"The Death of the Author"

After reading Rolan Barthes "Death of the Author" I found the overall topic of discussion to be really interesting, but specifially the parts in which he talked about Proust and Marllarme who were of the first writers to insist on letting the language speak, not the author. In no way were either men trying to dismiss the author or the author's thoughts, but instead reinforcing the importance of letting the language act instead of the author. Essentially the point made by a good majority of writing is to sway an audience to think a certain way, a good amount of writers have since tried to keep as neutral as possible on their writing subjects, but there is also a good amount that still are so much involved in their writing. The removal of the author is seen important to these men because these men see the author no more than the emptiness of the enunciation.

The major influence of the author, although at times refuted, can still be seen in todays world. It was difficult to find a post that specifically talked about this topic, but on the topic of author influence I came across this blog. Authorship is being discussed throughout this blog entry as a kind of peruasion particularly on young and impressionable minds with a focus on politics in periodicals. It is interesting to make the the disctinctions between what Proust and Marllarme were working towards in the literary world and the kind of literature that is being produced today.

What is love?

After finishing the documentary of Derrida I found the most interesting part to be when Derrida was asked to talk about "love". He immediatly refuses to do so and says he has nothing to say about "love" because that topic is too general. He explains he has an "empty head of love", and the reason why so many philosophers speak of it is because of all the confusion that comes from it. This is when Derrida explains his perspective on the subject. He cannot decide whether we love someone for who they are, or because of the certain characteristics that make up that someone. He says he is divided between "the who and the what". However, he then explains that there are narcissists, people who are in love with themselves. For most it is as you mature from child to adulthood that you slowly change your narcissitic ways and realize the importance of a good balance between the love and attention you give yourself and others. But when we have fallen in love with another person is it that person as a whole that we have fallen in love with or is it our narcissitic ways that make us love just certain aspects?

Derrida Documentary

After watching the Derrida Documentary film i feel not only do i have a better understanding of his theories, but also who he was as a person. It was interesting to match a face to the name. However, I would like to focus on the irony of the project in capturing the "true" Derrida. I believe the point of a biographical documentary is to inform an audience with as much meaning as possible on a particular subject, to help better the understanding of the audience on whatever that subject may be. Derrida's main theory is opposing this entire idea. He seems to believe that there can never be just one meaning to understanding anything, because meaning is unstable. I think the film directors do recognize this, but they still cannot help their patterned film making ways. To provide some acknowledgment to Derrida's ideas they allow some of the run time to show his disputes with the cameras and crew. Also by making the entire vision of the documentary intricate and busy they are providing some, maybe unconscious, insight to the theories of Derrida.

Ideas About Language and The Sign...

This past week I was introduced to several key ideas from Saussure about language and the sign, once again throwing myself into a state of major theoretical confusion, however, I have had some time to process. His idea that "the bond between the signifier and the signified is radically arbitrary" particularly caught my attention. I have come to believe what he is trying to say is that the signifier is what we say and hear, where as the signified is what we see, and the relationship between the two is completely random. This means to each individual when hearing or saying a particular word they will relate that word to their own personal experiences, in turn making the relationship between the signifier and signified arbitrary. This helps me to understand what is post structuralism because it is bascially saying there are no real truths to anything. Although we believe there is meaning to everything in the eyes of a post structuralist this is simply false hope.