Transcendental Blunder
Metacrock (Joe Hinman) has outdone himself with yet another philosophical argument for God that defies logic and reason. This is nothing new. Some time ago, he presented his Argument From God Corrolate [sic], which is the essential reasoning behind his book The Trace of God. I dissected that argument (here), and showed that its conclusion is based on logical fallacy. But since it forms what is basically the thesis of his book, the fact of his core argument being logically invalid is something that Joe is unwilling to accept. It would reveal the whole book - his magnum opus - to be built upon logical fallacy, and that's something that Joe could never accept. Nor will he ever directly answer the criticisms I made of his argument. He prefers instead to simply ignore those criticisms, lest he be placed in a position of having to choose between his life's work and the rules of logic. He finds it more comfortable to keep his head buried in the sand.
Now, Joe is embarking on a new project - another book that he plans to call God and the deep structures of being. And like the previous one, he presents yet another theistic argument as the central theme upon which this book is based. And also just like that earlier argument, this one is fallacious. Joe calls this argument "The Transcendental Signifier Argument for God", and he defends it in two parts on his blog - the first part is here (defending statements 1 and 2), and the second part here (defending the rest of the argument). I started out to examine and discuss his line-by-line defense of the argument, but soon came to realize that Joe's problem is much deeper than making unsupported premises and logically fallacious conclusions (which he does). I'll explain what I mean by that, but first we need to see the argument in Joe's words:
1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops)Before we make any deep analysis, it is apparent that the concept of the "transcendental signified" must be explained in detail in order to make any sense at all of what Joe is saying. And that's what his full discussion seeks to do. Obviously, it involves universal mind and God, but it is unclear how he gets from "organizing principles" to the universal mind. We'll get into that later. But aside from that, it appears that statement 6 suffers from the fallacy of the excluded middle. If Joe has successfully shown in statements 3 and 4 that "Modern Thought" (whatever that is) fails to provide a view of the universe that is "rational, coherent, and meaningful" (and I don't agree that he has), he still needs to show that there isn't some other possibility (let's call it Concept X), aside from his concept of the TS, that does a better job of providing a view that meets his criteria of being rational, coherent, and meaningful (or RCM). As it is, his argument rejects "Modern Thought" in favor of the concept of TS, without considering any other "Concept X" as a possible alternative. That is not a logically valid conclusion.
2. OP's are summed up in TS
3. Modern Thought rejects TS outright or takes out all aspects of mind.
4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.
5. minds organize and communicate meaning
6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS
7. Concept of God unites TS with universal mind therefore offers best explanation for a view that is Rational, Coherent, and Meaningful (RCM). - Hinman
If I may take the liberty of summarizing, based on Joe's extended defense of this argument, it becomes a little more clear how Joe's argument can make the transition from "organizing principles" to universal mind via the"transcendental signified". It's not a logical progression so much as a stream of theistic thinking that goes something like this:
1 - Organizing principles provide meaning.The numbered statements do not correspond one-to-one with the statements in Joe's argument. And of course, this is not a valid argument either, but it seems to express Joe's line of thinking, as I understand it. It's really a variant of the argument from design, as we see in the unsupported assertion of a mind that must exist to provide structure and meaning in nature. I would be happy to hear from Joe or anyone else who can shed additional light on how to interpret this argument.
2 - A mind is required to organize or structure something.
3 - Without a mind, there is no structure (in nature).
4 - God is the ultimate (or universal) mind.
5 - The TS is the ultimate organizing principle.
6 - God is the ultimate TS.
7 - Without God as the TS, there is no understanding of the universe that is RCM
But I'm not going to dwell the logical failings of this argument, its question-begging nature, or its unsupported assertions. I'm going to focus more on the concept of the "transcendental signified" that is at the heart of Joe's thesis. What does it mean, and how does it fit into Joe's argument? One thing we can say about it right away is that it is an obscure term for most people. I have always felt that if you base an argument on obscure language, that is a red flag to be on the lookout for something nefarious. Obscure language often serves to cover up a faulty argument. It is difficult to say what's wrong with an argument if you don't even know what it says. And I do believe that Joe is trying to pull a "fast one" here.
The philosopher Jaques Derrida worked in the field of linguistics and semiotics. According to Merriam-Webster, semiotics is "a general philosophical theory of signs and symbols that deals especially with their function in both artificially constructed and natural languages and comprises syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics". It uses the terminology of "signifier" as a word or symbol that represents a concept, and "signified" as the referent for that signifier - the concept that is represented by the signifier. Derrida wrote about how meaning (in the human mind) is derived from written and spoken language. His best-known works ("Speech and Phenomena" and Other Essays on Husserl's Theory of Signs, Writing and Difference, and Of Grammatology) are in this area of philosophy, and he used the terminology of semiotics ("signifier" and "signified") in this works. He believed that meaning is derived from a combination of the association of related concepts into a general framework, and differentiation between them to distinguish similar concepts from one-another. According to the Wikipedia article discussing différance in post-structuralism:
Derrida coined the term différance (a deliberate misspelling of différence) in order to provide a conceptual hook for his thinking on the meaning processes at work within writing/language.[6] This neologism is a play on the two meanings of the French word différer: to differ and to defer. Derrida thereby argues that meaning does not arise out of fixed differences between static elements in a structure, but that the meanings produced in language and other signifying systems are always partial, provisional and infinitely deferred along a chain of differing/deferring signifiers.In the structuralist view, a "transcendent signified" would be a central concept that has its own inherent meaning within a particular framework of understanding, and serves to tie concepts together within that framework. Christians may well see God as the ultimate transcendent signified in a hierarchical structure of meaning. But Derrida was a post-structuralist (or deconstructionist). He believed that the idea of an ultimate transcendent signified is a myth or illusion. The term "transcendental signified" was coined as a derogatory way to refer to the more proper semiotic term "transcendent signified". (See the Oxford Reference.) It mocks the very idea of God as a transcendent signified.
So what does this have to do with Joe's Transcendental Signifier Argument for God? It seems that Joe has once again come across a philosophical idea that he doesn't really understand, and tried to force-fit it into his own theological framework of understanding. He starts out by discussing organizing principles as a source of understanding, and then the Transcendental Signified as a concept that is somewhat consistent with the semiotic literature of Derrida. But those things relate to linguistics and human understanding of concepts. They aren't about "the logical structure of nature" (see Joe's discussion of premise 2), or the ultimate meaning and purpose of the universe (see Joe's discussion of premise 4), as Joe seems to think. The transcendent signified is said to transcend other sources of meaning, but it isn't a concept about the transcendental. And the terminology of "signifier" and "signified" are appropriate in semiotics, but they don't make as much sense in a discussion of God as the ultimate source of meaning and structure in nature. And yet Joe has silently transitioned from Derrida's philosophy to something that is entirely outside the realm of linguistics and semiotics - from the meaning of signifiers to the meaning of the universe. Joe has appropriated Derrida's use of these terms for his own purpose, without regard for what Derrida is actually talking about.
We've seen this before. He did exactly the same thing with Jean-Paul Sartre's ontology of being en sui and pour sui, as I pointed out in my article The Butchering of Jean-Paul Sartre. And in both of these cases, there is a common element: their writing includes the word 'transcendent'. In Sartre's ontology, being pour sui transcends the simple (en sui) existence of a rock. In Derrida's semiotics, a transcendent signifier transcends an ordinary signifier as a source of meaning. In neither case are they referring to something that would be described as "transcendental", and yet in both cases, Joe has interpreted it that way. It is a misunderstanding based in Joe's inability to see any philosophical view from a non-theistic perspective.
And in this case, Joe intends to write a whole book based on this misunderstanding.
Where does "meaning" arise from, then, assuming there is any, if not from "God?"
ReplyDeletehttps://andrewgripp.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/derrida-for-dummies-a-semiological-understanding-of-god/
This link also references the psychoanalyst, Lacan, just to complicate things, but maybe it will help you see the connection....I
"What these observations (I hope) demonstrate is that rather than meaning or purpose being evidence of the existence of God (or the supremacy of science or the nation-state, etc.), the causality is the other way around. The supposed existence of divine beings is actually the result of a linguistic illusion: the falling of some ineffable signified (like the concept of God) into the realm of the signifiers (as the word “God”): the divine revelation of the Word (logos) in Genesis, the incarnation and descent of a transcendent God through an incarnate Jesus, and the gift of literacy to Muhammad are all excellent religious metaphors for this very linguistic process."
This link also references the psychoanalyst, Lacan, just to complicate things, but maybe it will help you see the connection....
Delete- In fact the whole article seems to be more about Lacan's beliefs than about Derrida's. It does say "Derrida claimed there is no “transcendental signifier” like “God” which furnishes language with its final or foundational meaning. All there is is a system of differential relationships between signifiers." That is consistent with what I said. As for the logos, its mention in Genesis gives theists a reason to claim that God is a basis for the linguistic process of understanding, I suppose. But from a practical standpoint, it doesn't function in any such capacity. We still need a basis in reality for understanding, and to say something like "God is the Word", while it may sound nice to the ears of a theist, really has no meaning.
Where does "meaning" arise from, then, assuming there is any, if not from "God?"
- If you want a closer-to-reality-based explanation of how we build a structure of understanding, I suggest you read about cognitive sciences. There's a good book by George Lakoff that is not highly technical, but does an excellent job of explaining how meaning in the human mind is founded in the body itself, and how we relate foundational understanding to a broader range of meaning. It's called Philosophy In the Flesh - The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought
Haven't read it, but I've heard of it.....
DeleteYOIU ARE BOTH IN THE DARK, sKEP WHAT AN IDIOT YOU ARE,
Deletesuch a dumb ass, he assumes one argue mt is the whole book. Of course he has not read the book he has no idea what it says all he know is the one argument because that much one can get from my blog. He;s too stupid to get that that one argument flows out of the thesis of the book not vice versa.
ReplyDeleteSkep you are surely one of the stupidest people I've ever know,I will not waste my time with you/ I've disprove your half backed non understanding of ,y arguments time and time again more ignorance is not a threat
How could I read what you have never published? Of course, all I know is what you have told me. And this is what you said (here, first comment): "This essay is part of a chapter one from a book I've written about this argument, the whole book is backing this one argument. I don't know when it will be out. title: God and the deep structures of being."
DeleteNow you are denying what you said. You are a liar.
"In Derrida's semiotics, a transcendent signifier transcends an ordinary signifier as a source of meaning. In neither case are they referring to something that would be described as "transcendental", and yet in both cases, Joe has interpreted it that way. It is a misunderstanding based in Joe's inability to see any philosophical view from a non-theistic perspective."
ReplyDeleteHere we see stupid does not understand what transcendental means; He;s probably confused by the use made of it by people like Emerson,
he assumes it means something like transcendence, it doses not, the most materialistic atheist could have a transcendental notion even if there were no God.
It has to do with an understanding of the foundation structure of a body of thought not anything to do with
God or cosmic anything or stuff metaphysical.
Here we see stupid does not understand what transcendental means;
Delete- What a moron. The problem is that YOU don't understand what "transcendent" means. You see that word, and all you hear is "God". You did the same thing with Sartre. You don't understand what they're saying. And you're too dim to realize that "transcendental signifier" is a derogatory term that mocks people like you, who don't see anything but "God" in your little one-dimensional mind.
Stupid says "So what does this have to do with Joe's Transcendental Signifier Argument for God? It seems that Joe has once again come across a philosophical idea that he doesn't really understand, and tried to force-fit it into his own theological framework of understanding.
ReplyDeleteyes I "came across it" in PH,D work in graduate school as part of those 17 classes I took on Derrida and postmodernism, Skeperamous has not been to graduate school.
Skepster: "He starts out by discussing organizing principles as a source of understanding, and then the Transcendental Signified as a concept that is somewhat consistent with the semiotic literature of Derrida."
Is Derrida doing semiotics? sure about that ashole? where did I say the TS is consistent with Derrida? You assume so because you didn't really read what I said about it.
listen reader most of what this fake talks about he has not read, he's a really bad reader, most of the sources he talks about he has not read.
"But those things relate to linguistics and human understanding of concepts."
aahahahahahahahahahahahh, yea that and everything else! I mean what doesn;t??? stupid.
They aren't about "the logical structure of nature" (see Joe's discussion of premise 2), or the ultimate meaning and purpose of the universe (see Joe's discussion of premise 4), as Joe seems to think. The transcendent signified is said to transcend other sources of meaning, but it isn't a concept about the transcendental.
another case where he seems to use transcendental to mean transcendent
SKP" "And the terminology of "signifier" and "signified" are appropriate in semiotics, but they don't make as much sense in a discussion of God as the ultimate source of meaning and structure in nature."
That is extremely stupid, I cant tell you how stupid that is but it really is another proof that Skepterson did not read the material,he has no idea the use to which I put those terms,I do not use them as he suggests,I learned those terms as part of the 17 classes in post modernism I took at Doctoral level, He has not studied anything at the doctoral level.
"And yet Joe has silently transitioned from Derrida's philosophy to something that is entirely outside the realm of linguistics and semiotics - from the meaning of signifiers to the meaning of the universe."
This statement proves he has never read Derrida, Derrida is using linguistics to disprove the notion of truth itself, he is dealing with all reality through linguistics. Skep is too stupid to understand that, his knowledge of Derrida comes comes from Wikipedia not from graduate school.
Joe has appropriated Derrida's use of these terms for his own purpose, without regard for what Derrida is actually talking about.
that stamen is more proof he hasn't even read my work he has no idea what I;m doing he does not understand the first thing about it,I doubt he read even whats on my blog,
yes I "came across it" in PH,D work in graduate school as part of those 17 classes I took on Derrida and postmodernism, Skeperamous has not been to graduate school.
Delete- Any idiot can get a PhD from a bible college. You failed to get yours. There's a reason for that. And stop lying about me.
Is Derrida doing semiotics? sure about that ashole?
- Yes, I am sure about it.
where did I say the TS is consistent with Derrida? You assume so because you didn't really read what I said about it.
- I understand that you disagree with Derrida on the existence of the TS. But that's not the point. Your argument transitions from Derrida's linguistics and human understanding directly into a discussion of the structure of nature itself. That's because you don't have a clue what Derrida is talking about.
aahahahahahahahahahahahh, yea that and everything else! I mean what doesn;t??? stupid.
- Go ahead and laugh it off. But you still show no sign of understanding it.
That is extremely stupid, I cant tell you how stupid that is but it really is another proof that Skepterson did not read the material,he has no idea the use to which I put those terms,I do not use them as he suggests,I learned those terms as part of the 17 classes in post modernism I took at Doctoral level, He has not studied anything at the doctoral level.
- Why should I think you understood your 17 classes any better than you understand Sartre? You DID fail to get your degree.
lDerrida is using linguistics to disprove the notion of truth itself, he is dealing with all reality through linguistics. Skep is too stupid to understand that, his knowledge of Derrida comes comes from Wikipedia not from graduate school.
- I do not claim to have studied Derrida's philosophy in graduate school. I studied science. But I can read. And unlike you, I can learn about things that I didn't study in school. I asked myself 'Why would he use the terminology of semiotics to discuss the transcendental?' And I did a little research of my own. I don't claim to be an expert on Derrida. But it quickly became apparent to me that what he was talking about is NOT the same thing that you are talking about. As for "truth", you are wrong again. He seems to be far more concerned with truth than you are. But he attacks the notion of "Truth with a capital ‘T,’ which is the foundation of religious dogmatism;" (see here.)
He does not understand these things they are way over his head, he;s makimng connections I don;t make and attributing them to me because he doesn't have the brains to read my work.
ReplyDeleteJoe, this is the same thing you say every time I bring up issues that you can't answer.
DeleteActually, Joe's basic point about Derrida (and/or Derrideans) comes surprisingly close to this quote from the article you posted, skep.... ;-)
ReplyDelete"The notion of originary différance, which is the heart of Derrida’s thought, erects a barrier against a recurring temptation of Western metaphysics: the lure of pure presence, absolute origins, and a language that is simply transparent to them. But when these myths of immediacy are equated with truth, and when their demise is proclaimed to be the demise of truth, Derrida himself succumbs to a metaphysics of presence."
.... this is (in a sense) "differance itself" becoming a TS of its own.
.... this is (in a sense) "differance itself" becoming a TS of its own.
Delete- I heartily disagree. If Joe wants to see différance as a kind of TS, he is missing Derrida's point. I think it is more the antithesis of TS. But this is just another example of how Joe tries to force-fit everything into his own narrow view.
Hinman has expounded on his umbrage at this post in his own blog, here. Unfortunately, he is too much of a coward to allow me to respond. So I'll do it here.
ReplyDelete(1) OPs don;t so munch provide meaning as they provide order, they are principles around which organisation takes place
- You are saying that meaning is derived from the organizational structure of things. Without organizing principles, there would be no structure and no meaning. This is the reason you can make the conclusion of (7), because it is the only premise that talks about meaning (understanding). If it would make you happy, we can say "organizing principles provide structure, and structure provides meaning".
(2) and (3) are perfectly reasonable and one flows out of the other,why is that not logical?
- A mind is required to organize concepts, but the idea that a mind is required to organize the structure of nature itself question-begging (because it assumes there must be a god). Certainly most scientists reject that notion outright. So (3) would flow logically only if we accept the theistic assumption (what else could it be?) of a mind being needed to create the structure of a universe.
No 3, most design arguments premise on the fact that there is structure in nature! I said nothing that would make one think I don't accept structure in nature. In fact my argument is largely predicated upon the assumption of structure in nature, It;s not self organizing or self creating
- I don't dispute that there is structure in nature. I dispute that it must be created by a mind.
Why are 4-7 not logical and clearly one flows out of the other, Now clearly they are assumptions Skep doesn't want to take but why does that make them illogical?
- OK. You have reached the end of my summary, and except for your quibble with (1), you have agreed with the whole thing, and you also think that it is perfectly logical. So then why did you call this a straw man? I think I have succeeded fairly well in capturing your argument.
Had you actually just thought about the argument as I make it you would see that it achieves the objective you tried to do here but with less convolution.
- The problem is that I DID think about it. I explained that as stated, it is unclear how you get from "organizing principles" to a "universal mind". I said that you don't explain what "Modern Thought" is, and you make no provisions for what it postulates or argues, other than to say that it excludes (universal) mind. I also explained that your statement (6) is a logical fallacy - the fallacy of the excluded middle. So essentially, you reject modern thought entirely on the basis that it excludes universal mind, without even considering any reasonable argument that might be made by "Modern Thought" or any other philosophical position that could understand the universe in a way that is "RCM".
More to come.
ReplyDeleteNo it's not an argument from design, although it does entail explaining design
- Design arguments attempt "to demonstrate the existence of God by citing as evidence the appearance of design or purpose in the the natural world". That's exaactly what your argument does. It says that structure and purpose in nature can't be achieved without a mind - the universal mind which is God. This is clearly a design argument.
why does he say that my connection of mind and structure is not supported? To the contrary his assertion that they are not connected is unsupported. lt's Obvious from life we all know planned organisation is more complex and functional than unplanned, self evident is still supported.
- Is this not the argument of ID? The claim is unsupported because we see (from empirical observation) that structure is achieved without the involvement of any mind. Evolution specifically rejects the notion of design in biological species. Physics explains structure. The claim that mind is necessary id a THEISTIC ASSUMPTION, and it has no support in empirical evidence.
If anyone is begging the question it;s him with his groundless assertion that my argument be illogical for no particular reason!
- I gave my reason. You didn't listen. Remember what I said about the fallacy of the excluded middle? And if your argument assumes God in its premises, then it is question-begging. When you assert this universal mind, you are assuming God.
(1) Derridia is opposed to metaphysics so his use of the structuralist term transcendental signifier is partly ironic since it;s something Derrida says doesn't believe exists,
- He is not "opposed to metaphysics". He specifically speaks of the "metaphysics of presence", for one thing. It's just that his metaphysics doesn't agree with yours.
2) Transcendental does not mean transcendent at least not when used in the context of either Derridian/ structuralist/ or post structuralist /or postmodern thought, or Banhsen;s TAG argument, This is important to realize because Skep thinks it does and he uses that to argue that I'm full of crap.
- I explained how YOU have them confused. I explained that in semiotics, a "transcendent signifier" is a signifier that carries foundational meaning, and that's why it transcends other signifiers. I explained that this is really what Derrida was talking about - not something transcendental (as in something outside the realm of space and time). I explained that semiotics properly uses the term "transcendent signifier", and that the term "transcendental signifier" was a derogatory term that actually mocks you. You seem to have ignored all this.
Now it is true that popular dictionaries will list TS as meaning the same as transcendent but they are not specialists they are not dealing with post Structural thinking, and I am.
- I don't think so. You fail to understand what Derrida is talking about, as I have explained. You have failed to recognize the difference between structural and Derrida's post-structural positions. You claim that "For Derrida there is no truth and no meaning." This reveals a total failure to comprehend what he says. It's all about meaning. His concept of différance is the very basis of how we obtain meaning from signifiers. You are completely in the dark about what Derrida is saying.
More to come.
God is at the basis of all knowledge and meaning. This is what is meant by “transcendental,”
ReplyDelete- It's what YOU mean by transcendental, but that's not what Derrida says.
The key there is " it [transcendental] refers to the basis of the system of thought. " Yes Derrida uses it of transcendent ideas such as God but he also uses it of naturalistic one;s like science
- NO. In semiotics, a transcendent (not transcendental) signifier is one that carries its own meaning. THAT's what Derrida's discussion is about. You don't get it. It isn't about God.
That will be important because one of Skep's principal objections is that he thinks i see transcendental as meaning transcendent and thus proving God, which is crazy
- NO. I think you see something that contains the word "transcendent", and you think "God". That's precisely what you did with Sartre. I think you don't even realize that the term "transcendental signifier" is a mockery. I pointed that out - it's in the Oxford Reference - and you completely ignored it.
I am sorry but Skep does not understand Derrida. a lot of people don't. He;s never read anything by him.I tried to read him in French, I say tried to because he is one of the most complex and difficult people to read in the world. I understand him because I had the inside track.
- You have proven that you don't know what Derrida is talking about. It's basically about how we obtain meaning from signifiers (spoken or written language). You think Derrida doesn't believe there is any meaning. THAT'S WRONG. You simply don't have a clue what he's talking about. And I notice that you never quote him. All you know is what others (most probably religionists) have told you. I bet Argyros is your only basis for all this, and I'd bet that you didn't really understand him, either. The thing is, it is possible to look up information about Derrida's ideas. And what I've found is that your understanding of it is way off base. I've even cited things that show this. And you completely ignore all that.
Brilliant i can tell you have been at the Wikipedia. that;s really so enlightened how educated you are
- There's a lot of information there, and don't try to tell me that you don't use it too. The important thing is whether you understand what you read.
We can do better than that, One of the first things you learn and one of the most important is that Derrida believed that the meaning of signers is arbitrary.
- And this is something you don't understand, either. You think Derrida rejects meaning. He doesn't. The signifier that we associate with a particular meaning IS arbitrary. That's doesn't imply that Derrida thinks there is no meaning.
Yes and that is because meaning is arbitrary it is not essential so it;s not based upon truth. Derrida opposes the TS as the myth of presence, which stems from Socrates assertion that meaning is present in the mind of the author and is relayed through signifiers.
- This is a misrepresentation of Derrida. I challenge you to show me one place in his works where he says something like this. For a better understanding of his ideas on the relationship between signifiers and truth, see this article.
More to come.
wrong it's "transcendental signified" not "transcendent" i never call it transcendent. I doubt Skep knows the difference
ReplyDelete- NO. The proper term in semiotics (which is Derrida's field) is "transcendent signified". If you knew what you were talking about, you would understand this.
see what he did there he substituted transcendent for transcendental that tells me he thinks those are the same, they are not, they are very different, that is a good example of how he relies upon assumptions rather than reading and those assumptions lead him astray due to his own lack of understanding, we've all been there.
- NO. In semiotics, a transcendent (not transcendental) signifier is one that carries its own meaning. THAT's what Derrida's discussion is about. You don't get it. It isn't about God.
As you see Skep probably never saw the rest of the definition. Notice also the term is transcendental not transcendent. It is not called transcendental to make any derogatory reference to a transcendent reality. The term, is used because it refers to an analysis of the overarching logic structure of an idea. It includes science. in PM analysis science is just as vulnerable as religion.
- The derogatory term is used because of people like you who insist in seeing God in everything. Semiotics studies how meaning is conveyed in language. It isn't about God.
He thinks I'm forcing Derrida into my God argument mold, that can only be because he doesn't know enough about Derrida to know what he said and he doesn't follow the argument closely enough to understand how I use him. Derrida clearly and famously says that Western thought is based upon the myth of presence,that this myth including the search for a TS.-- Important to point out here there are many transcendental signifiers but only one signified --so there;s a search for the right one, Derrida does not believe there is one. That is important because Skp thinks I use Derrida as a positive source to point to God
- It isn't scientific thinkers who are searching for the TS, despite your ridiculous claims. You are the one who is searching for the TS. I said all along that you disagree with him about the existence of the TS. But you are misappropriating his works to point to the God anyway.
"The transcendent signified" is not a phrase I use, he;s just changed it from transcendental because he doesn't understand the distinction this is just another example of his ignorance, he really thinks transcendent and transcendental mean the same thing
- I was not quoting you. I was referring to the actual literature about this to show that YOU are using the terminology incorrectly.
Why not? We are still using signs and signification. That;s the best expression for the distinction between the terms of the concept and the referent to which those terms point, The argument revolves around the concept of the TS and so the termenology from the field that gives us the TS is appropriate.
- Why don't you read the literature about semiotics to see what terminology they actually use?
Clearly he does not know shit about Derrida, to think that Derrida is just about language and has no import beyond that shows his complete lack of knowledge about anything to do with Derrida. the statement that I;m going beyond Derrida is is inane since Im turning him on his head, That's a totally legitimate move it;s done all the time.
- Clearly, you only know what you learned from one guy at school, probably a fellow theist who insists in seeing God in Derrida's work, just like you. You think that makes you an "expert" on Derrida. You have never read Derrida himself. You have never read about semiotics. Don't you think it would be a good idea to get a broader view of this field before you go around pretending to know what it's all about?
Well, basing your interpretation on one line from one website that just seems to have an untypical translation of derridas French (for I dunno what reason) doesn't get you very far either. Most sources use the term "transcendental", as does joe, but here's a definition from a dictionary of postmodern terms that suggests your seeming-distinction is just another way of talking about the same thing......
Delete"Transcendent(al) signified: Derrida argued that dominant ideological discourse relies on the metaphysical illusion of a transcendental signified - an ultimate referent at the heart of a signifying system which is portrayed as 'absolute and irreducible', stable, timeless and transparent - as if it were independent of and prior to that system. All other signifieds within that signifying system are subordinate to this dominant central signified which is the final meaning to which they point. Derrida noted that this privileged signified is subject to historical change, so that Neo-Platonism focused on 'the Monad', Christianity focused on God, Romanticism focused on consciousness and so on. Without such a foundational term to provide closure for meaning, every signified functions as a signifier in an endless play of signification."
http://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/S4B/sem-gloss.html#T
First, I did not rely on a single source.
DeleteSecond, notice that in this reference, they use both terms, which indicates that (contrary to what Joe claims) they are NOT talking about two different things. "transcendental signified" is an alternate term for "transcendent signified".
Third, the "dominant ideological discourse" is religious. The "Western Thought" that Joe decries is actually his own western religious philosophy. This is what Derrida argues against. I still have a hard time seeing how Joe can take this and turn it into the opposite of what it is. Read what it says. There is no transcendent or transcendental signified. It's an illusion. A myth. It's a joke. That's what Derrida is telling us. Joe has taken this whole concept and turned it into a proof of God.
Yeah, I like your deconstructive point, but Joe is ultimately gonna make HIS point AGAINST Derrida ( and more or less with Plato). This is what Joe says in the end....
Delete"Derrida wants to explicate the end of metaphysics, but he also says there is no hope of escaping metaphysics. Even language itself is metaphysical. We cannot help but do metaphysics. That means metaphysical hierarchies are inescapable which means the TS is inescapable. Thus the choice we have is to assume there is a TS or to fall silent and never speak, never try to think coherently. But we cannot live with that choice. Because we have to assume it, we can't live without it, we should assume there is a Transendental signifier, and as Derrida points out, that's just a truncated version of God."
(Interestingly, there are theologians who make points WITH Derrida, finding religious significances in his thinking. But that's another story and those are different spins on "God" than Joes.)
Joe is ultimately gonna make HIS point AGAINST Derrida ...
DeleteJoe says: "Derridia is opposed to metaphysics". Joe is WRONG. Derrida's writings describe his metaphysics. Joe has never read it. He doesn't understand what Derrida was talking about. Joe also insists that Derrida thinks there is no meaning and no truth. Joe is WRONG. I've been saying this all along. Joe is misrepresenting what Derrida actually says, because he doesn't understand it.
“There is no sense in doing without the concepts of metaphysics in order to attack metaphysics. We have no language—no syntax and no lexicon—which is alien to this history; we cannot utter a single destructive proposition which has not already slipped into the form, the logic, and the implicit postulations of precisely what it seeks to contest.”
Delete― Jacques Derrida, Structure, Sign, and Play
Do you understand this statement? In other words, we can't do without the concepts of metaphysics - it wouldn't make sense. This is a double negative. I don't know if Joe was confused by this particular statement, or if he just insists that all metaphysics must be consistent with his own theistic metaphysics. But the fact remains that Joe doesn't understand Derrida.
DeleteIt's the kind of "aporia" - puzzle, paradox, contradiction - that Derrida is famous for.... like Joe said...
ReplyDelete"Derrida wants to explicate the end of metaphysics, but he also says there is no hope of escaping metaphysics."
I don't recall Joe ever saying that. This is what he DID say "Derridia is opposed to metaphysics so his use of the structuralist term transcendental signifier is partly ironic since it;s something Derrida says doesn't believe exists"
DeleteI would agree with Joe here, except for that fact that it is not true that Derrida opposes metaphysics. Nor is there a paradox. One can certainly try to explicate the end of metaphysics without being opposed to it. Joe himself spends much of his time trying to explain the decline of belief in God. Does that mean he's opposed to God?
If so, that's in a sociological/historical sense, which is, um, "different" than in Derrida's case, and Joe means it in the sense that Derrida believes "the metaphysics of presence"(i.e. metaphysics itself) is a huge, historical mistake in Western thinking. (since the metaphysics of presence follows on the assumption of a TS/logos) ....
ReplyDelete"... Derrida assumes that the entire history of Western metaphysics from Plato to the present is founded on a classic, fundamental error. This error is searching for a transcendental signified, an “ external point of reference” ( like God, religion, reason, science….) upon which one may build a concept or philosophy. This transcendental signified would provide the ultimate meaning and would be the origin of origins. This transcendental signified is centered in the process of interpretation and whatever else is decentered. To Derrida THIS IS A GREAT ERROR because ... There is no ultimate truth or a unifying element in universe, and thus no ultimate reality (including whatever transcendental signified). What is left is only difference."
....and that's why his statement that metaphysics can't be overcome is pretty much an "aporia".
Perhaps this is at the root of Joe's confusion. The idea that "the metaphysics of presence" equates to "metaphysics itself" is wrong. Certainly Derrida tries to deconstruct "the metaphysics of presence", which is central to the logocentric structuralist view. How anyone can translate that to mean that he opposes all metaphysics is a mystery. Derrida didn't believe in some ultimate Truth (with a capital T), but that shouldn't be taken to mean (as Joe does) that he denies there is any truth at all.
DeleteHere is a short article on Derrida's view of presence. And please note once again that this is primarily in the context of linguistics - something that Joe has yet to recognize, because he doesn't read articles like this. He has his fixed ideas, and won't listen to anything else.
"..there’s just something about “Derrida” that makes ... conservatives edgy…but I wonder if it is an authentic rendering of Derrida or if it is the received tradition of “Derrida”…..or perhaps making such a distinction is perhaps something that a true Derridean would never do….is anything authentic? or just trace?"
Delete(Some really interesting comments on that article. Thanks.)
"Derrida didn't believe in some ultimate Truth (with a capital T), but that shouldn't be taken to mean (as Joe does) that he denies there is any truth at all."
Well yeah, that could be right!
Because even a truth only grounded in aporia - in the endless play between presences and absences as D would have it - might still be said by someone to be a kind of "truth", even if definitely not the capital T kind. Or so I might say, or would tend to agree......
.... There are those, however, who are just platonists at heart, who are not interested in such dim and qualified versions of "truth"......
Clearly, Derrida is not a Platonist. But it is worth remembering the topic here. It's a question of whether Joe understands what Derrida says. Joe doesn't simply claim that he disagrees with Derrida. He actually misrepresents what Derrida says.
DeleteJoes reading is pretty much within "the received tradition of "Derrida"" as the commentator said above .... Ie not outside the scope of the ways in which Derrida has been generally understood at least.
DeleteI'd need to see some evidence of that. I have found no literature about Derrida that is consistent with Joe's interpretation of it. What do you think the "received tradition" is, where is this discussed, and by whom?
Delete
DeleteFrom the wiki discussion of Derrida....
Philosopher Sir Roger Scruton wrote in 2004: "He argues that the meaning of a sign is never revealed in the sign but deferred indefinitely and that a sign only means something by virtue of its difference from something else. For Derrida, there is no such thing as meaning – it always eludes us and therefore anything goes."
This is typical of some understandings of Derrida. Tho discussions of him have a pretty wide scope as you've prolly seen.... He wrote a lot and he is notoriously hard to understand and interpret.
(Joe's main Derrida point is just about the TS, though, that he said there was an ongoing search for it, but no actual one.)
Derrida, quoted by Joe, some posts back.....
Delete“For essential reasons the unity of all that allows itself to be attempted today through the most diverse concepts of science and of writing, is in principle, more or less covertly, yet always, determined by an historico-metaphysical epoch of which we merely glimpse the closure.”
DeleteFor Derrida, there is no such thing as meaning – it always eludes us and therefore anything goes.
- That's ridiculous. His work is ALL ABOUT meaning. How we obtain meaning from spoken or written language. There may be a few theistic crackpots who don't accept him because he rejects their theistic views (ie. meaning must exist as an external object, embodied in God himself), but that certainly isn't what I'd call the "received tradition". Most philosophers don't understand Derrida that way at all.
It would seem that a facile reading of Derrida may be based in his idea of the "endless deferral" of meaning in the chain of signifiers. What he means is that meaning is not found by following that path, but rather in the context of a word's use.
It's complicated! For one thing, any ordinary "context" would always include the historico-metaphysical epoch (of the search for the TS) that D mentioned above....so itself would be participating in the "great error" already.
Delete"The question of why Derrida’s texts are so difficult is interesting in itself. One reason is the unfamiliarity of his concepts. Another is his concern that statements asserting knowledge always assume other knowledge. As Hilary Lawson says in his excellent 1985 book Reflexivity: The Post-Modern Predicament, “our ‘certainties’ are expressed through texts, through language, through sign systems, which are no longer seen to be neutral. It appears, therefore, in principle there can be no arena of certainty.” Derrida wants to avoid making statements which depend either on fixed linguistic meanings or on assumptions made elsewhere."
From here: https://philosophynow.org/issues/127/What_is_Derrida_Saying_to_Us
That's a good article. And I think it's consistent with what I've been saying, too. It certainly doesn't agree with the notion that Derrida thinks there is no meaning - nor does Derrida himself ever say any such ting.
DeleteIt may be easy to take a "soundbite" from the many things he says, and misinterpret it to try to make it into something different from what he actually intends to convey. But just look at occurrences of the word "meaning" in that article, and you can easily see that Derrida is NOT saying that there is no meaning. Obviously, he writes about where meaning comes from. So then we must ask, is he stupid and contradicting himself, or is Scruton ignoring all that discussion about meaning, and using a soundbite to define Derrida? I think the answer is very clear.
A lot of postmodernism is basically about politics (in a nietzchean kind of way.) ...
Delete"Deconstruction is a technique for revealing a ‘hidden’ mythos. Furthermore, the meanings of words are a matter of social convention. Meanings are always in the state of flux. Those in power use words to control and sometimes oppress the less powerful. Since all knowledge is conveyed by words, truth itself is socially constructed by the powerful. Values, of course, are socially constructed. The movement Derrida spearheaded revives a pre-Axial age mindset, one where there is no concept of transcendence, but just human actors vying for power. This flies in the face of both the way of Athens, a quest for Truth with a capital ‘T’, and the way of Jerusalem, a quest for Goodness with a capital ‘G’. "
So "use" replaces "meaning" as the essential aspect of writing and language...an idea that is useful to anyone who is trying to get around some "dominant ideological discourse".
The quote is from a Quora answer, here: https://www.quora.com/Can-you-explain-the-main-philosophical-ideas-of-Jacques-Derrida-in-a-nutshell
Second response....
So "use" replaces "meaning" as the essential aspect of writing and language...an idea that is useful to anyone who is trying to get around some "dominant ideological discourse"
Delete- I think Derrida would say that use determines meaning (and meaning is not permanently fixed). Of course, this person has a very jaded view of Derrida. He wants to defend the old way ("the way of Athens, a quest for Truth with a capital ‘T’, and the way of Jerusalem, a quest for Goodness with a capital ‘G’") against a new paradigm.
skeptic is so desperate to comment on my blog he checks everyday to see if its still moderated. I showed his his crap is just childish prattle. e can;t live with the truth,
ReplyDeleteCan't stand to hear the truth - or let anyone else hear it.
DeleteYou are quite the hypocrite. Blocking my comments, and then coming here to spout your bullshit.