Tag: Language

The Free Spirit – Beyond Good and Evil

The journey to the freedom demands solitude thereby making man responsible, accountable for the consequences of his every thought and action. Friedrich Nietzsche in his book Beyond Good and Evil paved a way for future philosophers to establish their own new perspectives about the truth where there are no two sides – good-bad, sad-happy, moral-immoral, beautiful-ugly, calm-disturbing but a revised and better version of the older truth. Nietzsche in this book focused on the refinement of our perspectives, our versions of truths for the real freedom because immediately surrendering to already established versions of ideologies is the worst imprisonment any man can have. Nietzsche showed how badly our ignorance creates an illusion of freedom and how to come out of it. This is to remember Friedrich Nietzsche on his death anniversary.

Remembering Friedrich Nietzsche on his death anniversary

Friedrich Nietzsche is one of the most impactful philosophers we as a humanity have ever seen. Reading Nietzsche is a task in itself. But the moment you start getting hold of the things that Nietzsche is trying point to, you will literally undergo transformation. The path that Nietzsche paved inspired many modern philosophers, thinkers, writers. To not mention Nietzsche is to do injustice with our understanding of ourselves as the human beings. This is one attempt to revisit Nietzsche’s ideas in his famous book called “Beyond Good and Evil”, especially his ideas on free Spirit.

Nietzsche in his special style clarified what it means to be really free and how we develop our perceptions, philosophies about the world around us and ourselves.

This is me remembering Nietzsche on his death anniversary. His ideas will keep on living forever.

Oversimplification kills the nuances thereby changing the big picture

Nietzsche strikes powerfully on the idea of understanding the life as simple and easy. It’s a humorous way in which he tried to convey how we consider living life as way to goodness, happiness, pleasure and freedom. The sentences that Nietzsche used to put his ideas about life are built in such a way that you will start questioning the happy nature of the life we desire. You will realize that during the process of understanding life as a pleasurable, happy experience we have submitted our thought process only to the side of pleasure, happiness, and truth. This presumption about life always deviates our search for the truth – “the happiness” that we lookout for as a biased pursuit. Here Nietzsche is not saying that if ‘this’ which you are trying to justify life with is true then it’s opposite is wrong; he is trying to point us towards the idea that as we have attributed life to a happy and pleasurable experience, this attribution has oversimplified what life actually is. Oversimplification has happened because not everyone can understand complex ideas on equal level. It’s not because people are dumb, it is because we have our own ways of interpreting the world around us and the ways through which we interpret the world are totally subjective. Thus, the truth if it exists, it will never be absolute but based on perspectives one has.

“We have contrived to retain our ignorance in order to enjoy an almost inconceivable freedom, thoughtlessness, imprudence, heartiness, and gaiety – in order to enjoy life!”

In order to make everyone appreciate given idea of life on same level we have oversimplified what life is and such oversimplified foundation has led to building even more oversimplified versions of so-called truth. In the pursuit of clarity and ease of interpretation and communication our lives have become false!

That is why Nietzsche here tried to attack the very fundamental way in which we try to break down the things we come across when we live through them. See it in this way, if life by default was supposed to be simple then it is implied that we would have grip on every aspect of life and existence. We know that’s is not the reality. So, if it is not simple then it must be complicated is our next thought. Thus, if life is complicated in reality then oversimplification eliminates certain aspects of life which we keep on missing in the search of truth.

You know what, Nietzsche further explains that when we are denying that life is not simple and happy that also should not invite it being opposite of what was earlier thought i.e., sad and complicated. Nietzsche rejects the idea of polar opposite to portray the lives we live. He calls life, knowledge as the process of “refinement”.

It’s not duality of any aspect of the philosophy, good and bad side of life but the ways and times they have refined themselves which should be the parameter of their worth.

The Death of Philosopher

Nietzsche had his way to express verbal anguish. The sentences are so dense that the prose feels literally repulsive. I think it was intentional. His writings were never meant to be read while sipping coffee or to romanticize the philosophy or the idea of life. They will make sense to those who really want to understand what he is trying to say. Nietzsche in his next idea talks about how every philosopher is trying to find the meaning of life and thereby his/her truth of life. He despises the idea of life or philosophy being explained with a single idea. That is why he sarcastically calls philosophers as the protectors of truth, the thing which itself doesn’t need protection in first place!

Nietzsche thus calls out to the philosopher to get ready accept the martyrdom, the death of their idea of philosophy. The philosopher can only carry his point forward for further refinement but he/she must not – cannot define the life in whole with that simple idea. That idea has to die in the process so that newer refined ideas can be built out of its broken pieces.

In order for philosophy to exist it has to end, it has to kill its older version – that is what is the tragedy of philosophy is as Nietzsche goes.

The Freedom Paradox

When Nietzsche is trying to initiate treatise on freedom, he starts with what it means to be free for any person. One important observation he puts in front is how we get freedom on personal level. On surface it feels if the person is free on personal level, then it is easy to be free in society as a whole. But Nietzsche shows that these ideas of freedom are paradoxical! Man goes inward for the freedom because he/she knows that there is no one else to tie, bound him/her inside his privacy. The man seeking freedom when interacts with the crowd soon realizes that his experiences of life are bound to how crowd handles him, reacts to him, treats him, shapes him. That is unsettling, the burden is difficult to carry for single person hence the man again resorts to privacy, in order to do that he has to let go of certain truths and create his own little lies so that the external crowd won’t disturb his “freedom”.     

“(the man) he was not made, he was not predestined for knowledge”

The point Nietzsche is trying to make here is that the taste of freedom comes with the unsettling feeling of existence. But as a man we are not seeking that freedom for us; freedom is some citadel, a happy place where we expect to have control over course of things. The real freedom as Nietzsche explains will be gained by being in touch with crowd (which sounds paradoxical again) It’s like saying you will understand what you real singular identity is when you start mixing yourselves with the crowd!

Nietzsche further advises philosophers of the future to not turn away from the unsettling ideas about philosophy. He takes support of cynicism to make his point. Cynicism bases itself on the idea that people are selfish, self-interested (so in simple words if anything doesn’t go the way a cynic wants, they would whine and create reasons to justify it.) Nietzsche expects the future philosophers to understand the difference between ill-speaker and bad speaker. The lovers of knowledge should also be able to understand what is unsettling, maybe their lies the next opportunity for better version of their philosophy.

The Freedom of Expression

Nietzsche had already explained how things lose their essence in oversimplification. In same fashion it becomes difficult to interpret what a fast thinker is thinking and then explain it to the relatively slow thinkers and make them appreciate the same idea on same level. Even in our thinking we are not free. You can create an explanation for others to understand what you are thinking but they themselves have to climb up (or climb down sometimes) to your level to appreciate what you are thinking, you may succeed in expression but interpretation, comprehension and its appreciation gets limited by the levels on which others are thinking. (My question, if this is the case then even if you are a free thinker, are you truly a free thinker? I know Nietzsche is paradoxical most of the times)

“What is most difficult to render from one language into another is the tempo of its style, which has its basis in the character of the race, or to speak more physiologically, in the average tempo of the assimilation of its nutriment.”

Nietzsche further builds this “so called” freedom of expression using the limitations of the language. Language is the culmination and mirror of the culture it originated from. So, naturally each language has its own style, flow, breaks, rules and ways to highlight certain aspects of narration. When such languages is used to express an individual’s ideas, the speaker has to let go of the nuances of his culture, his primary way of life so that others having another culture, another way of life can appreciate and understand what he is trying to convey, but what if the nuances were the only thing which made that idea influential? Then the influence of the idea would be lost because of the translation. (This is Nietzsche’s way saying lost in translation!)

The Tragedy of Independence

Another way to become free is to become independent. The very few lines Nietzsche uses to explain independence are equivalent of an atomic bomb! (trust me it is still not an overstatement!!!)

People who become independent are few as Nietzsche says and those who are strong can easily achieve it. This independence is also one way to be free. When a man becomes independent, he is on his own, there is no one like him – he is alone. Nothing is anything alike him – he is alone. Thus the whole world becomes a puzzle for him as he is on his own. Any direction becomes new path for him. As he is the only one like himself, there is no one who would reach to his level and match his thinking. And in such case if he needs sympathy, people cannot even sympathize with him because they are not on his level. What a tragedy! The sadness he has in his heart, mind is rendered useless because others around him are not able to comprehend it – sympathizing gets ruled out automatically.

This is Nietzsche’s way of saying what Hemingway said. (I mean both meant the same although Hemingway came later, but you get the point) You must understand that happiness is not the real pursuit of life, then you won’t feel tragic about what Hemingway is trying to convey here, same is what Nietzsche trying to convey here. Freedom by independence can be a tragedy for the person who was expecting glory out of it.

Foolishness Hides Chances For New Insights

Nietzsche here is trying to remove the lines between what is good and what is bad, what is allowed and what is forbidden.

“That which serves the higher class of men for nourishment or refreshment, must be almost poison to an entirely different and lower order of human beings”

In modern crude sense, Nietzsche says “one man’s trash is another man’s treasure”!

Same idea, same act will have different perception of morality, scale of right and wrong. A rebel thinker in common poor public could be attributed to a philosopher amongst the riches. A murderer who killed an evil landlord could become a saint among the people who were victims of this landlord’s oppression.

So, Nietzsche’s attribution of foolishness is a way to point out the exceptional, outlier acts, prohibited acts, crimes to find the better truths. That will make you freer than others.

The Freedom of Youth   

 The stage of youth feels like the freest stage of all the stages of life and it is so because it has let go of the nuances. It also feels free because the youth in the stage of exploration never submits to right or wrong, yes or no to the life as Nietzsche says. But as the time passes when the youth is exposed to disillusions, broken expectations they try to modify themselves in a way that will get things done the way they wanted – the compromise starts to enter. The moment this happens the same youth tries to punish themselves as Nietzsche says. The freedom exists no more, so is the youth.

The Freedom of Actions

(Again, this a hydrogen bomb on morality!!!)

How can we say that the given action is right or wrong?

Nietzsche has very interesting thought process on this question. In the starting times the action was right or wrong based on what it led to – its consequences – the effect. The problem with this thinking is that one has to wait to let the action happen to decide its rightness or wrongness. If the stakes are high, such attribution of right or wrong can be devastating.

So, Nietzsche takes support of Chinese idea where the parents are responsible for the betterment of their child. Meaning that the origin of the thought which led to that action should be the decider of whether the action is right or wrong. Nietzsche called this pre-moral period of mankind. And sarcastically he points out that we have made a total turn around the idea of right or wrong action. Earlier it was what happened after the action i.e., consequences; now it is what led to that action, meaning what was happening before that action i.e., the origin which is the decider of right and wrong of any action!

This is where the origin of action gets named as ‘moral’ which is generated from self- knowledge. Later these morals evolved into “intentions”. As Nietzsche says, intentions serve as the origin of any action.

“people were agreed in the belief that the value of an action lay in the value of its intention. The intention as the sole origin and antecedent history of an action: under the influence of this prejudice moral praise and blame have been bestowed, and men have judged and even philosophized almost up to the present day”

Nietzsche then drops another bomb called – unintentional actions. We are clear that whether action is right or wrong can be decided by the intent. But what if there was no intent or there are no other ways to pinpoint the intent behind certain actions? There is a possibility that the intent may get mistranslated, misinterpreted during the unfolding of events, then how would you decide the attribution of given action.

In such case we would again go to the effect- the consequences of that action!!! You see what is happening here? We might have to resort to that older measuring system of action based on their consequences.

This is Nietzsche’s style to question how we think of morality in general and also on deeper level.

(I can’t resist praising Nietzsche lesser but deep down I know he would question his own worship too!)

The next attack Nietzsche does by using morality is the sentiment of sacrifice. The basis of his thought process is that you should question everything that gives you pleasure at least once. Here, he shows how fake the feeling of sacrifice for others, surrender could be if it is intended to display how moral and virtuous you are!

“There is far too much witchery and sugar in the sentiments “for others” and “not for myself””

In simple words, you are saying that I like to help others because it makes me happy. So, in order to help others you have to become selfless, but if becoming selfless to help others makes you happy, doesn’t that make you selfish? You are selfless because you are selfish!!! (Disclaimer: Nietzsche is paradoxical.) The paradox is resolved when you accept that you are just taking support of morality to display you higher value. Being selfless is just a better excuse to display your high morality. It there was any cruel way to display your high morality no wonder you would have gone for that!!!

In modern ways, it’s fox’s way to say the grapes are sour or I am a virgin because I am waiting for someone special (In reality fox cannot reach the grapes and the person is not able to appreciate other person or people rejected that person continuously – please note that I am not blaming someone’s character – it’s the limitation of language that prevents me from expressing what I am thinking for oversimplification. As Nietzsche has already shown that oversimplification kills the nuances. You get the point!)

The Immoral Philosopher – The Free Philosopher

Building upon the ideas of nuances lost in translation, right and wrong in morality Nietzsche calls the future philosophers to go beyond the dichotomy of philosophy and also distrust the morality in the development of new philosophy, new truth.

“In all seriousness the innocence of thinkers has something touching and respect-inspiring in it, which even nowadays permits them to wait upon the consciousness with the request that it will give them honest answers”

This is Nietzsche’s way to show that in order to find the new truth new philosophy, new philosophers have submitted themselves childishly and blindly to the principles of morality hoping that morality will give them new answers. But it is the same tinted glass of morality that prevents them from getting new perspectives. Hence, he calls them naïve here. They must let go of this childishness.

“The belief in “immediate certainties” is a moral naivete which does honor to us philosophers; but – we have now to cease being “merely moral” men!”

This is Nietzsche’s way of saying it’s good to be bad!

For Nietzsche, morality shows only two sides of reality- right or wrong, this works fine if reality is really dichotomized. But we know there is no such thing as right or wrong for every real-life scenario. So, in order to find the real truth, you have to let go of morality, then you will see that reality has its spectrum and people residing on different biases of such reality have their own attribution of right and wrong for the same action. Morality is the subset of newer truth, not the other way around.

‘il ne cherche le vrai que pour faire le bien‘

(he who searches truth to do good) – I wager he finds nothing!

 Nietzsche make his point by him being the first bad-philosopher!!! (This is why I am loving him more and more. It’s like a brainiac with full grown muscles if you want to picture him thematically!)

The Freedom From Passions and Reality – Will to Power

Nietzsche makes an attempt to show that the reality could also be made up of something totally different that we can even comprehend. What if the world is more real than what we can experience? And if such reality exists, our senses will limit us from experiencing it. So, in order to be free in such reality we have to rise above our senses. That would be the new freedom. Our senses are bound to desires and passions whose interactions – impulses are creating thoughts.  

So, building on these impulses Nietzsche says that many emotions, processes are created in “our reality”. What would make any of such impulses, process free from others? He introduces the idea of causality to show the flow and root of everything. If cause leads to an effect and further that effect becomes cause to newer effect then it is possible that the root cause of all would make us really free. Nietzsche further explains that it can also be one of the processes which would overpower others to become free and not the root one. (For example, the first unicellular organisms would be the most powerful organisms on earth today, that is not the case.)

Here Nietzsche introduces the concept of Will to Power. Whatever overpowers the other processes has the potential to remain in the big game and thus has real chance to be free. Will to power in any process allows it to gain more freedom.

This is Nietzsche’s Darwinian theory of evolution – the survival of the fittest. (I know it is a bastardized translation, but again I summon the loss of nuances during translation.)   

Then Nietzsche puts the idea that by this way of thinking the originator does not necessarily be the most powerful one, thereby questioning the existence of the God! Because if the God was the originator, then then he/she would exist only if he/she has the highest Will to Power. That also does not mean that if God does not exist then devil exists or has the highest Will to Power. It could be anything! We are not sure for now. (typical philosophical answer!)

Using causality, Nietzsche also questions the morality of French revolution. If for the locals the royalty was cruel that is why the revolution happened then why didn’t the remotely located people who considered them noble in first place considered them cruel too? In the eyes of remotely located people the French royalty had a noble past. (The question is intended to think on it not to find the right and wrong. It shows how flawed our thinking becomes when we stick to morality blindly.) Whoever came in power overthrew the less powerful. That is one way to explain Nietzsche’s Will to Power. According to Nietzsche, if Napoleon would have been continuously invested in the morality of his actions he wouldn’t have become the great emperor.

Freedom From Truth

Here Nietzsche starts with the very obvious and common fact that some truths are unsettling. Not every truth ensures happiness. Only an idealist, as Nietzsche says would submit the idea of truth that brings joy, happiness, and beauty.

Here comes Nietzsche’s biggest drop-

“the strength of a mind might be measured by the amount of “truth” it could endure – or to speak more plainly, by the extent to which it required truth attenuated, veiled, sweetened, damped, and falsified”

This is self-explanatory. It is just our unsettlement that we need to take care of while looking for the truth. We are thinking animals and thinking is a result of our impulses, desires, and passions. So, not every truth is destined to bring us peace. ‘We would die if we eat poison’ – is a truth which unsettles everyone but that is not how we react to such truths, we prepare for such bad events, that is the wisdom what Nietzsche is talking about in a crude way here.

“There is no doubt that for the discovery of certain portions of truth the wicked and unfortunate are more favorably situated and have greater likelihood of success; not to speak wicked of who are happy- a species about whom moralist are silent. Perhaps severity and craft are more favorable conditions for the development of strong, independent spirits and philosophers than gentle, refined, yielding good-nature, and habit of taking things easily, which are prized, and rightly prized in a learned man.”

Nietzsche prefers learned man more than the moralistic or the virtuous one. A learned man knows the consequences of learning new truth, or sometimes even unaware of it but he does not pivot his happiness on the discovery of new truth. What else could you make freer when you are ready to accept the truth in its crude and real form! This freedom will bring clarity, new perspective and not happiness or sadness or chaos or calmness.

Truth will not decide how and what you are. You just will have added new tinted glass in your collection of perspectives towards life and reality and the philosophy behind all of them.  If your Will to Power is good your truth may become the truth for all others.

Freedom From Identity

The profoundness demands the rejection of submission to any side of existence. If one promotes certain ideology the people around him/ her will try to comprehend that person using the tags they have in their own minds for that idea. The mask thus brings in that ambiguity where people are not associating, tagging you to one definite truth. Even your mind can start creating bias if you let it. That is why Nietzsche focuses on mask in profoundness.

“A man who has depths in his shame meets his destiny and his delicate decisions upon paths which few ever reach, and with regard to the existence of which his nearest and most intimate friends may be ignorant; his mortal danger conceals itself from their eyes, and equally so his regained security.”

The mask frees you from attribution thereby biases and even the socio-economical influences. You will never let honor or shame, right or wrong, good or bad, happy or sad justify the events in your life. You will never ever flinch to enter an unsettling adventure which guarantees your growth personally. Embarrassment, failure will just be another emotional response for you (please note that this does not mean that you will be emotionless, it means that you will be able to recognize your emotions and let them pass.)

This is exactly why I would force everyone to understand Nietzsche on their own level!!!    

“Every profound spirit needs a mask; nay, more, around every profound spirit there continually grows a mask, owing to the constantly false, that is to say, superficial interpretation of every word he utters, every step he takes, every sign of life he manifests”

This could also be one reason why some the greatest personality humanity has ever seen had a layer of controversial ambiguity around them.

From the idea of mask, Nietzsche moves to the idea of its conservation. The conservation is meant to define the philosophy of containing who you are rather that you submitting to some ideology. Whatever you have collected as an individual, whatever you are on philosophical level personally, how you have upgraded – refined your philosophy you must conserve that instead of giving to some ideology. The mask helps to conserve who you are.

“One must know how to conserve oneself – the best test of independence”

(this could be the reason why superheroes wear masks!!!  Joke aside but it is one powerful thought)   

Further Nietzsche warns new future philosophers to not be people pleaser or submitter to temptations. That will steal them of their judgement and independence.

Freedom From Your Version of Truth

The ways in which Nietzsche is trying to close his arguments are really beautiful. He knows that when the future philosophers will have discovered their new truths in their journey of blood, sweat and tears, it is natural that they will get attached to it. Such is the human tendency. He wants us to get rid of the obsession with this new truth. This truth even if it’s the newer one will create boundaries in your perception, you won’t be free anymore! Nietzsche wants to let the future philosophers let go of the dogma.

“In the end things must be as they are and have always been – the great things remain for the great, the abysses for the profound, the delicacies and thrills for the refined, and, to sum up shortly, everything rare for the rare”

Freedom From Illusion of Freedom

On closing notes Nietzsche has advised new philosophers to be careful of the “freedom” they are being offered under new socio-political ideas. Nietzsche focuses here on the ways new philosophers are embarking on the journey to new truths. He tells that having fluency in speech and effective grip on written communication will not define you as the new philosophers, even though they are one aspect of it. But the systems having higher Will to Power will use same tools to control new philosophers and change the course to their versions of truth.

New philosophers will be misled with words like “Equality of Rights”, “Sympathy with All Sufferers”, “Modern Ideas” but they should be careful about them. They should be aware that the moment they create a thought process the people on different levels with different Will to Power will interpret these same ideas for their own benefit especially the ideas which are polar opposites of your ideas. Once such separation happens nobody, not even you cannot get the real freedom.  

Nietzsche offers the rule of solitude while embarking on such journey. Only you can free yourself.  

Deconstruction – reading between the lines

Logic always talks about ones and zeros. But when logical, philosophical arguments end up in a paradox we discover a totally new understanding about reality which is neither one nor zero but a spectrum. Jacques Derrida’s basic urge through deconstruction is the rejection of the duality or presumption, and seeing beyond what is shown using the limitations of language. Deconstruction helps to come out of the duality of any argument by putting relative meaning at the center instead of loyalty towards the signs used to show the meaning.

Jacques Derrida’s philosophy for the better understanding of the reality

Language and its purpose

Questioning is at the core of philosophy. Philosophy’s main pursuit is always to create an understanding about the subject of interest. It provides a way to create a basic and concrete understanding of the subject. It is a way to understand the creation and things that are beyond creation. Philosophy is the process of formalizing any concrete understanding so that a new evolved, more absolute understanding could be built upon that foundation.

The means to create such understandings are languages; it could be any language, of symbols, pictures, sounds, geometries, etc. Language serves as the most important tool to formalize any thought, idea, proof, postulate. So, every component of the language has to mean something to create a bigger meaning; like in speech, every word means something. When I say ‘child’ you will see a human young-ling, when I say ‘apple’ you see a red fruit of that particular shape, and when I am saying apple, you are sure that I am not talking about ‘oranges’, because orange is associated with something different looking ‘fruit’ (some would even think of an iphone when I say apple!). This shows that just like how atoms create molecules thereby the object, in similar sense, words of basic meaning create an expression and thereby some context which shows what we mean when we are saying them together to convey a bigger meaning.

Just like atoms of different elements from the periodic table come together in different permutations and combinations to create variety of compounds and infinite objects rather the whole universe, in the same sense every component of given language carries a value – a meaning which builds a narrative, an expression to create a context, a logical statement; a set of such logical statements together can point to some truth, some fact. If used in smart ways, it can help us to discover the hidden sides of our understanding. That is roughly how science and mathematics work.

But you know what? When we are investigating the boundaries of our understanding, we see that they all end in paradoxes, some self-referential paradoxes. Take for example, Epimenides paradox (the Cretan philosopher Epimenides of Knossos) as follows:

Epimenides, a Cretan says, “All Cretans are liars”.

Now what does this convey? Prima facie it feels like all Cretan people are liars, but then you see that person who is saying this is also a Cretan that makes him a liar, so he too is a liar. But if Epimenides himself is liar then what he said is also a lie, meaning that Cretans are not liars rather they are veracious. If Cretan’s are veracious then what Epimenides says is truth meaning that all Cretan’s are liars and this means Epimenides is also a liar. We end up in a loop, a self-referential paradox.

In the end, the sentence does not make sense, logic, the sentence is meaningless.

What happened here?

We used a language medium to create a meaning which helped to create newer understanding but that new understanding led us to bigger confusion, meaninglessness.

Here, I pose a very important question –

if the context of the sentence is meaningless does that mean that the words from which that sentence is made – words which have their own individual identity, their own absolute meaning a context are also absolutely meaningless?

What if we encounter same situation in the philosophical endeavors? as they are the building blocks our overall understanding of the creation and things beyond creation.

This is where the philosophy of deconstruction given by Jacques Derrida comes into light. I will try to explain deconstruction by building on some ideas. (you will see in the end that nothing “absolute” makes any sense or doesn’t even exist. That is also why deconstruction was rejected by many great philosophers but it has a valid point to prove.)

The flow of thought presented hereon is roughly like building an understanding and then challenging that idea because it does not present the best model of how our reality, our consciousness work.

Logocentrism

Western philosophy is based on the foundations of ‘the reason’. The Greek word logos (λόγος) literally means word, discourse, or reason. So, logocentrism considers language as the expression of reality and hence stands as a mediator between conscious and reality.

It is very important to understand that every type of understanding, knowledge building, sharing, communicating activity is associated with language. You need a medium to give a proper structure to what you are thinking and let others comprehend it. Logocentrism focuses on that.

As we have seen already that use of language in certain way could create meaninglessness, self-referential paradox, does that mean language is failing to create better truths? What exactly is happening? If language and logic is paradoxical then the reality which they are explaining must also be paradoxical but that is not the reality we live in (if it would be paradoxical, then reality would not exist, the paradoxical elements would annihilate each other)

This means that there is something lying beyond the territories of language which we are not able to comprehend and translate which could solve this paradox of language.

(Park this first thought in your mind for some time)

Plato’s definition of reality – Platonism and The theory of forms

Plato called out for “essence” of everything that exists. Essence represents that absolute truth which we try to define using ‘forms’, the forms are ideas which are non-physical, timeless, absolute. The forms create reality but they are beyond our grasp because of our physical limitations.

So, building on the theory of forms Platonism believes that in surety that there is something truly pure and absolute at the bottom – at the root of existence. It supports the existence of abstract objects which are believed to exist in the realm which is different from sensible external world and our internal consciousness.

So, when you try to comprehend the Platonism and logocentrism together, you will appreciate that language and the logic it conveys, the meaning, the context it conveys is the foundation of how we understand the creation, the philosophy itself and the products of philosophy.

Language creates an objective pivot to create absolute ideas whose correlation yields into higher truths. Language creates ‘meaning’, ‘context’, ‘logic’ according to the Platonism.

(Park this second thought)

Semiotics – Language as signs

If language is so important to understand the true reality, it becomes very important to create a structure, rules, grammar to use it effectively. Semiotics deals with these ideas.

A sign is an important part of any language, one can say that any language is made up of signs. Ferdinand de Saussure, one of the two founders of Semiology established the two components of sign as signified and signifier. As these both words are self-explanatory – signified is the one which is of interest (also known as the ‘plane of content’) and signifier is how we are observing thereby expressing the object of interest (also known as the ‘plane of expression’).

So, in written language when I am saying apple, you know I am talking about the fruit called apple which looks red, tastes tart-sweet, is crispy-crunchy in texture when one takes its bite.

(This is the third thought to be parked)

Aufhebung – the sublation

In the modern western philosophy, which considered the language as the path leading to ultimate truth the idea of sublation created ‘logical’ revolution. The language as a tool to develop logic and this logic then leading to the investigation and discovery of the ultimate truth became really vital. For logic to remain ‘logical’ one needs to define the basic objective sides like right or wrong. A given idea must be right to exist in reality otherwise, it is wrong and is invalid. We build many arguments of right and wrong to lead us to the absolute understanding. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel is known to develop the idea of sublation. Aufhebung literally means ‘to suspend’, ‘to abolish’.

For example, darkness is the condition when there is no light. If a place is called ‘lit’ it means that there is no darkness. So, this dualism created through sublation gave the greatest philosophical power to language and thereby logocentrism. When something is not good it is called as bad, when there are enough logical arguments like such ‘binary oppositions’, one can reach to the absolute truth as far the logocentrism goes. The process almost becomes objective, self-sufficient, and mechanical, there are no chances of human error when we are handling philosophical treatise; this is the same foundation through which judicial systems created the structure of law.

(the fourth thought to be parked)

Deconstruction

What came first – chicken or the egg? meaning or language?

Just recall the four ideas which we parked before.

Jacques Derrida is the philosopher who developed the ideas of deconstruction who solved the paradox of the logic in the logocentric philosophy.

It is important to accept that wherever a paradox arises there lies an opportunity of the creation of a new branch in our knowledge system. The deconstruction is that new branch which got created here. Derrida rejected the idea of Platonism. His work in deconstruction is highly inspired from the philosophy of phenomenology. Phenomenology is the study of fundamental nature of subjective consciousness and experience.

One would get confused to appreciate the matter of subjectivity in a philosophical discourse but phenomenology presents some valid points when we are questioning the reality and developing its understanding. How can subjectivity guarantee absolute truth?

Life was always there even before chicken and egg and also in both of them

Did you get my point?

The moment we separated egg from chicken and posed them as two distinct objects the famous question about their existence in timeline becomes meaningless. In the same sense, other similar questions have exactly same meaningless fate – what is life and death? what is good and bad? what is right and wrong? what is truth and lie?

Derrida pointed out that the moment we create duality in any argument we are losing some important information which could have showed us the ‘real’ reality. Maybe reality is not just two sides of the coin, maybe absoluteness itself is not ‘absolute’. In the attempt to create purely logical arguments, we lost the possibilities to see the real context behind the existence of these arguments.

Derrida strongly promoted the idea that meaning was always there, language is just a way to convey that meaning. Using language to find out new meaning does not lead to newer meaning because this ‘structured’, ‘logical’ language has already submitted itself to the already established two sides of the result – it will either be ‘right’ and if it is not right it will be ‘wrong’.

(Now bring that first parked thought of logocentrism – idea that language is the expression of the reality)

As the logocentrism goes, language is the mediator between consciousness and reality.     

Now read the lines below:

This is an example taken from internet. Fact is that every average, normal person can read and understand this. Our brain is always on energy optimization mode. It never reads each and every letter to make a meaning out of the given word, it looks at the bunch of symbols to make sense out of it. This is small example to show that meaning is more important than the symbols, signs used to convey that meaning.

If we were to strictly submit to the rules of English vocabulary and grammar, this presented sentence is senseless to all of us. That is why complete loyalty to language instead of meaning is of no use as Derrida says while explaining deconstruction.

(now bring the remaining thoughts parked in your mind)

Meaning is relative

In deconstruction, Derrida talks about how we understand anything, any idea and how logocentrism, structuralism limited our understanding. The example of scrambled words helps to identify the idea of difference – Derrida called it Différence (as in French pronunciation). Whether I call it difference in english or différence in french, you understand what I am talking about because you get the context (that we are comparing something and this is the word to establish the gap between that comparison)

When I say apple how do you know what I am talking about?

You understand that I am talking about a fruit based on the context of my speech. Otherwise, there are definitely some people who would thing of an apple as an iPhone. So, when I say an apple, you think of a class of fruits, compare other fruits with ‘this’ one, this happens really fast and we are unaware of it after some time. This is true because when I am saying apple you are sure that I am not talking about oranges or any other fruits.

When I am saying dog, you know it is dog because it is different from cats, cows, horses. You are sure of the dog ‘animal’ because it is different in some sense than other animals.

Do you see what is happening here?

Our association of given word to any object whether it may be tangible or intangible is not absolute and self-reliant. It is relative. It is built based on how it differs from another objects. This is really important to understand and appreciate when one is trying to understand deconstruction.

The logocentric and linguistic tool that we are tying to use to understand the absolute truth has its limitations of preconception. The logic has already defined its two states of existence. That is why the language based on such logic will be filled with paradoxes and will never yield newer truths.

Derrida posed validity of his idea of deconstruction by showing the limitations of semiotics.

Take speech as the language of philosophy to find the absolute truth. There is a moment in Christopher Nolan’s movie inception.

We always initiate our thinking by creating certain arbitrary point as a pivot to build logic upon it. Here, the person was told to not think about elephants and in order to not think about elephants he had first defined what elephants are – where he paradoxically first thinks about elephants – to not think about them! Did you see what happened here?

Derrida says that even though the ‘sign’ which goes as the fundamental block of language as semiotics show, it is not self-reliant, self-established. For a sign to signify something specific, it has to differ from the other objects on certain attributes, the meaning of that sign will be relative.

The Swastika used by Nazi is a holy symbol in Hindu culture which signifies well-being. (you definitely are aware of its meaning in western civilizations)

Meaning of signs is always relative, contextual.

It is our complete loyalty to symbols which misleads us, where in reality the symbols are mere media to convey the meaning, context and not the other way around. Meaning created signs, language, language does not create meaning. That is exactly why complete and blind submission to language in the pursuit of truth leads to dead end.

The purpose of language/ signs in deconstruction

(recall the fourth idea of sublation, duality in logic)

Derrida attacked the semiotics by showing its limitations.

Now, we already understand what is signifier and signified. Derrida argued that if there was no difference between signifier and signified there would not be any purpose of existence of the ‘sign’.

To explain this argument in simple words, if you are not told about the varieties in the citrus fruits, you cannot tell which one is Lemon, which one is Mandarin, which one is Lime, Pomelo, Kumquat, Grapefruit, Bergamot and Citron.    

If you don’t know the difference, everything would be lemon and orange

The relative difference between objects and ideas gives them their meaning. That is exactly why surrendering to strictly assigned meaning would steal the idea of its real nature. The idea would lose its other aspect due to the loss of information during formalization.   

So, deconstruction shows that meaning is relative. When a sign is presented, a language is used to build an idea,  it invites all its attributes and its contradictions. Again, Derrida says that blind surrender to formal attribute would never help in revealing the true nature of reality.

That is exactly why deconstruction also challenges sublation. According to deconstruction, there are never two extremes of any idea, attribute, sign. If we give into the idea of good-bad, black white, right-wrong we are losing the crucial information which lies in the spectrum that exists between these two ends. If we are able to create different levels in between these extremes of sublation we will discover new ideas.

When we talk about darkness, we know what brightness is, the relation between these two extremes helps us to understand each other. It is also true that there is some limitation in our vision which makes it impossible to perceive the constituents of the darkness, darkness is not darkness in itself, it is made up of other spectrums of light like infrared, ultraviolet. (This is just a scientific example but same can be implemented in purely philosophical treatise)

Deconstruction

So, Jacques Derrida’s deconstruction challenges the logical dualism and the purity, absoluteness of language – a powerful tool and foundation of the philosophy.

Derrida attacked logocentrism by showing the flaws in the structuralism, Derrida showed that language is actually fluid while conveying the meaning instead of being completely static.

Derrida proved his point by showing our preferences for the languages. For discussion he took preference of speech over writing.

Speech involves various modulation while expression which is not possible through writing. Even though writing has certain symbols to signify those periodic gaps they cannot replace the advantages of speech.

Now, when an overly complex idea is to be presented, in order to review the train of thoughts again and again, written language is more effective than speech. Wherever you have to ‘technically’ present a thought, written communication is better, when you want to preserve an idea forever written communication is better than speech.

This is where we realize that there is nothing like the best and the worst. Each language has its own characteristics which can be only understood and appreciated once we see the difference between them. The differences between them show that there is no hierarchy among them. There value proposition is relative.

Now the moment I bring in today’s recorded audio-visual medium which is the most popular language of documentation, writing and speech will seem trivial, but they still hold their value in certain aspects.

The meaning of deconstruction as Derrida says is to break down the language to understand what is also does not mean. Our human instinct and training in language pushes us to stick to the predefined notion of the language whereas we forget that our understanding of that very notion emerged from its comparison to other parts. Derrida through deconstruction urged that while looking at something to understand seeing what lies beyond its appearance will give you the real understanding.

Why seeing beyond what is shown is important? Because the understanding with which we are trying to interpret what is shown was never absolute, it was created only because of the difference between what it is and what it is not.

This is where deconstruction starts to confuse everyone. Derrida called this puzzlement “Aporia”.

Why the idea of deconstruction felt wrong? And is it really wrong?

The tool Derrida used to explain the notion called deconstruction itself becomes the weapon to destroy that same idea.

The very first thing to understand deconstruction is to remove the presumption which logical language, logocentrism gives that these are fully defined, singular objects which are being discussed. The moment object of discussion becomes singular, we lose the possibilities to see its other attributes. To deconstruct is to remove the preconception that there is something really absolute that we are trying to discover.

It’s like searching for star emitting only infrared light by using the camera which only works in the visible spectrum of light, because you assumed that there is only visible light and where the light is not there it is only dark. You won’t even be able to appreciate that there are some stars which emit different type of light. You presumption of duality of dark and light prevented that different knowledge of your reality. Only relative understanding of the light waves can help you appreciate that there are some waves which are different from others, which are on a ‘spectrum’.   

Derrida’s ideas were controversial because most of the critical ideas in philosophy, mathematics are built upon clear distinction between objects and their fixated meaning and attribution.

Even for the word deconstruction, people attributed it to rejecting what the language conveys and accepting rather its opposite.

Deconstruction is not just breaking down any idea to expose its flaws. Deconstruction rejects the complete loyalty to the focal point of discussion while inviting the references which created our so called ‘focal point’. Most of the times our trained brain seeks for exact opposite which is where deconstruction gets misinterpreted.

Conclusion

Derrida’s basic urge through deconstruction is the rejection of the duality or presumption, and seeing beyond what is shown through the language. When we are talking about something we interpret what is our ‘subject matter’ because we know the differences between other subjects and ‘this’ subject. When we appreciate such differences the meaning becomes fluid instead of static, the thinking becomes analogue instead of digital ones and zeros. Possibilities open-up instead on being ended in the paradoxes. Whatever we are thinking about and establishing as the singular truth is inherently non-singular because it always needs its other counterparts to justify its position.

Many religious wars were waged because of remaining loyal to the religious languages, script and not understanding what they actually meant, many laws were exploited because the loopholes were discovered based on understanding only what they meant. This keeps on happening.

Deconstruction becomes very important tool to critique the ideas given in any discussion where the final pursuit is meaning and not the formality.

For Derrida’s deconstruction the ‘Aporia’, the puzzlement is not a sign of weakness rather it is the sign of maturity.

Derrida’s deconstruction thus showed that only fancy formalization of philosophy will not help us to understand the reality. We have to get rid of our loyalty to the idea that there is something really singular out there which would define everything in the end. Meaning is not what the language is conveying structurally, it is also what lies beyond that which is not conveyed.  The things which are not conveyed are the line of comparison to define the worth of the things being conveyed.  

“The fish trap exists because of the fish. Once you’ve gotten the fish you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit. Once you’ve gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning. Once you’ve gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him?”

Zhuangzi, Chuang Tsu: Inner Chapters

P.S. You will appreciate the ideas of deconstruction more if you watch Denis Villeneuve’s movie Arrival (2016). The movie beautifully shows the gap between language and meaning and also how potent the ideas of deconstruction are!