What do you think?
Rate this book
The Animal That Therefore I Am
The Animal That Therefore I Am is the long-awaited translation of the complete text of Jacques Derrida's ten-hour address to the 1997 Cérisy conference entitled "The Autobiographical Animal," the third of four such colloquia on his work. The book was assembled posthumously on the basis of two published sections, one written and recorded session, and one informal recorded session.The book is at once an affectionate look back over the multiple roles played by animals in Derrida's work and a profound philosophical investigation and critique of the relegation of animal life that takes place as a result of the distinction—dating from Descartes—between man as thinking animal and every other living species. That starts with the very fact of the line of separation drawn between the human and the millions of other species that are reduced to a single "the animal." Derrida finds that distinction, or versions of it, surfacing in thinkers as far apart as Descartes, Kant, Heidegger, Lacan, and Lévinas, and he dedicates extended analyses to the question in the work of each of them.The book's autobiographical theme intersects with its philosophical analysis through the figures of looking and nakedness, staged in terms of Derrida's experience when his cat follows him into the bathroom in the morning. In a classic deconstructive reversal, Derrida asks what this animal sees and thinks when it sees this naked man. Yet the experiences of nakedness and shame also lead all the way back into the mythologies of "man's dominion over the beasts" and trace a history of how man has systematically displaced onto the animal his own failings or bêtises. The Animal That Therefore I Am is at times a militant plea and indictment regarding, especially, the modern industrialized treatment of animals. However, Derrida cannot subscribe to a simplistic version of animal rights that fails to follow through, in all its implications, the questions and definitions of "life" to which he returned in much of his later work.
Collection: Perspectives in Continental Philosophy
Collection: Perspectives in Continental Philosophy
192 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
155 people are currently reading
4282 people want to read
About the author
Jacques Derrida
650 books1,797 followersJacques Derrida was a French philosopher best known for developing deconstruction, a method of critical analysis that questioned the stability of meaning in language, texts, and Western metaphysical thought. Born in Algeria, he studied at the École Normale Supérieure in Paris, where he was influenced by philosophers such as Heidegger, Husserl, and Levinas. His groundbreaking works, including Of Grammatology (1967), Writing and Difference (1967), and Speech and Phenomena (1967), positioned him at the center of intellectual debates on language, meaning, and interpretation.
Derrida argued that Western philosophy was structured around binary oppositions—such as speech over writing, presence over absence, or reason over emotion—that falsely privileged one term over the other. He introduced the concept of différance, which suggests that meaning is constantly deferred and never fully present, destabilizing the idea of fixed truth. His work engaged with a wide range of disciplines, including literature, psychoanalysis, political theory, and law, challenging conventional ways of thinking and interpretation.
Throughout his career, Derrida continued to explore ethical and political questions, particularly in works such as Specters of Marx (1993) and The Politics of Friendship (1994), which addressed democracy, justice, and responsibility. He held academic positions at institutions such as the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales and the University of California, Irvine, and remained an influential figure in both European and American intellectual circles. Despite criticism for his complex writing style and abstract concepts, Derrida’s ideas have left a lasting impact on contemporary philosophy, literary theory, and cultural criticism, reshaping the way meaning and language are understood in the modern world.
Derrida argued that Western philosophy was structured around binary oppositions—such as speech over writing, presence over absence, or reason over emotion—that falsely privileged one term over the other. He introduced the concept of différance, which suggests that meaning is constantly deferred and never fully present, destabilizing the idea of fixed truth. His work engaged with a wide range of disciplines, including literature, psychoanalysis, political theory, and law, challenging conventional ways of thinking and interpretation.
Throughout his career, Derrida continued to explore ethical and political questions, particularly in works such as Specters of Marx (1993) and The Politics of Friendship (1994), which addressed democracy, justice, and responsibility. He held academic positions at institutions such as the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales and the University of California, Irvine, and remained an influential figure in both European and American intellectual circles. Despite criticism for his complex writing style and abstract concepts, Derrida’s ideas have left a lasting impact on contemporary philosophy, literary theory, and cultural criticism, reshaping the way meaning and language are understood in the modern world.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 91 reviews
September 14, 2022
"Man is a promising animal"
F. Nietzsche
“So intense is the grief of female monkeys for the loss of their young, that it invariably caused the death of certain kinds”
In: The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin
"And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him." Genesis 2:20
Derrida contends that the philosophical tradition (since Aristotle to Heidegger; from Descartes to Kant, Levinas and Lacan) has mistreated animals. Even the word "animal" (a pseudo, violent concept) presupposes a homogeneity which Derrida doubts about. So he coins another word: "animot".
“When I play with my cat, who knows whether she is not amusing herself with me more than I with her.”
Michel de Montaigne
The book starts with a reflection on the distinction between man's natural state of nakedness needing coverage and Derrida's cat, which needs not. Shame and modesty obliges, for man. Not for the cat, or the other animals. And throughout the book, the cat's presence is recurring, so are questions like these:
"It's been a long time! It is as if the cat woke up, as if he would recall me without saying a word the terrible account of Genesis . Who was born first, before man? who saw the other arriving in those places long time ago? who was the first occupier, and therefore the master? the subject? who keeps being the despot it's been so long? ".
"Is there an animal narcissism? But, can't that cat be, also, from the bottom of his eyes, my first mirror? "
Yes, animals don't speak, or reply; yet,"do they dream? ... laugh,... cry,... sing, ...forgive...?"
But then, back to the Genesis, the Serpent (the most astute of the animals) in the Garden of Eden did speak; and then, there was the original-sin story.
ἄνθρωπον λόγοϛ ἔχων
Derrida simply decimates [my expression] Descartes view on animals. The French philosopher considered two criteria for distinguishing the True from the False, or in other terms, the human from the “automaton”: (1) the absence of reply (2) “the deficit” (typical in animals) which explained humans “superiority”. For several times, Derrida invokes one detail not considered thus far: the “look” from the animal. He goes further: analyzing the Universal declaration of the rights of the animals, even, “the juridical personality of animals”. (Poor Descartes!). The, thus far, “zoon logon echon” (man, the rational animal) must be considerate as to the other’s viewpoint, theanimal's animals'. Ergo: Animals are not “automatons”.
The last chapter of the book, approaches, in a very critical way, the Heideggerian view on what I would call the "animality" of animals, [Das wesen der tierheit des tieres] which Heidegger tried to define what its essence is.
Derrida sees contradictions in Heidegger's thought. Sure, Heidegger saw in man's essence both consciousness and language, of which all animals are deprived of, so says a long tradition of philosophers since Aristotle. And yet, cats and other animals, do sleep, but is the content of their dreams like man's? How about plants? Derrida's view ends up in a question: (though animals live with us) do they exist? (in the same meaning "existence" has for man). His answer seems to be negative.
Interestingly enough, that Derrida mentioned the (Genesis) Adam's task of naming the animals, even before the creation of woman. Also, the Elohim's injunction that all animals become under "submission"; under man. Any creationist, would argue with Derrida, that, though man's nature includes "animality", it should be kept under submission.
UPDATE
(If you like Derrida, don't look at the next joke)
F. Nietzsche
“So intense is the grief of female monkeys for the loss of their young, that it invariably caused the death of certain kinds”
In: The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin
"And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him." Genesis 2:20
Derrida contends that the philosophical tradition (since Aristotle to Heidegger; from Descartes to Kant, Levinas and Lacan) has mistreated animals. Even the word "animal" (a pseudo, violent concept) presupposes a homogeneity which Derrida doubts about. So he coins another word: "animot".
“When I play with my cat, who knows whether she is not amusing herself with me more than I with her.”
Michel de Montaigne
The book starts with a reflection on the distinction between man's natural state of nakedness needing coverage and Derrida's cat, which needs not. Shame and modesty obliges, for man. Not for the cat, or the other animals. And throughout the book, the cat's presence is recurring, so are questions like these:
"It's been a long time! It is as if the cat woke up, as if he would recall me without saying a word the terrible account of Genesis . Who was born first, before man? who saw the other arriving in those places long time ago? who was the first occupier, and therefore the master? the subject? who keeps being the despot it's been so long? ".
"Is there an animal narcissism? But, can't that cat be, also, from the bottom of his eyes, my first mirror? "
Yes, animals don't speak, or reply; yet,"do they dream? ... laugh,... cry,... sing, ...forgive...?"
But then, back to the Genesis, the Serpent (the most astute of the animals) in the Garden of Eden did speak; and then, there was the original-sin story.
ἄνθρωπον λόγοϛ ἔχων
"Thought is an attribute which belongs to me: it's the only one which cannot be separated from me. I AM, I EXIST, that is for sure, however for how long? to be known, as long as the time my thought lasts"
René Descartes in: Meditationes de prima philosophia
Derrida simply decimates [my expression] Descartes view on animals. The French philosopher considered two criteria for distinguishing the True from the False, or in other terms, the human from the “automaton”: (1) the absence of reply (2) “the deficit” (typical in animals) which explained humans “superiority”. For several times, Derrida invokes one detail not considered thus far: the “look” from the animal. He goes further: analyzing the Universal declaration of the rights of the animals, even, “the juridical personality of animals”. (Poor Descartes!). The, thus far, “zoon logon echon” (man, the rational animal) must be considerate as to the other’s viewpoint, the
The last chapter of the book, approaches, in a very critical way, the Heideggerian view on what I would call the "animality" of animals, [Das wesen der tierheit des tieres] which Heidegger tried to define what its essence is.
Derrida sees contradictions in Heidegger's thought. Sure, Heidegger saw in man's essence both consciousness and language, of which all animals are deprived of, so says a long tradition of philosophers since Aristotle. And yet, cats and other animals, do sleep, but is the content of their dreams like man's? How about plants? Derrida's view ends up in a question: (though animals live with us) do they exist? (in the same meaning "existence" has for man). His answer seems to be negative.
Interestingly enough, that Derrida mentioned the (Genesis) Adam's task of naming the animals, even before the creation of woman. Also, the Elohim's injunction that all animals become under "submission"; under man. Any creationist, would argue with Derrida, that, though man's nature includes "animality", it should be kept under submission.
UPDATE
(If you like Derrida, don't look at the next joke)
December 2, 2009
As Derrida goes, an enjoyable, only partly maddening read. Warning, you will hear a lot about Derrida walking around naked. If you can handle the mental image of that, you will be fine.
April 4, 2017
I have a beyond introductory-level (but not much beyond) working knowledge of Heidegger, Lacan, Descartes, and Derrida's style of deconstruction--that said, this was pretty dense and demanding. This book is a further deconstruction on the meaning of existence by complicating the mix with the addition of pointing out the problems of the human-animal binary. Once opened up, Derrida is able to give a critical look into the mythological, biological, ontological, historiographical relationships between man and all other living creatures on earth.
I found my way to this book in my reading of Hades, where one of the primary characters is doing a critical psychoanalytic paper on human/animal relationships, and she's using this as a primary research text. It's clear to see why Danielewski has included it in his meta-textual post-modern work, particularly in his most meta-textual character. Particularly at stake in that novel is the young girl Xanther and her newly-found kitten and their intrinsically supernatural "familiar" relationship. As metaphysical boundaries are tested, the nature of human/animal relationships are questioned, and the power/effect of one on the other has actualized ramifications in the novel--a kind of realized form of some of the ideas going on in Derrida's text here.
A more-versed reader of philosophy and Derrida would surely get much more out of this than I could--I would say about 7% seeped into the skull's jelly. Derrida's recursive style just confounds me sometimes. Perhaps revisiting later on in my Familiar journey may formalize some of what's going on here? Still enjoyed what it did to my neurons though.
I found my way to this book in my reading of Hades, where one of the primary characters is doing a critical psychoanalytic paper on human/animal relationships, and she's using this as a primary research text. It's clear to see why Danielewski has included it in his meta-textual post-modern work, particularly in his most meta-textual character. Particularly at stake in that novel is the young girl Xanther and her newly-found kitten and their intrinsically supernatural "familiar" relationship. As metaphysical boundaries are tested, the nature of human/animal relationships are questioned, and the power/effect of one on the other has actualized ramifications in the novel--a kind of realized form of some of the ideas going on in Derrida's text here.
A more-versed reader of philosophy and Derrida would surely get much more out of this than I could--I would say about 7% seeped into the skull's jelly. Derrida's recursive style just confounds me sometimes. Perhaps revisiting later on in my Familiar journey may formalize some of what's going on here? Still enjoyed what it did to my neurons though.
February 25, 2018
This is Derrida at his best. Beautiful, rigorous, brutal reading.
Read
November 5, 2023I wouldn’t wish this on my worst enemy…
May 2, 2008
I had to read some of the essays in here for school. but I'd recommend it to anyone who loves animals and knows how much smarter they are than people. It makes you think hard about the what we consider to be the difference between humans and animals, and whether or not you should feel embarrassed to be naked in front of your pet.
Read
February 26, 2023Gran ajuste de cuentas de Derrida con el antropocentrismo de la tradición filosófica europea. Desde la premisa de que a los animales se les ha negado siempre la posibilidad de respuesta Derrida explora con contundencia las deficiencias teóricas en relación con el reino animal de Descartes, Kant, Levinas, Lacan y Heidegger. Aunque sigue siendo un texto muy filosófico y bastante desapegado de la zoología, es un buen primer paso para romper las barreras que la filosofía ha construido entre el ser humano y los demás animales.
May 23, 2016
tbh probably a 4 or 4.5 but I was pretty excited at there being a Derrida book where I could say I grasped what was going on
dnf
November 1, 2020Kirja jää kesken, siksi en anna sille tähtiä. Laina-aika ei riittänyt. Tuskin palaan siihen kovin pian. Kerron siksi, mitä hieman yli puoliväliin ehdittyäni ajattelen.
Asetelma on hyvin kiinnostava. On selvää, että eläimen käsitteeseen liittyy länsimaisessa ajattelussa tietynlainen kirjoittamaton, mutta yleisesti hyväksytty paradigma. Täman paradigman Derrida osuvasti haastaa. Kun haasteeseen liittyy selkeä eettinen kannanotto, on lopputulos vaikuttava. Monelle kohdalle tulee myös naurettua; Derrida osaa älykkäällä tavalla vitsailla.
Kirja tosiaan silti jää minulta kesken. Se on luotu mukaillen Derridan vuonna 1997 pitämää kymmentuntista "luentoa" ja myöhemmin 2003 julkaisemaa kirjoitelmaa samasta aiheesta. En ole Derridalta lukenut mitään muuta, joten en pysty tätä teosta vertaamaan hänen muuhun tuotantoonsa. Joka tapauksessa kenties kirjan lähdemateriaalista johtuen sen lukeminen on raskasta ja vaatii intensiivistä keskittymistä. Derridan ajatus kulkee paikoin viivytellen ja toisaalla hyvin nopeasti. En usein pystynyt lukemaan kerralla kuin muutaman sivun. Lukuja kirjassa ei ole lähes lainkaan, jolloin lukijalle jää harvoin paikka koota yhteen lukemaansa tai ikäänkuin hengähtää. Pian huomasinkin, että minun oli erikseen patistettava itseäni tarttumaan kirjaan ja jatkamaan sitä. Lopulta totesin, etten halua näin itseäni nyt kiusata ja annoin kirjan jäädä.
Kirjan aihe on erittäin tärkeä ja aina ajankohtainen. Suosittelen sitä, mutta sen lukeminen tuskin onnistuu ilman ripausta itsekuria.
Asetelma on hyvin kiinnostava. On selvää, että eläimen käsitteeseen liittyy länsimaisessa ajattelussa tietynlainen kirjoittamaton, mutta yleisesti hyväksytty paradigma. Täman paradigman Derrida osuvasti haastaa. Kun haasteeseen liittyy selkeä eettinen kannanotto, on lopputulos vaikuttava. Monelle kohdalle tulee myös naurettua; Derrida osaa älykkäällä tavalla vitsailla.
Kirja tosiaan silti jää minulta kesken. Se on luotu mukaillen Derridan vuonna 1997 pitämää kymmentuntista "luentoa" ja myöhemmin 2003 julkaisemaa kirjoitelmaa samasta aiheesta. En ole Derridalta lukenut mitään muuta, joten en pysty tätä teosta vertaamaan hänen muuhun tuotantoonsa. Joka tapauksessa kenties kirjan lähdemateriaalista johtuen sen lukeminen on raskasta ja vaatii intensiivistä keskittymistä. Derridan ajatus kulkee paikoin viivytellen ja toisaalla hyvin nopeasti. En usein pystynyt lukemaan kerralla kuin muutaman sivun. Lukuja kirjassa ei ole lähes lainkaan, jolloin lukijalle jää harvoin paikka koota yhteen lukemaansa tai ikäänkuin hengähtää. Pian huomasinkin, että minun oli erikseen patistettava itseäni tarttumaan kirjaan ja jatkamaan sitä. Lopulta totesin, etten halua näin itseäni nyt kiusata ja annoin kirjan jäädä.
Kirjan aihe on erittäin tärkeä ja aina ajankohtainen. Suosittelen sitä, mutta sen lukeminen tuskin onnistuu ilman ripausta itsekuria.
June 11, 2008
Of course I'm going to use my review to promote my own work on animals and posthumanism. See my "How to Make a Human," Exemplaria 20.1 (2008): 3-27 (available here): my own work would have been impossible without Derrida. Non-medievalists will be most interested in the first 10 pages or so.
Anyone following Derrida's work on animals (in translation) is already familiar with the title essay and his takedown of Lacan (where Derrida puts under question the distinctions between reaction and response and feigning and the (purportedly uniquely human capacity of) feigning to feign). Now, however, you have JD's work on animals in Descartes, Kant, Adorno (who gets a gold star here: if JD had had time to develop it, so would Nietzsche, Kafka, and Montaigne), and Levinas. And, as a special bonus, a transcription of JD's extempore remarks on Heidegger and the animal. These remarks are heartbreaking, as they're full of asides on the lines of "since we have just 10 minutes" and "I'll do it, I hope, if I have the time and the strength." He would live for another 10 years, but that hope remained unfulfilled.
At the same time, the very presentness of his remarks, his apologies for keeping people from their dinner, keeps his thought here, perhaps more than anywhere else, in the moment, contingent, freed from the pretension of speaking from a place of Truth. He takes Heidegger down for, among other things, a lack of phenomenological rigor, whereas there is no moment in Derrida that I know (which isn't very far) where he is more mitsein (can I do that?) his topic, his audience, and even his readers, whose own dinners are suspended for a time while Derrida speaks, and wonders, once again.
Anyone following Derrida's work on animals (in translation) is already familiar with the title essay and his takedown of Lacan (where Derrida puts under question the distinctions between reaction and response and feigning and the (purportedly uniquely human capacity of) feigning to feign). Now, however, you have JD's work on animals in Descartes, Kant, Adorno (who gets a gold star here: if JD had had time to develop it, so would Nietzsche, Kafka, and Montaigne), and Levinas. And, as a special bonus, a transcription of JD's extempore remarks on Heidegger and the animal. These remarks are heartbreaking, as they're full of asides on the lines of "since we have just 10 minutes" and "I'll do it, I hope, if I have the time and the strength." He would live for another 10 years, but that hope remained unfulfilled.
At the same time, the very presentness of his remarks, his apologies for keeping people from their dinner, keeps his thought here, perhaps more than anywhere else, in the moment, contingent, freed from the pretension of speaking from a place of Truth. He takes Heidegger down for, among other things, a lack of phenomenological rigor, whereas there is no moment in Derrida that I know (which isn't very far) where he is more mitsein (can I do that?) his topic, his audience, and even his readers, whose own dinners are suspended for a time while Derrida speaks, and wonders, once again.
October 25, 2021
Taas ranskalaista filosofiaa luettuna! Tällä kertaa teki mieli vaan kirjoittaa, että ”Luin tämän.” ja ottaa muutama sitaatti eikä mitään sen enempää. Mutta ilokseni huomasin lukemisen loppumetreillä tekstitiedostosta, että olen saanut kirjoitettua asioita ylös enemmänkin! Rakastan sitä, kun kirjoitan ikään kuin salaa itseltäni ja unohdan niin tehneeni. Eli: Kannattaako puhua ”eläimistä” ikään kuin ihminen ei olisi itse ”eläin”? Osaako ”eläin” vastata ihmiselle? Mikä merkitys tällä vastaamisella on? Miksi ”siis”-sana otsikossa onkin merkityksellisempi kuin ensin ajattelisi? Näihin Derrida pyrkii vastaamaan, mutta ymmärränkö vastauksia, vai onko kyse ajattelun prosessista, joka jatkuu esseemäisellä tavalla lukijan päässä? Ajatus on armollinen, suon sen itselleni. Vetäydyn jatkamaan ajattelua eläimenä, joka kykenee tällaiseen itsensä ilmaisemiseen. Olenhan omaelämäkerrallinen eläin. Luulen siis, että olen. Ihminen on eläin, kissa on eläin.
”Mikään ei voisi koskaan viedä minulta varmuutta siitä, että olemassaolossaan se [kissa] uhmaa kaikkia käsitteitämme. Ja että se on kuolevainen, sillä niin pian kuin sillä on nimi, sen nimi on elävä sitä kauemmin.” (s. 25)
”’Minä’: sanoessaan ’minä’ omaelämäkerran kirjoittaja on osoittavinaan itseään sormella, esittäytyvinään nykyhetkessä – – alastomassa totuudessaan. – – Panen alastomuuteni häpeilemättä pantiksi, hän sanoo nimetessään itsensä ja vastatessaan nimestään.” (s. 77)
”Hän tajuaa vertailevan tarkastelunsa kehämäisyyden ja huomaa kehän aiheuttavan huimausta.” (s. 213)
”Mikään ei voisi koskaan viedä minulta varmuutta siitä, että olemassaolossaan se [kissa] uhmaa kaikkia käsitteitämme. Ja että se on kuolevainen, sillä niin pian kuin sillä on nimi, sen nimi on elävä sitä kauemmin.” (s. 25)
”’Minä’: sanoessaan ’minä’ omaelämäkerran kirjoittaja on osoittavinaan itseään sormella, esittäytyvinään nykyhetkessä – – alastomassa totuudessaan. – – Panen alastomuuteni häpeilemättä pantiksi, hän sanoo nimetessään itsensä ja vastatessaan nimestään.” (s. 77)
”Hän tajuaa vertailevan tarkastelunsa kehämäisyyden ja huomaa kehän aiheuttavan huimausta.” (s. 213)
December 30, 2014
Ultimately the title of this book proved to be the most memorable aspect, but the thoughts contained within dovetail nicely with my own musings on the issue of man consciously and categorically alienating himself from the natural world in order to assert an untenable superiority over the rest of existence.
September 30, 2022
Found this so interesting but had to work very very hard to make it comprehensible !!
Read
June 21, 2023I sort of scanned thru this for an essay toward the end of 2022 but didn't feel it qualified for a read. There's an extraordinary pathos to this one , which swings toward a knowingness of it being the last of his books, and projection into the future, further avenues that could have been explored. Appropriately, the text is shortened by the fact that the lecture ran overtime & he had to wrap up quickly.
derrida was famously inspired by this one when he walked out the shower nakey (I have heard while on the loo?), and was confronted by his cat . he also describes having sex while the cat (presumably the same one) spectates
Now this self, this male me, believes he has noted that the presence of a woman in the room warms things up in the relation to the cat, vis-à-vis the gaze of the naked cat that sees me naked, and sees me see it seeing me naked, like a shining fire with a cloud of jealousy that begins to float like the smoke of incense in the room.
the big coinage for this one is animot, a charming little play. but be VERY alert to the other work happening with suis/suivre. - Que suis-je? (who am I (following)?)
anyway memes aside this is a brilliant little book & a robust work of theory, entirely worthwhile. The confrontation with descartes is habitually rigorous but the surprise cld be in Derrida's treatment of heidegger here, drawing out the hidden cartesian foundations of his project, surprise esp seeing as onkel martin is seen as The central figure in D's work.
As with every bottomless gaze, as with the eyes of the other, the gaze called "animal" offers to my sight the abyssal limit of the human: the inhuman or the ahuman, the ends of man, that is to say, the bordercrossing from which vantage man dares to announce himself to himself, thereby calling himself by the name that he believes he gives himself.
derrida was famously inspired by this one when he walked out the shower nakey (I have heard while on the loo?), and was confronted by his cat . he also describes having sex while the cat (presumably the same one) spectates
Now this self, this male me, believes he has noted that the presence of a woman in the room warms things up in the relation to the cat, vis-à-vis the gaze of the naked cat that sees me naked, and sees me see it seeing me naked, like a shining fire with a cloud of jealousy that begins to float like the smoke of incense in the room.
the big coinage for this one is animot, a charming little play. but be VERY alert to the other work happening with suis/suivre. - Que suis-je? (who am I (following)?)
anyway memes aside this is a brilliant little book & a robust work of theory, entirely worthwhile. The confrontation with descartes is habitually rigorous but the surprise cld be in Derrida's treatment of heidegger here, drawing out the hidden cartesian foundations of his project, surprise esp seeing as onkel martin is seen as The central figure in D's work.
As with every bottomless gaze, as with the eyes of the other, the gaze called "animal" offers to my sight the abyssal limit of the human: the inhuman or the ahuman, the ends of man, that is to say, the bordercrossing from which vantage man dares to announce himself to himself, thereby calling himself by the name that he believes he gives himself.
December 9, 2023
No crec que em pugui acostumar mai a l'escriptura rocambolesca de Derrida: en poques paraules, es podria dir que no suporto la constant repetició, l'espiral interminable que sembla traçar en cada argument. I tot i això, el text era bo -bo, per a mi, és aquell text que ensenya i fa pensar. He apreciat especialmet la reconstrucció moderna del pensament sobre l'animal com a carència d'una mena o altra -logocentrisme- i l'estudi de Descartes, Kant i Lévinas, no tant el de Lacan.
June 28, 2018
J'ai aimé le ton et le propos mais je pense que je retiendrai surtout le ton, malheureusement.
Je vais essayer de le feuilleter encore pour essayer de fixer des choses mais c'est toujours plus compliqué que j'aimerais.
Les deux premières parties qui sont vraiment la conférence préparée par D sont intéressantes, j'aime comme il parle de l'animal et de son altérité.
La partie sur Lacan m'a dépassée. J'ai l'impression qu'à chaque fois qu'un auteur parle de Lacan de toute façon, c'est pour dire qu'il est trop bête. :) :)
La critique de chaque philosophe (Descartes, Kant, Levinas, Heidegger) serait sans doute plus enrichissante en connaissant qui ils sont et ce qu'ils disent en dehors de ça, mais est quand même assez bien introduite pour arriver à suivre et à en tirer des choses (pas seulement qu'ils sont trop bêtes, mais, disons-le, aussi ça).
Ce qui m'a amusé, c'est les parallèles que j'ai trouvé avec la littérature sur le genre (sur la définition de l'Autre, l'autocentrisme des penseurs (mâles&blancs en plus d'être des humains!)). C'est toujours bien de se décentrer.
Je vais essayer de le feuilleter encore pour essayer de fixer des choses mais c'est toujours plus compliqué que j'aimerais.
Les deux premières parties qui sont vraiment la conférence préparée par D sont intéressantes, j'aime comme il parle de l'animal et de son altérité.
La partie sur Lacan m'a dépassée. J'ai l'impression qu'à chaque fois qu'un auteur parle de Lacan de toute façon, c'est pour dire qu'il est trop bête. :) :)
La critique de chaque philosophe (Descartes, Kant, Levinas, Heidegger) serait sans doute plus enrichissante en connaissant qui ils sont et ce qu'ils disent en dehors de ça, mais est quand même assez bien introduite pour arriver à suivre et à en tirer des choses (pas seulement qu'ils sont trop bêtes, mais, disons-le, aussi ça).
Ce qui m'a amusé, c'est les parallèles que j'ai trouvé avec la littérature sur le genre (sur la définition de l'Autre, l'autocentrisme des penseurs (mâles&blancs en plus d'être des humains!)). C'est toujours bien de se décentrer.
July 26, 2010
The man's my hero, but his later work is falling flat...
No offense to other Derrida-heads out there who love this particular text, but I mostly took away from it: "I am no old man who sure does wuv his kittywitty!!1!" Which is endearing but kind of, you know, a let-down, coming from the man who reinvented how we view language, politics, truth, the gift, death, and ourselves.
Still, I feel better writing about monsters (esp. chimerae, a la Asma; esp.-esp. werewolves) having read this. We are animals; we do not think of ourselves as animals. Highlighting that simple disconnect is perhaps worthy of a Derrida jam, even if said jam is no Of Grammatology.
No offense to other Derrida-heads out there who love this particular text, but I mostly took away from it: "I am no old man who sure does wuv his kittywitty!!1!" Which is endearing but kind of, you know, a let-down, coming from the man who reinvented how we view language, politics, truth, the gift, death, and ourselves.
Still, I feel better writing about monsters (esp. chimerae, a la Asma; esp.-esp. werewolves) having read this. We are animals; we do not think of ourselves as animals. Highlighting that simple disconnect is perhaps worthy of a Derrida jam, even if said jam is no Of Grammatology.
April 5, 2013
It's Derrida. So, super confusing, very wordy, but the ideas are, of course, present and thriving. Completely awesome analysis of the animal within, or, the animal that we are. Lack of non-male and non-whiteness present in text, however.
July 16, 2015
- Premise is intriguing considering having read "When Elephants Weep"
- Language and play with language is so convoluted; adds to deconstruction element of Derrida but for a traditional semi-interested reader the prose is THICK
- Language and play with language is so convoluted; adds to deconstruction element of Derrida but for a traditional semi-interested reader the prose is THICK
October 8, 2012
Don't waste your time and money. It's impossible to understand this book, because there is nothing to understand.
August 30, 2018
I have no idea what just happened but I think it was probably very clever?
Read
September 21, 2021Essay teachers: 'Write your essay in a structured and comprehensible manner, sticking to the essential arguments that concisely strengthen your thesis.'
Jacques: 'Non.'
Jacques: 'Non.'
December 25, 2025
2nd read 2025:
reread for a paper i have to write for class....
1st read 2022:
mind blowing, will probably read it again soon to fully grasp everything
reread for a paper i have to write for class....
1st read 2022:
mind blowing, will probably read it again soon to fully grasp everything
did-not-finish
May 8, 2023DNF
I bet it's great, but I'm not understanding a single word he's writing, so it doesn't make sense to continue.
Maybe one day when my brain is bigger.
I bet it's great, but I'm not understanding a single word he's writing, so it doesn't make sense to continue.
Maybe one day when my brain is bigger.
April 11, 2022
Maybe it’s because I’m feeling quite ill at the moment but I really had to use a lot of brain power to get through this. It felt rather … heavy. I think the hardest part of understanding this book is getting used to the prose. Due to it being a transcript you have to really fish through the language to understand what Derrida is trying to say.
This book is somewhat affectionate of the role that animals have played in Derrida’s work, yet it is more focused on critiquing the relegation of animal life that takes place as a direct result of grouping all non-human animal life under the term ‘animal’ and distinguishing them as different to man. Going back to genesis and looking at the animal throughout time.
There is almost a sense of pleading with his audience regarding the modern industrialised treatment of animals, but Derrida being Derrida cannot simply prescribe a simple version of animal rights within his work.
This book is somewhat affectionate of the role that animals have played in Derrida’s work, yet it is more focused on critiquing the relegation of animal life that takes place as a direct result of grouping all non-human animal life under the term ‘animal’ and distinguishing them as different to man. Going back to genesis and looking at the animal throughout time.
There is almost a sense of pleading with his audience regarding the modern industrialised treatment of animals, but Derrida being Derrida cannot simply prescribe a simple version of animal rights within his work.
January 15, 2025
As expected, this is a challenging read. Although, considering the basis of these ideas and theories stem from his experience standing there naked in front of his cat, I was somewhat entertained. I didn’t need to read in detail through the whole text to get what I needed or the gist of his ideas about animality… This was more background reading for me. I’ll revisit it if I need to, but I would recommend this to anyone in critical theory or animal studies. It’s worth trying to grasp the main ideas.
May 14, 2023
Crítica fundamental al antropocentrismo implícito en el concepto informe de "lo animal". Derrida deconstruye las fantasías, ficciones y delirios humanos al respecto mostrando, una vez más, la profundidad de su filosofía.
Completese con la lectura de "Lo abierto y lo animal" de Giorgio Agamben (para ir abriendo boca), "Filosofía de la animalidad" de Felice Cimatti (para profundizar en la tesis de Derrida) y "El ser humano como animal" de Markus Gabriel.
Completese con la lectura de "Lo abierto y lo animal" de Giorgio Agamben (para ir abriendo boca), "Filosofía de la animalidad" de Felice Cimatti (para profundizar en la tesis de Derrida) y "El ser humano como animal" de Markus Gabriel.
Currently reading
January 13, 2023Passing across borders or the ends of man I come or surrender to the animal, to the animal in itself, to the animal in me and the animal at unease with itself, to the man about whom Nietzsche said (I no longer remember where) something to the effect that it was an as yet undetermined animal, an animal lacking in itself.
The animal That Therfore I Am
Jacques Derrida
The animal That Therfore I Am
Jacques Derrida
Read
November 1, 2024Didn't read this whole thing, but I read the titular essay. Love the message/overarching argument, he tends to go ona. bit though jesus christ. Hungover trying to plough through 50 pages of digressions to get this assignment done isn't what I want to be doing on a Friday night.
May 24, 2020
My brain hurts.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 91 reviews