content of the book.

Re: Jacques Derrida Interviews Ornette Coleman (1997) [pdf]

#44

Post by steveklabnik » Sun, Dec 07, 2014, 9:38 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #39

mbrock wrote: post #20

Since the onslaught of ignorant anti-continental quips has already begun, I'd like to suggest two texts by Richard Rorty—an American pragmatist with an extremely lucid writing style—that show how it is indeed possible to find Derrida interesting without being a charlatan or stupid: Here, a short review that gives a very brief introduction/defense (in a sort of backhanded way, though): http://www.lrb.co.uk/v06/n03/ric…

> how it is indeed possible to find Derrida interesting without being a charlatan or stupid Charlatan or stupid? How provincial one must be to come to that conclusion. As hackers (geeks etc) we are generally mostly accepting of an empiricist, show-me-the-numbers, kind of analysis (and analytical philosophy), but it's by far not the only one, or the most potent, when outside the realm of hard sciences. The anglosaxon…

> Charlatan or stupid? How provincial one must be to come to that conclusion.

It's a reference to Chomsky's criticism of postmodernism: http://www.critical-theory.com/noam-chomsky-calls-jacques-la...

(Not that I particularly agree with Chomsky here, mind you...)

Re: Jacques Derrida Interviews Ornette Coleman (1997) [pdf]

#45

Post by cbd1984 » Sun, Dec 07, 2014, 9:41 AM UTC

mbrock wrote: post #20

Since the onslaught of ignorant anti-continental quips has already begun, I'd like to suggest two texts by Richard Rorty—an American pragmatist with an extremely lucid writing style—that show how it is indeed possible to find Derrida interesting without being a charlatan or stupid: Here, a short review that gives a very brief introduction/defense (in a sort of backhanded way, though): http://www.lrb.co.uk/v06/n03/ric…

Is it possible for someone who understands Continental philosophy to disagree with it?

Re: Jacques Derrida Interviews Ornette Coleman (1997) [pdf]

#46

Post by martingoodson » Sun, Dec 07, 2014, 9:52 AM UTC

hblanks wrote: post #38

What a pleasure this interview was to read. And plain spoken, too. Many here have complained that Derrida is hard to read, or worse, simply makes no sense. You may take a side in this, if you like. But I would encourage you to read some short piece of his instead. In so doing, and as the interview itself remarks on reading, you may make your own interpretation. @mbrock has listed several items. To these, I add what m…

I took your advice and read a "short piece of his" (http://web.stanford.edu/class/history34q/readings/Derrida/Di...)

I found this monstrosity in the third paragraph:

"I will speak, therefore, of the letter a, this initial letter which it apparently has been necessary to insinuate, here and there, into the writing of the word difference; and to do so in the course of a writing on writing, and also of a writing within writing whose different trajectories thereby find themselves, at certain very determined points, intersecting with a kind of gross spelling mistake, a lapse in the discipline and law which regulate writing and keep it seemly."

This is a single sentence.

Is it that Derrida's thought is so complex that it is simply inexpressible in simpler language? Or it this sentence wilful obsurantism?

I find many supporter's of Derrida claiming that if you don't agree with Derrida it must be that you don't understand him. This is a dangerous intellectual cul-de-sac - verging on mysticism.

Re: Jacques Derrida Interviews Ornette Coleman (1997) [pdf]

#47

Post by steveklabnik » Sun, Dec 07, 2014, 10:12 AM UTC

cbd1984 wrote: post #45

mbrock wrote: post #20

Since the onslaught of ignorant anti-continental quips has already begun, I'd like to suggest two texts by Richard Rorty—an American pragmatist with an extremely lucid writing style—that show how it is indeed possible to find Derrida interesting without being a charlatan or stupid: Here, a short review that gives a very brief introduction/defense (in a sort of backhanded way, though): http://www.lrb.co.uk/v06/n03/ric…

Is it possible for someone who understands Continental philosophy to disagree with it?

Of course. There are several significant families of thought within "continental philosophy", and they don't agree with each other. Just like any broad tradition.

Re: Jacques Derrida Interviews Ornette Coleman (1997) [pdf]

#48

Post by waterlesscloud » Sun, Dec 07, 2014, 10:56 AM UTC

hblanks wrote: post #38

What a pleasure this interview was to read. And plain spoken, too. Many here have complained that Derrida is hard to read, or worse, simply makes no sense. You may take a side in this, if you like. But I would encourage you to read some short piece of his instead. In so doing, and as the interview itself remarks on reading, you may make your own interpretation. @mbrock has listed several items. To these, I add what m…

Off topic, but what was you experience at Deep Springs like? Would you do it again? Do you feel you learned as much (or more) during your time there as you would have at an ivy league style school? What about the overall environment?

I've been fascinated by that school since I got their brochure in high school. I regret not at least applying.

Re: Jacques Derrida Interviews Ornette Coleman (1997) [pdf]

#49

Post by wanda » Sun, Dec 07, 2014, 11:51 AM UTC

martingoodson wrote: post #46

hblanks wrote: post #38

What a pleasure this interview was to read. And plain spoken, too. Many here have complained that Derrida is hard to read, or worse, simply makes no sense. You may take a side in this, if you like. But I would encourage you to read some short piece of his instead. In so doing, and as the interview itself remarks on reading, you may make your own interpretation. @mbrock has listed several items. To these, I add what m…

I took your advice and read a "short piece of his" ( http://web.stanford.edu/class/history34q/readings/Derrida/Di... ) I found this monstrosity in the third paragraph: "I will speak, therefore, of the letter a, this initial letter which it apparently has been necessary to insinuate, here and there, into the writing of the word difference; and to do so in the course of a writing on writing, and also of a writing withi…

Derrida had some actual things to say.

But most of the valuable ideas he had to express had already been explored by Heidegger in a more complete way, or by Wittgenstein in an uncannily clear, concise and orderly way.

Re: Jacques Derrida Interviews Ornette Coleman (1997) [pdf]

#50

Post by sighsigh » Sun, Dec 07, 2014, 2:22 PM UTC

rspeer wrote: post #35

sighsigh wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what is done in NLP because that cannot be done by NLP... for the reasons that Derrida pointed out decades ago.

Don't tell NLPists what not to do, thanks. In NLP, people don't just throw up their hands and say "grounding is hard, it's so hard it's impossible, let's not do it". Grounding is sometimes hard, but it's often perfectly tractable for a given problem domain. If we haven't solved strong AI yet, don't count that as a victory for your unrelated field.

Faith in an AI clasification that is invented from a human mind bound by the biases Derrida described long before people could put faith in strong AI?

Sorry, I don't do faith. I do correlation. You just hate Derrida and can't apply any of his observations.

The human does not discover AI. It invents it. And all of the cognitive biases we have are passively passed on with every "axiom" of AI we create. The idea of even classifying AI is ontologically invalid... for the reasons Derrida already pointed out.