PDA

View Full Version : Logocentrism


kit
09-20-2005, 04:50 PM
Daniel's Question:
# 5.logocentrism
今天人們說的logocentrism,與這個有沒有任何關係?(認識logocentrism的朋友可先 介紹這是甚麼。)

I think the contemporary sense of "logocentrism" (which is more related to Derrida and postsmodern thought) might not be directly related to Holms's logos.

For those who might be interested in this topics, you can visit the following sites:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logocentrism

In his Of Grammatology:

(from: http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/derrida.html)

According to Derrida, "logocentrism" is the attitude that logos (the Greek term for speech, thought, law, or reason) is the central principle of language and philosophy. Logocentrism is the view that speech, and not writing, is central to language. Thus, "grammatology" (a term which Derrida uses to refer to the science of writing) can liberate our ideas of writing from being subordinated to our ideas of speech. Grammatology is a method of investigating the origin of language which enables our concepts of writing to become as comprehensive as our concepts of speech.

According to logocentrist theory, says Derrida, speech is the original signifier of meaning, and the written word is derived from the spoken word. The written word is thus a representation of the spoken word. Logocentrism maintains that language originates as a process of thought which produces speech, and that speech then produces writing.

Derrida argues that logocentrism may be seen in the theory that a linguistic sign consists of a signifier which derives its meaning from a signified idea or concept. Logocentrism asserts the exteriority of the signifier to the signified. Writing is conceptualized as exterior to speech, and speech is conceptualized as exterior to thought. However, if writing is only a representation of speech, then writing is only a 'signifier of a signifier.’ Thus, according to logocentrist theory, writing is merely a derivative form of language which draws its meaning from speech. The importance of speech as central to the development of language is emphasized by logocentrist theory, but the importance of writing is marginalized.

Alan Leung
09-20-2005, 11:07 PM
Kit, thanks for your introduction.

I have a few questions:

1) Is Derrida saying that he state of "differance" is "before" state of "presence and absence"? This appeared to me like the concept of 太極....

2) In another thread (I don't remember which) there is some discussion on 真理( 理性 )的一致性和自相矛盾的問題, how are we understand this in terms of the concept of "differance"?

3) The conventional view of the relationship between the Christian God and his people is God being the "signified" or "presence" and his people being the "siginifer" or "absence". If we put Derrida's differance into this relationship, it means that our God and us can be in a state of being differed or in a state of being deferred. I thought this could better explain our situation in this earth where we sometimes obey but another time disobey God. What do you think about it?

kit
09-23-2005, 11:00 PM
Kit, thanks for your introduction.

I have a few questions:

1) Is Derrida saying that he state of "differance" is "before" state of "presence and absence"? This appeared to me like the concept of 太極....

2) In another thread (I don't remember which) there is some discussion on 真理( 理性 )的一致性和自相矛盾的問題, how are we understand this in terms of the concept of "differance"?

3) The conventional view of the relationship between the Christian God and his people is God being the "signified" or "presence" and his people being the "siginifer" or "absence". If we put Derrida's differance into this relationship, it means that our God and us can be in a state of being differed or in a state of being deferred. I thought this could better explain our situation in this earth where we sometimes obey but another time disobey God. What do you think about it?

要談Derrida,是非常複雜的問題,相信在Holmes的眼中,Derrida是一位極端相對主義的哲學家,他是反對以logos(無論希臘哲學式或是轉化了新約聖經約翰式 )為中心的真理觀。看了Derrida多年,也好像是對他一知半解,要了解他需要有一種「退一步海闊天空」的心態。

Différance一文 (http://www.hydra.umn.edu/derrida/diff.html) (tr. Alan Bass in Margins of Philosophy) (另一早期翻譯 by David Allison in Speech and Phenomenon) 是一篇十分重要的文章。Différance是否神? 我想不是吧!John Cupato 在 The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida 的第一章中 “God is Not différance” (pp.1-19)討論得很詳細,是否同意,見仁見智。

Différance ‘ is the source of everything and one cannot know it: it is the God of negative theology. Derrida responded with the most exquisite precision and deconstructionist decisiveness,“it is and it is not.” Yes and no’. (p.2)

用「太極」來形容Derrida是最貼切不過,我會看得積極及富建設性一些,習太極十多年,王宗岳的「太極拳論」之「太極者,無極而生,陰陽之母也。動之則分,靜之則合。」可借用來形容Derrida在Différance中的陰中有陽陽中有陰的一點想法。

我並沒有直接回答你的問題,正如前所說,對Derrida都是一知半解,用游戲的心態去玩一下吧!

clement
09-24-2005, 02:07 PM
用「太極」來形容Derrida是最貼切不過,我會看得積極及富建設性一些,習太極十多年,王宗岳的「太極拳論」之「太極者,無極而生,陰陽之母也。動之則分,靜之則合。」可借用來形容Derrida在Différance中的陰中有陽陽中有陰的一點想法。

我並沒有直接回答你的問題,正如前所說,對Derrida都是一知半解,用游戲的心態去玩一下吧!

關於壇主的問題,作者的 logos 主要是古希臘哲學的意思,即宇宙的秩序原理,宇宙的可認識原理,一切實在的基礎,等等。跟 Derrida 的邏各斯中心主義關係比較間接。
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logocentrism

To Alan Leung:

1. 太極中的陰陽是陰陽無限可分,陰陽互生(陰增長,陽也增長;反之亦然 ),陰陽制約(陰對陽有制衡作用;反之亦然;陰陽之間不是靜態平衡,而是動態平衡 ),陰陽互根(陰是基於陽,如果陽亡,陰也亡;陰並不獨立存在;反之亦然 ),陰陽轉化(陰在某些情況下,可轉化為陽 )。

但德里達討論的「在場」和「闕如」並非平衡的一對,正如「男」和「女」,「聲音」和「書寫」,「時間」和「空間」,「邏輯」和「修辭」。他主要是針對西方形而上學高舉前者,貶低後者。但他認為前者的可能性條件正是在於後者。正如就算是男性主義者也必須承認,所有(亞當以外的 )男人畢竟都是女人生的,但西方以前的社會卻是以男性為中心的。

關於上帝的「延異」(differance ) ,或者可以聯想天國的既濟與未濟 (already but not yet ) ,或者否定神學關於上帝隱匿性的思考。雖然上帝自我啟示,但如聖經所說,關於上帝本身的奧秘,並沒有向人都啟明。「彌賽亞性」(messianity )在德里達的後期著作中也得到討論。

Daniel_Cheung
09-24-2005, 02:23 PM
多謝各位解釋logocentrism的正確意思。Kit和Clement皆引用wikipedia,其實我覺得那裡各條的水平是參差的。anyway,那裡有這一句我想應是正確的:Logocentricism deals with Western Philosophy's preoccupation with truth, reason and the word. And a belief that this gives us access to what is behind reality.

我想問,如何分辦何時是preoccupied with truth, reason and the word,何時是恰當地談和運用truth, reason and the word?套在本書的場景,我的意思自然是,基督教可以怎樣談真理?那些真理可以是其他學問也談的真理嗎?那真理會是有一定程度上的一致性嗎?這不一定是福音派信徒才會有興趣提問和回答的問題。

clement
09-24-2005, 02:48 PM
多謝各位解釋logocentrism的正確意思。Kit和Clement皆引用wikipedia,其實我覺得那裡各條的水平是參差的。...

對不起,其實是貪方便。但 Standard 那個又缺乏歐陸方面的資料,而天主教 New Advent 有時又太有教義立場,而且有選擇性(看看 new advent 關於 Martin Luther 或者 Justification 的詞條,特別長,專門回應新教對於天主教的常見異議;但有些詞條,資料又比較不足 )。其實德國的 Wikipedia 做得比較好同詳細 (大家參與編輯的自由度相對比較小 ),如果查德國哲學或神學,例如比較下德文同英文的 Schleiermacher ,資料會多很多。

Alan Leung
09-26-2005, 02:17 AM
回kit:

I have read those pages you suggested on john cupato's, a bit confused but I think I do agree that differance is not God, well the concept is difficult to grasp. I am interested in what the author is mentioning in his book about Christian faith and differance. Perhaps we will have some discussion later, thanks.

回clement:

well, the interesting thing from differance for me is that it seems mentioned something "anterior" to the concept of presence and absence what have some similarities to taichi as well as in 老子的道德經.