Forums

Dialogue is Action

Announcements:

Welcome to The Forums!  Remember, you may post up to 150% of any required number of posts for credit. This summer, therefore, you can post up to 15 times for credit.  In general during the school year, five substantive posts are required by each Friday midnight. Have fun!

 

Forums are now closed.
 
Notifications
Clear all

Asking Questions to Derrida  

  RSS

royzieglerh70
(@royzieglerh70)
Bookworm AP Lit 2020
Topics
Posts
Member
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 145
February 19, 2020 2:48 pm  

My question for Derrida in Chapter 10 of Moodle confronted how he interpreted religion and he role that humans have to play in religious conflicts as a result of differences in interpretations. However, in examining his beliefs within a context of bringing comfort to those suffering with religious conflict, I do not find solace in an answer. I found it interesting how Derrida seemed to emphasize that religion and "knowing that god is on their side" is a key cause of many conflicts in our world today. I want to know if he truly believes that if the rest of the world accepted the revelation that the alternative to blind belief should not be disbelieve, but rather a belief that embraces uncertainty. I understand that this would enable us to respect others despite finding consistent dissent throughout modern societies. However, I wonder if this is a truly realistic approach, especially within the context of how much the true roots of Derrida's theory have been understood to take away from this peaceful and respectful purpose. I find it hard to believe that anyone would accept a form of uncertainty in religious beliefs, mainly because I feel that the entire reason why many people turn to religion in the first place is because it provides them a grounding force within the uncertainty of everyday life. 

 

Quote
bigbruh101
(@bigbruh101)
Gnome AP Lit 2020
Topics
Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 67
February 19, 2020 9:29 pm  

I think you bring up a very interesting point and there is a lot of uncertainty with this concept of believing in uncertainty in religion. (if that makes sense) I believe that this kind of challenges a lot of the ideologies surrounding religions of the world and I think you really got to the root of it when you said that this "God is on your side" notion really creates most of the religious conflicts in the world. I think there is a sense of knowing the uncertain and respecting it but also it can be a matter of respecting another religion for what it stands for and not resolve to this kind of conflict. This is a very interesting topic to me as I am Christian myself but I really think you are on to something in terms of connecting the ideas of Derrida to religion.


ReplyQuote
royemmis25
(@royemmis25)
Bookworm AP Lit 2020
Topics
Posts
Member
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 143
February 26, 2020 10:32 pm  

@bigbruh101

I also thought religion in the eyes of derrida would be something interesting to explore. Deconstruction is meant to tear apart and question everything that is structured. Religion can be highly structured as the world religions are very old, continuing many beliefs and practices to modern day. If you are looking at the christain faith (like most western cannon pieces mention if they do mention religion) destruction would definitely challenge the goals and intention of God. I think that basically anything that is commonly thought about God might end up being challenged by stating the opposite. For example, “God loves you” and “God watches and is amused by you”. Or perhaps it would straight up say God doesn’t exist.


ReplyQuote
cosisconfused
(@cosisconfused)
Gnome AP Lit 2020
Topics
Member
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 89
February 27, 2020 4:30 pm  

My question to Derrida in ch. 10 of Moodle was about whether deconstruction of literary pieces was easier with nonfiction or fiction. Fiction already has a false sense of reality, sort of how deconstruction has no reality, so it seems as though this would be the easier option to deconstruct. Nonfiction, on the other hand, refers to accounts of current or historical events which are very real because they are actions and not mere metaphors or words. Yes they are described using words that truly have no meaning but they are events that actually happened. Does this mean that nonfiction cannot be deconstructed because it is factual instead of having a meaning drawn from the text? Deconstruction still confuses me a little in the difference between reality and what is considered "meaningless". If you have opinions to add to this discussion, that would be much appreciated because I'm very curious as to which seems like the easier choice to deconstruct.


ReplyQuote
gwenkocis
(@gwenkocis)
Gnome AP Lit 2020
Topics
Member
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 55
February 28, 2020 5:35 pm  

The question I asked Derrida was, "In the first reading, it was said that many deconstructionist philosophers deconstruct each other's theories, leading to further disbanding of the boundaries of the oppositions found in "reality".  Based on this, how can a true literary deconstruction be achieved, without it being even a little bit subjective or biased and without basing it on individual views of oppositions and reality?"  This is something I still question regarding deconstruction; it seems as though in order to truly deconstruct something, you would have to take away all bias and personal views of reality (unless I'm misunderstanding the concept).  Because of this, it's hard for me to understand deconstruction from a literary standpoint.  It reminds me of breaking down the binary oppositions as we did earlier in the year, but instead, with deconstruction, it involves a much greater level of reversal- it's not a direct reversal, but rather, all the oppositions must be stripped away so that the work is no longer structured using these principles.  However, humans tend to think in binaries, so can this ever truly be achieved?

 

ReplyQuote
kesar
(@kesar)
Bookworm AP Lit 2020
Posts
Topics
Member
Joined: 12 months ago
Posts: 123
February 28, 2020 9:02 pm  

@gwenkocis

While reading this post I felt that the idea of truly objective reading and criticism has been a concern of the class for much of the course and for many of the theories we have learned. It is interesting to think that two theories as unalike as deconstructionism and modernism have a common aspect in the necessity to remove biases from literary criticism.


ReplyQuote
kesar
(@kesar)
Bookworm AP Lit 2020
Posts
Topics
Member
Joined: 12 months ago
Posts: 123
February 28, 2020 9:03 pm  

@gwenkocis

While reading this post I felt that the idea of truly objective reading and criticism has been a concern of the class for much of the course and for many of the theories we have learned. It is interesting to think that two theories as unalike as deconstructionism and modernism have a common aspect in the necessity to remove biases from literary criticism.


ReplyQuote
graceirla
(@graceirla)
Member
Topics
Posts
Member
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 0
February 28, 2020 10:43 pm  

My question to Derrida was if the theory of deconstruction could be applied to our reality as well. The issues in literature that are often seen through the lens of deconstruction are issues that are common in our reality as well. The only difference I noticed was the presence of an author. But when comparing reality to a novel, the bias of the other party (author/reader/average person with their experience) is present in both. If we viewed things from a point of deconstruction, would we be able to take a step back and see our actions and others more realistically? 


ReplyQuote
zrosario002
(@zrosario002)
Bookworm AP Lit 2020
Topics
Posts
Member
Joined: 11 months ago
Posts: 126
March 1, 2020 2:43 pm  

The article from Moodle about Derrida that really caught my eye was the one about 9/11. I'd never really thought about how 9/11 was immediately made out to be a major event worldwide. Of course it was major in the US, but many other countries made a big deal of what happened as well. I never really thought about how we don't have a name for 9/11, but that it's simply the date that the airplane hijacking and crashing of the twin towers took place. The naming of the event, or the lack thereof, is contradictory to how it was perceived as a major event. Was the event really that major if the name of it is simply the date, or does the lack of name add on to how the event was so major that no words could amount to a title? For those who read the article, what did you think of it? I personally found it very fascinating.


ReplyQuote
Share:

Forum Reminders:

  • Only Substantive Posts earn credit.
  • Five posts/week earn 100% for that week.
  • Deadlines are Fridays at 11:59 pm.
  • Any single week can earn up to 150%:
    • Six posts = 120%
    • Seven posts = 140%
    • Eight posts = 150%
    • Nine posts = 150%, etc.
  • One successful podcast replaces 5 posts.

Substantive Posts:

  • Are usually several thoughtful sentences in length:
    • Demonstrate that reading was done or a concept is understood
      • Might quote text
    • Express a thoughtful idea about that concept/reading
    • May be questions, but if so, also speculations
  • Are constructive and productive to the discussion
  • Are supportive of other members and their ideas
  • May/should challenge/provoke/take risks in thinking