|
8210
|
Deconstructing philosophy gives the history of concepts, and the repressions behind them [Derrida]
|
|
Full Idea:
To 'deconstruct' philosophy would be to think the structured genealogy of philosophy's concepts, but at the same time determine what this history has been able to dissimulate or forbid, making itself into history by this motivated repression.
|
|
From:
Jacques Derrida (Implications [1967], p.5)
|
|
A reaction:
All of this type of philosophy is motivated by what I think of as (I'm afraid!) a rather adolescent belief that we are all being 'repressed', and that somehow, if we think hard enough, we can all become 'free', and then everything will be fine.
|
|
8211
|
The movement of 'différance' is the root of all the oppositional concepts in our language [Derrida]
|
|
Full Idea:
The movement of 'différance', as that which produces different things, that which differentiates, is the common root of all the oppositional concepts that mark our language, such as sensible/intelligible, intuition/signification, nature/culture etc.
|
|
From:
Jacques Derrida (Implications [1967], p.7)
|
|
A reaction:
'Différance' is a word coined by Derrida, and his most famous concept. At first glance, the concept of a thing which is the source of all differentiation sounds like a fiction.
|
|
3238
|
'Dead person' isn't a contradiction, so 'person' is somewhat vague [Williams,B]
|
|
Full Idea:
If we say (in opposition to a physical view of identity) that when Jones dies 'Jones ceases to exist' but 'Jones' body does not cease to exist', this shouldn't be pressed too hard, because it would make 'dead person' a contradiction.
|
|
From:
Bernard Williams (Are Persons Bodies? [1970], p.74)
|
|
A reaction:
A good point, which nicely challenges the distinction between a 'human' and a 'person', but the problem case is much more the one where Jones gets advanced Alzheimer's, rather than dies. A dead body ceases as a mechanism, as well as as a personality.
|
|
3239
|
You can only really love a person as a token, not as a type [Williams,B]
|
|
Full Idea:
If you love a person as a type instead of as a token (i.e. a "person", instead of a physical body) you might prefer a run-down copy of them to no person at all, but at this point our idea of loving a person begins to crack.
|
|
From:
Bernard Williams (Are Persons Bodies? [1970], p.81)
|
|
A reaction:
Very persuasive. If you love a person you can cope with them getting old. If you own an original watercolour, you can accept that it fades, but you would replace a reproduction of it if that faded. But what, then, is it that you love?
|