Product Description

A kaleidoscopic portrait of Derrida's life and works through the prism of his Jewish heritage, by a leading feminist thinker and close personal friend. From the circumcision act to family relationships, through Derrida's works to those of Celan, Rousseau, and Beaumarchais, Cixous effortlessly merges biography and textual commentary in this playful portrait of the man, his works, and being (or not being) Jewish.

Product Description

Customer Reviews (2)

Pearls Before Swine
For every hour G.D. Peterson has spent reading and musing over the difficult writings of Derrida, I would wager Professor Kates has spent
a thousand. He is clearly an expert on Derrida, vetted by respectful
peer review, published by an elite academic press with an international
reputation for scholarly books in the field of Continental Philosophy
for four decades. Perhaps Mr. Peterson can come out of the hot sun of
Irvine to submit his book length critique of the French philosopher?
Perhaps, too, he can dispense with footnotes a la Harold Bloom and
speak ex cathedra from his self-perceived great height. Spare us, G.D.

A Very Strange Book
This is another book that claims some sort of expertise on the subject of Derrida, in particular his relation to Husserl and phenomenology. But then why is so much of the narrative of the 218 pages of text largely a discussion of other commentators?

But hold on: there is another 100 pages of footnotes, and this is where it gets weird. The footnotes are one prolonged assessment of other commentators on Derrida: each and every footnote offers a various and sundry assessment of the deficiencies other experts in this field. They all have the same obsessive pattern: XXX miscontrues what Derrida is up to here, though XXX had made some real contributions, ultimately XXX is completely clueless, for reasons Mr Kates has enumerated, or will enumerate. And the same pattern persists throughout the book; Mr Katesspends far more time denigrating other writers on Derrida than actually writing on Derrida. And by the end of the book there is only one person left as a credible expert on Derrida: The author Himself.

Ok. I am being mean: he does defer, after all to Genesis and Trace, a fine book by Paola Marrati.

But now that I think about it, Mr Kates' Essential History is less a sustained effort to explain and analyse Derrida, but is rather a heavy handed and sustained attack on a competing book, Lawlor's Husserl and Derrida. I agree that Lawlor's book is weak in all respects, but does he deserve a sustained attack conducted repeatedly and relentlessly throughout the footnotes?

This is a pretentious book that claims an expertise in the subject, but spends the majority of the readers time putting up with his claims to being an expert on the subject. He probably is, but then, why all the schadenfreude????

If you don't agree with this review, then go and read through the footnotes. ... Read more

Product Description
"Originally published in French in 1982, this collection is a good representation of the range of Derrida's working styles."-South Atlantic Review"No writer has probed the riddle of the Other with more patience and insight than Jacques Derrida. . . . By rigorously interrogating the writings of major Western figures, Derrida not only forces a rethinking of the nature of reading and writing but calls into question basic as-sumptions about ourselves and our world. . . . The Ear of the Other will be especially useful to people who have little or no prior acquaintance with Derrida's work. . . . Through a careful reexamination of Nietzsche's autobiography Ecce Homo, Derrida elaborates some of the far-reaching implications of twentieth-century reinterpretations of human subjectivity."-Mark C. Taylor, Los Angeles Times Book Review. "Ably translated. . . . The long 'Roundtable on Autobiography' . . . is authentic philosophical discussion, illuminating not only the preceding lecture but Derrida's work as well."-Choice. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (4)

Don't be fooled indeed
Don't be fooled by those claiming Derrida is the "other" of reason, 'Niemals noch hängte sich die Wahrheit an den Arm eines unbedingeten'. Coloured perspective and prejudice are also quite old 'cons'.
Double bind: Derrida defies metaphysics, yet of course inherently fails this attempt (we are all metaphysical beings). This is where conservative thinkers and bigots claim Derrida to be a con... I think not: Derrida tries to do, to think, to operate something different... indeed an "other" reason. Either you try to follow him, or you don't.

A criticism on this book is that Derrida focuses too much on 'microphilosophy'; indeed from a rigourous point of view autobiography is impossible... Différance, dissemination, archi-écriture, griffe, trace, etc...
Yet what Derrida (willfully?) forgets is that numerous autobiographies HAVE BEEN written. Of course he can reply that his point is exactly that those are not autiobiographies, but that is a superficial retort. In my opinion this doubleness, i daresay duality renders Derrida himself a metaphysicist (to continue in the terminology).
By (no doubt partly polemically) ruling out autobiography as such, and a priori (death of the author, etc.), Derrida implicitly contradicts a reality, instead of unveiling that reality.

Though this remains, together with 'Éperons' an excellent introduction into Derrida's unusually nuanced thought.

Archewriting
Jacques Derrida is the "other" of reason. Actually, he's an inverted Kantian, nothing more. This is the sort of text his alterity-stricken fan club gets excited about. Its conversational style gives the impression that deep insights are waved at because they just never show up. The reader is made to feel that he missed something. And then the game is lost. Intangibility becomes intrinscially virtuous, and so the reader forgives the great Derrida's omissions, who is relieved of the responsibility of answering his own questions. Don't be fooled. He can't answer those questions because the special discourse he reserves for himself prohibits him from doing so in principle. That's the oldest con in the book. Derrida is the "other" of reason.

Derrida reads the subject
In the book's central essay, Derrida deftly reads a short piece byNietzsche on the way to reading the subject in the context ofautobiography, of words one says about oneself.Those words, of course,return only by way of the ear so that one can locate oneself as the hearingother--hence his essay's title, "Otobiographies."The essayraises again the questions of speech and the voice and of the individual inlanguage--questions that run through all of Derrida's work--as it paves theway for his later writings on the name.This is a must-read for anyoneinterested in the question of subjectivity that has so engrossed twentiethcentury philosophy as Derrida's account of the subject and of the way thesubject knows about and can speak about itself is original, insightful, andprovocative.The volume also includes the transcripts of two roundtablediscussions:one on autobiography and one on translation, where Derridawith unusual clarity articulates an accessible version of his thinking onlanguage.Finally there is an interview entitled"Choreographies" in which the editor forces Derrida to consideragain the issue of gender and the status of woman.This volume is anoften-overlooked but fascinating part of Derrida's corpus that willintrigue both the specialist and someone coming to Derrida's writings forthe first time.

This is really not a good book
It's a collection of transcriptions of conversations/debates on various subjects between Derrida and other scholars. Sometimes I laughed out loud at the ridiculous statements and non-sequiturs. ... Read more

Product Description

One of the most influential and controversial thinkers of the twentieth-century, Jacques Derrida’s ideas on deconstruction have had a lasting impact on philosophy, literature and cultural studies.

Jacques Derrida: Basic Writings is the first anthology to present his most important philosophical writings and is an indispensable resource for all students and readers of his work. Barry Stocker’s clear and helpful introductions set each reading in context, making the volume an ideal companion for those coming to Derrida’s writings for the first time. The selections themselves range from his most infamous works including Speech and Phenomena and Writing and Difference to lesser known discussion on aesthetics, ethics and politics.

Product Description

Product Description

Customer Reviews (1)

ease and assist
The Insister of Jacques Derrida is the perfect title for this book. Cixous really is the in-sister for Derrida. She is in on all of the his in-jokes and he even shares his dreams with her. Some of these dreams are about large dogs, often with large teeth, sometimes with their large teeth in his hand. Another dream allows him to bask in the satisfaction of Chirac for Derrida's having parked without complications a large Boeing airplane in a nice out of the way spot in the city. What becomes evident in this book is how important Derrida's ear was to his own and Cixous' career, as well as how mutually affectionate and stimulating this relationship was for the two of them. He is always listening, engaging his interlocutor, and his French is without fault. Cixous, for her part, does her best to keep Derrida's sentences alive and in this work she gives thoughtful focus to three works: , , and . Much of the writing is moving but still the sharing is largely hermetic. As in most deconstructive writing there is much fervid writing abounding in selected word roots. In this work -sist-, as in insist, persist, sister, flourishes, as does a meditation on mochte and mag from German. One will also find neologisms such as toolateo' clock and Freuderridian among others. ... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (6)

Metaphors on the Margin
Jacques Derrida has provided us with an important text whose central concern is, arguably, "metaphor". In leaving the reader discover the details of how philosophy exists within the margins of its own discourse, I want to simply and briefly map out a number of, what may be called, "conceptual metaphors", that I have found captivating, intriguing and useful (for my own quest for difference).

To start with, there is "differance", and the reason why it can be treated as a conceptual metaphor is that it cannot be approached directly. As Derrida's interest is in helping us discover 'a new play of opposition, of articulation, of difference' (p. xxviii), namely "differance", we are however precluded from posing, let alone answering, the question "What is differance?". This is because it is 'neither a word nor a concept' (p. 3), has 'neither existence nor essence' (p. 6), is 'irreducibly polysemic' (p. 8), a 'temporisation' and 'spacing' (p. 9), and is that which 'produces differences' (p. 11). It can therefore only be approached metaphorically, in its use as a tool operating on the margins of language and discourse for understanding difference in other authors (especially Hegel) and (of course) Derrida himself!

"Differance" is by far not the only conceptual metaphor in this text: there are additional ones, which are in a way, related to "differance" and thus provide additional clues for getting closer to understanding its purpose and function. In particular, the Hegelian conceptual metaphor "pyramid" (an inspiration for Mark Taylor's text 'Altarity') operating on the margins of signs and difference, in addition to that of "vibration", as the movement of idealisation. Further, there is a useful parallel between de Saussure and Rousseau as regards "language", and an account of its "interweaving" with other threads of experience, a conceptual metaphor found in Husserl. With Benveniste and Aristotle, Derrida deals with the issue of "category" as 'one of the ways for "Being" to say itself or to signify itself' (p. 183) in its relation to "thought". Next, he gives an account of the nature of philosophical text and in discussing Aristotle and Bachelard among other thinkers, explains the role of "metaphor" as 'the manifestation of analogy' (p. 238) in carrying and emitting meaning - hence its important role in the logic of (philosophical) discourse. Finally, in discussing Valery, Derrida tackles the conceptual metaphor of "source" in the sense of origin and grounding.

Overall, although it is a difficult text, it is captivating and must be read several times (ideally in conjunction with the French text) so as to (progressively) discover the multiple nuances and conceptual connections that Derrida is making in a style that decidedly relies on metaphor and différance. It is an important reading for anyone concerned with the notion of difference and its workings through and with language.

Metaphor in the text of philosophy
In the 1980s, White Mythology was required reading for Yale lit-crit majors.It is an incredible tour de force so rich that its overwhelming in the initial read.How was it possible to write this (and how was it possible to translate?)The inescapability of metaphor, metaphor not just in, but constituting the text of philosophy, the false privileging of metaphysics over rhetoric are made stunningly evident -- if not plain -- here.

Reading Derrida...
Begin with "Tympan", it's designed to serve as an introduction to the ten essays which follow and, despite a lot of word play, Derrida does mention most of the themes informing this collection (philosophy's attempt to master its domain, Hegel as the philosopher of limits, the threat metaphor poses to philosophical discourse, etc).
Read "Differance" next (it's probably the single most famous thing Derrida has ever written).After declaring the thought of difference to be crucial to our intellectual epoch (he mentions Saussure, Nietzsche, and Freud before taking up Heidegger's notion of ontological difference) Derrida proposes the nonword/nonconcept of "differance" to go them all one better. This is a dazzling essay, but if it leaves you more exhausted than exhilarated, then Derrida just isn't for you.
Essay #2 is a dense and convoluted discussion of the metaphysics of presence in Aristotle and Hegel.Skip this.
Essay #3 is a surprisingly interesting investigation of Hegel's semiology (of all things).Derrida demonstrates that Hegel's disdain for non-phonetic scripts (say, hieroglyphics) is not just a quirk, but is crucial to Hegel's entire philosophical project.
"The Ends Of Man" is a classic example of 1960's French anti-humanism.It's essentially an attempt to rescue Hegel, Husserl, and Heidegger from their existentialist interpreters.Another very famous piece (and rightfully so).
Essay #5 is a sort of Cliffs Notes version of OF GRAMMATOLOGY; it deals with the denigration of writing in the thought of Saussure and Rousseau.Very readable.
Essay #6 is all about Husserl's theory of signs and I found it incomprehensible.
Essay #7 concerns itself with to what extent the grammar and syntax of a particular language influences what can be thought in that language.Recommended, despite the opacity of Derrida's criticisms of Benveniste.
"White Mythology" is the longest and most demanding essay in this collection, so leave it for last.I'm not even going to venture a comment on this one.
Essay #9 meanders quite a while before it gets around to illustrating Valery's low opinion of philosophy, so be patient.
The book wraps up with Derrida's notorious reading/misreading of that wonderful little book, HOW TO DO THINGS WITH WORDS.This modest essay launched a feud between Derrida and the American philosopher John Searle.Much ado about nothing, I say.

Interesting but hardly radical
One could open up this review by pointing out that the book being reviewed is not a "coherent" work in the conventional sense of the term but this would be playing into the hands of the deconstructionist.Perhaps it is best to phrase one's comments in such a fashion as to avoid the need for anything more-than-average coherence in a review."The Margins of Philosophy" is an interesting work by this academically controversial author.Generally speaking--and what more can one do in a review--Derrida's readings are heavily influenced by Heidegger's statement that what an author keeps silent is as important as what he states.This is asserted almost immediately in the introduction as Derrida lets us know that what philosophy (and philosophers) have pushed to the margin in their work is very important to explore since its unveiling will de-center the work.Put differently, every writing undercuts itself in the end.In a series of separate, but linked essays, Derrida goes on to demonstrate how this sort of thing happens in Hegel, Saussure, Benveniste, Heidegger, and others.

I am not the first to point out that Derrida is a perceptive, subtle reader with a very keen eye for the hidden details."White Mythology" is an interesting discussion of the role of metaphor in philosophy and its consequences for philosophy.I am also not the first to complain that Derrida's taste for exegesis runs towards the extravagant and excessive.The aforementioned essay spans 65 pages for reasons that otherwise escape me.There is also the more serious problem in Derrida that his keen eye is not keen enough and he is too clever by half in his explication.At one point in the work he connects the greek word for intuiting (ie. seeing with the soul) "theorein" with the desire for death.Strictly speaking this is a conflation of the desire to be a god with the desire to be unconscious (a leftover from the decay of romanticism?).An elementary reading of Plato's Phaedrus makes this clear.His obsession with the "metaphysics of presence" is also a problem for the work, as he hitches his interpretations to this dubious construction and the interpretations ultimately suffer for it.This is not to say that there isn't much of philosophical interest in the work for Derrida gives the reader much to chew on.He reminds us that any serious reading of a text must devote itself scrupulously to the whole of the text and not just to those parts which we think are interesting.Though, perhaps, not the best place to start one's study of Derrida it is certainly worth a serious read if only to understand what some of the shouting is all about.

Very interesting ideas but a lot of work to learn them...
Derrida, Foucalt and Lyotard have come to be some of the best-known examples of post-modern thought.Of the three, I find Derrida to have the most "logical depth" to borrow a term from information theory; that could be due to some of his ideas in conjunction with the way in which he presents them.

In Margins the reader is treated immediately to an intersting idea of Derrida's - that the most important part of philosophy occurs in the "margins" of work.That is, it is the contextualization of ideas that is fundamentally important, not necessarily what is in them.This echoes what Bateson wrote quite a while ago in "Steps to an Ecology of the Mind", a much more accessible work; Lyotard also develops the idea of contextualization within "Postmodern Fables" through much more literary methods.Derrida's development of the differance and his views on Hegel are visionary and I enjoyed reading those sections in Margins; the rest I very difficult to digest even after several readings.

Derrida's ideas of context within infinite regress of contexts put him in an interesting philosophical position since the paradox cannot be resolved.That is, by demonstrating the subjectivity of any literary (and what is the limit of the term literary - isn't everything literary?) work he basically undermines most of Western philosophy.Hegel was close but not quite willing to go far enough as Derrida demonstrates.

In my opinion the more casual reader will be better off with the readily-available "Derrida for Beginners" type of books rather than trying to tackle this one.If this is part of a course then I suggest reading it while armed with some other overviews for reference. ... Read more

Product Description
Major theorists discuss the renowned philosopher Jacques Derrida's most political and controversial work - with a response by Derrida himself.With the publication of Specters of Marxin 1993, Jacques Derrida redeemed a longstanding pledge to confrontMarx's texts directly and in detail. His characteristically bravurapresentation provided a provocative re-reading of the classics in theWestern tradition and posed a series of challenges to Marxism.

In a timely intervention in one of today's most vital theoretical debates, the contributors to Ghostly Demarcations respond to the distinctive program projected by Specters of Marx.The volume features sympathetic meditations on the relationship betweenMarxism and deconstruction by Fredric Jameson, Werner Hamacher, AntonioNegri, Warren Montag, and Rastko Möcnik, brief polemical reviews byTerry Eagleton and Pierre Macherey, and sustained political critiquesby Tom Lewis and Aijaz Ahmad. The volume concludes with Derrida's replyto his critics in which he sharpens his views about the vexedrelationship between Marxism and deconstruction.

Fredric Jameson, Antonio Negri, Terry Eagleton, Pierre Macherey and others engage in a debate on Marx with Jacques Derrida.

Customer Reviews (4)

marx as private property
Can a thought be considered the private property of epigones? Extraordinary book, containing the reactions of Marx's most passionate interpreters alive to Derrida's unique approach to marxism.The debate generated by the differences of all these thinkers that participated in the symposium is both an inspiration and a warning of what may be committed in the name of a thought. Derrida's lucidity to the provocations and invitations extended by his readers is of quirurgical precision.The limits and the possibilities offered by marxist thought are however not passed by at any moment.Recommended to all those that are into deconstruction, or just plain methodical, consequential thought.

A good supplement to Specters of Marx
For those of us initially frustrated by Derrida's refusal, in Specters of Marx, to engage seriously with Marx and/or with politics, this book will not alleviate the problem.In fact, it exacerbates the frustration, but it does so in a way that may help to clarify the debate around the book.A decent selection of views and reviews on Specters of Marx (but missing the crucial review by Gayatri Spivak) is followed by Derrida's astonishingly petulant reply.Choosing sides becomes easier, even for the avowed deconstructionist, when Derrida's own pettiness makes it clear that (just as with Marxism) it is clearly possible to partake of a "Derrideanism without Derrida," and in so doing subtract the insularity of the man from the suggestiveness of the work.We readers will have to carry deconstructive Marxism farther than Derrida.But this supplement is always the condition of reading.

Reading and Misreading Derrida
It is quite fundamental for the reader to understand that the main focus of Specters of Marx is spectrality and its attendant ideological implications, rather than Marx. One cannot read Derrida politically without misrepresenting his ideas. It is quite ironic that a number of Derrida's critics, particularly coming from the Marxist field, fall back on the dilapidated model of dialectics, and hence binary oppositions.Marx's ontology is forever tainted by the hauntological presence of the other.Derrida suggests that we examine the processes rather than the end products.This collection of essays, ranging from ridiculous to the sublime, is a response to the ideas set forward in Specters.It is very useful in approaching the text from a number of different angles.

Derrida never claimed to be a Marxist,-what's the fuss?
Fred Engels said once that each generation of philosophers try arduously to soar higher in the sky than the previous, and here although one can see the value in the Left engaging with such a formidable thinker as Derrida, Iwould think the Left had better things to do,like the set of probelmaticsconcerning the globalization/exploitation of international labour,theeroding of the democratic state,the banality of neo-liberalism and itsfuture. Perhaps the ultimate question here is what value emits itself afterwe read the various brilliant but ultimately marginal excursions/commentaryinto Derrida's work "Spectres of Marx". Derrida never claimed tobe a Marxist and it is self-evident that he is merely attempting to arrestMarxism as countless others have, expunging it away,diluting its contentfrom the level of intellectual discourse it rightly deserves. Derrida'sbody of work takened wholly refuses the content of such an arduous task,being continually directly referred backwards to Heidegger and an affinityof the durational frame of the past reprisals into "what was"rather than what can be. Jameson's piece from a few years ago is the mostcomprehensive here, for he is always an excellent assembler ofvarigated,yet focused tracking like with a conceptual microscope theintellectual history of Derrida's thought. But Derrida's response toJameson's response where Jameson's had erroneous placedthe aesthetic inthe field of play is a good example of indulgent useless bickering. Ofcourse Derrida denies that the aesthetic is an integral component of histhought although he depends upon it continuously for his performative actsat creating new jargons,the conceptual 'writing' freedoms and cross genres(is this literature,a lecture- sketch, or philosophy, or art??) andincessant cross and inter-breeding of thoughts,fragments of excerpts,half-references to the Western panoply of thought from Freud,Heidegger etc.I think that is the ultimate problem with Derrida,he cannot convincinglydeny any perspective,(although he has say obviously the opposite ininterviews) in that his work seems to ascribe to conceptual indulgences andplayfullness. Eagleton is also brilliant here and takes the more New Leftperspective,which is old now, which still has vibrant points which againultimately ponders the relationship of Marxism to various other ideologicaldepartures as deconstruction,Messianism and post-structuralism.I thinkultimately we are barking up the wrong tree here for ultimately the lenswhich Derrida looks through(his body of thought) is so far removed from theproblematics which Marxism(defined here in it's widest liberal sense) hasdeveloped throughout its long and tortured history,that again there areindeed larger dimensions to pursue. ... Read more

Product Description
No topic has caused more discussion in recent philosophy and political theory than sovereignty. From late Foucault to Agamben, and from Guantanamo Bay to the 'war on terror,' the issue of the extent and the nature of the sovereign has given theoretical debates their currency and urgency. New thinking on sovereignty has always imagined the styles of human selfhood that each regime involves. Each denomination of sovereignty requires a specific mode of subjectivity to explain its meaning and facilitate its operation. The aim of this book is to help outline Jacques Derrida's thinking on sovereignty - a theme which increasingly attracted Derrida towards the end of his career - in its relationship to subjectivity. It investigates the late work Rogues: Two Essays on Reason, as not only Derrida's fullest statement of his thinking on sovereignty, but also as the destination of his career-long interest in questions of politics and self-identity. The book argues that in Derrida's thinking of the relationship between sovereignty and subjectivity - and the related themes of unconditionality and ipseity - we can detect the outline of Bataille's adaptation of Freud. Freud completed his 'metapsychology,' by defining the 'economic' nature of subjectivity. In Bataille's hands, this economic theory became a key to the nature of inter-relationship in general, specifically the complex and shifting relationship between subjectivity and power. In playing with Bataille's legacy, Derrida connects not only with the irrepressibly outrageous thinking of philosophy's most self-consciously transgressive thinker, but with the early twentieth century scientific revolution through which 'energy' became ontology. As with so many of the forebears who influenced him, Derrida echoes and adapts Bataille's thinking while radically de-literalising it. The results are crucial for understanding Derrida's views on power, subjectivity and representation, as well as all of the other key themes in late Derrida: hospitality, justice, otherness and the gift. ... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (7)

Important book
As important as Of Gramatology, is this book in the thought of Derrida. If you want to get into Derrida's World you should read this book.

This made my head spin!
This book was cool man! It's like forget everything because nothing exists, right? I think the only other time I had this much fun was when I whooped Gabe's arse in Power Stone 2.

Barbara Johnson provides an erudite translation.
Reading most of Jacques Dierrda's body of work is a task akin to Chinese water torture.Dierrda's project is to debunk the foundation of Western philosophy by subverting it's classic texts. Dierrida uses deconstructive readings of these texts to point out logical flaws, indeterminate meanings and self referrential errors which call into question all that we understand about the structuralist notion of the relationship of the self to the other.In short, Dierrda may be the most radical thinker in modern history, because the success of his project would leave western civilization in the lurch. If Plato was wrong, then all we have learned from the beginning of philosophy is rendered useless.Barbara Johnson's translation of this difficult text is the best grip on Dierrda's project that I have ever read. Stay away from other intrepetations of Derrida, Johnson's translation is elegant and erudite.

An Admittedly Limited Perspective
My experience with this book is mostly limited to "Plato's Pharmacy," so my comments apply primarily to that essay, even though the book very much has structure as a whole. This is a nice introduction to Derrida, though still a very difficult read. If nothing else, the text thatDerrida is "rereading"(Plato's Phaedrus, mostly) is short,though deep, and might well have been read previously by someone interestedin philosophy. This spares the reader the trouble of engaging a new anddifficult text merely as a preliminary to reading Derrida. And sincePlato's Pharmacy is a reasonably short, though challenging, essay, it givesthe reader the opportunity to finish a mostly self-contained piece byDerrida quickly enough so as not to have totally forgotten what was beingdiscussed in the first place. Plato's Pharmacy revolves around Derrida'scentral questions about language and meaning. At the same time, it isrecognized in the world of Platonic philosophy as an importantinterpretation (I have a significant interest in Plato, and found itfascinating as a commentary). So, while I am far from being well-read inDerrida, I recommend this book a challenging, interesting, and relativelyaccessible starting point.

Masterful translation of a masterwork
Where Derrida is concerned, the translator must be of equal worth to the superlative standards of the text.One of the reasons the man is considerd so hard to read is that he exploits ambiguity and wordplay in (his native)language to its fullest extent.For Barbara Johnson, the complexity of thefrench is not an obstacle, but allows her to search out parallel plays inenglish that mimic those in the original at the same time that they addtheir own nuances to this amazingly rich work.Understanding Derrida isimportant, but equally important is understanding what he is *not* -particularly when it comes to his philosophical method.This work helps toshow clearly what a high regard he holds for the texts he"re-reads", and his particular use of the methods ofdeconstruction.For those new to Derrida, I recommend reading this work inconjunction with _Derrida for Beginners_ by Jim Powell, published byWriters and Readers press in New York.Powell's book helps you keep yourbearings amongst the many twists and turns of _Dissemintation_. ... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (7)

Repetition is bequeathed; the legacy repeated...
Contrary to the reviews thus far reported in regards to this "work in the traditions of Finnegans Wake," i would reccomend reading this book to all who are interested in Derrida's philosophy of ethics. Herein we may find ephemerally expounded glimpses at Postmodernism's notions of continuity and of the legacy of ideas: a gift which we neccessarely both receive and reinscribe - "What is tragic is not the possibility but the neccessity of repetition" (Writing and Difference). Many Derrida readers have shied away from this text because of its disparate and fragmented stuttering...Don't if you have patience to listen read this treasure. It is a pastiche, a montage and a rebus. An exquisite rendition on tradition and inheritance, on presence and absence. A reminder to never stop giving and giving and giving because the most ethical one can be is through the dissemination of ideas, the transformation of the recurring within which each becomes a relative of all and none. Finnegans Wake approximates the same themes with Vico's philosophy of history as an addendum. By the way Vico was an avid reader of the Cabbala...Only Walter Benjamin can better inspire the re-visions that we need for a tragic becoming tragic. This book is extremely personal and one of Richard Rorty's favorites I might add...he was not very fond of the early Derrida...Rorty understands Derrida as only Caputo and Bennington have...This is our modern day Novalis, we may dream of dreaming our dreams!

The first time is still best
It took me a long time to crack the Derrida nut. But when I did, I did it with this book. Thus it will always be my favorite philosophical novel by Derrida. When I finished this book I picked up Badiou's book on Deleuze and he said I got everything right, only he said it better than I would have.

So far, all the other readers seem to have missed the point. First, this book is not about anything so feminine and smacking of vulgar Christianity as love and cushy feelings. Derrida says it's a poison pen letter. It's about hate. It may be "between lovers," but it's published for the whole world to admire and appraise, a radically different context than the relationship of husband and wife. Which the careful Derrida-phile will note was handled very carefully, almost cynically, in the Derrida "documentary." (Has there ever been a greater and more hilarious take on oral sex?)

One wag commented that the book is only good for beach-reading. But that misses the serious side of Derrida, which is also the point. Rhetoric can be philosophy. Derrida is one hundred percent hilarious. But he's always pushing the philosophical envelope with his puns. To resort to a distinction that has a pragmatic value even though it utterly lacks any philosophical foundation, the use-mention distinction, when Derrida uses the word 'this,' he also means _that_. (Why does the use-mention distinction make no sense? Because when you say 'horse,' a _horse_ comes out of your mouth. As per Wittgenstein and the Stoics.) It's up to us lesser mortals to tease out the strands and levels until we can produce something as thoroughly competent. And simultaneously beautiful and ugly. Like orgasm.

Which brings us to Lacan. Some say he's a charlatan. And you have to be suspicious of anyone who declares that they're not interested in truth, but falsity. But when the postmodernists say this what they mean is that the truth, which can potentially be known, is in being aware that you actually don't know. The idea goes back to Plato and his early Socratic dialogues. Stated like that, it isn't too far from Kant, who also believed that we can't actually know much, other than that there are stars above and some sort of moral rules within. (Nobody has ever agreed with him on his rules, including his great heir John Rawls.) Derrida doesn't differ much from Lacan. He abandons Oedipus for the same reasons as Deleuze (it's a self-fulfilling prophecy and alienated from real life). But the argument on the postal system only looks different from Lacan's account because Derrida says it is. That he got Lacan to agree with him says something about Derrida's prestige, so there must be something there. (Though Lacan's submission looks suspiciously like he doesn't submit--republishing the Ecrits in an edited down version where the offensive passages have been actively forgotten.) But when Lacan says that a letter always gets to its destination he means that it always misses its destination, because the person it's intended for is going to sometime pass away. ("The living is a species of the dead." Nietzsche.) Which is also Derrida's point. I haven't read Derrida's latest writings on Lacan but apparently there's a whole lot of a rapprochement. In his interviews with Roudinescu, A Quoi Demain, he considers his style to be Lacanian and a lot of his conclusions to be similarly disposed.

Here's hoping the most consistently amusing of the post-Heideggerians remains a liberal individualist. Though it's probably going to be tough for him, given that the Straussists of the Whitehouse talk a similar talk and walk a similar walk. ("Jewgreek is Greekjew.") I believe the fact that Derrida is explicitly against the death penalty is the deciding difference. QED.

A book which can only be read among *other* books.
Derrida has stated that one of the main purposes of his decontructive readings, writing, and ruthless re-contextualization of various philosophical ideas is to minimize the "violence" of various philosophical practices- those ways of speaking, writing, which silently privilege various terms, and ideas and, perhaps unknowingly repress others. Given the other "esoteric" reviews here, its my duty to minimize the "violence" for those people who really want to know about the book, and not about namedropping, three lines of praise.

The Postcard is a "collection" of various love-letters, supposedly burned in a fire, which has left pieces of text missing. Derrida has also included a few essays which he believes continues the analysis begun in the loveletters [envois]. The content of the loveletters covers a broad range of philosophical and personal questions - from philosophy of language - to the relation b/w Socrates and Plato - to personal encounters in (I suppose) Derrida's life as a philosopher. But the over all effect of this - this "re-contextualization" or in other words, this casting of philosophical questions in a format not usually considered "serious" -> love letters... the profundity, the importance, the dissemination of the questions take on a wholly different feel and effect. The feel and effect, of course, is hard to describe, but it is a way of playing with "philosophical sensibilities" -- what is "real" philosophy? What is "serious" philosophy? And what is the meaning of such questions in the most private of all communications - love letters between two intimate lovers.

Of course, in typical Derridean style, he puns, and jokes his way, throwing punchlines out of every page. The envois are not an easy read. They can be tough, and confusing, especially with the 'missing text" which link ideas. The other essays included in The Postcard are equally a tough read, with a very interesting, but treacherous deconstruction of Lacan's analysis of Poe's "The Purloined Letter".

The Postcard can only be understood as continuation of previously examined (Of Grammatology), argued (Limited Inc.), and illustrated (Glas) philosophical strategies employed by Derrida. And yes, Richard Rorty (an american post-enlightenment philosopher) totally misses the boat on this one. While, i believe Derrida is attempting to "play" with various aspects of the philosophical tradition (Derrida is by far the funniest philosopher, since, Nietzsche), The Postcard is merely an new way of asserting those same ideas Derrida laid out in Limited Inc and other books, that conceptual meaning is not fixed but disseminated and deferred [differance] to all possible contextual usages and instantiations.

I know, this is merely one small aspect of Derrida's enterprise. But it is, I believe, the main purpose of The Postcard: to see how the meaning of philosophical questions regarding language, history, and the sequence of events, take on new meanings in the context of lost love lettes-- the same way a Post Card, which never reaches its destination-- takes on new meanings for the unintended third reader.

A book which can only be read among *other* books.
Derrida has stated that one of the main purposes of his decontructive readings, writing, and ruthless re-contextualization of various philosophical ideas is to minimize the "violence" of various philosophical practices- those ways of speaking, writing, which silently privilege various terms, and ideas and, perhaps unknowingly repress others. Given the other "esoteric" reviews here, its my duty to minimize the "violence" for those people who really want to know about the book, and not about namedropping, three lines of praise.

The Postcard is a "collection" of various love-letters, supposedly burned in a fire, which has left pieces of text missing. Derrida has also included a few essays which he believes continues the analysis begun in the loveletters [envois]. The content of the loveletters covers a broad range of philosophical and personal questions - from philosophy of language - to the relation b/w Socrates and Plato - to personal encounters in (I suppose) Derrida's life as a philosopher. But the over all effect of this - this "re-contextualization" or in other words, this casting of philosophical questions in a format not usually considered "serious" -> love letters... the profundity, the importance, the dissemination of the questions take on a wholly different feel and effect. The feel and effect, of course, is hard to describe, but it is a way of playing with "philosophical sensibilities" -- what is "real" philosophy? What is "serious" philosophy? And what is the meaning of such questions in the most private of all communications - love letters between two intimate lovers.

Of course, in typical Derridean style, he puns, and jokes his way, throwing punchlines out of every page. The envois are not an easy read. They can be tough, and confusing, especially with the 'missing text" which link ideas. The other essays included in The Postcard are equally a tough read, with a very interesting, but treacherous deconstruction of Lacan's analysis of Poe's "The Purloined Letter".

The Postcard can only be understood as continuation of previously examined (Of Grammatology), argued (Limited Inc.), and illustrated (Glas) philosophical strategies employed by Derrida. And yes, Richard Rorty (an american post-enlightenment philosopher) totally misses the boat on this one. While, i believe Derrida is attempting to "play" with various aspects of the philosophical tradition (Derrida is by far the funniest philosopher, since, Nietzsche), The Postcard is merely an new way of asserting those same ideas Derrida laid out in Limited Inc and other books, that conceptual meaning is not fixed but disseminated and deferred [differance] to all possible contextual usages and instantiations.

I know, this is merely one small aspect of Derrida's enterprise. But it is, I believe, the main purpose of The Postcard: to see how the meaning of philosophical questions regarding language, history, and the sequence of events, take on new meanings in the context of lost love lettes-- the same way a Post Card, which never reaches its destination-- takes on new meanings for the unintended third reader.

Read This Book
I'm all for mindboggling esoteria and the impenetrable Finnegan's Wake but we should let leave the Post Card alone from these everlasting gobstoppers.

The Post Card is a great book for anyone obessed with language, butnot because it will help them do research, but because it great fun to readwhile sunning on the beach or joke about while getting a cup of joe.

Ididn't have any epiphanies while reading this book but I did get a tan. ... Read more

Product Description
Examining one of the most important and prolific figures in modern thought,
Barry Stocker presents a lucid introduction to Derridas main texts, including
Speech & Phenomena, Of GrammatologyandWriting and Difference.
Derrida on Deconstruction:
* contextualizes Derridas place in the history of philosophy
* shows how his views engage with the central questions of philosophy
* looks at the possibility of approaching his philosophy in analytic mode
Concentrating on his earlier and more accessible works, this is a much-needed introduction for philosophy or humanities students undertaking courses on Derrida. ... Read more

Product Description
Jacques Derrida: a name to strike fear into the hearts of theologians. His thought has been hugely influential in shaping postmodern philosophy, and its impact has been felt across the humanities from literary studies to architecture. However, he has also been associated with the spectres of relativism and nihilism. Some have suggested he undermines any notion of objective truth and stable meaning. Fortunately, such premature judgements are gradually changing. Derrida is now increasingly seen as a major contributor to thinking about the complexity of truth, responsibility and witnessing. Theologians and biblical scholars are engaging as never before with Derrida's own deep-rooted reflections on religious themes. From the nature of faith to the name of God, from Messianism to mysticism, from forgiveness to the impossible, he has broken new ground in thinking about religion in our time. His thought and writing style remain highly complex, however, and can be a forbidding prospect for the uninitiated. This book gives theologians the confidence to explore the major elements of Derrida's work, and its influence on theology, without 'dumbing it down' or ignoring its controversial aspects. It examines his philosophical approach, his specific work on religious themes, and the ways in which theologians have interpreted, adopted and disputed them. Derrida and Theology is an invaluable guide for those ready to ride the leading wave of contemporary theology. ... Read more

Product Description
Is there, today," asks Jacques Derrida, "another 'question of religion'?"Derrida's writings on religion situate and raise anew questions of tradition, faith, and sacredness and their relation to philosophy and political culture.He has amply testified to his growing up in an Algerian Jewish, French-speaking family, to the complex impact of a certain Christianity on his surroundings and himself, and to his being deeply affected by religious persecution.Religion has made demands on Derrida, and, in turn, the study of religion has benefited greatly from his extensive philosophical contributions to the field.

Acts of Religion brings together for the first time Derrida's key writings on religion, along with two new essays translated by Gil Anidjar that appear here for the first time in any language.These eight texts are organized around the secret holding of links between the personal, the political, and the theological.In these texts, Derrida's reflections on religion span from negative theology to the limits of reason and to hospitality.

Acts of Religion will serve as an excellent introduction to Derrida's remarkable contribution to religious studies. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

Derrida Not Dead Another Death
Derrida, who passed away on Oct 10 2004. His last thoughts were to his dearly departed friend, Giles de Leuze. Most of you know that the Oxford philosophical committee wanted to reject him for an honorary award, because they considered his "work" "useless". It is precisely because of Derrida that one was able to question and in this subtle work he traces the steps of "Igmar", who was a religious fanatic who existed in 700 AD with a large following in Persia. Devotees were said to wrap used loin clothes around their head and weep to an ancient statue which was later discovered to be a sign post.

A Significant Philosophical / Religious Touchstone
This collection of Derrida's essays is impressive for its scope and intellectual utility.The writings cover a wide range of Derrida's various themes and modes from his more poetic and challenging 'A Silkworm of One's Own', to 'Faith and Knowledge' that consists of a long series of point emanating from his reading of Kant's essay Religion at the Limits of Reason Alone; to 'Force of Law' a text constructed from the transcript of a spoken address and a written text, that together elaborate the affinity between, or the possibility of deconstruction and Justice, or deconstruction as justice if you like.

Acts of Religion:A title that those familiar with Derrida's work may find questionable. After all he was open about his relation to religion, "[it is] foreign to me . . . My atheism develops in the churches, all the churches . . ." Yet, the word 'acts' suggests an interiority, that Derrida participates within religion. But these essays are often conspicuous for the way they are able to address religion, even to use scripture, in a way that avoids just this type of interiority. Derrida's great distance from religion, its institutions, and from faith, will be evident to any reader who approaches the text from a point of view informed by religious practice.This is not a criticism by any means for Derrida's writings are seriously engaged with, perhaps even enchanted by philosophical themes that are essential to religion. Thus, these texts will be most appreciated by readers whose point of view is dynamic enough to encompass both post-structural thought, and their own personal faith.For such readers these essays suggest a project, a re-reading and re-engagement with religious texts that is of value exactly for its distance from the a priori that our religious affiliations ask us bring to the reading of scripture.

I found 'Force of Law' to be of particular benefit in this regard. It addresses the conditions of possibility of justice, its relation to deconstruction, to enforcement and to the founding violence that institutes the law in a way that has two distinct trajectories.

The first is indeed religious, in that it offers a frame of reference with which to challenge the institutionalized notions of God's law, justice, and agency found in Christianity, and other monotheisms.For this challenge to take the form of a violence in which secular philosophy is used to "disprove" or "discredit" religious faith would miss the point. Rather, 'Force of Law' offers the reader a way of examining the ways that political ideology is often conflated with religious ideology, or a way of facing (not without some fear) the difficulties and inconsistencies found in religious interpretations / constructions of law and justice found in sacred texts.

The second trajectory is societal and significant to where we find ourselves in America today.Events occurring now (in 2005) show that America is indeed in something of a crisis: judicial, religious, and in terms of human rights. The level of public discourse concerning the appointing of new justices to the Supreme Court, and judicial interpretive methodology is painfully low, and seems to be divorced from or ignorant of the potentials of justice.Religion in America today is more a matter of politics than ofour experience of the Devine, or comitment to the highest ethical/spiritual ideals. Human rights in regards to international immigration, the treatment of prisoners of war, and civilians in military conflict have been seriously undermined. By pointing to this obvious crisis, I don't want to overstate this collection's direct political appeal, Derrida is often working in a realm that confounds the desire for simple pragmatics, although a few essays such as 'Taking a Stand for Algeria' and 'Hospitality' certainly have a political drive.

In the end Acts of Religion is a complex, and rewarding philosophical text. I believe it offers a place of refuge to intellectuals involved in both post-structural and religious thought, who are looking to be challenged by a thinker working across a broad range of themes that are both very old and yet still significant today. Its is Derrida's gift to present them in a vital and energetic manner. ... Read more

Product Description

Product Description
Written in the aftermath of the fall of the Berlin Wall and within the context of a critique of a "new world order" that proclaims the death of Marx and Marxism, Jacques Derrida undertakes a reading of Marx's "spectropoetics" -- his obsession with ghosts, specters and spirits. Derrida argues that there is more than one spirit of Marx and that it is the responsibility of his heirs -- we are all heirs of Marx -- to sift through the possible legacies, the possible spirits, reaffirming one and not the other. He leads beyond the deafening disavowal of Marx today, a disavowal he sees as an attempt to exorcise Marx's ghost.
Specters of Marx represents renowned philosopher Jacques Derrida's first major work on Marx and his definitive entry into social and political philosophy. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (10)

An Essential Read for Would Be Intellectual Prophets
To begin, there is just far too much in this text to do it justice in such a setting. Thus, I will pick and chose based on thecomplaints I have seen others tossing at this extraordinary work. When are people going to learn that Derrida is not Habermas, or Austin, or even Rorty. In some of the reviews published thus far one complained that there is nothing new to be learned about Marx from this book. I wonder if perhaps the title of the work, in particular the term "Specters" may have tipped him off. Derrida is not attempting to provide yet another interpretation of Marx; rather, he does us a much more profound service. He calls our attention to the fact that there is no longer any such Marx to be learned from. There is only the name "Marx," which haunts us for the violence to which what he had to teach us has been subjected. Why? Because a certain generation, his own, has failed in its responsibility to properly read Marx, instead investing his name with all of the various ideological quests to which it has been attached in the 20th Century. Imagine, Karl Marx, the author of Capital, became little more than a common cultural place holder for all that is evil for those on the right. (It is truly a riot to quiz the disciple of the good and the right, having just called you a Marxist, about Marx or his ideas. Ironically, in our cultural idiom "Marx" and "Liberal" were synonyms for one another. It's not time, but our brains that are out of joint,but Iam getting ahead of myself.)
Importantly, the book begins with a scene from Hamlet. The old king is giving an injunction to do responsibility to his memory. Importantly, Hamlet has the pivotal line, "Time is out of joint." Precisely. We have a responsibility to READ Marx, not X, Y, or Z's interpretation of Marx. What does Marx say? We must clear the debris of both scholars and killers from his name and work. What did Marx have to do with the Gulag, the Soviet Union in any way what so ever? Nothing, of course. Nonetheless, Whether from the right or the left his name has been associated with so much perversity or promise during the 20th Cenhttp://www.amazon.com/review/create-review/ref=cm_cr_dp_wr_but_right?ie=UTF8&nodeID=283155&asin=0415389577&store=books tury that we can see him only as a ghostly demarcation, and it is certainly no wonder that his message is not a kingly imperative.
Part of the debt of mourning we owe to those who bequeathed us their ideas is to take the responsibility to rediscover their works, the material that can be held in one's hand, precisely as their works. And make no mistake, this is a sacred responsibility. One to be upheld, in part at least, to combat the sort of bombastic "The King is dead. Long live the King!" shouting represented by, say, Francis Fukuyama's stunning book, The End of History and the Last Man. This vision--Hegel in triumph having been turned back upright to see the Reign of the Spirit of Capitalism and Christianity--would be the title's "New International." Fukahaha had no doubt that History has finally culminated in the victory and immanent universalization of the free-market economy lead by it's Christian soldiers. (For the sake of fairness, Fukuyama had the intellectual integrity to repudiate most of this earlier work in a critique of his fellow Neo-Cons and their continued certainties, which one may lead right into Iraq 2003). Derrida, generally mild even in the process of eviscerating a particular point of view, took off the gloves here. He knocked Fukuyama on his ass in 1993. I have noted that he had the guts and integrity to stand back up 10 years later, in the midst of what else but the global catastrophe wrought by...guess. Yes, the very free market cum New International, which had crowed far before the dawn of a catastrophe the longest shadows of which we more than likely still await.
Specters of Marx is one of Derrida's more broadly important texts and deserves as what it is, not as what many who have reviewed it here thus far think it ought to be. Indeed, Derrida had now joined those intellectual forefathers to whom we owe so much. If he is read responsibly, and if he has taught us to read others with a sense of the honor due their legacy, then, love him or hate him, one must admire the way in which he improves our own work, our own time.

An important work
Derrida shows how Marxist and deconstructionist politics are relevant again to thinkers in the 1990s through 'spectropoetics.' If nothing else, the book reminds us that just as Hamlet is haunted by his father's ghost, so are we haunted by the legacy of Marxism.

the indestructable Left!
The whole point of the book is to say that Marx may have got some details wrong, but that ultimately, these details are not what's really important. And what's really important is the fight for a "better" world; against exploitation, greed, the dominance of the weak by the strong etc etc. This is the "spectre" in question- the fight for a better world, the discontent with the present.

The problem with this nonsense is that it's the Utopian Socialism that Marx explicitly denounced! In a nutshell, it's a particular morality/ideology that's driving this discourse, but it won't admit this to its readers (and itself?). Why? Because it knows that this left wing morality is NOT a given, and cannot be justified without sophistry. The "beautiful passages" about suffering, injustice, poverty etc are humbug. There is more "suffering" numerically simply because there are more people, and there are more people because wealth has increased.
Derrida's 10 modern "sins" proclamation (and it's no coincidence he's using religious terminology) is laughable.

As with all Leftists , on no occasion are the mass of people ever responsible for anything bad. Responsibility is always to be found among the rich, the strong, the powerful etc.

I don't see how one can honestly rate Nietzsche and Freud while championing Marx. Many French intellectuals grouped the three of them together, but this was because they wanted the insights of Freud and Nietzsche, and they had a moral kinship with Marx. But neither Nietzsche or Freud believed in equality, human perfectibility, the eradication of suffering, or politics!

Apologists for Marx and fans of Derrida will love this book, and that's the most telling criticism of this book I can offer.

A few extra comments...
The pro-Derrida and anti-Derrida standpoints are well represented in these reviews; however, there is a more important point that has not been made.I read this work much like Nietzsche's Zarathustra, meaning that its significance remains to be seen--for now to come.Now, take that as "post-structuralist obscurantism" all you want. I will shoot back just as Derrida did a hundred times: You have not read enough and you clearly do not understand his project.

With that being said, this is not even really a work on Marxism, historical materialism, or even "social" movements, per se.I read this work as affirming the undying desire for emancipation and uncovering the limits of the Marxist/leftist movements and how they are treated within academia.Marx is used as one example among many possible, just as he uses Fukuyama.I would also disagree with the previous reviewer and say that the more I read it, the more elucidating, exciting, and emancipatory this text became.This text is about infinite responsibility, inheritance, and creating "a new opening of event-ness."

I'll close with a quote from Jean Birmbaum who writes, "It is here that we find again the theme of transmission, of legacy, the 'politics of memory, of inheritance, and of generations' that is sought in Derrida's Specters of Marx, on the horizon of an obligation to justice and an endless responsibility before 'the ghosts of those who are not yet born or who are already dead.'"

Addressing Some Basic Misconceptions About Derrida's Work
Reading this book will help dispel (or at least nuance) two criticisms that are often addressed to Jacques Derrida's work. The first is that the brand of philosophy that he promotes under the name of deconstruction is irretrievably obscure and that it constitutes a refutation of the notion of objective truth as well as an attack on the Western canon of literary works. The second is that Derrida cultivates a radical posture that is detached from the realities of the day and unashamedly leftist, as the reference to an outmoded Marx would suggest.

Let us first address the accusation of obscurity. Nobody expects philosophy to be easy, and readers who have no experience of reading theoretical texts may have difficulties with this one. I must confess that there are times when I could not follow the author's line of reasoning, and I may have skipped a few paragraphs here and there, but on the whole I did not find this book unduly abstruse or recondite--and I consider myself an average reader, with only a distant background in modern philosophy. I will leave to the reader to judge for himself whether the puns and neologisms that are introduced in the book (hauntology, spectropolitics) or taken up from previous works (differance) are just pedantic wordplays or if on the contrary they do add value and enrich meaning. But at least one should give them a chance to speak for themselves, and place them in their own discursive context.

People often identify deconstruction with an attack on past scholarly traditions or a dismantling of literary texts--in other words, a rejection of the works of "dead white males". This is certainly not the case with Jacques Derrida. He is a scholar moulded in the classical tradition and whose commerce with the canon of Western philosophy and classic literature is steeped with respect and familiarity.

His reference to Shakespeare throughout this essay about Marx's legacy easily proves this point. Bringing together these two authors is not totally out of place: Marx evokes the Bard more than once in his work, in particular in The German Ideology. More to the point, the playwright and the revolutionary share a common interest for ghosts, allowing Derrida to explore this theme by finding echoes between Hamlet and the Communist Manifesto. In both cases everything begins with a ghost, from expecting an apparition. "A specter is haunting Europe: the specter of Communism": thus begins Marx's Manifesto. According to Derrida, this metaphor is not fortuitous: "Marx, writes Derrida, lived more than others in the frequentation of specters... He loved the figure of the ghost, he detested it, he called it to witness his contestation, he was haunted by it, harassed, besieged, obsessed by it."

Shakespeare, for one, knew how to handle ghosts. He understood that it took a scholar to bring a spirit to the stage and to extract knowledge from a ghost. "Thou art a scholar; speak to it, Horatio," admonishes Marcellus in the first scene of Shakespeare's play. This is the sentence by which Derrida choses to close his essay, having recalled that "they are always there, specters, even if they do not exist, even if they are no longer, even if they are not yet. They give us to rethink the 'there' as soon as we open our mouths, even at a colloquium and especially when one speaks there in a foreign language."

Both the book's explicit and incipit deal with the issue of translation, a subject that Derrida revisits time and again in his work. As he notes, the epigraph from Hamlet that opens this essay, "the time is out of joint," has been rendered in various ways by French translators, referring to a time or a world that is all at once disjointed, disadjusted, disharmonic, discorded or dishonored and unjust. "This is the stroke of genius, the insignia trait of spirit, the signature of the thing 'Shakespeare': to authorize each one of the translations, to make them possible and intelligible without ever being reductible to them." According to Derrida, translation is not something that is added to a text afterwards and from the outside. A text bears within itself its own translation, it is open to layers upon layers of interpretation and its limits, where it starts and where it ends, cannot therefore be determined unequivocally.

Likewise, Derrida uses the polyphony of the word spirit, which can also mean "specter" (as do the words "Geist" in German or "esprit" in French) to construct a phenomenology of the ghost, what he calls an "hauntology" or a reflection on how the spirit makes its apparition as a phenomenon. Among other words that are drawn in for their multiplicity of meanings are the French noun "le revenant" (the one who comes back, the ghost), the German expression "es spukt" (it spooks, there are specters around) or the English verb "to conjure" (to beseech, to conspire, to raise a spirit). As Derrida demonstrates, this constellation of meaning around the word "spirit" finds echoes in the authors that Marx criticizes (Hegel, Max Stirner), the ones who criticizes Marx (Valery, Blanchot) or, surprisingly, those who don't (Freud, who also had his ghosts).

What about the accusation of radicalism and aloofness? Derrida certainly gives ammunition to those conservatives critics who consider deconstruction as being equivalent to Marxism. As he acknowledges, "deconstruction would have been impossible and unthinkable in a pre-Marxist space." For him, Marx is to be ranked among the great classics of modern thinking, perhaps alongside Nietzsche and Freud: "Upon rereading the Manifesto and a few other great works of Marx, I said to myself that I know of few texts in the philosophical tradition, perhaps none, whose lessons seemed more urgent today... It will always be a fault not to read and reread and discuss Marx. We no longer have any excuse, only alibis, for turning away from this responsibility."

Upon closer scrutiny, however, Derrida takes some distances with the Marxist dogma, pointing out that Marx himself resented being called a Marxist. He doesn't fully subscribe to "the concept of social class by means of which Marx so often determined the forces that are fighting for control of the hegemony." As he points out, Communist regimes drew the political consequences of Marx "at the cost of millions and millions of supplementary ghosts who will keep on protesting in us." He could have gone further along that line. But even though he shies away from addressing the issue squarely, Derrida reminds us that the specter of communism indeed turned half of Europe into a world of wraith, of chimeras and hallucinations. The communist specter made all reality ghostly. Marx's obsession with ghosts turned out to be prophetic, and Derrida's book allows us to reread him from that angle. ... Read more

Product Description
"James K.A. Smith has written a lively, sure-footed guide to key landmarks in the immense territory of Derrida's thought .... The task of reading Derrida has only just begun and Smith's book issues an open and congenial invitation to get on with it."Peggy Kamuf, Marion Frances Chevalier Professor of French and Comparative Literature, University of Southern California

Jacques Derrida: Live Theory is a new introduction to the work of this most influential of contemporary philosophers.It covers Derrida's corpus in its entirety - from his earliest work in phenomenology and the philosophy of language, to his most recent work in ethics, politics and religion.It investigates Derrida's contribution to, and impact upon such disciplines as philosophy, literary theory, cultural studies, aesthetics and theology. Throughout, the key concepts that underpin Derrida's thought are thoroughly examined; in particular, the notion of "the Other" or "alterity" is employed to indicate a fundamental continuity from Derrida's earliest to his latest work. The text emphasizes the importance of understanding Derrida's philosophical heritage as the key to understanding the interdisciplinary impact of his project.In the wake of Derrida's death, the book includes an "interview" that interrogates the very notion of "live" theory as a way into the core themes of deconstruction. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

The first chapter was good
The most helpful part of this book for me was the first chapter, which provides a clear (if dense) explication of Derrida's critique of Husserl. Most introductions to Derrida focus on his critiques of Saussure, Levi-Strauss, and/or Rousseau, so it was refreshing and helpful to see a different approach. If you pay close attention, and perhaps take notes while reading, you should be able to follow the first chapter and "get" what Derrida found problematic in Husserl. This was not the case with the later chapters, which were too superficial to be of any help. ... Read more

Product Description

Product Description

Customer Reviews (9)

Derrida Gets Religion
Written just shortly before his death, Derrida has a kind word or two about god and says that one of his many gifts is taking us out of this vale of tears of his and into his bosom - not for the Woody Allens of this world nor for Madonna, it invites contemplation on what "the life everlasting" might be: Plautus said it best: 'he whom the gods love, dies young'.

Donner la Mort
Like much of Derrida's work, The Gift of Death does require a familiarity with the continental tradition. Without knowledge of Heidegger, Levinas and Kierkegaard, it is unlikely to make an impression, but the central figure of the text is Jan Patocka, a little-known Czech philosopher who is only now beginning to come to light. Contact with his thoughts on Europe and the care of the soul makes this slim tract come to life. I actually found it to be one of the clearest of Derrida's works, certainly no more challenging than the average in current continental philosophy. Illuminates the tension between secrecy and givenness, human freedom and responsibility, and shows the ways in which death opens the space for human existence. A valuable contribution to the phenomenology of religion, and destined to be one of Derrida's more widely read essays, even if it never surpasses the importance of his earlier works.

Old Testament Abraham and the Secret
This is a deeply religious work, not a philosophical one, though Derrida tries to employ philosophers to help him think through the matters he wishes to write about:Carl Schmidt, Heidegger, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Levinas, Patocka.

It is also an obsessive work, focused entirely on the monstrous attempt by the Old Testament Abraham to kill his biological son Isaac because of a secret bond with (a self-made) God -- and the justifications necessary to elevate this primitive and mad story to the numinous (have "celestial capital") and beyond morality or ethics.

It is a completely bogus and irrational notion that because man cannot know "infinite goodness" (whatever that is), due to the fact that he is mortal and can receive "the gift of death" (a highly ambiguous concept even within a religious context),man has "original sin" (which has been so variously defined over time as to mean everything and nothing).(Derrida never defines the term.)But this idea is (nonetheless) foundational to the case Derrida wants to build about man's relationship to God (who is "infinite goodness," according to Derrida) and vice-versa.

It's very clear that this work (which is not clear) could not have been written without the total denial of the validity of the Law of Non-Contradiction and the Law of Identity, basic axioms of Aristotelian logic. Derrida employs these axioms, however, in his text in order to deal his readers the few creative notions he can offer (mostly puns and unusual rhetorical devices: appealing nonsense) while denying their metaphysical reality.He does make you feel something with his prissy rhetoric but he certainly cannot make you think -- unless confusion is considered a positive and valued mental state.

I think the only people for whom this book can be useful or worthwhile reading are those already convinced of the value of its contents even before opening the book, that is Believers of one sort or another, including so-called agnostics.Or maybe intellectual flaneurs with nothing better to do.On the positive side, this work struck me as a complete theft of the ideas from Rudolph Otto's 1923 excellent work, "The Idea of the Holy."You should read that if you want a clear exposition of mysterium tremendem and mysticism.Derrida can only provide a muddy copy.

Last point:In an interview Derrida gave while he was dying, Derrida said he thought Kierkegaard had too much Christianized the story of Abrahnam and Isaac, and so he wrote this particular work to correct that tendency.Well, he failed -- miserably.Not even a Reformed or Progressive Jew would agree with Derrida's views of "no substitution" in the matter of death, and I could infer no other idea than that Derrida was an ardent, mystical Christian in the manner of Rudolph Otto or St. Ignatius when reading this text.

Killing the son.
The deconstruction of Christianity plus some extent also Jewish and Islamic thinking from the point of view of gift or symbolic exchange is an interesting topic. Especially the core of Derrida's analysis, how to interpret -- or to deconstruct, depending your own stance -- the story of Binding of Isaac, is insightful. One could also use it as a masterful, more or less isolated close-reading of an enigmatic story.

I also liked the general idea that morality is always based on shortcomings and that the monotheistic religions try to evade this impossibility of total ethicalness by totally merging the ultimate other (the God, the permanently unknowable) within the very core of the self.

The Gift of Death is short book and not easy to read. I read it as a critique of monotheism, of 'monomanic' ethics that are based on surrendering yourself to an absolute and thus to monotony, monomania, monology and singularity (as opposite to generality). If this indeed what Derrida is saying, it is not as original as the idea of deconstructing religion seem to promise. But, as always -- with Derrida it is not so much what he says, but HOW he says it. Unlike Heidegger, for instance, this is also FUN to read.

A good dose of poetry makes any give subversive morality more interesting. In the words of Bob Dylan, "Don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters." I do both and it seems that in introducing multiple levels of simultaneous, symbolic exchange paradigms Derrida does, too.

Read On
I started to give a review in "deconstructionist" fashion - blather on about architecture surpassing old notions of "in" and "our", of reason giving way to the Neitzhien Uberwill, of absurd interpretations of text, relative yet "ultimate" truth and the unholy trinity of angst, subconscienceness and desire.
I was afraid, though, that it would be taken seriously by students (quote unquote) of post-modern "thought".

The danger of deconstructionism is undeniable. When literature and music are culturally interpreted, ethics are situational, when one speaks of slavery as freedom or humanity as inhumanity, we are lost in a sea of intellectual flotsam.The personal connections to fascism - Heidegger, Paul de Man, Blanchot, Bataille - can be overlooked. The intellectual similarities can't: The supremacy ofwill (Nietzsche) over reason and logic ("homogenising"), an obsession with emotion and political discourse, the celebration of the group over the individual (identity politics) and the idea that truth is what the critic, dictator or prophet says it is. Deconstructionism is, needless to say, popular among folks favoring modern "intellectual" movements with fuzzy tenets.

Here, he speaks to us eliptically (of course) as he partakes in the familiar one step forward - two steps backward approach. But if one follows Deconstructionism, why can't HIS writings be interpreted as an S&M fantasy or a desire to be a Greek Orthodox priest in drag?How do we know what he really means since he suggests that we often write exactly opposite of what we mean?.He writes of God, death, solitude, life and sacrifice BUT in a new voice of existentialism and doubt.He employs vague, self-defined and self-referential terms whicheffectively shield him from serious study.

Derrida, for all his rampant explicating, gets hot under the collar when his own words undergo the deconstruction challenge.Few have questioned his writings since (1) many are impossible to understand and (2) they may or may not mean what they say. What began as a new approach to literature has evolved into the language of intellectual totalitarianism. No one denies his extensive knowledge of Western literature; what galls are the bewieldering interpretations and his ironic attempt at building a new ethos based on syllogism.As another reviewer stated, take it slow, read several times, search for meaning even when there is none. ... Read more