哲学论文代写精选:“浅析德里达的解构主义思想”,这篇论文主要介绍了德里达的生平以及他的解构主义思想,并对德里达的解构主义思想进行了一番分析与探讨。本哲学论文代写由51due整理,供大家参考阅览。
哲学论文代写精选: Reading of the material first produced by Derrida is hard, it seems that it is intended to be difficult, to make us feel inadequate and for the philosopher and his translators to seem clever than us,in an attempt to make us accept but not question the theory and his genius. What is more, when asked what deconstruction is, Derrida replied “I have no simple and formalized response to this question. All my essays are attempts to have it out with this formidable question”. As I have come to understand it, based on linguistics, deconstruction is a strategy, a way of reading texts to get to the bottom of them. It is said that writing corrupts first hand wisdom from speech and hence is a poor substitute, that the true origin from the writer cannot be portrayed correctly when ideas can be formed out of context in reinterpretation, to take the text and deconstruct it by drawing out conflicting logics shows that text never really means what it says or says what it means. “Deconstruction is not a dismantling of the structure of a text but a demonstration that it has already dismantled itself.”J.Hillis Miller. What makes the theory become all the more confusing is it seems that philosophers enjoy using architecture as a metaphor, and that these metaphors do not often directly translate to the architectural movement. “Something has been constructed, a philosophical system, a tradition, a culture, and along comes a de-constructor (who) destroys it stone by stone, analyses the structure and dissolves it.. One looks at a system and examines how it was built, which keystone, which angle... supports the building; one shifts them and thereby frees oneself from the authority of the system” Derrida. So this architecture is based on the assumption that architecture is a language, (it can be read and seen to portray a culture, history, story and meaning -so why not?) and that this language is amendable to the methods of linguistic philosophy, yet Derrida has insisted that despite appearances on the contrary deconstruction is not an architectural metaphor.Indeed deconstruction is not any type of metaphor and what is more, that deconstructive architectural thought is impossible, that truly deconstructing architecture would make it uninhabitable and no longer architecture. Nevertheless he collaborated with Peter Eisenman on a competition entry for the Parc de Vilette in 1982 which is noted as a largely important event in the Deconstructivist movement. It is purely irritating. In attempting to make his work untouchable, his ideas high on a pedestal, he has alienated the very people who are most influenced by his theories. The Americans on the other hand never noted Derrida as an influence on their Deconstructivism movement, although there undeniably is some reference. In 1988 an exhibition entitled ‘Deconstructive Architecture’ at the Museum of Modern Art, New York, was launched.Its exhibited architects included Peter Eisenman (with whom Derrida had previously worked), Frank Ghery, Zaha Hadid, Coop Himmalblau, Rem Koolhaus, Daniel Libbeskind and Bernard Tschumi.Mark Wigley wrote the accompanying essay in which he described Deconstructivism as ‘disruption, dislocation, deflection, deviation and distortion.’He denies connection with the French philosopher and states “As Derrida deconstructs language from within; architecture too should be deconstructed from within itself.” And that “attempts to relate architecture, even this architecture, with esoteric philosophies seemed not only misleading but misguided.” Undeniably the theory is similar to the linguistic philosophy as architecture is ‘laid on the couch’ and interrogated by alternating gentle coaxing with violent torture, to bring the impurities to the surface,it’s confrontational stance on the post-modernist acceptance of architectural history (the origin) and its want to disjoin and dissemble this foundation from within itself. How else does Deconstructivism relate to the architectural movements before it? It is said that Deconstructivism is a reaction against Post-Modernism.Post-Modernism is a return to embrace, often ironically, historical references. Deconstructivists believe that architecture can no longer be policed by that history, it must be housed and maintained, but it can no longer provide explanation for the architecture itself. Wigley believes that Deconstructivism is homage to Russian Constructivism and indeed it is similar in the way they both are concerned with the simplicity of geometric forms as the important artistic content.They both interrogate modern movement forms and hence ‘discover’ form, although the Constructivist (and Modernist) tendency towards purism is not present in Deconstructivism where form is often deformed when the structure is deconstructed. The modernists too had rules on the ‘purity of form’ as well as other constricting notions like ‘form follows function’ and ‘truth to materials’ which the movement reacted against.There could also be said to have a link with cubism where forms are ‘chopped up’ and viewed from different viewpoints simultaneously, but this is seen in the final aesthetic rather than the underlying theory. Applying these theories, whether based on the European or American schools of thought leads to an architecture characterised by fragmentation of non-rectilinear shapes distorted to produce an unpredictability and controlled chaos. These distortions are performed within the forms their selves to produce forms out of the structures of which they are composed. They can be said to be disturbed from within. The movement was not meant to be simply the fragmentation or taking apart of the structures but a manipulation of the very essence of what makes it what it is, although now there is a sense that the philosophical theories used to influence the movement have been lost and that we are left with the simple aesthetic. Is this however a blessing in disguise? Should an architecture that rejects the past and has nothing to replace it with, presented in such an obvious and aggressive way be taken so seriously? After all, an architecture that rejects meaning is just a shelter, a house not a home, and has very little human quality. The Scottish Parliament Building In 1707 the act of union was passed, creating a political union between Scotland and England. Their individual parliaments merged to form the parliament of Great Britain, housed in the Palace of Westminster in London. As a result, Scotland was directly governed from London without legislature or a parliament building of their own. In the 1970’s the pressure grew for an independent parliament with the rise of the Scottish Nationalist party. In September 1997 a referendum of the Scottish electorate approved the establishment of a directly- elected Scottish parliament to legislate on most domestic affairs.Secretary of state for Scotland, Donald Dewar, decided that a new purpose built facility should be constructed to house the new Scottish parliament as the current facilities were deemed to be too small. Three original sites were chosen, and it wasn’t until later after the official closing date that Holyrood was entered into the running (as it became available from its previous owners the Scottish and Newcastle Brewery). It’s competitor at the New Parliament Building or Royal High School on Carlton hill was a popular choice due to its monumental location, but instead of being placed at the top of the hill, the chosen site at Holyrood was placed at the bottom of the hill. It was believed that this was to bring the parliament down to the people. Miralles later suggested a silver lining for the site location, saying that its location was where you ‘left Edinburgh and entered Scotland’. It also locks intimately with the surrounding old town and its citizens and offers a patriotic view of the land the MSP’s serve although a negative point about this site is that it puts a modern building alongside medieval ones. After the site was chosen an international design competition was held to find an architect. Dewar promised that the building would present nothing less than “an image of Scotland’s new position within the United Kingdom as we move into the 21st century”. Submissions were received from architects such as Richard Meier and Michael Milford who proposed monumental symbols of national identity. It is told that Enric Miralles thrust some twigs and leaves onto the table and proclaimed “That is the Scottish Parliament”. Miralles did not provide a design proposal but a design concept, a dialogue,which expressed a wish not to make the parliament a status of power, but to tie it in with the landscape, and hence with the Scottish people. Miralles was unanimously chosen. Critics stated that the Scottish parliament should have been designed by a Scottish architect, and saw the appointment of Enric Miralles as a great disappointment. Monumental Neo-Classical structures were generally believed to be the best suited to a parliament, but the original Neo-Classical model, the democratic political buildings in the 19th century, were confused. The new emerging democratic architecture had few precedents to draw from, in the USA they chose the Classical model to demonstrate democracy for free males (slaves and women were excluded) this resulted in an architecture similar to those from Ancient Rome and Greece; these were ruled by emperors whom by today’s standard are dictators with a wide rule. Why would democracy choose this type of architecture? Well firstly, there was little else to choose from, as democracy was a new concept, and secondly, they wanted to show their superiority to other states and countries and impress those citizens whose money they extracted. After all, a strong, organised architecture which learns from the past presents a confidence that those people inside who are running the country will have similar qualities. But what is democracy? Surely it is a political form that gives access to all citizens (or those represented by the citizens) equally. It is where the people rule. Therefore, is this lean towards Neo-Classicism really representative of a democratic society? It is an architecture that wishes to dwarf people who enter it, made of some of the coldest looking materials accessible to man. It is a symbol of power that is so much grander than any single citizen could wish to come anywhere close to so that the individual does not feel equal. The style is insensitive to a nation seeking a collective identity in a humane building form. 51Due作为专业的留学教育辅导机构,专业辅导哲学论文代写、research paper代写,自2004年至今,坚持以学生为中心,全天候服务,为海外留学生完成了数万篇assignment代写、essay代写、report代写、stat代写等论文,以优质的英国代写服务赢得留学生的信赖,如有心理学essay代写需求,欢迎咨询QQ800020041哦。 51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有,未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象,51Due保留一切法律追诉权。-C
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author51Due是一家以海外中国留学生创业团队为主导,总部设在美国纽约的留学教育咨询机构,同时也是海外拥有强大综合教员实力的论文代写机构。主要业务包括海外课业咨询,提供Essay代写与辅导,Paper代写与辅导,Report代写与辅导,Assignment代写与辅导,论文代写,论文修改,计算机编程代写,同时涵盖了Personal Statement代写等留学文书以及转学申请文书的代写,海外求学咨询与新留学生辅导等各个留学环节的专业咨询。 ArchivesCategories
全部
|