What is Descartes' "Rationalism as Fundamentalism"

As a foundational rationalism, Descartes is actually deconstruction.

What is deconstruction? This question is difficult to answer. Derrida would be critical and say, "What is this?" There is something wrong with this grammar itself, suggesting that there is something in the world, which can not only be understood by people, but also be labeled with different names or labels. Deconstruction rejects this rigid definition, calling itself a criticism of metaphysics and a set of strategies to dispel the certainty of language and its meaning. These critical theories and strategies include: anti-logocentrism, differences and so on.

Background description

At the end of 19, Nietzsche declared that "God is dead" and demanded that "all values should be reassessed". His rebellious thoughts have had a far-reaching influence on the west since then. As an ideological trend of questioning rationality and subverting tradition, Nietzsche's philosophy has become one of the ideological sources of deconstruction. Two other important ideological movements inspired and nourished deconstruction, namely Heidegger's phenomenology and European left-wing critical theory.

During 1968, a radical student movement swept the capitalist world in Europe and America. In France, the protest movement is called "May Storm". Sadly, this vigorous revolution is short-lived and fleeting. In the following years of depression, radical scholars were forced to turn to the deep dismantling of academic ideas. It may be said that they knew that capitalism was deeply rooted and hard to shake, but they did it.

Deconstruction is produced under this background. In order to oppose metaphysics, logos center and even all closed and rigid systems, the deconstruction movement strongly advocates the dissipation of subject, the extension of meaning and the freedom of signifier. In other words, it emphasizes the freedom of language and thought, even if this freedom is just a "dance with shackles." Apart from the rebellious nature, deconstruction is a self-contradictory theory. In Derrida's words, deconstruction. This is a trace. Hard to define, invisible, but ubiquitous. In other words, once deconstruction is defined or defined as something, it will be deconstructed. The two basic characteristics of deconstruction are openness and non-finality. Deconstructing a sentence, a proposition, or a traditional belief is to destroy the philosophical basis it claims and the hierarchical opposition it relies on by analyzing its rhetorical methods.

At the same time, we must see that the logic, methods and theories used in deconstruction are mostly borrowed from the metaphysical tradition. From this point of view, deconstruction is only a typical expedient measure, or an antagonistic strategy of dealing with a man as he deals with you.

Heidegger's exploration of logos

Derrida's deconstruction thought was first inspired by the German philosopher Heidegger. As one of the leaders of the phenomenological movement, Heidegger took the lead in discussing the existence and logos in the history of western philosophy in Introduction to Metaphysics. In Heidegger's view, logos is very important, which not only involves the origin of western thought and language, but also fundamentally affects the relationship between modern westerners and the present. Heidegger put forward a famous question: How did the ancient logos become? How does it gain the dominant position of western thought in the name of rationality?

Heidegger declared that he had discovered the original meaning of "logos and existence" by analyzing the remnants of the ancient Greek philosopher parmenides. In ancient manuscripts, logos did not represent logic or Idee, but originally represented a continuous running state of aggregation. Interestingly, this aggregation in the process of occurrence coincides with the ancient Greek concept of existence. In their minds, existence is an activity that constantly emerges, gathers and dissipates. In other words, it means the continuous existence and departure of the existence. Heidegger believes that the original meaning of physics and logos is the same, but their flesh-and-blood relationship has been greatly separated by Plato.

Since Plato founded metaphysics, logos has been forcibly interpreted as a "logical statement" by westerners. In this regard, Heidegger sharply criticized that this historical misinterpretation not only caused the disconnection between existence and thought, but also led to the opposition between subject and object of western thought for thousands of years. There is a concrete example related to the translation of parmenides's famous saying "Being and thought are the same": the word "thought" in the sentence was originally written as Noein, which is understood by modern westerners as the subject thought, which undoubtedly deviates from parmenides's original intention. Heidegger said that no cause is consciousness, or a cognitive process of constantly perceiving, awakening and adjusting oneself according to external changes. Parmenides's so-called "existence and consciousness are the same" means that "consciousness belongs to existence". In ancient Greece, consciousness was not a conscious ability, and it was still in a chaotic state where subject and object were not divided. Heidegger said that it was precisely because the ancient Greeks were dominated by existence.

Remind everyone that when discussing the relationship between man and existence, Heidegger, like parmenides, obviously refused to put man first. He abandoned the subject, opposed logic and questioned the thinking mode of the opposition between subject and object. At the same time, he repeatedly stressed that human thought must be in harmony with existence, not divorced from conflict. Heidegger firmly believes that the existence of Greeks means accepting logos, that is, the consciousness naturally generated in the process of gathering. In other words, where existence occurs,

However, this wonderful beginning did not last forever. After Plato, westerners began to face existence directly. They are more and more confident that they have the subjectivity and knowledge ability to dominate existence, which is quite different from the original simple and natural ancient Greek thought. Heidegger tried to express this different change with two formulas: at first, the aggregation process of existence established human existence; In the end, human beings have become rational animals. The key turning point was Plato's translation of Physis into Idee, which abandoned its original meaning of "emergence" in one fell swoop. Heidegger sighed: "Truth becomes right, logos becomes statement, truth or correctness is there, and concepts and categories dominate western thoughts and behaviors from now on."

Derrida's Deconstruction Strategy

As the successor of Heidegger's thought in France, Derrida was deeply influenced by Heidegger's anti-metaphysics and anti-logicism. On the other hand, he absorbed new learning, found a new way, and boldly put forward a set of strategies to erode and disintegrate Logocentrism from the perspective of linguistics and semiotics. This led to his deconstruction, which swept the world in the mid-1960s. Derrida's deconstruction theory is chaotic and inconsistent. So far, it is difficult to give a clear and accepted unified explanation. However, some key concepts and methods, such as anti-logocentrism, delay and substitution, need to be explained in detail.

According to Heidegger's criticism of logos, we have roughly understood that the tradition of western metaphysical thought originated from Plato's forced misinterpretation of logos in ancient Greece. According to Plato and his disciples, truth originated from logos, that is, the voice of truth or the word of God. This logicism holds that the existence of everything in the world is closely related to its existence. Therefore, the most ideal way is to think directly about "thought" and try to avoid the medium of language. But it's impossible. Therefore, they demand that language be as transparent as possible, so that human beings can naturally become the spokesmen of truth through their own words. In other words, logicism holds that there is a natural and internal direct relationship between words and meaning (that is, truth, the word of God). Speech is the speaker's thought. "This is a transparent symbol of his" thinking at the moment ". Accordingly, logicism is also called "sound centrism" by later generations. At the same time, writing is traditionally regarded as the second place, a substitute for sound and a medium of media. Even Saussure's signifier was originally a kind of "sound and meaning".

Another manifestation of the superiority of words over words is the "presence" of the speaker. When the speaker is present, he can explain his "intention" accurately and avoid ambiguity. On the contrary, words are just a series of symbols, which are easily misunderstood due to the absence of the speaker.

Derrida's importance lies in his positive and effective subversion and deconstruction methods for the discipline centered on logos on the basis of Heidegger's criticism. He claimed that written words are not necessarily inherently inferior to language pronunciation. In order to break the traditional prejudice of "phonetics as the center", he tried to establish a kind of "philology" to highlight and confirm the superiority of written words. The superiority of these words is first manifested in their "ITER" in semiotic sense.

Derrida believes that repetition is the premise of the existence of symbols. Only when a symbol can be recognized as "the same" in different situations can a symbol become a symbol. Another prerequisite of sign is that when the listener knows nothing about the original speaker's intention, he can also understand it with the help of sign system. In other words, a symbol should be understood and accepted by people normally, regardless of the speaker's intention.

The above two essential characteristics of symbols, namely "repeatability" and "disregard of the speaker's intention", verify the superiority of Derrida's discourse. In a larger scope, the whole word includes the whole language symbol system, so it is also the basic condition for the existence of narrow words and words. This is what Derrida called "arch writing". Once the concept of meta-writing is established, it will inevitably break the logic.

We know that the whole western metaphysical tradition, from Plato's idea to Descartes' "I think therefore I am" and then to Hegel's "absolute idea", is based on westerners' rationality and self-awareness. In the eyes of modern westerners, with the development and prosperity of western civilization, their subjective consciousness has been endowed with supreme lofty status and leading role. Derrida dares to sweep the world.

As we all know, the traditional Logocentrism is concentrated in the binary opposition of grades. Derrida severely condemned this from his standpoint: "In the traditional binary opposition, the two projects are not peaceful, but in an obvious hierarchical order. One of them occupies a mandatory position in logic and value, and it dominates the other. "

Please look at the following two familiar opposites: speech/writing, nature/culture, man/woman, soul/body, consciousness/unconsciousness, reason/madness, truth/fallacy, advanced/backward, enlightened/ignorant, west/east, subject/other, master/slave, etc. In each pair of projects, the former usually

In view of binary opposition and its hierarchy, Derrida issued a mobilization order for disintegration: "To deconstruct binary opposition, at a specific moment, we must first reverse this hierarchical order." He not only spoke fiercely, but also initiated a number of deconstruction efforts. The most successful example of language deconstruction is the relentless destruction of the project by "words". As Derrida said, words are not only inferior to words, but also used as "meta-writing".

It should be pointed out that Derrida's deconstruction efforts are not the first time in history. Long before him, we have seen Freud's similar contributions in the field of psychology. Derrida's deconstruction is aimed at "characters" and Freud's deconstruction is aimed at "consciousness/unconsciousness". Similar to Derrida's efforts, Freud's psychology has proved that unconsciousness is a broader field of thinking, including consciousness, and consciousness is only a part of unconsciousness. Unconsciousness is our real psychological reality. The obvious difference is that Freud's practice of reversing binary opposition is not Derrida's deconstruction in a strict sense, because it "has neither neutrality nor reformed the traditional old order".

In Derrida's view, deconstruction is more than simply reversing their original opposing positions. The fundamental problem is that deconstruction holds that there are only some differences between opposing items, and there is no hierarchical order of which is better or worse. Moreover, there are a lot of mutual infiltration and tolerance between opposing projects. In the view of deconstructionists, anything that is realized has passed the initial unconscious stage, and unconsciousness is a kind of suppressed or delayed consciousness. Consciousness and unconsciousness are mutual.

According to Saussure's linguistics who invented the concept of "difference", symbols consist of two parts: concept and sound. In reality, concrete things are reflected and embodied (concept/signified) in people's minds, and then expressed through concrete language symbols (signifier, that is, signified). This has produced two important opposites in structural linguistics: signifier/signified. It's not hard to see that.

According to traditional linguistics, there is a one-to-one correspondence between reference and objective things in reality. What they express in words is words. The signifier includes not only words, but also words. However, words, as the only reason for the existence of signifiers, are to express words. This reflects the traditional philosophy of emphasizing words over words. In this regard, American critic Leitch

The signifier of a symbol corresponds to the signified of a concept. In other words, sound represents a complete concept. It's all realized by people. For example,

This pronunciation refers to the concept of "chair" and reflects people's minds. In fact, chairs don't exist.

Therefore, this symbol represents an absent existence.

Existence). We don't need to present chairs in kind, we just need to use sounds or chair words, thus delaying or delaying the appearance of objects. "When we use symbols, the presence of objects and references is only an illusion, and the real presence is only a linguistic symbol that replaces them." This phenomenon of delaying the meaning or existence of an object through a series of symbol chains is what Derrida called "delay" (to

Delayed). In this regard, Derrida explained:

Symbols, as substitutes for objects, are subordinate and temporary. Subordination is because the symbol comes from the original existence and exists as a substitute for absence. In the process of pointing to the final and absent movement, the symbol is only a halfway mediation station.

From this inference, Derrida came to a famous conclusion: language symbols are nothing more than a series of delayed difference games.

Besides delay, another important meaning of delay is difference (to

Not the same). Saussure thinks that the relationship between signified and signified is arbitrary. Moreover, both the signifier and the signified are "a series of linguistic symbol systems composed of sound differences and conceptual differences". On this issue, British critic Eagleton explained in Introduction to Literary Theory that "the meaning in language is just a difference. For example, cats are cats because they are different from hats and hats.

Moreover, there is no fixed and obvious difference between signifier and signified. If we want to know the meaning of a word, "the dictionary will tell us more words to explain it, and the meaning of these more words will keep us looking up." So meaning is actually a series of endless symbolic differences. " In other words,

Meaning does not exist in a symbol, it is scattered in a series of endless symbol chains and will not be easily captured and located in a specific symbol. Meaning is always delayed: one symbol points to another symbol, and another symbol points to other symbols, and it is endless.

The concept of arbitrariness of symbols put forward by Saussure strongly supports Derrida's argument. The arbitrariness of symbols breaks the myth that language symbols are external "truth". In other words, the origin of truth is just a symbolic game of a series of language symbols. Therefore, Derrida concluded in Chinese Literature that arbitrariness gives us enough reasons to rule out the hierarchical order and natural affiliation between symbols. "With the emergence of symbols, we never have a chance to see pure symbols.

Derrida said that difference is neither a concept nor a word, but a fabricated word. In French, difference and difference are pronounced the same. To distinguish them, we must rely on the spelling differences of words, which in itself is an excellent irony of logicians' argument that words are superior to words. Derrida has a vivid metaphor about difference, saying that it is like a bunch of flowers. There is a kind of "complex organizational structure, different flowers, different meanings, spreading in different directions." At the same time, each flower is closely related to other flowers or meanings, forming a staggered structure. " It should be noted that rambling, as one of the characteristics of time delay, contains a kind of "sowing" in addition to the two meanings of time delay and spatial difference. No one can completely control the flowing symbol game, and no one can restrain the differences in words. In Derrida's view, language is regarded as an endless game of delay, and meaning can only be produced from countless alternative meaning differences.

As the "presence" as the destination of meaning no longer exists, the determination of the meaning of symbols is delayed layer by layer and spreads around like seeds, so there is no center at all. Derrida believes that broadcasting is the inherent ability of all words, which will disintegrate the text forever and expose the disorder and repetition of the text.

Once Derrida completed the deconstruction of traditional binary opposition, he naturally embarked on the road of "substitution" in post-structuralist linguistics. His so-called "substitution" mainly comes from Rousseau's statement about "supplement". Rousseau once had a series of famous expositions in Confessions. For example, he said, "language is telling, and words are just the supplement of words." Masturbation is a supplement to normal sexual behavior. If masturbation can replace normal sexual activities, then there must be similarities in essence between the two. In other words, the essence of masturbation is to concentrate one's desire on an imaginary thing that one cannot possess and entertain oneself. Conversely, normal sexual activity can also be regarded as a kind of masturbation.

In philology, Derrida quoted Rousseau's theory of "supplement" and made a deep and critical transformation, thus producing his own theory of substitution. He pointed out that words need to be supplemented by words, indicating that the words themselves are not complete. What he said about substitution is essentially a series of endless words. In his view, Rousseau's "supplement" not only shows that words are the supplement of words, but also confirms this. "Children will soon learn to use language to make up for their own shortcomings, because they will soon realize that by using language, others can also do things for themselves."

Derrida further analyzed the substitution phenomenon in Rousseau's Confessions: Rousseau replaced the existence of Mrs. Warren by kissing the bed, the curtain and the furniture. Even though Mrs. Warren was present and sat in front of him face to face, he still felt overwhelmed and asked for a supplement. "One day when she was eating, she just put a piece of meat in her mouth. I shouted that it was hairy and threw up on the plate. I am eager. Swallowed it in one gulp. " Derrida said that Mrs Warren was actually a body double, and she was body double of Rousseau's subconscious mother image. In a word, body double is actually an endless extension series, which makes the presence constantly delayed.

As for intertextuality deconstruction, it is believed that words are not a reflection of external objects, but an endless game of delay and difference of a series of symbols. Text is no longer a representation of the external world. On the contrary, in Derrida's deconstruction, the objective world has also been textualized. In other words, the whole world is summarized as a text. Derrida also believes that reading and writing permeate our world of knowledge and experience everywhere, and our world is not only explained, but also nothing else. The interpreter can't go beyond explanation, because he is imprisoned in the cage of language and has to face endless symbolic games composed of rhetoric and differences, so his explanation is endless.

On this premise, Derrida put forward his concept of intertextuality: a work does not belong to a certain writer or a certain era, and its text runs through all eras, with traces of different writers' texts. Therefore, the interpretation and reading of a text can only be open and diverse. Any new text is a text with pre-text, language and code, while the traces of the past text penetrate into the author's works through sublation. Not only that, the philosophical thought of western metaphysics still lurks silently in the language system. Intertextuality is not only the intertextuality of language, but also the intertextuality of cultural thought.

As for intertextuality, American critic Richie thinks that text is not a complete natural system, and it is inextricably linked with other texts. "Text and language, grammar, vocabulary and sporadic fragments of history blend with each other, and history is like a hodgepodge of countless incompatible and irreconcilable ideas and beliefs, and text is the export of this' cultural salvation army'." Obviously.

Bové) thinks that literary works are also an explanation, and the so-called literary history is the destructive deconstruction of other texts by a series of texts. Poetry in the history of literature is actually an explanation of other poems. This intertextuality occurred before the compilation of literary history. In other words, the original historical text became the object of later literary criticism, so the history of literary criticism should devote itself to this accumulated intertextuality and gain insight into the value of poetic tradition with its openness. Through this process,

Lacan's view of deconstruction: unconsciousness and language

When discussing Derrida's deconstruction, it is necessary to briefly mention his contemporary French psychologist Zhike? Lacan (Jacques

Lacan). Derrida's language deconstruction efforts directly echo Lacan's psychological/subjective deconstruction theory. It can be said that they are a wonderful intertextual relationship, or an example of mutual interpretation. Lacan's deconstruction view is mainly reflected in his classic analysis of the relationship between language and psychology. The key point is that Lacan believes that unconsciousness is the structure of the whole language, so he revised Saussure's formula:

attached drawing

In Lacan's view, the whole language and cultural system existed long before we were born. When we learn a language, this potential language and cultural system gradually imposes its whole structure and order on us. In other words, we unconsciously entered a group of pre-existing complex networks. It is this network that teaches us to speak, think and act, and forms the so-called self-consciousness according to everyone's social status and responsibilities. What is self and subject? For Lacan, this has become a passive and interactive process.

Traditional western linguistics holds that there has always been a natural one-to-one correspondence between signifier and signified. After Lacan's deconstruction, we find that this correspondence has long since ceased to exist. Between the original signifier and the signified, there is a huge and complex cultural and linguistic system above us. It ruthlessly cancels the correspondence and replaces it with an indelible gap, in which the signifier becomes a constantly sliding symbol. Moreover, Lacan further elaborated Freud's dream interpretation theory. In his view, psychological distortion becomes a sliding signifier, while Freud's dream becomes Lacan's language rhetoric, and the unconscious becomes a potential writing system.

Yale school of deconstruction

If French deconstruction theory is profound, American deconstruction pays more attention to its operation and application in practical texts. From the late 1960s to the early 1990s, Yale University in the United States formed a famous "Yale School". Usually refers to four professors who are keen on deconstruction criticism, namely Paul Derman.

De Mann), J. Hillis Miller, harold bloom and Geoffrey Hartman.

De Man's most creative view is that he inherited and promoted Nietzsche's rhetoric theory and made it an important deconstruction strategy. In The Fable of Reading, De Man pointed out that rhetoric is not an ornament of eloquence and persuasiveness, nor is it a dispensable component in the text. In fact, rhetoric is the unique essence of language itself. It is characterized by doubting, rejecting and denying the existence of external truth. Therefore, literary critics are.

Miller's deconstruction thought is mainly reflected in his reading and analysis of specific novels. He believes that "all words are code words. They are constantly delayed, unlike other words. Each word points to another word in the chain of words that are substituted for each other, which is passive and rootless. " Rhetoric of words makes words have multiple meanings. When one of them is selected, other potential meanings also flicker at the same time, which makes the selected meaning unstable. Always slipping to other meanings. And our reading of the text is to trace the source, find the etymology, and observe its maze of semantic differences and substitutions. In Miller's view, the result of this semantic diffusion reveals the endless interpretation possibilities of the text. Miller's deconstruction strategy is to carefully select some recurring key rhetoric, concepts or article themes, and analyze the destructive power released when they reappear in different situations. Thus, the hierarchical order and authoritative classics on which the text depends are disintegrated, and its suppression of marginal concepts and "illegal" traditions is exposed. In As a Parasitic Critic, he reveals that every work is parasitic on the previous work, which is not only the reference, imitation, absorption and reference of the previous work, but also the parasitism of the previous work in the new work. The previous text is not only the basis of the new text, but also should constantly adapt to the spirit of the new text.

Bloom boldly put forward the concept of "misreading" predecessors' works from the perspective of Oedipus complex. Facing the historical texts of predecessors, only through misreading can contemporary writers rebel and transcend history and establish their own image as "strong" poets.

Hartman's uniqueness lies in that after Derrida, he completely eliminated the boundary between literature and philosophy, and then regarded literary criticism as something equal to literary texts. In his view, literary criticism is not a passive work, but as a literary creation, with distinct thinking and creativity. It is this creativity that makes literature and criticism communicate with each other and blend into one. Literary criticism also has the nature and function of touching human emotions. As a typical representative of the harmonious integration of the two, prose is.

label

In the history of western criticism in the 20th century, deconstruction theory made a unique contribution. First of all, it eliminates the logos-centered theory that has occupied people's minds for a long time, breaks the binary opposition of hierarchy, and puts forward the view that there is no hierarchy and center, but only the difference between concepts. Secondly, it finds the relationship among signifier, polysemy and infinite delay, which fully realizes the openness and intertextuality of the text, so it also emphasizes readers.

Deconstruction is a theory full of loopholes and irrationality. It opposes centralism with non-centralism, just like sawing off the historical trunk connected with its own blood. The paradoxical logic of metaphysics has not led to the success of deconstruction, but has plunged it into another historical dilemma, namely, false truth, uncertain meaning and loose and arbitrary explanation. How many original meanings do readers have to think about the language and characters that are always under threat? Even deconstructionists are hard to say clearly. Over-emphasis on language games, infinite exaggeration of rhetoric and metaphor, and disregard of objective facts are the reasons why deconstruction has been criticized. Therefore, we should take an independent critical attitude towards deconstruction, take its essence and discard its dross.