Search

This study aims to describe the forms of criticism of binary opposition, logocentrism, and differance. The approach used in this research is a qualitative approach with descriptive methods. Based on the results of the study found the form of Jacques Derrdia deconstruction in the novel O by Eka Kurniawan is a form of binary opposition by comparing the journey of an evolved and refuted monkey with a monkey as a symbolic or symbolic form. The actual form of logocentrism in monkeys is symbolic of human life which actually experiences moral decline so animals are better than humans. Differance form which is the story of a monkey as a criticism and advice to readers that during life must do good. The benefits of deconstruction as learning material for Indonesian Language and Literature are as material to facilitate students in understanding the content of stories in the novel.

MA (Philosophy), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2017 A philosophical inquiry is conducted regarding the view of Jacques Derrida (1930 – 2004) on deconstruction with emphasis on the argument that deconstruction is always already present in some texts as far as metaphors are concerned. The various underlying concepts which form part of deconstruction are investigated – concepts like fragmentation, advanced fragmentation, dissemination and discontinuity. A case study follows in which emphasis is placed on the way in which deconstruction as textual process or dynamic functions in two short short stories of Breyten Breytenbach titled Kersverhaal and Kersverhaal 2 specifically with regard to metaphors. The finding made in this study is that metaphors like “blindness”, “the frame” and “consciousness of the unconscious” are functioning parts of deconstruction. It was subsequently found that deconstruction itself possibly functions metaphorically as an “decentric circle”. Through the ages metaphors have been researched by various philosophers and therefore a short review is given on the views of Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Nietzsche and Ricoeur. It was concluded that the views of these five thinkers are not totally suitable for a philosophical inquiry into metaphors specifically with regard to Breytenbach. However, Derrida’s approach has been found to be quite suitable for an inquiry into Breytenbach’s two short short stories, since both Derrida’s and Breytenbach’s approaches suggest strong elements of deconstruction. Both Derrida and Breytenbach place emphasis on spontaneous expression in literary-aesthetical texts, with specific regard to the role that the human unconscious plays. They both also have a critical view of traditions and therefore this study also focuses on the role that colours traditionally played, compared to the role colours like white and black play in Breytenbach’s Kersverhaal and Kersverhaal 2 – especially as a result of ethnocentrism in the historic, social and political background of South Africa. The prominent metaphors “blindness”, “the frame” and “consciousness of the unconscious”, which form part of the functioning of deconstruction, function analogically in the two texts of Breytenbach; especially concerning the way in which fragmentation, advanced fragmentation, dissemination and discontinuity function within these texts. Accordingly it is also illustrated in which way reconstruction plays a role as a parallel process of deconstruction in the two texts. In spite of the fact that deconstruction is an advantageous textual process or dynamic, there are certain flaws and/or limitations. Consequently attention is also paid to the presence of logocentric constructs like historicism, irrationalism and postmodernism / poststructuralism within the functioning of deconstruction. In the end the critical-philosophical reassessment of deconstruction and metaphors is successful, regardless of certain flaws and/or limitations of deconstruction. Masters

Terrorhandlingene den 11. september 2001 var spektakulære og tragiske. President Bush sin tale samme kveld og de påfølgende septemberdagene inneholdt dikotomiseringen ”evil” satt opp mot ”good” og utdypninger om at Amerika lever som en ”beacon for freedom and opportunity”. Da presidenten henvendte seg til en samlet Kongress hevdet han at: ”Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”. Hva man legger til grunn for politiske handlinger er, og vil alltid være, basert på diskurser. Diskursteori forteller oss at de ulike oppfatninger av verden er like gyldige. Men det synes problematisk rent politisk når denne relativismen fjernes og en svart-hvitt presentasjon av verden søkes innført fra en politisk ledelse som innehar et repertoar av maktmidler verden aldri tidligere har sett. Kompleksiteten i de forskjellige prosessene som finner sted i verden synes å forsvinne. Denne oppgaven søker å belyse hvilken bakgrunn man hadde for det verdensbildet den amerikanske politiske ledelsen søkte å konstruere som den gjeldende sannhet etter terrorangrepene i USA 11. september 2001. Diskursanalysen tar utgangspunkt i noen underliggende premisser som ligger til grunn for alle sosialkonstruktivistiske tilnærminger. Man stiller seg kritisk til all viten som tas for gitt, man fremmer at all vår viten om verden er historisk og kulturelt betinget, sammenhengen mellom viten og sosiale prosesser blir poengtert, og man understreker sammenhengen mellom viten og sosiale handlinger. 29 taler og et offentlig strategidokument er blitt analysert. Diskursen som blir forsøkt avdekket vil være det verdensbildet som ble presentert i kjølvannet av terrorangrepene gjennom disse talene. Analysen lander på at et dikotomiserende og forenklende språk fungerte legitimerende for de tiltak man utførte i kjølvannet av angrepene. Det blir også klarlagt at man i USA var, og er, i større grad enn andre steder mottakelig for denne type ordlegging, og dette var en forutsetning for diskursen i seg selv. Til slutt poengteres det at ved å låse diskursen innenfor kjente rammer utelukker man mer nyanserte og konstruktive tilnærminger til konflikten man står overfor.