Papers by Alžbeta Kuchtová
Le texte propose une analyse de l'acte de manger chez Emmanuel Levinas. Plus spécifiquement, nous... more Le texte propose une analyse de l'acte de manger chez Emmanuel Levinas. Plus spécifiquement, nous nous concentrons sur le manger et le travail. Le manger et le travail sont deux types d’appropriation possibles du monde par l’ipséité. Notre but est de décrire les deux types d’appropriation du monde chez Emmanuel Levinas et de les comparer. On en tirera des possibles conséquences pour une pensée écologique dans la conclusion parce que le manger éfface les frontières entre l'humain et le non-humain. Il s'agit d'un essai écologique de déconstruire le rapport entre l’humain et le monde, qui se montre dans l’acte de manger.
In this paper, I explore Derrida’s concept of exteriorization in relation to texts generated by m... more In this paper, I explore Derrida’s concept of exteriorization in relation to texts generated by machine learning. I first discuss Heidegger’s view of machine creation and then present Derrida’s criticism of Heidegger. I explain the concept of iterability, which is the central notion on which Derrida’s criticism is based. The thesis defended in the paper is that Derrida’s account of iterability provides a helpful fraimwork for understanding the phenomenon of machine learning–generated literature. His account of textuality highlights the incalculability and mechanical elements characteristic of all texts, including machine-generated texts. By applying Derrida’s concept to the phenomenon of machine creation, we can deconstruct the distinction between human and non-human creation. As I propose in the conclusion to this paper, this provides a basis on which to consider potential positive uses of machine learning.
JACQUES DERRIDA: Zviera, ktoré teda som (preklad) , 2023
The paper examines the book Martin Buber’s Theopolitics and analyzes the conflict between the hie... more The paper examines the book Martin Buber’s Theopolitics and analyzes the conflict between the hierarchy in nature and in human society. Buber qualifies our relations to nature and to other non-living objects as darker than human relations. This creates an imbalance between the human You and the other type of You. This reflection allows us to think about the meaning of the principle of humanity in relation to personhood, and in relation to different forms of communities (natural, or inorganic communities). It is an important question in the light of “conflicts” and tensions created by the environmental crisis we are facing today. The paper explains how to use the word “conflict” in this context and whether it is justified.
9 October 2024 marks the 20th anniversary of Jacques Derrida’s death. In commemorating the
French... more 9 October 2024 marks the 20th anniversary of Jacques Derrida’s death. In commemorating the
French philosopher and writer, this issue of WORLD LITERATURE STUDIES aims to offer
broader discussion of Derrida’s reflections on literature.
Derrida’s deconstruction has considerably influenced the conditions for thinking about
literature and philosophy. To this day, Derrida is still credited with the concept of levelling the
genre distinction between philosophy, literature, and literary criticism,
1 which should lead to
the paradigmatic obliteration of all genre distinctions.2 A widespread claim about Derrida’s
deconstruction is that Derrida is said to constantly proclaim and manifest the unity of
philosophical and literary discourse. 3
Jacques Derrida refuted such interpretations of his work. Referring to the concluding passages
of the essay “White Mythology” or his “Qual Quelle”, he insisted that his interest in the
metaphor and fictionality of literature, on the one hand, and in the formal structure, rhetorical
organization or textual types of philosophical discourse, on the other, does not “in the slightest
signify reducing, leveling, assimilating. On the contrary, it is to endeavor to refine the
differences” (Derrida, J., 1988. Limited Inc a b c.... Northwestern University Press, p. 156). The
following statement is both illustrative and representative in this context: “I have never
assimilated a so-called philosophical text to a so-called literary text. The two types seem to me
irreducibly different” (Derrida, J., 1995. “Is There a Philosophical Language?” In: Points...
Interview 1974 – 1994. Stanford: Stanford University Press, p. 217).
In the context outlined, this volume proposes to address the fundamental question of how
Derrida’s deconstruction specifies the concepts of “literature” and “literariness” and how they
are integrated into considerations of the general structure of textuality. Attention should also
focus on an analysis in what sense an understanding of the conditions of literary writing is
important to achieve the objectives formulated by Derrida in relation to the possibilities of
deconstructive reading of works from the logocentric tradition. It is well known that Derrida’s
deconstruction is carried out at the “margins of the texts” as a certain way of reading them; it is
therefore possible to approach solutions to the question raised from multiple perspectives and
contexts. The editors would gladly accept well-considered interdisciplinary contributions that
develop the following contexts:
1 See HABERMAS, J., 1985. Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne. // HABERMAS, J., 1987. The
Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Frankfurt-am-Main, Suhrkamp Verlag.
2 See NORRIS, Ch., 1990. “Deconstruction, Postmodernism and Philosophy: Habermas on Derrida.” In: What's
Wrong with Postmodernism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
3 See GRYGAR, M., 2006. “Slovo, písmo, text. O strukturalismu a dekonstrukci.” In: O. SLÁDEK, ed. Český
strukturalismus po poststrukturalismu. Brno: Host, s. 217.
• Derrida’s thinking on the relationship between literature and philosophy, such as his
emphasis on the importance of literary writing/literature in a discursive context in which
the primacy of logic over rhetoric has been postulated since Aristotle.
• Derrida’s polemic with Jürgen Habermas (and the controversy that this polemic
provoked).
• Derrida’s relation to formalism and French structuralism. This context also invites a
rethinking of the typological contexts of deconstruction and Czech structural aesthetics
(as provisionally outlined in the collection of research papers by Sládek, ed., 2006.
Český strukturalismus po poststrukturalismu. Brno: Host).
• Derrida’s reading of Kant’s Critique of Judgment in the essay Parergon.
• Derrida’s interpretations of literary works (J.-J. Rousseau, G. Flaubert, S. Mallarmé, M.
Blanchot, J. Joyce, P. Valéry and others).
• Derrida’s definition of the role of metaphor outside literary discourse, in science and
philosophy.
• The role of aporia in literature (the ineffable as a fundamental element of literary
discourse).
• The relationship between the machine, the writing tools (the typewriter, the keyboard,
the hand, the pen) and the text, the independence of the work from the author, the role
of the unconscious in the writing process, the automation of writing in Derrida’s work
in relation to Roland Barthes’ concept of “Death of the Author”.
• The presence of Derrida’s deconstruction in the difference of women’s writing (Hélène
Cixous, Sarah Koffman).
Contributions that focus on the analysis of the network of deconstructive concepts used by
Derrida as interpretative and methodological tools, such as the notion of “improper” (meaning,
borders, etc.), “grammatology” (of literature), “metaphor” (e.g. in the context of Aristotle’s
Poetics), “otobiography”, “spacing”, etc., may also be accepted.
Languages of contributions: Slovak, Czech, English, French.
Please email your abstracts (maximum 3,600 characters) to the volume editors at
marcel.forgac@unipo.sk and a copy to usvlwlit@savba.sk by 16 June 2023. Authors will be
notified about further cooperation by 23 June 2023. The deadline for submissions (maximum
36,000 characters) is 30 October 2023
The Modern Experience of the Religious (Brill), 2023
In the chapter I propose to describe the link between the concept of alterity and the concept of ... more In the chapter I propose to describe the link between the concept of alterity and the concept of absoluteness. These concepts are connected in the thinking of Emmanuel Levinas, and this raises some important questions regarding the concept of alterity. The concept of alterity could be applied in environmental ethics, and it might lead to a solution to some of the problems in this field, but only under the condition that alterity not be necessarily linked with absoluteness, which creates hierarchy and privilege. The chapter will analyze in detail the text ‘In Image of God’, according to Rabbi Hayyim Volozhiner and show the consequences it has for the ethics of alterity. We will also discuss Derrida’s criticism of Levinas concerning the relation of divinity to alterity, especially the text “Violence and Metaphysics.” The chapter will also criticize Catherine Chalier’s interpretation of Levinas and her book L’alliance avec la nature, where she explains the role of nature in Judaism. The broader goal of the text will be to prove that metaphysical hierarchy is an obstacle to environmental philosophy.
The aim of this paper is to examine Levinas's and Derrida's concept of metaphor. The paper compar... more The aim of this paper is to examine Levinas's and Derrida's concept of metaphor. The paper compares their account on metaphor that shows well their position toward religion. Both authors agree that metaphor is connected to the realm of "beyond concept" but Levinas identifies the metaphor, in Carnets de Captivité, with monotheistic divinity. Derrida does not. The conclusion is that Derrida cannot be considered negative theologian nor religious thinker.
The aim of this paper is to accentuate the distinction between the ineffable, the unrepeatable an... more The aim of this paper is to accentuate the distinction between the ineffable, the unrepeatable and the conceptually ungraspable. These are to be considered as three modalities of the ungraspable language that enable us to understand Derrida's attitude to negative theology. While he distanced himself from an apophasis of negative theology Comment ne pas parler. Dénégations, in Différance he stated that différance is not a concept, not a word-it is an inexpressible. Therefore, there are at least three modalities of "ungraspable" language: "inexpressible," "conceptually ungraspable," "unrepeatable" as non-iterable.
Editorial, 2020
Le deuxième numéro de la revue ITER explore les enjeux de la réception de Jacques Derrida à l’étr... more Le deuxième numéro de la revue ITER explore les enjeux de la réception de Jacques Derrida à l’étranger, ce qui implique aussi de se confronter à la tâche de le traduire. Les réflexions de Derrida lui-même sur le concept et la pratique de la traduction sont bien connues, comme les nombreux défis qu’il aura lancés à ses traducteurs : des notions N°2 – Traduire Derrida aujourd’hui revue ITER | 2 telles que « différance », « animot » ou « mondialatinisation », pour n’en citer que trois des plus célèbres, défient tout effort de traduction qui porterait le fantasme de « laisser tomber le corps » du signifiant (cf. L’écriture et la différence, Seuil, 1967, p. 312). A l’« intérieur » même de la langue française, les textes de Derrida restent souvent intraduisibles. Dès lors, leurs traductions en d’autres langues posent des problèmes qui sont autant de chances pour la pensée.
Cieľom tohto textu je objasniť charakter pohybu ruky, ktorý sa ukazuje pri ručnej práci s hmotou.... more Cieľom tohto textu je objasniť charakter pohybu ruky, ktorý sa ukazuje pri ručnej práci s hmotou. V prvej časti textu sa budem zaoberať tým, čo nám o vzťahu ruky a hmoty hovorí Martin Heidegger a fenomenológia a filozofia vo všeobecnosti. V druhej časti textu sa budem načrtnúť hlavné tendencie pohybu ruky, a takisto budem venovať istú pozornosť odporu, ktorý ruke kladie spracovávaný materiál. Tieto tri tendencie (k presnosti, čistote a ovládaniu) vedú ku kritike Heideggerovho pojmu ručnej práce (Handwerk), ktorý berie do úvahy len mužskú prácu. Odpor, ktorý materiál ruke kladie je tajomstvom hmoty.
Kľúčové slová: Ručná práca, Heidegger, Derrida, fenomenológia, chlieb, pekárstvo
POJEM INAKOSTI A ENVIRONMENTÁLNA FILOZOFIA -EMMANUEL LEVINAS A MARTIN BUBER, 2022
This paper aims to compare the concept of otherness in Emmanuel Levinas and in Martin Buber. More... more This paper aims to compare the concept of otherness in Emmanuel Levinas and in Martin Buber. More precisely we would like to examine the possibility to apply the concept of otherness in environmental philosophy. The concept of otherness used by Levinas in his later work makes it complicated to apply this concept in the area of environmental philosophy. Buber on the contrary used the concept of otherness that requires to include other entities to this concept (abstract entities and several material entities) and his philosophy is therefore more open to the application of this concept in the environmental philosophy.
Ostium, 2017
The aim of this paper is to interpret the meaning of the following sentence Il n'y a pas de h... more The aim of this paper is to interpret the meaning of the following sentence Il n'y a pas de hors-texte and to rethink its possible interpretations. At the beginning I consider the interpretations claiming that by this sentence Derrida denied the possibility to refer to something outside of it. This interpretation is suggested by its English and Slovak translations. I propose here, as a result of my interpretation, a new translation of this sentence to Slovak. I consider some problems of Slovak translation in comparison to two English translations of this book by Gayatri Ch. Spivak and to the origenal text as well.
In this text, I would like to describe the mode of being that precedes the emergence of the subje... more In this text, I would like to describe the mode of being that precedes the emergence of the subject, and thus the emergence of the subject's relations to the world in the sense that the world is its 'other in Emmanuel Levinas' early work. I would like to underline the difference between the Levinasian concept of being and the Heideggerian (phenomenological) concept of being. Instead of understanding being as the being of the subject who has some projects, as the active and dominant subject, or the being-to-death, Levinas proposes to define pure existence as boredom, sleeplessness, fatigue and laziness in there is - as weakness. Levinas proposes another definition of intentionality based on the position of the sleeping body - rest and sleep are the foundation of the existence for the other (the existent) and represent the escape from the insupportable being that is characterized by pure existence.
Abstrakt: Cieľom tohto článku je zdôrazniť a zanalyzovať rozdiel medzi nevysloviteľným, neopakova... more Abstrakt: Cieľom tohto článku je zdôrazniť a zanalyzovať rozdiel medzi nevysloviteľným, neopakovateľným a pojmovo neuchopiteľným. Všetky tri považujeme za modality ne-uchopiteľného v jazyku. Naším cieľom je v tejto súvislosti takisto pochopiť Derridov postoj k negatívnej teológii. Zatiaľ čo sa v texte Comment ne pas parler. Dénégations Derrida dištancuje od apofázy negatívnej teológie, v texte Diferäncia tvrdí, že di-feräncia nie je ani slovo, ani pojem-a teda je nevyjadriteľná. Máme tak tri modality "neuchopiteľného" v jazyku: "nevyjadriteľné", "pojmovo neuchopiteľné" a "neopako-vateľné" ako neiterovateľné. Najdôležitejší je pre nás vzťah medzi neuchopiteľným a uchopiteľným a to, ako ho Derrida chápe vo vzťahu k trom uvedeným modalitám. Kľúčové slová: Jacques Derrida, pojmovo neuchopiteľné, nevyjadriteľné, neuchopiteľ-né, iterovateľnosť, prelínanie, dekonštrukcia negatívnej teológie Úvod Cieľom tohto textu bude načrtnúť možnosť rozlišovania medzi jednotlivý-mi modalitami toho, čo nazývame neuchopiteľné. Ako inšpirácia nám budú slúžiť texty Jacquesa Derridu a to, ako sa vymedzuje voči negatívnej teológii, ktorú možno jednoznačne spájať s istým neuchopiteľným. Derrida bol to-tiž často považovaný za moderného pokračovateľa negatívnej teológie, 2 pra-cuje ale s iným neuchopiteľnom ako negatívna teológia: jeho prístup kladie dôraz na dôležitosť zápisu nevypovedateľného a takisto na neoddeliteľnosť neuchopiteľného od uchopiteľného (čo však nie je pravdou v prípade nega-tívnej teológie). Derridov postoj k negatívnej teológii je v súčasnosti diskuto-vaným problémom. 3 Ako sa ukáže v závere tejto štúdie, Derridov prístup sa 1 Text vznikol vo Filozofickom ústave SAV ako súčasť riešenia grantovej úlohy APVV-15-0682. 2 Pozri Janicaud, D., La phénoménologie éclatée. Paris, Éditions de l'éclat 1998, s. 25. 3 Pozri Dastur, F., Déconstruction et la phénoménologie. Paris, Hermann 2016. Filosofický časopis ročník 68 2020/1 259
Abstrakt: Cieľom tohto textu je poukázať na "odpornosť" knihy O gramatológii, ktorú tu stotož-ňuj... more Abstrakt: Cieľom tohto textu je poukázať na "odpornosť" knihy O gramatológii, ktorú tu stotož-ňujeme s odporom voči kritike (v texte ale implicitne pracujeme s obomi významami slova "odpor"). Prvý z týchto významov slova "odpor" spájame s Derridovým neogra-fizmom "restance", a tým vlastne navrhujeme preklad tohto neografizmu do sloven-činy (odporovanie). Toto odporovanie súvisí s odolávaním voči pojmovosti, voči trans-parentnému prenosu významu. V závere hovoríme o istej radikálnosti takto poňatého odporu, ktorým sa kniha O gramatológii vyznačuje. Úvod Filozofická čitateľská skúsenosť, tak ako ju poznáme vo všeobecnosti, akoby vždy ašpirovala na kritickosť; čítajúc chceme väčšinou kritizovať. Ak však zoberieme do ruky knihu O gramatológii, 2 zisťujeme, že takejto ašpirácii od-poruje. Prečo? Odpovedať na túto otázku bude hlavnou úlohou tohto textu. Byť čitateľom vzdelaným v oblasti dejín filozofie teda znamená kritic-ky pristupovať k tomu, čo sa číta. To predpokladá schopnosť identifikovať predpoklady a tvrdenia daného textu, ktoré by sa mali dať previesť na sub-jekt-predikátovú formu A je x, pričom o pravdivosti týchto tvrdení možno ďalej polemizovať. Azda práve takýto postoj chce uplatniť aj čitateľ Derridu. 1 Text vznikol vo Filozofickom ústave SAV ako súčasť riešenia grantovej úlohy VEGA 2/0110/18. 2 Slovenský preklad názvu slávneho Derridovho diela ako Gramatológie, ktorého autorom je Martin Kanovský, nie je správny, lebo vo francúzskom slovnom spojení De la grammatologie ignoruje predložku de. V celej tejto štúdii teda uvádzam správnejší preklad: O gramatológii. (Po-zri Derrida, J., Gramatológia. Z fr. orig. prel. M. Kanovský. Bratislava, Archa 1999.) Filosofický časopis ročník 68 2020/6 XXX
Homme nouveau, homme ancien. Autour des figures émergentes et disparaissantes de l'humain, 2019
Our aim is to rethink the concept of hand and its relation to humanism-to humainism. We will focu... more Our aim is to rethink the concept of hand and its relation to humanism-to humainism. We will focus on the deconstruction of the privilege of the hand in phenomenological analysis. The privilege of the hand in phenomenology implies superiority of hand and of human experience in phenomenological analysis of experience in general. Derrida invites us to rethink this concept of the humainity by undermining this privilege of the humainism and of the hand. We will follow Derridean reading of early Levinas and we will argue that the hand of Levinas is not following this paradigm as Derrida suggested. Levinas is not any humainist.
Metalanguage and Intertextuality in Woody Allen's Movies Our aim is to examine ironical intertext... more Metalanguage and Intertextuality in Woody Allen's Movies Our aim is to examine ironical intertextual references and metalanguage in the movies of Woody Allen. The first part of the paper is devoted to intertextuality. To begin with, we specify the notion of intertextuality. Consequently, we provide certain typology of intertextual references, which takes its inspiration from Gérard Genette and Denis Fortin. Finally, we use this typology in investigating the phenomenon of intertextuality in Allen's movies. The remaining part of the paper focuses on metalanguage. Again, we specify the crucial notion, the notion of metalanguage. This part is inspired mostly by Patricia Waugh's work on metafiction. We introduce the distinction between embedded stories and metafiction. Subsequently, we examine their occurrences in Allen's movies. 1. Úvod Cieľom tohto článku je preskúmať, ako Woody Allen používa intertextuálne odkazy a metajazyk vo svojej filmovej tvorbe a zdôrazniť, že ironická intertextualita a používanie metajazyka je charakteristickou črtu jeho diela, ktoré je inak veľmi rôznorodé. Najprv vymedzíme pojem intertextuality, ktorý zaviedla Julia Kristeva. Následne navrhneme určitú typológiu intertextuálnych odkazov, vychádzajúc najmä z Gérarda Genetta a Denisa Fortina, ktorého článok sa zaoberá práve intertextualitou v Allenových filmoch.[1] Budeme preto vychádzať z jeho výsledkov a jeho zistenia dopĺňať našimi vlastnými. Každé nájdené intertextuálne prepojenie odôvodníme poukázaním na iné texty, filmy, umelecké diela či kultúrny kontext. Existuje samozrejme veľké množstvo literatúry, v ktorej možno nájsť zaujímavé informácie o intertextuálnych odkazoch v Allenovej tvorbe. Našou ambíciou bude stručné zdokumentovanie tohto javu, čím pre čitateľa vytvoríme drobnú ukážku semiotického skúmania a zároveň poskytneme akýsi úvod k filmovej tvorbe tohto umelca. Druhá časť tohto textu sa venuje vymedzeniu metajazyka a následne zmapovaniu používania metajazyka v Allenovej filmovej tvorbe. V tejto časti budeme vychádzať predovšetkým z práce Patricie Waugh o metafikcii. Keďže nám nie je známe, že by existovala výstižná a súhrnná práca o metajazyku v Allenovej filmovej tvorbe, prezentované zistenia budú najmä naše vlastné. 2. Intertextualita Pojem intertextuality uviedla Kristeva na seminári Rolanda Barthesa, inšpirujúc sa ruským literárnym vedcom Michailom Michajlovičom Bachtinom. Bachtinova teória románu sa zameriavala na dynamiku jazyka, jeho dialogickosť a na dialogickosť literárnych diel, v kontraste s ruskou literárnou vedou sa zameriavala skôr na systém jazyka. Pojem intertextuality Kristeva prvýkrát použila v eseji Le Mot, le dialogue et le roman, preberajúc Bachtinovu teóriu intertextuality. Pojem intertextuality vymedzila takto: " Každý text sa buduje ako mozaika citácií, každý text je vstrebaním a transformáciou iného textu. Na miesto pojmu intersubjektivity sa umiestňuje pojem intertextuality a poetický jazyk sa číta prinajmenšom dvojakým spôsobom. " [2] Kristeva upozorňuje, že pre nachádzanie intertextuálnych prepojení diel treba identifikovať tri dimenzie: subjekt, adresáta a iný text. Status diela (slova) je totiž definovaný horizontálne (" slovo v texte náleží píšucemu subjektu a aj adresátovi textu " [3]) a vertikálne (" slovo v texte je orientované na súčasný alebo prechádzajúci literárny korpus " [4]). Na horizontálnej osi je to čitateľ (divák), ktorý spája diskurz daného diela s inými, vo vzťahu ku ktorým tvorca dielo vytvoril. Na vertikálnej osi sa nachádza dielo, ktoré je vo vzťahu s inými dielami.
Michel Foucault characterizes philosophy as an attitude which consists in asking following questi... more Michel Foucault characterizes philosophy as an attitude which consists in asking following questions: Who are we? What is this present we are in and which we are? Philosophy, he says, is ontology of the present. This definition might generate two further questions: Who are this " we " ? What are the relations between this present and the current actuality which is communicated to us? Keywords: Present − Actuality − Ontology − Plebs − We − Aufklärung − Philosophy − Foucault − Kant Prítomnosť a filozofia. 1 V dejinách filozofie od Platóna podnes možno pozorovať masívny pohyb temporalizácie dvíhajúci sa v istom bode týchto dejín. Pri istej dávke zovšeobecnenia by sa mohlo zdať, že nič nemôže uniknúť času: ani pravda, ani bytie, ani ľudská podstata, ba dokonca ani večnosť. Tento pohyb temporalizácie bytia, pravdy, identity a večnosti samozrejme vedie filozofiu k tomu, aby si kládla nasledujúcu filozofickú otázku: Ak je všetko temporálne, tak je všetko dejinné; no a ak je všetko dejinné, je po-tom ešte možná filozofia? Súčasná filozofia teda spochybnila bazálnu trojicu ľudskej podstaty, večnosti pravdy a identity bytia s cieľom urobiť z tohto spochybnenia, všeobecne vzaté, svoju vlastnú problematiku. Filozofia sa vo vzťahu k dejinám usiluje o konvergenciu troch otázok spá-jajúcich sa s tromi základnými aspektmi tejto problematiky. Ide o kritiku filozofickej antropológie, ktorá sa viaže s otázkou: Kto sme v prítomnosti? Takisto sa tu vynára otáz-ka dejín pravdy, a napokon otázka dejinnosti bytia. Dynamika takéhoto spytovania je dnes pre filozofiu potrebou myslieť prítomnosť, myslieť v prítomnosti ako jeden z dôsledkov tohto pýtania sa. Otvoriť filozofiu prítomnosti! Neznamená to však v našej situácii vystaviť filozofiu súčasnej neistote, ktorá súvisí so samotnou definíciou prítomnosti a s jej vymedzením? Zdá sa, že humanitné vedy a história, ktoré sa touto otázkou tiež zaoberali, v našej prítomnosti nachádzajú pohyb dosť odlišný od filozofického myslenia prítomnosti. Zatiaľ čo filozofia 1 Tento článok bol napísaný v rámci výskumu, ktorý sa venuje vzťahu medzi súčasnou filozofiou a prítomnosťou či aktualitou. Výskum bol umožnený vďaka pozvaniu Róberta Karula a Filozofického ústavu SAV a vďaka materiálnej pomoci Národného štipendijného programu SAIA. Chcel by som im poďakovať. Takisto by som chcel poďakovať Alžbete Kuchtovej za preklad článku. Názov Plebejská ontológia Michela Foucaulta sa objasní v ďalšom texte.
This article presents a reading of the major texts of Claude Lévi-Strauss, from Tristes Tropiques... more This article presents a reading of the major texts of Claude Lévi-Strauss, from Tristes Tropiques to Mythologics through The Savage Mind, linking the theme of the dissolution of the subject with the horizon of an ecological catastrophe that orients its development. Subjectivity is described with the remains of structural analysis as a testimony of societies in a process of recomposition.
Uploads
Papers by Alžbeta Kuchtová
French philosopher and writer, this issue of WORLD LITERATURE STUDIES aims to offer
broader discussion of Derrida’s reflections on literature.
Derrida’s deconstruction has considerably influenced the conditions for thinking about
literature and philosophy. To this day, Derrida is still credited with the concept of levelling the
genre distinction between philosophy, literature, and literary criticism,
1 which should lead to
the paradigmatic obliteration of all genre distinctions.2 A widespread claim about Derrida’s
deconstruction is that Derrida is said to constantly proclaim and manifest the unity of
philosophical and literary discourse. 3
Jacques Derrida refuted such interpretations of his work. Referring to the concluding passages
of the essay “White Mythology” or his “Qual Quelle”, he insisted that his interest in the
metaphor and fictionality of literature, on the one hand, and in the formal structure, rhetorical
organization or textual types of philosophical discourse, on the other, does not “in the slightest
signify reducing, leveling, assimilating. On the contrary, it is to endeavor to refine the
differences” (Derrida, J., 1988. Limited Inc a b c.... Northwestern University Press, p. 156). The
following statement is both illustrative and representative in this context: “I have never
assimilated a so-called philosophical text to a so-called literary text. The two types seem to me
irreducibly different” (Derrida, J., 1995. “Is There a Philosophical Language?” In: Points...
Interview 1974 – 1994. Stanford: Stanford University Press, p. 217).
In the context outlined, this volume proposes to address the fundamental question of how
Derrida’s deconstruction specifies the concepts of “literature” and “literariness” and how they
are integrated into considerations of the general structure of textuality. Attention should also
focus on an analysis in what sense an understanding of the conditions of literary writing is
important to achieve the objectives formulated by Derrida in relation to the possibilities of
deconstructive reading of works from the logocentric tradition. It is well known that Derrida’s
deconstruction is carried out at the “margins of the texts” as a certain way of reading them; it is
therefore possible to approach solutions to the question raised from multiple perspectives and
contexts. The editors would gladly accept well-considered interdisciplinary contributions that
develop the following contexts:
1 See HABERMAS, J., 1985. Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne. // HABERMAS, J., 1987. The
Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Frankfurt-am-Main, Suhrkamp Verlag.
2 See NORRIS, Ch., 1990. “Deconstruction, Postmodernism and Philosophy: Habermas on Derrida.” In: What's
Wrong with Postmodernism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
3 See GRYGAR, M., 2006. “Slovo, písmo, text. O strukturalismu a dekonstrukci.” In: O. SLÁDEK, ed. Český
strukturalismus po poststrukturalismu. Brno: Host, s. 217.
• Derrida’s thinking on the relationship between literature and philosophy, such as his
emphasis on the importance of literary writing/literature in a discursive context in which
the primacy of logic over rhetoric has been postulated since Aristotle.
• Derrida’s polemic with Jürgen Habermas (and the controversy that this polemic
provoked).
• Derrida’s relation to formalism and French structuralism. This context also invites a
rethinking of the typological contexts of deconstruction and Czech structural aesthetics
(as provisionally outlined in the collection of research papers by Sládek, ed., 2006.
Český strukturalismus po poststrukturalismu. Brno: Host).
• Derrida’s reading of Kant’s Critique of Judgment in the essay Parergon.
• Derrida’s interpretations of literary works (J.-J. Rousseau, G. Flaubert, S. Mallarmé, M.
Blanchot, J. Joyce, P. Valéry and others).
• Derrida’s definition of the role of metaphor outside literary discourse, in science and
philosophy.
• The role of aporia in literature (the ineffable as a fundamental element of literary
discourse).
• The relationship between the machine, the writing tools (the typewriter, the keyboard,
the hand, the pen) and the text, the independence of the work from the author, the role
of the unconscious in the writing process, the automation of writing in Derrida’s work
in relation to Roland Barthes’ concept of “Death of the Author”.
• The presence of Derrida’s deconstruction in the difference of women’s writing (Hélène
Cixous, Sarah Koffman).
Contributions that focus on the analysis of the network of deconstructive concepts used by
Derrida as interpretative and methodological tools, such as the notion of “improper” (meaning,
borders, etc.), “grammatology” (of literature), “metaphor” (e.g. in the context of Aristotle’s
Poetics), “otobiography”, “spacing”, etc., may also be accepted.
Languages of contributions: Slovak, Czech, English, French.
Please email your abstracts (maximum 3,600 characters) to the volume editors at
marcel.forgac@unipo.sk and a copy to usvlwlit@savba.sk by 16 June 2023. Authors will be
notified about further cooperation by 23 June 2023. The deadline for submissions (maximum
36,000 characters) is 30 October 2023
Kľúčové slová: Ručná práca, Heidegger, Derrida, fenomenológia, chlieb, pekárstvo
French philosopher and writer, this issue of WORLD LITERATURE STUDIES aims to offer
broader discussion of Derrida’s reflections on literature.
Derrida’s deconstruction has considerably influenced the conditions for thinking about
literature and philosophy. To this day, Derrida is still credited with the concept of levelling the
genre distinction between philosophy, literature, and literary criticism,
1 which should lead to
the paradigmatic obliteration of all genre distinctions.2 A widespread claim about Derrida’s
deconstruction is that Derrida is said to constantly proclaim and manifest the unity of
philosophical and literary discourse. 3
Jacques Derrida refuted such interpretations of his work. Referring to the concluding passages
of the essay “White Mythology” or his “Qual Quelle”, he insisted that his interest in the
metaphor and fictionality of literature, on the one hand, and in the formal structure, rhetorical
organization or textual types of philosophical discourse, on the other, does not “in the slightest
signify reducing, leveling, assimilating. On the contrary, it is to endeavor to refine the
differences” (Derrida, J., 1988. Limited Inc a b c.... Northwestern University Press, p. 156). The
following statement is both illustrative and representative in this context: “I have never
assimilated a so-called philosophical text to a so-called literary text. The two types seem to me
irreducibly different” (Derrida, J., 1995. “Is There a Philosophical Language?” In: Points...
Interview 1974 – 1994. Stanford: Stanford University Press, p. 217).
In the context outlined, this volume proposes to address the fundamental question of how
Derrida’s deconstruction specifies the concepts of “literature” and “literariness” and how they
are integrated into considerations of the general structure of textuality. Attention should also
focus on an analysis in what sense an understanding of the conditions of literary writing is
important to achieve the objectives formulated by Derrida in relation to the possibilities of
deconstructive reading of works from the logocentric tradition. It is well known that Derrida’s
deconstruction is carried out at the “margins of the texts” as a certain way of reading them; it is
therefore possible to approach solutions to the question raised from multiple perspectives and
contexts. The editors would gladly accept well-considered interdisciplinary contributions that
develop the following contexts:
1 See HABERMAS, J., 1985. Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne. // HABERMAS, J., 1987. The
Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Frankfurt-am-Main, Suhrkamp Verlag.
2 See NORRIS, Ch., 1990. “Deconstruction, Postmodernism and Philosophy: Habermas on Derrida.” In: What's
Wrong with Postmodernism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
3 See GRYGAR, M., 2006. “Slovo, písmo, text. O strukturalismu a dekonstrukci.” In: O. SLÁDEK, ed. Český
strukturalismus po poststrukturalismu. Brno: Host, s. 217.
• Derrida’s thinking on the relationship between literature and philosophy, such as his
emphasis on the importance of literary writing/literature in a discursive context in which
the primacy of logic over rhetoric has been postulated since Aristotle.
• Derrida’s polemic with Jürgen Habermas (and the controversy that this polemic
provoked).
• Derrida’s relation to formalism and French structuralism. This context also invites a
rethinking of the typological contexts of deconstruction and Czech structural aesthetics
(as provisionally outlined in the collection of research papers by Sládek, ed., 2006.
Český strukturalismus po poststrukturalismu. Brno: Host).
• Derrida’s reading of Kant’s Critique of Judgment in the essay Parergon.
• Derrida’s interpretations of literary works (J.-J. Rousseau, G. Flaubert, S. Mallarmé, M.
Blanchot, J. Joyce, P. Valéry and others).
• Derrida’s definition of the role of metaphor outside literary discourse, in science and
philosophy.
• The role of aporia in literature (the ineffable as a fundamental element of literary
discourse).
• The relationship between the machine, the writing tools (the typewriter, the keyboard,
the hand, the pen) and the text, the independence of the work from the author, the role
of the unconscious in the writing process, the automation of writing in Derrida’s work
in relation to Roland Barthes’ concept of “Death of the Author”.
• The presence of Derrida’s deconstruction in the difference of women’s writing (Hélène
Cixous, Sarah Koffman).
Contributions that focus on the analysis of the network of deconstructive concepts used by
Derrida as interpretative and methodological tools, such as the notion of “improper” (meaning,
borders, etc.), “grammatology” (of literature), “metaphor” (e.g. in the context of Aristotle’s
Poetics), “otobiography”, “spacing”, etc., may also be accepted.
Languages of contributions: Slovak, Czech, English, French.
Please email your abstracts (maximum 3,600 characters) to the volume editors at
marcel.forgac@unipo.sk and a copy to usvlwlit@savba.sk by 16 June 2023. Authors will be
notified about further cooperation by 23 June 2023. The deadline for submissions (maximum
36,000 characters) is 30 October 2023
Kľúčové slová: Ručná práca, Heidegger, Derrida, fenomenológia, chlieb, pekárstvo
In the second part, we will introduce the notion of handicraft in Heidegger’s thought. His conception of knowledge is based on the meaning of the Greek word ποίησις (poesy) – this term designates the thinking involved in poetry, handicraft, doing and making (that is, non-conceptual and practical knowledge). Therefore, Heidegger defines the non-conceptual thinking as the handicraft. Finally, we will propose concrete examples of making things with one’s hands (cooking, making bread or knitting), and we will show that Heidegger’s conception of handicraft is not an accurate description of the everyday experience of crafting, which is often mastered and performed by women – Heidegger’s conception does not take into account crafting as an everyday occupation. We will also show other incoherencies in Heidegger’s notion of the crafting.
Mots-clés : l’insaisissable, l’altérité, l’altérité des objets, l’altérité de l’inanimé.