What Is Called Thinking - Assignment Example

1. Compare the question “What is called thinking?” and the ment “I only have one language; it is not mine” in terms of how the ambiguity and multiple meanings foil every attempt to push towards an immediate understanding or comprehension without some preparation. How can ‘What is called thinking?’ And ‘Monolingualism of the Other’ be read as texts of preparation for reading these opening pronouncements? One characteristic of post-modern discourse is the attempt to find identity in the text. In the example of Heidegger, the philosopher reads Nietzsche and integrates it into his Being as part of his own thinking. Deleuze also reads the text of Nietzsche and comes to a fundamental understanding of what he feels that Nietzsche means, for himself and society, and expresses that through a further text of interpretation. If one examines how Derrida, Heidegger, Deleuze, and other post-moderns read and interpret Nietzsche, then it is obvious that there is debate over what the actual identity of the text is, for there is disagreement, each taking a tenet of text and extending it to new directions, and then relating that understanding to other fragments of thought. It is in this manner that we generate the “Thousand Plateaus” of Deleuze and Guattari, and their rhizomatic organization of structural identities. Seeking to understand the complexity of subjective interpretation of not only text, but reality, identity, the Self, and all of the objects in the material world that people react so differently to, Husserl posited Phenomenolgy as method of studying subjectivity in the processes of validation and construction of knowledge. In establishing the context of multiple subjectivities involved in a semantic process of identity creation through definition, phenomenology becomes a method of inquiry for post-modern linguists, psychologists, sociologists, and others to deconstruct the dominant paradigms and fundamentals in their tradition. This idea of a process or negotiation between multiple subjectivities in the construction of power points to the important way in which Foucault used the methods of phenomenology to show the political nature of knowledge and its construction. Returning to the question of identity in text on this basis, Heidegger and Derrida are both targeting the Subject and discovering multiplicity. This is evident in the way that different individuals respond to and create meaning in their own lives and identities from the literary works of others, and also in formal literary interpretation of symbols. This multiplicity is not by nature ambiguous but individual and subjective, and that is where phenomenologists begin the quest for understanding, using a methodology of advance preparation of the question through the lens of repeated subjectivity. The result is a relative objectivity that is consistent as a worldview for contemporary times in that it reflects the realities of quantum physics, and its subjective objectivity, as well as the multi-cultural paradigm. As an Algerian Jew resident in France, Derrida may have felt himself an outsider in many ways even in the context of multiple cultures, and as an international, he sought to free his own mind of imperialism that manifest through the subtle influence of thoughts. To consider why this is important, he writes, “I have only one language; it is not mine.” He is thus using anti-imperial methodology on a subjective level to clear his mental concepts and philosophy from the corruption of power as it gives rise to falsehood and thus obscures the truth. To consider ex-appropriation of ideas, in an interview in 1989, Derrida suggests that it would be possible "to reconstruct a discourse around a subject that would not be pre-deconstructive, around a subject that would no longer include a figure of mastery of self, of adequation to self, center and origin of the world [...], but which would define the subject rather as a finite experience of non-identity to self, as the underivable interpellation insomuch as it comes from the other, from the trace of the other, with all the paradoxes or the aporia of being-before-the-law" (Mosaic, 2009). Thus, he is positioning self above language and maintaining a purely idealistic concept of the self as a singularity through which leverage can be performed on any object in the universe through thought. Language, from the standpoint of Phenomenology, precedes the inquiry into truth and knowledge, and as such it is conditioned by forces that are beyond the control of the subject. In this context, two issues are important in understanding Derrida. First, by mistrusting the political and conditioned in language, he introduces a philosophical basis for self-mistrust in the inquiry into identity, which can be posited as a condition of subjectivity, also known as doubt. Derrida derives doubt from first principles of language, and from the same source the subject derives identity as self-conceived. This duality of language, cultural and conditioned, and self-identity as self-conceived is presented as fundamental to doubt and indicative of deconstruction. In analyzing the Other in this context, the traditional view of “all-that-is-not-I” or all that is outside of the body-mind of the individual, is also inside the subject through the effect of language and thought patterns that are fundamental to identity or self-concept. From this evolve concepts in grammar and structuralism as they condition consciousness and Being in the individual, and from this the ability of concepts to repress or liberate the individual in different manners. To analyze thinking is to study self-identity and also the nature of knowledge at the same time, yet it is also to study the logic of grammar as it structures thought processes, and how ideas can colonize identity. For Derrida, reading, writing, and creating identity from text is symbolic of this process of ex-appropriation. Heidegger’s philosophy, as represented in “What is called thinking?,” is that thinking in the broader context is an example of a fusion of Being, Identity, and its Expression which is a tautology, for this is also philosophy and the definition of his philosophy. Thus, just as individuals will approach a text individually, and create – artistically – their own interpretation of the text in mind that is also simultaneously identical with their Being and its meaning or identity, so for Heidegger thinking is the expression of identity of Being as it is experienced and lived. When Heidegger says that we must learn thinking and that we do not know how to think, he is describing the same process of interpretation where we greet not only the text, but all of reality, with our mind and interpret it objectively, and in doing so, artistically create a Self. The creation of identity through Being is the great artistic goal of life for Heidegger, which far too few people approach in his opinion. For example, they are unwilling to engage the deconstruction of established thought processes to really challenge their own ideas, and as such, they are not thinking as Heidegger posits it. Ultimately, for Heidegger, the “Essence of Truth” is the goal, a subjective wisdom unique in every individual and inseparable from their own identity as Being. Heidegger’s process of thinking is a mirror of the post-modern construction of identity through multiple subjectivities, and is reflective of the overall diversity of communities. One can read Derrida and Heidegger in the same manner, observing how the process of text interpretation fuels the growth and expression of subjectivity in life, through writing, understanding, speech, dialogue, and debate – all meta-linguistic means in the semantic context of the post-modern school of thought. The way we act and re-act in the world is indicative of our thinking and is tautological with Being and identity. Understanding this, we build a personal subjectivity of Self through symbols of communication and their exchange. Further complex use of symbols for communication enhances the expression of Being in the Heidegger sense, and is also indicative of what he means by thinking. Thus, thinking can give rise to great art but it is also the fundamental basis of interpretation through which we discriminate all phenomena. Source: Derrida, Jacques. (2009). Resonances of Echo: a Derridean allegory. Mosaic (Winnipeg). Date accessed Dec. 10th, 2010: Read More