...Twentieth Century Philosopher Maria Pinelle, Treddie Knight, and Shurvell McClendon PHL/215 March 19, 2011 Leon Hallingquest Twentieth Century Philosopher INTRODUCTION - Well-known philosophers have influenced the lives for many centuries. Jacques Derrida was a twentieth century philosopher who was one of the most contemporary philosophers of modern (contemporary) times (Philosophy basics, 2011). Jacques Derrida was born on July 15, 1930, and died October 8, 2004 of pancreatic cancer. Derrida left behind a wife and two sons named Pierre and Jean. Derrida was the founder of Deconstructionism. What is Deconstructionism? IDENTIFY AND EVALUATE THE KEY CONCEPTS AND ANALYSES THAT COMPRISED THE PHILOSOPHER’S THEORIES –Deconstructionism or Deconstruction is a philosophical theory of criticism (usually of literature or film) that seeks to expose deep-seated contradictions in a work by delving below its surface meaning ("Deconstruction"). According to C. John Holcombe (2007), “Derrida has been called philosopher, anti-philosopher, literary theorist, literary subverter and intellectual joker. But his central tenets are clear. Once we use language (speech or writing) to refer to reality, that reality is linguistically formulated and therefore indeterminate. Meaning is not something preexisting in the mind that we struggle to express. Like the main analytical schools of language philosophy from Hume onwards, and contrary to Saussure, Derrida does not regard words as the expression...
Words: 665 - Pages: 3
...Architecture has become in today’s society too dependent on the visual experience. The excess of images both in quantity and speed that afflicts our society has been observed by writers and philosophers and called “the unending rainfall of images” by Italo Calvino, “image addiction” by Richard Kearney, the civilization of the image” by Roland Barthes and “the society of spectacle” by Guy Debord. The critique of the dominance of visual aspects in architecture and the excessive rationalization of the design process is the ongoing work of a group of architects that somewhat loosely adapted the principals of phenomenology to architecture. The philosophical principals were partially applied to architecture at the beginning of the twentieth century, but reappeared as a viable alternative for architectural thought as a response to modernity and have gained a following in recent times. Juhani Pallasmaa has written: “In our time, architecture is threatened by two opposite processes: instrumentalisation and aestheticisation. On the one hand, our secular, materialist and quasi-rational culture is turning buildings into mere instrumental structures. devoid of mental meaning, for the purposes of utility and economy. On the other hand, in order to draw attention and facilitate instant seduction, architecture is increasingly turning into the fabrication of seductively aestheticised images without roots in our existential experience and devoid of authentic desire of life. Instead of being...
Words: 1323 - Pages: 6
...Transcendental Phenomenology and Antonioni’s Red Desert This essay applies the ideas associated with transcendental phenomenology to the Michelangelo Antonioni’s 1964 film Il deserto rosso, known in English as Red Desert. Aspects of western philosophy can provide a viewer with a greater appreciation of the film and its meanings. After providing a brief overview of the development of phenomenological thinking and of past interpretations of Red Desert, this essay will provide an analysis and interpretation of the film’s cinematography –specifically its colours and editing– from a phenomenological point of view. Phenomenology maintains that experience is both passive –seeing, hearing, and so on– and active –walking, running, touching, and so on. One describes experience and interprets experience by relating it to a context, which is usually social or linguistic. The word phenomenology originates with the Greek word phainomenon, which means ‘appearance.’ Phenomenology is, then, the study of appearances rather than the study of reality. In the eighteenth century, thinkers such as Immanuel Kant and Johann Fichte began to seriously consider phenomenology as a theory of appearances, and to consider it essential to acquiring knowledge. Phenomenology has its origins, certainly, with debates regarding what exists in reality and what is an illusion. John Locke believed that qualities such as colors, sounds, smells, and so on were subjective, and were not indigenous to objects...
Words: 2435 - Pages: 10
...The Question of Objectivity in Husserl and Heidegger This paper discusses the question of objectivity in Husserl and Heidegger and their respective views. Husserl addresses the question of objectivity by means of investigating the consciousness, where as Heidegger emphasizes knowing reality means knowing being. The view of each philosopher as well as arguments and counterarguments with respective examples are examined. In order to understand objectivity, Husserl asserts that the answer is found in perception and consciousness. Through investigation of our mind we can know reality. In order to understand reality one must understand phenomenology and phenomenological reduction. Phenomenology is a category of Contemporary Continental Philosophy that rejects the practical Kantian notion that the thing itself cannot be known. Husserl, unlike Kant, believes that the phenomena do reveal things themselves. He believes that by going “back to things themselves,” one can grasp an aspect of a thing’s true essence, and accordingly objective reality. Phenomenology embraces realism, which is the revelation of the existence of an objective reality outside or apart of one’s mind. In principle, Husserl supposes that the world is objectively real and that it is not a creation or illusion in one’s own mind. Thus, Husserl argues that things can be known through the phenomena; the manifestation of things themselves. To counter this argument, Kant may suggest that you cannot know things themselves...
Words: 4331 - Pages: 18
...Jasmine Pagan Dr. Amy C. Reeves Survey of World Literature February 7, 2013 Paper #1 I am writing a paper on King Lear, focusing on the main reason for his “fall” in the play. King Lear falls for power, so what is the reason for it? Does Lear end up deserving his fate? Or is he just blind to what is going on around him? Lear was a high respected aging king of British. He had three daughters, Goneril, Regan and Codelia, who he is dividing the kingdom into before he passes. Before he does so, he wanted to put in daughters through a test. He wants to know how much his daughters love him the most and which one would be great to take his place when the time comes. So he asks all his daughters how much they love him. Both Goneril and Regan, (which are his older daughters) lie to him. They tell King Lear that they love him more than anything and that they would be great to take over the kingdom in due time. He waits to hear from his youngest daughter, Cordelia (which is his favorite daughter), she is quiet at first then tells him she loves him like a regular daughter should love her father. “Nothing more; nothing less” she says. At that point King Lear becomes very angry, disappointed and immediately disowns Cordelia at sight because she did not say what Lear expected to hear from her. Deep down, King Lear was crushed and upset. He loved Cordelia very much, that was his favorite daughter out of them all. So when she told him that she loved him regular, at that moment...
Words: 1393 - Pages: 6
...“The family is a natural hierarchy, and the father possesses rightful authority. The violation of this order in King Lear leads to tyranny, cruelty and moral chaos In the light of the above comment, discuss Shakespeare’s presentation of family in King Lear? According to the 2011 census in the UK, the stereotypical image of a family being a mother, father with two children- often one boy, one girl- living in a semi-detached or detached house is fast “becoming a myth”. Today’s census is expected to affirm the fact that there is a larger proportion of families with single mothers or fathers, and adults still living in the house with their parents. This real-life exemplar degradation of the family ethos resonates within King Lear as Lear almost intentionally disrupts his family community through his power-play and expressions of favouritism, essentially cutting himself off from communication with his three daughters as they all develop spiteful distaste for his actions. The ‘rightful authority’ which Lear certainly possesses in the first instances of the play is ironically reversed as his three daughters adopt the power and authority he abandoned when he stepped down from his position as monarch. The violation of this order in King Lear does indeed lead to tyranny, cruelty and moral chaos as a bitter power struggle ensues. On the other hand, however, the family being a ‘natural hierarchy’ is questionable as- especially in a monarchical family- whoever is heir to the throne, or the...
Words: 1950 - Pages: 8
...senile old man who has extreme loyalty to his king. Take, for instance, Kent physically and verbally attacking the servant, Oswald, for no more reason than to gain a laugh from the king and reinforce his loyalty to the king. These acts, while they do have good reason behind them, lead to Kent being put in the stocks. Some will say that to risk being caught while banished from the kingdom is mad. It is an even madder deed to take company with the one who has banished you in the first place. Kent's instance of madness is for greater good. He is there to help look after Lear's deteriorating mindset and to counsel and consol Cordilia who returns to support her father. Edgar is the son of the Earl of Gloucester. Edgar is framed by his brother, Edmund, for conspiring to kill their father. He is banished from the kingdom and Gloucester wishes him to be captured, dead or...
Words: 1649 - Pages: 7
...dishonesty, and a severe lack of loyalty all lead to the demise or downfall of nearly every character in the play. In King Lear, the recurring themes of betrayal and vanity are central parts of the work, used to connect characters and events. The theme of betrayal proves to be very significant in the sense that it ultimately conveys a lesson that those who stay true to their loved ones have the potential to live happily and those who betray will suffer a fate of demise. Shakespeare also uses these lessons in the play as a reflection of the morals of the time period, and the morals of humanity in general. Early in the play, Gloucester is tricked into believing that his legitimate son, Edgar, is slowly plotting to take over his throne by Edmund. In reality, this is all part of Edmund's plot to gain the throne that he believes belongs to him. He perpetuates this by convincing Edgar that his father was furious with him and to keep out of his way. While he thinks he is doing justice, "Now, gods, stand up for bastards," (I.ii.22), he is truly betraying his family. This play makes it clear that vanity, almost above dishonesty, will be the downfall of a man, particularly a great leader. King Lear begins the play by allowing his ego to come between him and those who truly love him most, which in the end costs him dearly. Lear has his daughters compete for their...
Words: 706 - Pages: 3
...Discuss the concept of nothing as used in King Lear. Consider the themes of the play as you discuss lines such as “nothing will come of nothing, speak again.” And “the quality of nothing has no such need to hide itself.” And “I am better than thou art now. I am a fool, thou art nothing.” Nothing becomes a double symbol for King Lear’s ignorance to the truth and inability to perceive nothing. It also symbolizes King Lear’s paranoia which is brought on by his ignorance and short shortsightedness. This is due to the fact that power under King Lear has consistently been contended, highlighting its fragility and vulnerability. Nothing also symbolizes the fear of becoming insignificant and destitute. Nothing is symbolic of a way to perceive reality where the fragility, dynamism and human nature’s obsession with power obscures. The idea of nothing symbolizes King Lear’s paranoia. Shakespeare explores the idea of nothing by implying the common characteristic of chasing away things that people don’t understand or things that are different by having King Lear banish his favorite daughter due to his inability to comprehend the fact that she wants ‘nothing’ from him. King Lear is so unable to accept this unusual and probably new idea of not wanting the power and fortune that he has, that he becomes suspicious. Not wanting anything is seen as a strange thing in the play just as it is seen in today’s society. There is usually and exterior motive when doing something to benefit other people...
Words: 599 - Pages: 3
...accompanied by one hundred loyal knights.! Angry that Cordelia his youngest daughter does not appear to love him as do Goneril and Regan, Lear banishes his youngest daughter Cordelia, and Kent, the servant who attempts to defend her. Cordelia leaves and is taken by the King of France as his Queen...! Edmund, the loved but illegitimate son of the Earl of Gloucester plots to have his elder brother Edgar's reputation ruined. Edmund tricks his father Gloucester into believing that Edgar wanted to kill him...! The disrespectful Goneril conspires to have her guest and father, King Lear, driven out of her house.! Kent, who has now disguised his identity to serve King Lear, earns King Lear's respect by defending his name. Goneril offends King Lear and dismisses fifty of his knights. Lear starts to realize Cordelia was not so disrespecting. Lear decides to leave for Regan where he is sure to be treated properly...! Lear instructs Kent to deliver several letters to Gloucester. The Fool teaches Lear several riddles. We learn of possible conflict between evil sisters Regan and Goneril. Edmund further manipulates Edgar. Gloucester learns from Edmund of Edgar's plan to kill him and believes it...! Kent and Oswald, Goneril's steward fight. Kent is placed in stocks emphasizing just how little Lear's name is now respected by daughters Regan and Goneril...! Edgar, now alone and disguised, describes his fate of living in hiding.! Showing complete disregard ...
Words: 5549 - Pages: 23
...instructs her. When Cordelia refuses to speak again, Lear casts her off without a moment’s hesitation. Ken attempts to argue with the King, accusing him of ‘hideous rashness’ (Scene 1, Line 151). When Kent further warns Lear that his elder daughters are false flatterers, Kent too is banished. Lear invests Albany and Cornwall with power, and, after Burgundy refuses to take Cordelia as his wife, now that she is without dowry, France takes her for her virtues alone. Goneril and Regan complain, in private, about Lear’s harsh judgement and unpredictable behaviour and worry that they too may be treated unfairly. Edmund, Gloucester’s bastard son, soliloquises about his own situation, revealing his devious intentions towards his brother. When his father enters, Edmund’s trickery with a letter, supposedly written by Edgar, sets Gloucester against his legitimate son. Edmund further warns Edgar of their father’s anger, and suggests that he go into hiding at his lodgings. A short space of time follows, and Lear is staying with Goneril, who complains to her steward Oswald about the King’s behaviour, and that of his retinue. She makes it clear that she wants to...
Words: 27223 - Pages: 109
...The Deception in King Lear William Shakespeare's play King Lear is a play full of deceit and betrayal. This becomes evident in the first few lines. We first learn of the empty words of Goneril and Regan as well as their hatred for their father, King Lear. This becomes the center of the play and also leads to the madness that the king suffers from. The first words that Goneril speaks are totally empty and are the complete opposite of what she really feels. She says, "Sir, I love you more than word can wield the matter; Dearer than eye-sight, space and liberty;" (I.i.54-55) The reason why there are no words to express her love for her father is that she has no love for him and it does not exist. The same goes for her sister, Regan, who is plotting against her father as well. She says that she feels the same way as her sister and expresses how Goneril has named her very deed of love. Regan adds a little twist to this and professes that she loves Lear more than her sisters and that Goneril's affection for her father "comes too short." (I.i.71) By uttering these words, Regan shows that her love is even less true than that of her sister's. She goes even farther to say: "...that I profess Myself an enemy to all other joys Which the most precious square of sense possesses, And find I am alone felicitate In your dear highness' love." I.i.71-75 This goes to show that she is more greedy than her sister and her words are also falser. She wants more than her sister and will do anything...
Words: 1482 - Pages: 6
...King Lear; Power Corrupts Absolutely For years, power has been known to blind people from what really matters in life; it can lead to the demise of a person if it is not used responsibly. Shakespeare’s King Lear demonstrates how, because it is a sign of dominance and control, power becomes the poison behind the character’s actions. The lengths they are willing to go to in order to obtain this power are the cause of their problems. The play takes place in an era of hierarchy, where everyone has a societal role. Power’s intoxicating influences the characters to act rashly, disregard the feelings and opinions of others, betray one another, and break tradition. It is for these reasons, and because power is so enticing, that it becomes the poison that fuels the malevolent actions that occur within the play. Rash actions and decisions are made when power influences one’s thoughts. King Lear decided to break his land into three parts and give it to his daughters based on how well they express their love for him. The two eldest daughters, Goneril and Regan, have always wanted the throne and what came with it, and were willing to go to extreme and disloyal lengths to get it. Goneril and Regan said everything their father wanted to hear, “Sir, I do love you more than words can wield the matter/ Dearer than eyesight, space, and liberty/ Beyond what can be valued, rich or rare/ No less than life, with grace, health, beauty, honour…” (I.i.54-61). It is evident that Goneril shows...
Words: 1241 - Pages: 5
...Character Analysis Lear, the King of Britain, is a powerful and important man. But he's getting near retirement age. Lear thinks he can hand over the hard work of ruling the kingdom to his children and relax. He wants to enjoy the power of still being king without any of the responsibility. That's Lear's first mistake, separating power and responsibility. His two eldest daughters are ready to run their own lives – and their own kingdoms. They resent Lear acting as if he is still in charge. Yet the King is shocked when his daughters assert their independence from him. After all, he gave them everything they have. Lear's second mistake is to exile the people who love him the most. He chooses to stage a "love test" among his three daughters so he can give the biggest slice of the kingdom to the one who loves him most of all. When Cordelia refuses to participate, Lear is so angry that he orders her out of the kingdom. And when his advisor, Kent, warns him that this is a terrible idea, Lear throws him out, too. So Lear has to deal with the power struggle his retirement sparked without two of the people who could have smoothed the transition. (Kent does come back disguised as Caius, a peasant, but this means he only has a peasant's power – enough to take care of Lear, but not enough to soothe his political worries.) Lear realizes his stupidity soon enough. His retirement starts a series of conflicts that lead the whole country to civil war. Two of Lear's own children turn...
Words: 2299 - Pages: 10
...blindness, the things that power can often lead to. During the whole flattery scenario, Goneril and Regan commit the ultimate act of betrayal, not only to their father, but to each other. They conspire to snatch the throne from their father, by offering meaningless praise to their father. They then stripped what little authority he had left, and kicked him out, disregarding and disrespecting the one responsible for raising them. Goneril and Regan then turn on each other because of the character Edmund. Goneril goes as far as to poison her sister for Edmund, and then betrayed herself my committing suicide. The theme of madness is also current throughout the play. Goneril and Regan go mad out of their lust for power, in contrast to King Lear, who goes truly goes mad out of grief. Honestly, the entire tragedy is madness, the things that Lear’s daughters did to usurp the throne from their father are insane. They don’t stop at taking over the throne; however, they eye-up the same man, Edmund. This triggers another outburst of madness, that concludes with Goneril poisoning Regan, then killing herself, which is not only the ultimate act of self-betrayal, but also the ultimate act of madness. The final thing and the theme that really summarizes the entire play is blindness. This is really what Shakespeare is getting to, that power and the pursuit of power makes one blind, blind enough to poison your sister, frame your brother, steal what is not yours, and take your own...
Words: 297 - Pages: 2
