This essay explores the film collaborations of Franco-Egyptian filmmaker Safaa Fathy and Franco-Maghrebian philosopher Jacques Derrida, offering an extended reading of their court-métrage, Nom à la mer (2004)—a film about language, exile, and loss, made by a pair of wanderers both keenly interested in the spectral effects of translation as they haunt the filmic medium. Nom à la mer is a cinematic rendering of the French translation of Fathy's original, Arabic-language poem, recited by Derrida in voice-off as Fathy's camera focuses on a single, highly overdetermined site in a small Andalusian town. This essay reads the film as both an artefact of the pathos of translation and as a scene of valediction, played out by both collaborators on grounds simultaneously intimate and historical.
本文探讨了法国-埃及电影制作人萨法·法蒂和法国-马格里布哲学家雅克·德里达的电影合作，并对他们的宫廷- la mer(2004)进行了扩展阅读，这是一部关于语言，流亡和失落的电影，由一对流浪者拍摄，他们都对翻译的幽灵效应非常感兴趣，因为他们经常出现在电影媒介中。《Nom Nom la mer》是法蒂原始阿拉伯语诗歌法语翻译的电影版本，德里达在旁白中朗诵了这首诗，法蒂的镜头聚焦在安达卢西亚小镇上一个高度确定的地点。本文认为这部电影既是翻译悲怆的产物，也是两位合作者在亲密和历史的基础上进行的告别。
{"title":"Specters of Translation: Jacques Derrida, Safaa Fathy, and Nom à la mer","authors":"Max Cavitch","doi":"10.3366/olr.2021.0362","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/olr.2021.0362","url":null,"abstract":"This essay explores the film collaborations of Franco-Egyptian filmmaker Safaa Fathy and Franco-Maghrebian philosopher Jacques Derrida, offering an extended reading of their court-métrage, Nom à la mer (2004)—a film about language, exile, and loss, made by a pair of wanderers both keenly interested in the spectral effects of translation as they haunt the filmic medium. Nom à la mer is a cinematic rendering of the French translation of Fathy's original, Arabic-language poem, recited by Derrida in voice-off as Fathy's camera focuses on a single, highly overdetermined site in a small Andalusian town. This essay reads the film as both an artefact of the pathos of translation and as a scene of valediction, played out by both collaborators on grounds simultaneously intimate and historical.","PeriodicalId":43403,"journal":{"name":"OXFORD LITERARY REVIEW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48968233","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Review of Jacques Derrida, Theory and Practice","authors":"David Maruzzella","doi":"10.3366/olr.2021.0366","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/olr.2021.0366","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43403,"journal":{"name":"OXFORD LITERARY REVIEW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42350769","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article responds to Srinivas Aravamudan's call to revisit the notion of the trace from the standpoint of the Anthropocene. A Derridean understanding of the trace shows how postcolonial difference challenges the humanist distinction between human and nature by questioning the distinction between life and death that is central to metaphysics. This discussion thus reframes the prospect of extinction signaled by the Anthropocene by means of a return to a Marxist, feminist, psychoanalytic and deconstructive trajectory within postcolonial thought.
{"title":"Postcolonial Remainders: Revisiting the Trace from the Standpoint of the Anthropocene","authors":"N. van Vliet","doi":"10.3366/olr.2021.0363","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/olr.2021.0363","url":null,"abstract":"This article responds to Srinivas Aravamudan's call to revisit the notion of the trace from the standpoint of the Anthropocene. A Derridean understanding of the trace shows how postcolonial difference challenges the humanist distinction between human and nature by questioning the distinction between life and death that is central to metaphysics. This discussion thus reframes the prospect of extinction signaled by the Anthropocene by means of a return to a Marxist, feminist, psychoanalytic and deconstructive trajectory within postcolonial thought.","PeriodicalId":43403,"journal":{"name":"OXFORD LITERARY REVIEW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45405171","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Despite his wide-ranging and incisive engagement with Heidegger's thought across his career, Derrida seems to have written very little about Heidegger's Ereignis manuscripts, which, according to many commentators, constitute the place where Heidegger's thinking comes closest to Derridean deconstruction. Taking up Derrida's comments in Hospitality 1 on the figure of ‘selfhood’ ( Selbstheit) in Heidegger's Contributions to Philosophy, this essay argues that this dense but important moment of engagement with the Ereignis manuscripts reveals the extent to which Heidegger's thinking of selfhood, in spite of its fundamentally relational character, remains thoroughly determined by ipseity, the philosopheme that links selfhood, possibility, and sovereignty within the metaphysics of presence. Beginning with a reconstruction of the link between power and selfhood in Derrida's thinking of ipseity and a close-reading of the key passage in Hospitality 1, the essay then turns to Heidegger's engagement with Hölderlin to show both the depth of Heidegger's commitment to a relational thinking of selfhood and the philosophical and rhetorical safeguards by which he ensures that the relations of difference that constitute the self continue to function in the name of the ipseity, understood as the very Ur-form of sovereign power.
{"title":"The Hidden Law of Selfhood: Reading Heidegger's Ipseity after Derrida's Hospitality","authors":"Benjamin D. Brewer, Ronald Mendoza–de Jesús","doi":"10.3366/olr.2021.0364","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/olr.2021.0364","url":null,"abstract":"Despite his wide-ranging and incisive engagement with Heidegger's thought across his career, Derrida seems to have written very little about Heidegger's Ereignis manuscripts, which, according to many commentators, constitute the place where Heidegger's thinking comes closest to Derridean deconstruction. Taking up Derrida's comments in Hospitality 1 on the figure of ‘selfhood’ ( Selbstheit) in Heidegger's Contributions to Philosophy, this essay argues that this dense but important moment of engagement with the Ereignis manuscripts reveals the extent to which Heidegger's thinking of selfhood, in spite of its fundamentally relational character, remains thoroughly determined by ipseity, the philosopheme that links selfhood, possibility, and sovereignty within the metaphysics of presence. Beginning with a reconstruction of the link between power and selfhood in Derrida's thinking of ipseity and a close-reading of the key passage in Hospitality 1, the essay then turns to Heidegger's engagement with Hölderlin to show both the depth of Heidegger's commitment to a relational thinking of selfhood and the philosophical and rhetorical safeguards by which he ensures that the relations of difference that constitute the self continue to function in the name of the ipseity, understood as the very Ur-form of sovereign power.","PeriodicalId":43403,"journal":{"name":"OXFORD LITERARY REVIEW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43211481","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
‘America’, bloated with philosophical significance, serves as a meeting grounds for Heidegger and Derrida, flagging theoretical standoffs, identity crashes, a Nietzscean tipoff, and unstoppable poetry wars. Also featuring psychoanalytical stopovers and Rilkean putdowns..
{"title":"The Gestell from Hell: Philosophy Sets Up ‘America’","authors":"Avital Ronell","doi":"10.3366/OLR.2021.0353","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/OLR.2021.0353","url":null,"abstract":"‘America’, bloated with philosophical significance, serves as a meeting grounds for Heidegger and Derrida, flagging theoretical standoffs, identity crashes, a Nietzscean tipoff, and unstoppable poetry wars. Also featuring psychoanalytical stopovers and Rilkean putdowns..","PeriodicalId":43403,"journal":{"name":"OXFORD LITERARY REVIEW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43838676","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The essay reflects on Nietzsche's second Untimely Meditation, ‘On the Use and Disadvantage of the Study of History for Life’, especially as Heidegger reads it in section 76 of Being and Time and as Derrida reads Heidegger's reading of it. Derrida's concludes his first seminar on Heidegger, Heidegger: la question de l’Être et l'Histoire; Cours de l'ENS-Ulm 1964–1965, by reflecting on Heidegger as a Nietzschean antiquarian.
这篇文章反映了尼采的第二次不合时宜的沉思，“关于对生活的历史研究的使用和缺点”，特别是海德格尔在《存在与时间》第76节中读到的，德里达读到海德格尔对它的阅读。德里达的第一次关于海德格尔的研讨会，海德格尔:Être et l' histoire;1964-1965年，通过反思海德格尔作为尼采式的古物学家。
{"title":"Three Timely Untimelies: Heidegger and Derrida on Nietzsche's Second Untimely Meditation","authors":"D. Krell","doi":"10.3366/OLR.2021.0354","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/OLR.2021.0354","url":null,"abstract":"The essay reflects on Nietzsche's second Untimely Meditation, ‘On the Use and Disadvantage of the Study of History for Life’, especially as Heidegger reads it in section 76 of Being and Time and as Derrida reads Heidegger's reading of it. Derrida's concludes his first seminar on Heidegger, Heidegger: la question de l’Être et l'Histoire; Cours de l'ENS-Ulm 1964–1965, by reflecting on Heidegger as a Nietzschean antiquarian.","PeriodicalId":43403,"journal":{"name":"OXFORD LITERARY REVIEW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69623206","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This 1986 conversation with Jacques Derrida about Heidegger offers Derrida at his most disarmed and tentative, venturing into areas of Heidegger's thought that he was “the least sure about” around the mid 1980s. Topics discussed include the status of the question, technology, animality, the problem of life, epochality, the ontological difference, as well as a brief but poignant discussion on how to avoid future Holocausts.
{"title":"A Conversation with Jacques Derrida about Heidegger","authors":"","doi":"10.3366/olr.2021.0349","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/olr.2021.0349","url":null,"abstract":"This 1986 conversation with Jacques Derrida about Heidegger offers Derrida at his most disarmed and tentative, venturing into areas of Heidegger's thought that he was “the least sure about” around the mid 1980s. Topics discussed include the status of the question, technology, animality, the problem of life, epochality, the ontological difference, as well as a brief but poignant discussion on how to avoid future Holocausts.","PeriodicalId":43403,"journal":{"name":"OXFORD LITERARY REVIEW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46071354","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：