Scan barcode
A review by noahregained
Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning and the New International by Jacques Derrida
3.0
I like referring to reading empiricists and analytic philosophers as pulling teeth or eating your vegetables or whatever, but reading this really made me want to not read philosophy. Nice
I think the ontological/epistemological/linguistic point that an entity carries with itself, or means nothing without, the implications of its own origin and end (the spectrality that accompanies a body, and so on) ... this point that's being made in every paragraph of this book is made better in Deleuze. and the point that an entity is itself empty, or more accurately spectral in its actual being, is also better made in Deleuze (because of his Humean influence, in the emptiness; and because of his Nietzschean influence (which Derrida shares), in the simulacrum of appearance). I should sound like a broken record here because I really like Deleuze.
I think that these points motivate the whole puppet play about Hamlet and Marx and Stirner and so forth. And that's fine, and that's fun, but it's grating in that the paragraphs are so circular. The sentences, even, are each given 18 bonus words where Derrida is playing with the pitch of his meaning. And that's fine, and that's fun, but it's not what I usually call great.
basically I now know more trivia about Marx? but we can talk about "trivia" if we're gonna talk about words...
I think the ontological/epistemological/linguistic point that an entity carries with itself, or means nothing without, the implications of its own origin and end (the spectrality that accompanies a body, and so on) ... this point that's being made in every paragraph of this book is made better in Deleuze. and the point that an entity is itself empty, or more accurately spectral in its actual being, is also better made in Deleuze (because of his Humean influence, in the emptiness; and because of his Nietzschean influence (which Derrida shares), in the simulacrum of appearance). I should sound like a broken record here because I really like Deleuze.
I think that these points motivate the whole puppet play about Hamlet and Marx and Stirner and so forth. And that's fine, and that's fun, but it's grating in that the paragraphs are so circular. The sentences, even, are each given 18 bonus words where Derrida is playing with the pitch of his meaning. And that's fine, and that's fun, but it's not what I usually call great.
basically I now know more trivia about Marx? but we can talk about "trivia" if we're gonna talk about words...