Jump to content
ACuneo

Looking For Derrida K

Recommended Posts

I'm looking for a Derrida K. I'm willing to trade:

 

Anthro

Badiou (short--would trade this and another short K)

Buddhism (Aff and Neg)

Civ

Cuomo

Economic Rationality (short--would trade this and another short K)

Burke

Transhumanism

Feminism (Aff and Neg)

Gift

Nietzsche

Security

Shapiro

Whiteness (short--would trade this and another short K)

Heidegger

 

PM me if you're interested

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been mentioned multiple times on this site but there is no "derrida k". Derrida makes a lot of arguments.

 

I personally think the best ones for debate have to do ethics and our relationship to the other.

 

He also made arguments about writing and linguistics and made points about giving gifts though that probably is more about the other again.

 

My personal suggestion is to watch the videos on the egs channel on youtube where Diane Davis lectures on Derrida. She's really good at explaining his work pretty simply and I think you'll probably know derrida infinitely better if you watch the videos instead of reading a kritik. Also, if you're looking to cut a Derrida k, you'll know what to search after watching the lectures.

 

here's the links to the ones I would suggest watching:

 

I would also watch it in that order.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that Derrida has many separate lines of thought and there is no 'unified' derrida K. Allow me to clarify: I would like a Derrida K of justice. As I've been informed that few people on this site seem to have one, I will continue with cutting it myself. I was mainly looking for extra cards/blocks I could use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would still really recommend watching the videos and FOR SURE you should watch the second one which is titled justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been mentioned multiple times on this site but there is no "derrida k". Derrida makes a lot of arguments.

 

I personally think the best ones for debate have to do ethics and our relationship to the other.

 

He also made arguments about writing and linguistics and made points about giving gifts though that probably is more about the other again.

 

My personal suggestion is to watch the videos on the egs channel on youtube where Diane Davis lectures on Derrida. She's really good at explaining his work pretty simply and I think you'll probably know derrida infinitely better if you watch the videos instead of reading a kritik. Also, if you're looking to cut a Derrida k, you'll know what to search after watching the lectures.

 

here's the links to the ones I would suggest watching:

 

I would also watch it in that order.

These lectures are top notch.  If you're serious about reading a Derrida K, watch these.  Don't be one of those shitty K teams that gives K debaters a bad name,

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At 1:30 I realized I'd accidentally been thinking of Derrida as a fictional or abstract figure instead of a historical one. I do that way too often.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anxiety is the mood of [French]

 

At approximately 6:30. Anyone know what that means?

 

Also, her arguments were infuriating to me. I think they weren't very good. Apparently my experience with the video was very different than NMCJ.

 

want one too

Your new avatar picture is amazing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

At approximately 6:30. Anyone know what that means?

 

Also, her arguments were infuriating to me. I think they weren't very good. Apparently my experience with the video was very different than NMCJ.

 

as far as i'm concerned she basically nails derridean ethics (the last part mostly, about ethics as anxiety from recognition of personal insufficiency) so... it is what it is

 

at 6:14 she says "anxiety is the mood par excellence of ethicity" if that's what you're referring to

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotcha, misheard that.

I don't know Derrida, haven't read him. I agree that we shouldn't commit to ethics as an automatic system that guarantees our morality, but that's the only thing in the video that I liked. I felt like her terminology was intentionally sloppy so she could say things that sounded controversial without backing them up fully. For example, in response to the question about whether philosophy is a search for meaning, the obvious answer is "sometimes yes and sometimes no". But she chose to go off on a tangent about how we should be suspicious in our searches for meaning. While that's true, it's also trivially obvious, but the persona she projected was one of worldliness and wisdom, her language couched the obvious fact in all sorts of distracting gloss. She also overgeneralized, making claims like how if we accept the idea of meaning then we automatically go and bomb other countries, etc. Those sort of tendencies appeared in her arguments in many other places as well, and they irritated me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotcha, misheard that.

 

I don't know Derrida, haven't read him. I agree that we shouldn't commit to ethics as an automatic system that guarantees our morality, but that's the only thing in the video that I liked. I felt like her terminology was intentionally sloppy so she could say things that sounded controversial without backing them up fully. For example, in response to the question about whether philosophy is a search for meaning, the obvious answer is "sometimes yes and sometimes no". But she chose to go off on a tangent about how we should be suspicious in our searches for meaning. While that's true, it's also trivially obvious, but the persona she projected was one of worldliness and wisdom, her language couched the obvious fact in all sorts of distracting gloss. She also overgeneralized, making claims like how if we accept the idea of meaning then we automatically go and bomb other countries, etc. Those sort of tendencies appeared in her arguments in many other places as well, and they irritated me.

 

the way she phrases it is a tad bombastic, but the general point is less that searches for meaning end in bombing other people, but that they are, in fact, violent -- and when someone orders the razing of another country, they are, in a sense, searching for meaning.

 

the "obvious answer" of sometimes yes/sometimes no is incredibly philosophically uninteresting. the derridean response to that question is an emphatic "hopefully not!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...