Reading more Derrida

I don't know, I've never read him

>>9540739
I don't know either

Of Grammatology

Writing and Difference has Structure, Sign, and Play which is essential.

>>9540739
I would recommend Letter to a Japanese Friend as an introduction to Derrida and deconstruction. It's pretty short and available on the internets

>>9540739

I read a chunk of R&D, it was ok, mostly just him bitching about Husserl from what I could tell. Probably worth looking into; have you tried the library though? They probably have it

>>9540753
>>9540758
Cool :^)

>>9540760
Why?

>>9540763
I've read that, and his writings on linguistics interest me, so I may just go with Reading and Difference

>>9540765
I may try the library. However I prefer being able to annotate the texts I read.

Maybe you should have asked someone who has actually read Derrida instead of me, retard

>>9540739
I would only suggest Margins of Philosophy after the essential trio: Grammatology, speech+phenomena and writing+difference.

File: Chopin.jpg (42KB, 300x410px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 300x410px

>>9540739
I tried the first two chapters of Reading and Difference; 'Force and Signification' and the Cogito chapter about Foucault's book 'Madness and Civilisation', and I found them to be pretty difficult.
The first chapter seemed to be establishing what the advent of 'structuralism' in philosophy meant, and goes on to discuss why this 'invasion' was in a sense necessary. But to be honest this chapter was a bit out of my depth.

The second chapter is focused on Foucault's writings on Madness where Foucault claims to be articulating madness from position of madness itself. Foucault thinks this position is underrepresented because if you speak from a psychiatric perspective you're speaking from the position of logic and order which is the very force that has subjugated and demonised insanity throughout history. Here Derrida identifies the manifest impossibility of such a task because Foucault is on a doomed voyage so to speak.
Foucault is trying to re ascribe meaning to the Cartesian perspective of the Cogito (Descartes thought the pure Cogito couldn't really be 'insane') and circumvent the systematic use of ordered logic in language by attempting an 'archaeology of madness', often stressing that he is giving a 'history not of psychiatry' but ' of madness itself, in its most vibrant state, before being captured by knowledge.', but Derrida is not convinced by this: "Hence, one can inquire about the source and the status of the language of this archaeology. "

He thinks that the only way to disengage from the totality of the historical language is by ignoring the silence (not really an answer) or by 'or [following] the madman down the road of his exile', or to become insane oneself. The part I was up to is that Derrida thinks that the silence of articulating insanity is silence 'after' order, because it is this order that arrests and commands the silence (as in we cannot speak of insanity because we necessarily impose order and articulation upon it in words). However we can strive for some kind of Logos that precedes the state where reason tries so hard to protect itself from madness.

This was barely half way through the chapter so there's plenty more for you to read and figure out yourself, but if you liked that then the whole thing is free online: http://14.139.206.50:8080/jspui/bitstream/1/1875/1/Derrida,%20Jacques%20-%20%20Writing%20and%20Difference.pdf
Use that to test things out and get a feel for Derrida before you buy him.

To be honest I'm a fan of modern critical and continual writing but it's quite difficult without a good foothold in modern continental philosophy, so be prepared to work if you pick his stuff up

Margins of philosophy is a very mature work, really difficult (I mean in comparision to other Derrida's works, which is saying a lot). You should think that it was writting around the '90 so he was quite developed at this time.

If you have to choose between those two, Reading and Difference would be my bet (also that cool deleuzian resonances should be reason enough to do that).