Collapse of Logocentrism: From Kant to Saussure to Derrida

Yung Suk Kim

From Immanuel Kant to Ferdinand de Saussure to Jacques Derrida, there is a common thread that they all seem to reject logocentrism that has been dominant for far too long in Western tradition and philosophy. Logocentrism regards words and language as a fundamental expression of an external reality. 

But Kant (1724-1804), well known for his transcendental philosophy, points to human limitations to knowledge/reality and distinguishes between noumenon (“the thing-in-itself”) and phenomenon (“the thing as it appears to an observer”). While noumena are unknowable, we experience or perceive phenomena only. So, for example, the "war" as a fight between two countries is noumenon, which is unknowable; we only perceive its phenomenon. If the word "war" is a sign of that reality, it must be also unknowable because reality itself is unknowable. In his transcendental idealism, language belongs to the subjective human experience. Accordingly, logocentrism has no place with him because language or words are within "the arbitrariness of subjective empirical consciousness" (see note 1). 

Saussure (1857-1913), a founding figure of modern linguistics, argues there is no one-to-one link between the signifier (word) and the signified (an actual thing). That is, he disputes the logical connection between them. The signifier must be imperfect and what comes out of it is multiple. For example, the "war" in a certain context signifies myriad things.

Derrida (1930-2004) more forcefully challenges logocentrism in his deconstruction theory. That is, no literature can set forever meaning to readers because there are internal systems of collapse within the literature. All in all, meaning is not fixed once and for all, as his coined term différance conveys meaning's difference and deferral. 

*Note 1: Yaron Senderowicz, "Language and reason in Kant's epistemology," Histoire Épistémologie Langage Année 1997 19-1 p. 147 (135-148).

"Test everything" (Biblical Interpretation)

 

In some sense, biblical interpretation is about testing. "Test everything," says Paul in 1 Thess 5:21. After testing, you can "hold fast to what is good." Until then, you must test everything: the text itself, interpretations of others, and your view. A real fight in biblical interpretation is a fight against yourself. No one is exempt from testing.

Key Concepts in Tanakah

חֶסֶד (hesed): mercy, kindness, love
God is hesed. Therefore, people should be also kind and loving to one another.
 

שׁוּב (shuv): to turn back
Because God is the way, people should turn back to him. That is what "repentance" means. The equivalent word in Greek is metanoia (μετάνοια).
 
צְדָקָה (tsedaqah): righteousness
God is the one who is righteous, the basis of human existence and action.

מִשְׁפָּט (mishpat): justice
Because God is righteous, people should seek justice in all spheres of life.

TaNaKh: Torah (תּוֹרָה), Neviim (נְבִיאִים), Ketuvim (כְּתוּבִים‎)

What am I?

People get their impressions of me based on what they see from me. While my colleagues tell me I am a writing machine or a prolific writer, students think I am thoroughly prepared. But I see myself differently. I'm always conscientious and feel like walking a tightrope. The other day I wrote about myself below:

Like a vapor, I am evanescent.
Like a reed, I am wavering.
Like dust, I am small.
But I'm not vanity.
I am a gift of God.

Interpolation (1 Cor 14:33-36)

1 Cor 14:33b-36 is considered an interpolation by many scholars. I told my students that this passage was out of the blue. It is not connected with all previous chapters and all the following. This passage is abrupt. It is said that women should not speak in the church and if they have questions they must ask their husbands at home.

But this above advice to women is untrue and impractical because not all women are married. Some may have lost their husbands already. Even if they had their husbands at home, their husbands would not know all the answers.

If Paul prevented women's participation in the church, he must have been conflicting himself or schizophrenic because elsewhere he advocated women's leadership and their free participation in worship. All men and women in the church equally received the gift of the Spirit. Therefore, we can hardly believe that Paul wrote the above passage.

 

My YouTube Channel

These days I don’t have much energy to make new videos for my YouTube channel. But I can do so anytime if I want. There are 66 videos on my channel with 204 subscribers. Someday I will come back to make more.

3Cs for success in class

Communication

Check with the instructor and talk with fellow students as often as possible. Keep the conversation open throughout the course.

Commitment
Plan things and set aside time for reading. 

Day and night, read, think, and read. 

Stay the course.  

Confidence
Believe in yourself. You can do it, and it can happen.

Trust your instructor and fellow students.

"Conscientious"

What adjective best describes you? 

At the university conference a week ago, I said my adjective is "conscientious." 

I listen to my inner voice before and after I do something. 

I am meticulous with something often impatient, and make mistakes. 

Yet I am resilient and don't stop coming back to do better and more.

Atonement Theories and Jesus

 Traditional Atonement Theories

• Penal-substitutionary atonement (including the concept of propitiation and expiation): God's wrath is dealt with by propitiation; sins are cleansed.
• Ransom theory deals with one's bondage to sin or evil. Jesus's death is a ransom, and the price is paid to the devil. As a result, sinners are released from bondage.  
• Satisfaction theory: Jesus's death is a sinless sacrifice that satisfies God's justice.

But the traditional atonement theories do not consider seriously the question of why Jesus was put to death in a historical, political sense. According to the Gospels and Paul's major letters, Jesus's death has to do with his radical message of God's rule in the here and now.

The challenge for us is interpreting various passages regarding Jesus's death in the New Testament. The following translations are from the NRSVue.

Mark 14:24: "“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many."

1 Cor 5:7: "Clean out the old yeast so that you may be a new batch of dough, as you really are unleavened. For our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed."

Matt 26:28: "for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

c.f. Matt 8:17: "This was to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet Isaiah, 'He took our infirmities and bore our diseases.'"
 

2 Cor 5:21: "For our sake God made the one who knew no sin to be sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

Rom 3:25: "whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement (hilasterion) by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed;"

*Note: Hilasterion may be translated or interpreted variously; it may be a propitiation, sacrifice of atonement, or mercy seat. In the Septuagint, hilasterion is the translation of the Hebrew Kaporet, which means the cover of the ark of the covenant on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur).

  
Rom 5:6-10: "For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Indeed, rarely will anyone die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person someone might actually dare to die. 8 But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us. 9 Much more surely, therefore, since we have now been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life."

Gal 1:4: "who gave himself for our sins to set us free from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father,"

Heb 10:12: "But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, 'he sat down at the right hand of God,'"

1 John 2:2: "and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." *atoning sacrifice (hilasmos)

1 John 4:10: "In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins." *atoning sacrifice (hilasmos) 

1 Pet 2:23-24: "When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly. 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, having died to sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed."

*This posting appeared in my other blog. 

Eremos in Luke 15:4 and translation

Jesus tells the parable of the lost sheep in Luke 15:3-7 (Matt 18:12-14). In Luke 15:4, a man leaves the ninety-nine in the ἔρημος (eremos) and searches for the lost one. The NRSVue translates "eremos" as "the wilderness." This translation is good. But the NIV goes with "the open country," and CEB has "the pasture." Both of these translations do not convey the sense of danger in the desert. The plain meaning of eremos is wilderness or desert, an unsafe place where predators may appear. Why do the NIV and CEB choose the open country or the pasture? The reason is probably to give you the impression that the shepherd did not put his sheep in harm's way while searching for the lost sheep. But this parable is not a traditional moral story but a seemingly nonsensible, paradoxical story that we cannot sacrifice one sheep because of the majority.

NRSVue
Luke 15:4 “Which one of you, having a hundred sheep and losing one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness and go after the one that is lost until he finds it?

NIV
15: 4 “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it?

CEB
15:4 “Suppose someone among you had one hundred sheep and lost one of them. Wouldn’t he leave the other ninety-nine in the pasture and search for the lost one until he finds it?