/lit/ - Literature

In what texts does Derrida most explicitly talk about phallogocentrism?

what are some good books of digital media theory?

do anyone remeber derrido?

he came and he say me:

"there is text but not outside"

i look up, he is vanish! without say any more

anyone can help remeber dorito final word/?

>>7151221
Derrida made a huge comment about this, if that interests you. I couldn't resume it well enough (I don't speak English good enough, nor am I enough versed in philosophy), but the point was around the concepts of subject, and what a "world" is in the "poor in world" definition by Heidegger of "the animal".
You could find it in The animal that therefore I am. (I can try to search the specific text if you want)

>>7118437
Hmm... I've never thought about that anon. Very original and well thought out post. Allow me some time to ponder.

>>7092396
Everything I do is a simplistic form of lying

>>7058117
Found the pages, in "The animal that therefore I am" :

« Llewelyn reports that one day, here, in fact, at Cerisy in 1986, he asked Levinas a number of questions. For exemple: Does the fact of having a face imply an aptitude for language? Does the animal have a face? Can one read "Thou shalt not kill" in the eyes of the animal? Here is Levinas's response as transcribed by Llewelyn: "I cannot say at what moment you have the right to be called 'face.' The human face is completely different and only afterwards do we discover the face of an animal. I don't know if a snake has a face. I can't answer that question. A more specific analysis is needed."
A brief remark, first of all on the statement "The human face is completely different and only afterwards do we discover the face of an animal." It indeed seems to suggest that this discovery after the fact operates on the basis of an analogical transposition or anthropomorphism, which is a way of rendering it secondary if not of finding it suspect, and in any case amounts to confirming, for better or for worse, that the thinking and experience of the face are originarily human, that is to say, fraternal. While recognizing that ethics extends to all living beings and that we are not to make an animal suffer "needlessly" (which is the position of the Universal Declaration of Animal Rights), Levinas insists on the originary, paradigmatic, "prototypical" character of ethics as human, the space of a relation between humans, only humans; it is for this that they are human. It is only afterwards, by means of an analogical transposition, that we become sensistive to animal suffering. It is only by means of transference, indeed, through metaphor or allegory, that such suffering obligates us. Certainly, the human face is and says "I am," in the end, only in front of the other and after the other, but that is always the other human, and the latter comes before an animal, which never looks at him to say "Thou shalt not kill," even if it be as if to say "Help, I am suffering," with the implication "like you" [...] »

Failed to find an English translation of what is following, sadly. I'll give it a shot later.
Anyway, to put it in a nutshell, he reproaches Levinas to be giving a "false" face to the animal (face being the first ontology by ethic in Levinas' philosophy, it cannot derive from another thing) - and though, in the same time, he shows Levinas trying to keep something of the "Thou shalt not kill" applied to the animal

Philosophic cats

>>6139420
Asking for evidence of a transcendental deity is like asking for the pure presence of the transcendental signifier that fixes itself at the absolute center, the point of origin, of the structurality of structure outside a system of differences and is itself beyond play

Next.