Gramáticas espectrales. Entre Wittgenstein, Deleuze y Derrida
“Wittgenstein’s Ghosts. Between Deleuze and Derrida”. Both Derrida and Deleuze agree that with the advent of the moving image and the art of film, we need to articulate a new ontology or –in Wittgenstein’s terms–, a new grammar. Derrida suggests this much when he reflects on what he calls the return...
| Autor Principal: | Krebs, Victor J. |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Idioma: | spa |
| Publicado: |
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
2016
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: |
http://revistas.pucp.edu.pe/index.php/estudiosdefilosofia/article/view/15891/16323 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: |
“Wittgenstein’s Ghosts. Between Deleuze and Derrida”. Both Derrida and Deleuze agree that with the advent of the moving image and the art of film, we need to articulate a new ontology or –in Wittgenstein’s terms–, a new grammar. Derrida suggests this much when he reflects on what he calls the return of ghosts, which he attributes to the advent of film and the communications media; Deleuze does the same in his studies of film, and in particular in what he calls the time-image. They both carve a grammatical space where room is opened for us to talk about an experience that fuses, paradoxically, problematically, the real and the virtual. Wittgenstein is tracing this grammar in his discussions on inner experience and in his observations about the phenomenon of aspect-seeing. Articulating a new grammar requires also a new way of seeing and this new seeing is the purpose of his methods; “clairvoyant” methods we can call them, following Deleuze’s term for what the time image propitiates in the viewer, in that they allow us to see beyond things to their aspects, beyond substances to processes; in other words, they train us to think in moving time. Philosophy is thus always a work of mourning and a commerce with ghosts. What this means is that Wittgenstein is –as Derrida and Deleuze are too–, what we might call a philosopher of becoming. |
|---|