After reading Derrida, I realized that she took the word "differance" and unpacked it using literature, language and ideas. Derrida wanted us (the readers) to combine the two terms together and make a definition which would leave us with "differance." Derrida states that "differance" is neither a word or a concept. I took it as it being the middle definition for "differer" and "different". Since differer means difference as distinction from various aspects such as inequality or discernibility; and different and deferred had a correlation with each other. Derrida felt as if there should be a word in the middle of the two that really makes the terms clear so that you are able to differentiate between the terms.In the text, it states that Locke "searches for truth in the physical world and attempts to understand knowledge as a psychological phenomenon” (814). Derrida is doing exactly that by trying to explore and figure out what exactly "differance" is with the use of ideas.
As Derrida gets deeper into her text she goes on to discuss how the the term "assemblage" is more of like bringing things together. Then he uses the example of a web and how the strings of a web are interlaced and they diverge off and start binding other things together. In my opinion, that was a good example because it provided a visual image of the term. This goes hand and hand with Locke because Locke put an idea with a word to help the audience understand it more. I feel as if that is what Derrida was trying to do with this piece of text. In reference to Locke I feel as if a word wouldn't exist, if it didn't have much meaning behind it. In another case it wouldn't have much meaning because a word can mean two different things in two different situations. Like the examples on the slide show shown in class, it stated that a red light can mean STOP but the actual word red doesn't only mean STOP and that goes for the color red as well.
I feel as if both Derrida and Locke both brought up important topics concerning the ideas of terms and meanings. When Locke says "our worlds reflecting upon language are the signs of our ideas” (815). Derrida also feels as if the signs and experiences we have is a reflection of our ideas. However , both agree that words come from our very own ideas but Derrida believes that its the differences between these ideas as well. With the help of Derrida and Locke we are able to use context clues to figure out what a word is and what it means.
Hello! I feel that a word could exist if it didn't have any meaning to it. For example, the changing of the meaning of the word 'literally', from 'to be truthful' to something that exemplifies the veracity of the speaker's statement. I feel that Locke's theory is sound in this.
ReplyDelete