Jaques Derrida- Prediction

 

It’s not only novelists who can win the Prize but philosophers can too.

I’ve been looking forward to this one.  It should be fun.  I have the task of trying to explain and summerise the philosophy of Jaques Derrida’s Deconstructionism with clairty in just under six hundred words.  Don’t worry, I’ve got this.  Right let’s start with the basics.  Derrida is a French philosopher by trade, he studied at the top schools and got some of the top marks.  He is certifiably, capital S smart.  No question, no doubt.  As to what kind of philosopher he is, well he could be described as dangerous, as an intellectual terrorist as he deconstructs Western philosophy from the ground up.  But we’re getting ahead of ourselves here.  Let’s talk about his take on literary criticism, which I am far more comfortable in doing, it is, let’s say, my bag.  Tradional critcism holds it that the writer knows all, that they create a perfect world with unity and cohesion and that this can be, through various methods, be interpreted and understood as the writer intended.  Then along came Derrida who said that the writer does not know all, that their world is not perfect and does not have unity or cohesion and that any one meaning cannot be gained from the text.  Instead the text is rife with contradictions, with fissures and cracks and it is the job of literary critcism to widen these gaps and blow apart the seemingly polished surface. 

  Forgive me if I am off the mark, I have only a brief encounter with Derrida and this is what I have gathered.  I have only glanced at his work but have watched the film with his name for the title, which is about him so that at least is something.  To the lay person his works are quite unreachable, even to the educated person it may be a stretch to be able to really understand him (and the cynics would jeer that of course continental philosophy is nothing but nonsense).  A well read person trained in philosophy would have a better chance and this is his ideal reader as what may seem obscure is only a subtle reference to something Heidegger said or that Hegel had written about, so for the philosopher he is a rich mine to dig in.  He did say, in the film, one thing that has stuck in my mind.  He said that ‘the eyes do not age’ that the eyes remain the same from birth to death.  Though I cannot validate this, and perhaps if a doctor or a medical professional is reading this they can put me straight, but it is an interesting image.  The eyes, whose job is to perceive, are always a child’s and so is the philosopher always asking ‘why?’.  Make of it what you will.

  Is he a Nobel Prize candidate?  Doubtless he is as what may disuade the ordinary person attracts the committee who value complexity, sophistication and productivity, Derrida is a perfect candidate.  Creating you own philosophy is something that the Literature Prize can rival the science prizes, implying a progression of sorts.  It may be a false progression but it is too early to say that and possibly progression in philosophy maybe impossible.