The fourth part of the course on the proposed tasks was almost half the previous part, but much more difficult. I came across complex questions that have no clear answer. This made me study the materials not only on the proposed topics, but also around the subject under discussion. So, for example, a reference to Ferdinand de Saussure regarding Derrida's theory led me to analyze the sign, the signifier and the signified.
Due to the complexity of philosophical concepts, I listened and watched various lectures both in English and in Russian, which allowed me to better understand these concepts.
Some of the resources used for research were not reliable, that is, there was no direct reference to the words of the authors studied. This complicated the process, but on the other hand, unusual, simple-written things opened up the potential for reading the original work from a different angle. Such an example is the work of V. Erofeev Moscow-Petushki (in English known as “Moscow to the End of the Line”). It would seem nothing to do with the topic I was studying, but in one of the dialogs the author so simply explained the concept of Hegel difference, that everything somehow became clear.
Going through this part, I still tried to use not so many quotes from the text as my tutor advised, but now, it seems to me, everything is in balance.
I tried to translate all theories that I understood into a simple language and use appropriate examples. Unfortunately, my own ideas that I can oppose to Deleuze or Derrida have not yet arisen (lol), but I do not lose hope.
Comments