Language always contains elements of ambiguity and imprecision.
His view appears to be quite valid, which influenced philosophers. It seems natural for there to be many conflicts in understanding truth through language. This is what facilitated Derrida to move on to the next stage, which had a significant influence on philosophers: adopting a searching attitude.
- 👉 So, because the truth of language is doubted as symbols of truth, Derrida proposed deconstruction, where the meaning of language must be examined more deeply, broken down, and re-examined to test its true meaning.
- 👉 This encourages philosophers to believe that the truth of language needs to be examined, so it is reasonable for us to keep asking and questioning to find the essence of truth.
I say it seems valid because actually what Derrida said does not mean without solutions but rather there are solutions, so it is not truly a problem.
THIS ENCOURAGES FUTURE GENERATION PHILOSOPHERS TO DOUBT EVERYTHING BECAUSE LANGUAGE IS CONSIDERED THE CAUSE OF AMBIGUITY.
- 👉 It must be deconstructed, dissected, that's Derrida's suggestion, and then ... SEARCH? Gap. Yes, correct ...
SEARCHING FOR THE GAP❗️ - 〰 Then, the more
... that is questioned❓❓❓
- 〰 More polemics arise‼️❗️
- 〰 📛 More confusion
... accumulates
- 〰 More and more
... unanswered⁉️
⭕️ As a result, anxiety, doubt, and disloyalty arise...
♨️ While the echoes of threats still wave
〰〰〰
Post-Derridean Philosophy
That's the impact of doubting the truth of language. That's how Jacques Derrida put it. That's how the adventure of deconstruction that heavily colors philosophy began...
Searching for justifications...
- ⭕️ Doubting Everything
- ⛔️ Relentless Questioning
- 📛 Free Thinking
Yes, that's the consequence of the roots of doubting the truth of language. EXCEPT. THAT'S NOT HOW UNDERSTANDING SHOULD BE‼️❗️
- 👉 Because it's not actually like that...
Language as Symbolic Logic
Language through words, is actually a symbol for the reality containing interconnected meanings within it.
If there's any doubt in a sentence, ambiguity, then it's not the language that obscures the truth, but rather the person who can't see the context, hence unable to categorize the involved meanings, causing the appearance of overlapping strands of truth.
The Solution - WHAT IS IT❓
If one or several words overlap, unclear. Or even one word itself is confusing, considered to have many branches of unclear directions.
DO THIS...
- 1⃣ Choose which word is confusing
- 2⃣ Determine the context of the word
- 3⃣ Find other related meanings within the same context
🧩 Some new meanings that are found are positioned in a cause-and-effect sequence (dependency), then the ambiguity is resolved.
Example:
- 1⃣ "existence"
- 2⃣ The context is about existence
- 3⃣ Things related to existence: "existence", "being", "reality"
🧩 Position them according to cause-and-effect dependence: "being", "reality", "existence"
- 👉 Its dialectic:
〰 "what exists is a real existence"
〰 "what exists states its existence"
〰 "Existence creates something so that the existence of something dependent on the reality that exists"
🔑 THE KEY IS SIMPLE: Find the context of the word, then find other words in the same context, and ambiguity will disappear, replaced by an expansion of knowledge. THIS IS NOT DOUBTING TO FIND A JUSTIFICATION GAP, BUT THIS IS EXPLORATION TO FIND A GAP (expanding) OF TRUTH.
