Unisa Press Journals (University of South Africa)
Not a member yet
6222 research outputs found
Sort by
Representasie en disseminasie
No full textA study of the works by Jacques Derrida inevitably leads to a reflection on the foundations of Western culture, foundations that are full of cracks: institutions are shattered; key concepts are questioned. Can anything be done about such a crisis? In this context Derrida becomes relevant. He is not concerned about the cracks in the foundations but questions the very possibility of foundations.As opposed to the classical philosophic view saturating all facets of Western culture, viz. that foundations are determinable because they can be represented or made present as meaningful while the represented meaning can be appropriated and possessed, Derrida states that foundations are not determinable because of reading and writing between the lines, between words, in the margins as well as within the gaps between texts, and such dissemination of meaning comes to a radical dispossession of meaning. As against the homogeneity of the metaphysics of presence there is a heterogeneity of traces which indicates the simultaneity of presence and absence. Instead of the appropriation of represented meaning there is dispossession due to disseminated meaning. Dissemination, unlike representation, does not depart from meaning but makes it possible.This reading and writing operation is called deconstruction. Deconstruction can be totally ignored as irrelevant or it can be embraced as an interesting fashion or as an apparent ally of the ideologue or as an adventurous methodological renewal. As a matter of a fact, however, it emanates as a profound challenge to imaginative participation in a radical philosophic movement with a new mode of thinking about \u27man\u27 and \u27world\u27.
Opsomming
Die bestudering van die werke van Jacques Derrida lei onvermydelik tot nadenke oor die grondslae van die Westerse kultuur. Dit is grondslae vol krake: instellinge le aan skerwe; sleutelbegrippe word betwyfel. Kan iets aan hierdie krisis gedoen word? In hierdie verband is Derrida relevant. Hy vra nie na die krake in die fondament nie, maar bevraagteken die fondament self. Teenoor die klassieke filosofiese opvatting, wat alle fasette van die Westerse kultuur deurdrenk, nl. dat grondslae bepaalbaar is omdat dit as sinvol gerepresenteer of aanwesig gestel word en die gerepresenteerde sin daarvan toegeeien en besit kan word, stel Derrida dit dat die grondslae nooit bepaalbaar is nie omdat daar altyd ook tussen die lyne, tussen die woorde en in die kantlyne, ook binne die gapings tussen tekste gelees en geskrywe word, sodat hierdie disseminasie van sin \u27n vorm van onteiening is. Teenoor die homogeniteit van die metafisika van aanwesigheid is daar \u27n heterogeniteit van spore wat daarop dui dat sin tegelyk aanwesig en afwesig is. In plaas van die toe-eiening van gerepresenteerde sin is daar onteiening vanwee gedissemineerde sin. Disseminasie, anders as representasie, beweeg nie weg van betekenis nie, maar maak dit moontlik. Hierdie lees- en skryfoperasie word dekonstruksie genoem. Dekonstruksie kan geheel en al geignoreer word as irrelevant, of daar kan beslag daarop gele word as \u27n interessante modeverskynsel of as \u27n skynbare bondgenoot vir die ideoloog of as \u27n avontuurlike rnetodologiese vernuwing. Ten diepste kom dit egter neer op \u27n uitdaging tot verbeeldingryke deelname aan \u27n radikale filosofiese beweging met \u27n nuwe denkwyse oor \u27mens\u27 en \u27wereld\u27.
Derrida, art and truth
No full textThis article examines the consequences of Derrida\u27s strategy of deconstruction for the notion of \u27truth\u27 in art and aesthetics. Its point of departure is R.D. Cumming\u27s \u27comparison\u27 of Heidegger and Derrida which shows the latter dismantling Heidegger\u27s conception of the truth of the artwork. Whereas Heidegger wishes to restore to the artwork its autonomy, in this way hoping to return to an original experience of Being (forgotten since the time of the Greeks), Derrida undermines his attempt by exploiting the conflict between the Heideggerian metaphors of \u27ground\u27 and \u27groundlessness\u27. In this way Derrida demonstrates that, in view of the metaphorical \u27openings\u27 in language, attempts to return to an \u27origin\u27 are bound to fail. There are finally only interpretations of interpretations. Derrida\u27s notion of metaphor in philosophical discourse (as well as de Man\u27s related view on the subject) is pursued briefly before concluding with a discussion of his interpretation of van Gogh\u27s peasant shoes painting as an exemplification of the similarities and differences between his own and Heidegger\u27s position regarding language, art and truth.
Opsomming
Hierdie artikel ondersoek die gevolge van Derrida se strategie van dekonstruksie vir die waarheidsbegrip in kuns en estetika. Die uitgangspunt is R.D. Cumming se \u27vergelyking\u27 van Heidegger en Derrida, wat demonstreer hoe laasgenoemde Heidegger se opvatting van die waarheid van \u27n kunswerk aftakel. Terwyl Heidegger poog om die outonomie van die kunswerk te herstel, en sodoende terug te keer na \u27n oorspronklike ervaring van Syn (vergete sedert die tyd van die Grieke), ondermyn Derrida sy poging deur die konflik tussen die Heideggeriaanse metafore, naamlik \u27grond\u27 en \u27ongegrondheid\u27 uit te buit. Op hierdie wyse demonstreer Derrida dat pogings om na \u27n \u27oorsprong\u27 terug te keer, vanwee die metaforiese \u27openinge\u27 in taal tot mislukking gedoem is. Daar is uiteindelik slegs interpretasies van interpretasies. Daar word kortliks aandag geskenk aan Derrida se opvatting van metafoor in filosofiese tekste (sowel as aan De Man se verwante siening van die saak) voordat afgesluit word met \u27n bespreking\u27van sy interpretasie van Van Gogh se boereskoene-skildery as toonbeeld van die ooreenkomste en verskille tussen sy en Heidegger se onderskeie posisies ten opsigte van taal, kuns en waarheid