What do you think?
Rate this book
ΕΜΒΟΛΑ - Τα ύφη του Νίτσε
Nietzsche has recently enjoyed much scrutiny from the nouveaux critiques. Jacques Derrida, the leader of that movement, here combines in his strikingly original and incisive fashion questions of sexuality, politics, writing, judgment, procreation, death, and even the weather into a far-reaching analysis of the challenges bequeathed to the modern world by Nietzsche.
Spurs, then, is aptly titled, for Derrida's "deconstructions" of Nietzsche's meanings will surely act as spurs to further thought and controversy. This dual-language edition offers the English-speaking reader who has some knowledge of French an opportunity to examine the stylistic virtuosity of Derrida's writing—of particular significance for his analysis of "the question of style."
Spurs, then, is aptly titled, for Derrida's "deconstructions" of Nietzsche's meanings will surely act as spurs to further thought and controversy. This dual-language edition offers the English-speaking reader who has some knowledge of French an opportunity to examine the stylistic virtuosity of Derrida's writing—of particular significance for his analysis of "the question of style."
94 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1978
19 people are currently reading
940 people want to read
About the author
Jacques Derrida
652 books1,798 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 42 reviews
June 16, 2014
We are still far from determining the essence of forgetting. Precisely there where forgetting reveals itself to us in its full extent are we still only too vulnerable to the danger of understanding forgetting as but a human fact.
It was exciting to read Spurs over the weekend, the opening interval of the World Cup. Apparently Derrida and Jean Genet used to attend club matches in France together. I marvel at what that could have involved: the thunk of the ball, the deferred penetration of the castrated goal and, well, all those penises. Spurs sets a risible tone. The introduction as overture plays with the meanings of coup and tympana: the search as drumbeats, the forceful pounding an alert as well as an erotic culmination. Derrida arrives on stage to extend the prose proem, albeit one in a nonlinear fashion, accepting Nietzsche's assertion that Truth is a woman (from the opening aphorism of Beyond Good and Evil) he speaks of character and seduction. The word for Spur is etymologically similar to Style. Style and stylus refer to a pointed intrusion, a jabbing, almost like the ship splitting the waters. This carnival cruise continues revealing a missing umbrella which prompts Derrida to conclude that neither Nietzsche's thought nor his texts were or are centralized. An interrogation of Heidegger's Nietzsche follows, one with Derrida sight reading from Heidegger's text while staring at his own upraised thumb instead of ponder Nietzsche himself. This is a bit maddening but a lot of laughs as well.
It was exciting to read Spurs over the weekend, the opening interval of the World Cup. Apparently Derrida and Jean Genet used to attend club matches in France together. I marvel at what that could have involved: the thunk of the ball, the deferred penetration of the castrated goal and, well, all those penises. Spurs sets a risible tone. The introduction as overture plays with the meanings of coup and tympana: the search as drumbeats, the forceful pounding an alert as well as an erotic culmination. Derrida arrives on stage to extend the prose proem, albeit one in a nonlinear fashion, accepting Nietzsche's assertion that Truth is a woman (from the opening aphorism of Beyond Good and Evil) he speaks of character and seduction. The word for Spur is etymologically similar to Style. Style and stylus refer to a pointed intrusion, a jabbing, almost like the ship splitting the waters. This carnival cruise continues revealing a missing umbrella which prompts Derrida to conclude that neither Nietzsche's thought nor his texts were or are centralized. An interrogation of Heidegger's Nietzsche follows, one with Derrida sight reading from Heidegger's text while staring at his own upraised thumb instead of ponder Nietzsche himself. This is a bit maddening but a lot of laughs as well.
September 20, 2016
المهماز
لكل منا صفته ورسمه وخلقته وجيناته وكذلك للنص مهمازه وجيناته تنصبغ به وتعرف من خلاله وهو صدى صوته ، وعليه يكون لكل كاتب أسلوبه في الكتابة كما له أسلوبه في القول وقوله بصمة تختلف عن كل الاقوال ، فهل تكون مهمة القارئ ترسيم حدود للقول والكتابة في اسلوبهما وعلامتهما الفارقة .
يقدم لنا جاك دريدا نص نيتشه على انه مهماز ، والمهماز قد يكون ظل النص او الجزء الحاد القاطع في مؤخرة الحذاء لوخز الحصان فتحركه ، هكذا يراد للنص ان يمتلك حدية منفلتة لا توقف جماح الكتابة ، ففي الكتابة ذاتية القول او قل التمثيل الحقيقي للكلام ، يستلم دريدا نص نيتشه ليمايز أسلوبه عن كل الأساليب ، كما عبّر نيتشه نفسه عن نفسه بديناميت متفجر فما يكتبه كحيزوم يشق بحر فهمنا الميتافيزيقي للحياة ، فها هو عندما يتكلم عن المرأة يقرنها بالحقيقة ، فكما الحقيقة مستترة على الدوام تحتجب المرأة بحجاب العفة والاحتشام تُمارس الخفاء صعب الامساك بها كما انها تُمارس الإغواء للرجال المحبين للحقيقة كما هم محبين لانوثية المرأة ، فالمرأة بالنسبة للرجل تمثل الحقيقة ذاتها هي عميقة حيث لا قاع لها لذلك لا يفهمها الا بطريقة مسطحة ، يرتمي في أحضانها متخيلاً انه أمسك الحقيقة فإذا هي منفلتة عصية الامساك .
هكذا نص دريدا صعب الامساك به ، مخاصم للحقيقة مفتت لها ، يداهنها تارة وينقضها تارة أخرى ، مع دريدا تميع ذائقتك الفهمية أية ميعان .
لكل منا صفته ورسمه وخلقته وجيناته وكذلك للنص مهمازه وجيناته تنصبغ به وتعرف من خلاله وهو صدى صوته ، وعليه يكون لكل كاتب أسلوبه في الكتابة كما له أسلوبه في القول وقوله بصمة تختلف عن كل الاقوال ، فهل تكون مهمة القارئ ترسيم حدود للقول والكتابة في اسلوبهما وعلامتهما الفارقة .
يقدم لنا جاك دريدا نص نيتشه على انه مهماز ، والمهماز قد يكون ظل النص او الجزء الحاد القاطع في مؤخرة الحذاء لوخز الحصان فتحركه ، هكذا يراد للنص ان يمتلك حدية منفلتة لا توقف جماح الكتابة ، ففي الكتابة ذاتية القول او قل التمثيل الحقيقي للكلام ، يستلم دريدا نص نيتشه ليمايز أسلوبه عن كل الأساليب ، كما عبّر نيتشه نفسه عن نفسه بديناميت متفجر فما يكتبه كحيزوم يشق بحر فهمنا الميتافيزيقي للحياة ، فها هو عندما يتكلم عن المرأة يقرنها بالحقيقة ، فكما الحقيقة مستترة على الدوام تحتجب المرأة بحجاب العفة والاحتشام تُمارس الخفاء صعب الامساك بها كما انها تُمارس الإغواء للرجال المحبين للحقيقة كما هم محبين لانوثية المرأة ، فالمرأة بالنسبة للرجل تمثل الحقيقة ذاتها هي عميقة حيث لا قاع لها لذلك لا يفهمها الا بطريقة مسطحة ، يرتمي في أحضانها متخيلاً انه أمسك الحقيقة فإذا هي منفلتة عصية الامساك .
هكذا نص دريدا صعب الامساك به ، مخاصم للحقيقة مفتت لها ، يداهنها تارة وينقضها تارة أخرى ، مع دريدا تميع ذائقتك الفهمية أية ميعان .
June 20, 2015
An incredible essay on a seemingly insignificant moment in Heidegger's criticism of Nietzsche's 'How the True World Became a Fable'. Whether Heidegger, deliberately ignored Nietzsche's treatment of the figure of woman in philosophy and her relationship to knowledge, or whether he simply wasn't attuned to the problem, Derrida nonetheless unravels the implications of this lapse in Heidegger's reading. As Derrida goes, this is a very readable text.
January 21, 2008
The best of Derrida's works I've read. A polemical work bound to raise eyebrows...and not because the text is utterly incomprehensible.
February 21, 2013
Derrida, avant Foucault, Kristeva ou encore Lyotard, c’est le nom de philosophe qui sort toujours en premier lorsqu’on évoque les penseurs que l’on qualifie de « post-modernes ». Il fait effectivement parti de ces individus brillants qui donnent tant d’ulcères aux rationalistes, logicistes et autres scientistes, que l’on retrouve surtout chez les penseurs de tradition anglaise et états-unienne, et qui aimeraient tant pouvoir clôturer la pensée de manière à ce que la liberté, l’incommensurable et l’incompréhensible ne viennent plus à la tête de qui que ce soit.
Une bonne part de sa popularité vient donc de son talent particulier, mais la réputation sulfureuse qu’on lui a montée y est indéniablement aussi pour beaucoup. Selon plusieurs, il ne produirait qu’un charabia incompréhensible, il déguiserait un néant de pensée sous un jargon habilement emprunté aux philosophes et chercheurs légitimes, il serait nihiliste, irrationnel, etc..
Pourtant, lorsqu’on le lit (et il faut d’abord savoir vraiment lire pour y arriver, il faut cesser de toujours regarder les textes à partir de critères tous préparés d’avance), c’est une invitation à la liberté du lecteur qui est proposée avec finesse, délicatesse et rigueur. C’est une pensée rigoureusement libre qui en appelle une autre, tout simplement.
Et ici, c’est un point de vue sur Nietzsche qu’il nous invite à prendre, afin de jongler en virtuose avec l’écriture et la pensée, un point de vue complémentaire de plusieurs façons à celui qu’avait pris Heidegger pendant la seconde guerre mondiale, alors que ce dernier donnait son célèbre cours sur Nietzsche.
Le point de vue sur Nietzsche de Derrida est d’abord complémentaire à celui de Heidegger en ce qu’il aborde une question laissée de côté dans son long travail sur Nietzsche: la question de la femme. Nietzsche a, en effet, pas mal parlé des femmes, mais Heidegger a évité le sujet.
Pourquoi?
Peut-être parce qu’il semble qu’au moins depuis Freud, sitôt qu’il est question de différence sexuelle, la pensée entre irrésistiblement, tôt où tard, dans les territoires de l’étant où l’esprit se frotte aux matières les plus collantes et les plus visqueuses. La perspective heideggérienne, qui cherchait à éveiller à la question de l’être, l’a peut-être poussé à éviter le genre de risques qu’accompagnent ce genres de questions pour ses pudiques enquêtes.
Derrida adopte ainsi un point de vue complémentaire sur Nietzsche en ce que, loin d’« oublier » la question de la femme qui s’y trouve, il y porte un regard à la fois étonné et critique. C’est que Derrida ne tente absolument pas de « détruire » l’écriture nietzschéenne pour en faire une philosophe de Volonté de puissance, qui participerait, de ce fait, à la tradition d’« oubli » de la question de l’être. Non, la « déconstruction » qu’il pratique consiste plutôt à mettre en lumière des passages phares sur une question afin d’en dégager toute la puissance évocatrice avec un « sérieux », c’est-à-dire avec une rigueur gorgée d’ironie.
Si la femme est la non-vérité pour Nietzsche, pour Derrida, Nietzsche n’a donc ni tord ni raison. Ou peut-être a-t-il tord? Peut-être aussi a-t-il raison? Ou peut-être a-t-il tord et raison à la fois? Qui sait? Le savait-il lui-même? Tout le texte demeurera toujours ouvertement et consciemment « indéfiniment ouvert, cryptique et parodique, c’est-à-dire fermé, ouvert et fermé à la fois ou tour à tour ».(117)
Le tout constitue un élégant moyen de reposer l’œil sur un aspect sulfureux de la pensée nietzschéenne et d’exercer sa faculté de penser librement de manière critique tout en la divertissant. Un incontournable pour tous ceux qui apprécient Derrida, Heidegger, Nietzsche et la pensée philosophique en général.
Une bonne part de sa popularité vient donc de son talent particulier, mais la réputation sulfureuse qu’on lui a montée y est indéniablement aussi pour beaucoup. Selon plusieurs, il ne produirait qu’un charabia incompréhensible, il déguiserait un néant de pensée sous un jargon habilement emprunté aux philosophes et chercheurs légitimes, il serait nihiliste, irrationnel, etc..
Pourtant, lorsqu’on le lit (et il faut d’abord savoir vraiment lire pour y arriver, il faut cesser de toujours regarder les textes à partir de critères tous préparés d’avance), c’est une invitation à la liberté du lecteur qui est proposée avec finesse, délicatesse et rigueur. C’est une pensée rigoureusement libre qui en appelle une autre, tout simplement.
Et ici, c’est un point de vue sur Nietzsche qu’il nous invite à prendre, afin de jongler en virtuose avec l’écriture et la pensée, un point de vue complémentaire de plusieurs façons à celui qu’avait pris Heidegger pendant la seconde guerre mondiale, alors que ce dernier donnait son célèbre cours sur Nietzsche.
Le point de vue sur Nietzsche de Derrida est d’abord complémentaire à celui de Heidegger en ce qu’il aborde une question laissée de côté dans son long travail sur Nietzsche: la question de la femme. Nietzsche a, en effet, pas mal parlé des femmes, mais Heidegger a évité le sujet.
Pourquoi?
Peut-être parce qu’il semble qu’au moins depuis Freud, sitôt qu’il est question de différence sexuelle, la pensée entre irrésistiblement, tôt où tard, dans les territoires de l’étant où l’esprit se frotte aux matières les plus collantes et les plus visqueuses. La perspective heideggérienne, qui cherchait à éveiller à la question de l’être, l’a peut-être poussé à éviter le genre de risques qu’accompagnent ce genres de questions pour ses pudiques enquêtes.
Derrida adopte ainsi un point de vue complémentaire sur Nietzsche en ce que, loin d’« oublier » la question de la femme qui s’y trouve, il y porte un regard à la fois étonné et critique. C’est que Derrida ne tente absolument pas de « détruire » l’écriture nietzschéenne pour en faire une philosophe de Volonté de puissance, qui participerait, de ce fait, à la tradition d’« oubli » de la question de l’être. Non, la « déconstruction » qu’il pratique consiste plutôt à mettre en lumière des passages phares sur une question afin d’en dégager toute la puissance évocatrice avec un « sérieux », c’est-à-dire avec une rigueur gorgée d’ironie.
Si la femme est la non-vérité pour Nietzsche, pour Derrida, Nietzsche n’a donc ni tord ni raison. Ou peut-être a-t-il tord? Peut-être aussi a-t-il raison? Ou peut-être a-t-il tord et raison à la fois? Qui sait? Le savait-il lui-même? Tout le texte demeurera toujours ouvertement et consciemment « indéfiniment ouvert, cryptique et parodique, c’est-à-dire fermé, ouvert et fermé à la fois ou tour à tour ».(117)
Le tout constitue un élégant moyen de reposer l’œil sur un aspect sulfureux de la pensée nietzschéenne et d’exercer sa faculté de penser librement de manière critique tout en la divertissant. Un incontournable pour tous ceux qui apprécient Derrida, Heidegger, Nietzsche et la pensée philosophique en général.
February 27, 2017
وصل الخطاب المابعد حداثي مع جاك ديريدا وخصوصا قراءاته لآرتو ونيتشه مرحلة ميؤوس منها من الجنون، وفتح المجال قدام انعكاسات لا نهائية من التأويلات لنفس العبارة المكتوبة، وبقت اللغة الفلسفية-الأدبية صورة ذلك الإنعكاس كأنها سرطان في جسد الثقافة، تأويل نحو/من/حول التأويل -تناقض التناقض-، تأويل للتأويل -لا جدوى من معرفة أين يأخذنا الطريق-، التأويل عندما قدم نفسه كحقيقة فقد ذاته وتمزق، وأعلن نهاية عصر تجميد القراءة الأحادية المعنى، التجميد-الموت، المعنى بصفته نكرة بالرغم من محاولة تعريفه اليائسة، لأن خطاب ديريدا بلا عمق ولا سطح وبلا جهة، بقى المعنى مقحما على الكتابة مش مستنتج منها، المعنى بصفته تناقض دائم وثنائيات تأبى التوقف، التوقف بصفته موت ونهاية، إعادة إحياء جديدة في كل محاولة قراءة يتبعها صراع جديد، صراع وقسوة وقوة تأبى الموت.
وكأن الخطاب الفلسفي المابعد حداثي يبشر بصعود عصر الجنون بعد يأسه من الحياة في عصر العقل.
وده السبب الكافي لتجاوز ما بعد الحداثة ورسم جهة ما، جهة كقصد ورغبة للتجاوز مش جهة على الحقيقة، التجاوز-التجاهل مش التجاوز-الحل لأنه خطاب محلول أسيء فهمه كمشكلة.
وكأن الخطاب الفلسفي المابعد حداثي يبشر بصعود عصر الجنون بعد يأسه من الحياة في عصر العقل.
وده السبب الكافي لتجاوز ما بعد الحداثة ورسم جهة ما، جهة كقصد ورغبة للتجاوز مش جهة على الحقيقة، التجاوز-التجاهل مش التجاوز-الحل لأنه خطاب محلول أسيء فهمه كمشكلة.
January 5, 2011
In French one one page, in English on the other. A much better way to publish a book like this, where most of the words are untranslatable. Here's my favorite part:
'the credulous and dogmatic philosopher who believes in the truth that is woman, who believes in truth just as he believes in woman, this philosopher has understood nothing. He has understood nothing of truth, nor anything of woman. Because, indeed, if woman is truth, she at least knows that there is no truth, that truth has no place here and that no one has a place for truth. And she is woman precisely because she herself does not believe in truth itself, because she does not believe in what she is, in what she is believed to be, in what she thus is not.'
'the credulous and dogmatic philosopher who believes in the truth that is woman, who believes in truth just as he believes in woman, this philosopher has understood nothing. He has understood nothing of truth, nor anything of woman. Because, indeed, if woman is truth, she at least knows that there is no truth, that truth has no place here and that no one has a place for truth. And she is woman precisely because she herself does not believe in truth itself, because she does not believe in what she is, in what she is believed to be, in what she thus is not.'
March 26, 2015
am assuming that the title is in part a punning reference to Anaximander's apeiron, which fits nicely with the critique of canonicity implicit in 'I forgot my umbrella.'
November 21, 2021
Literally what
February 12, 2008
Contains perhaps Derrida's greatest joke at the expense of Heidegger and Gadamer. I still think he has incorrectly read Heidegger and that his interpretation of Heidegger is less substantive than that of Gadamer.
May 17, 2018
Testo molto complesso: Derrida cerca sempre di meravigliare il lettore attraverso collegamenti arditi, che però a volte fanno perdere il filo logico, anche se la prosa ne guadagna in freschezza.
Il tema di questo libro è la donna, che diviene un'immagine per indicare la ricerca della verità.
Derrida usa l'immagine dello "sperone" per indicare un'escrescenza fallica che ha il compito sia di difendere che di attaccare speronando. La ricerca della verità è quindi una forza virile che sperona l'esistente. La verità, invece, è una potenza femminile: velata, seduca a distanza. Chi ricerca questa verità, quindi, deve avvicinarsi e svelare il corpo della donna. Eppure, così facendo, nega il femminino, caratterizzato proprio dal suo essere distante e velata: perciò, la verità è pura superficie e bellezza, un continuo inganno che affascina. Il senso, quindi, deriverebbe dal contrasto che si instaura tra maschio/donna, velato/svelato, sperone/velo. Ma, quando il velo viene tolto, si scopre che al di sotto non c'è niente: il senso è nell'opposizione, non nella cosa in sé.
In questo rapporto uomo donna, ella dona mentre l'uomo prende. Eppure, il rapporto di dominazione maschile è solo apparente: infatti, la donna dona sempre per qualche fine, quindi il prendere dell'uomo viene condizionato da questo fine dettato dal dono. Quindi l'uomo ha il controllo dell'azione, ma è la donna a dettare il fine.
Il testo termina con l'analisi di un'annotazione di Nietzsche: "ho dimenticato il mio ombrello". L'ombrello è un simbolo ermafrodita: da fallico, si apre come un genitale femminile. Dimenticare l'ombrello, quindi, significa affermare questa impossibilità di definizione del rapporto uomo/donna, poiché sotto il velo del disvelamento non c'è niente, non c'è l'essenza, proprio perché il senso della verità nasce dal rapporto.
Il tema di questo libro è la donna, che diviene un'immagine per indicare la ricerca della verità.
Derrida usa l'immagine dello "sperone" per indicare un'escrescenza fallica che ha il compito sia di difendere che di attaccare speronando. La ricerca della verità è quindi una forza virile che sperona l'esistente. La verità, invece, è una potenza femminile: velata, seduca a distanza. Chi ricerca questa verità, quindi, deve avvicinarsi e svelare il corpo della donna. Eppure, così facendo, nega il femminino, caratterizzato proprio dal suo essere distante e velata: perciò, la verità è pura superficie e bellezza, un continuo inganno che affascina. Il senso, quindi, deriverebbe dal contrasto che si instaura tra maschio/donna, velato/svelato, sperone/velo. Ma, quando il velo viene tolto, si scopre che al di sotto non c'è niente: il senso è nell'opposizione, non nella cosa in sé.
In questo rapporto uomo donna, ella dona mentre l'uomo prende. Eppure, il rapporto di dominazione maschile è solo apparente: infatti, la donna dona sempre per qualche fine, quindi il prendere dell'uomo viene condizionato da questo fine dettato dal dono. Quindi l'uomo ha il controllo dell'azione, ma è la donna a dettare il fine.
Il testo termina con l'analisi di un'annotazione di Nietzsche: "ho dimenticato il mio ombrello". L'ombrello è un simbolo ermafrodita: da fallico, si apre come un genitale femminile. Dimenticare l'ombrello, quindi, significa affermare questa impossibilità di definizione del rapporto uomo/donna, poiché sotto il velo del disvelamento non c'è niente, non c'è l'essenza, proprio perché il senso della verità nasce dal rapporto.
October 5, 2018
Derrida brandishes a cutthroat dagger with Spurs. His criticism of style simultaneously dismantles and affirms the potential meaning to be found, had, given and stolen between the difference in sexes. Paragraphs that hover a jagged acridity before the eye take shape in the form of a migrating organism and it becomes difficult to sink a hook exactly before what precedes and after what succeeds in the bubble of this text. Nonetheless, Spurs cicerones you through a series of disjointed movements that seem at first only to connect by a vulnerable thread, yet prove to be deeply concerned with the integrity of the space between the surface and abyss, thereby rendering them inextricable from tangible exposure to understanding. Derrida's prose ricochets a balance between clamor and harmony that will not fail to impress those looking for a touch of artistry alongside their philosophy. The message of his work becomes apparent when you allow the analytical side of your mind to rest - he does not plump depths, he dissimulates them until they are ruptured beyond recognition.
October 31, 2020
Derrida’s concept of non-self-identity—that notion that a text is not identical to itself—finds a perfect figure in Nietzsche, whose torrents of insight and of infuriating toxic gibberish coexist on the same page, sometimes the same sentence. Can one “thematize” Nietzsche, as the deconstructionists used to say? Derrida appears to believe that there are certain processes, hard to define outside of rather abstruse Heideggerian concepts, that produce perverse thematizations; but coherence as we know it—like, a thesis that persists self-identically all the way through? Well, Nietzsche is not the poster boy for that.
The most memorable and charming section of SPURS is Derrida’s contemplation of a fragment found in Nietzsche’s papers—the words “I have forgotten my umbrella.” Derrida riffs in “the known unknowns” style on the possible permutations of meaning and non-meaning in this inscrutable fragment, like a fortune cookie slip that fell down into the Collected Works.
Here, Nietzsche is viewed psychoanalytically, feminist-ly, though not in a way any millennial feminists would recognize (one must admit that much Nietzsche on the subject of woman sounds 2020 blackpill incel-ish), hermeneutically, Heideggerianly. As always with Derrida he seems to carve his way to the marrow of every author he contemplates without even grazing the particulars of any of them. In this I was reminded of my first day of freshman year in college reading this book, at which point Kevin Newmark and Andrzej Warminski forced us to spend an entire class period contemplating nothing but the copyright page.
The most memorable and charming section of SPURS is Derrida’s contemplation of a fragment found in Nietzsche’s papers—the words “I have forgotten my umbrella.” Derrida riffs in “the known unknowns” style on the possible permutations of meaning and non-meaning in this inscrutable fragment, like a fortune cookie slip that fell down into the Collected Works.
Here, Nietzsche is viewed psychoanalytically, feminist-ly, though not in a way any millennial feminists would recognize (one must admit that much Nietzsche on the subject of woman sounds 2020 blackpill incel-ish), hermeneutically, Heideggerianly. As always with Derrida he seems to carve his way to the marrow of every author he contemplates without even grazing the particulars of any of them. In this I was reminded of my first day of freshman year in college reading this book, at which point Kevin Newmark and Andrzej Warminski forced us to spend an entire class period contemplating nothing but the copyright page.
January 9, 2008
Well, I think my review was generous. Derrida is difficult enough, but when you add a barely lucid poem about Nietzsche's style to Derrida's pen...you've got a tough time coming.
I love Nietzsche, though I guess if I liked him I should hate him. Therefore, I read Derrida's spurs. The one redeeming quality is that is discussed the propositional aspects (if that makes sense to anyone) of Nietzsche that resonates with Irigaray. Zarathustra went down, a going-towards, an being-in: this motion of truth seeking has some kind of fascination to me. Perhaps it is the fiction writer still lurking inside of me, but the phenomenological language or being-in, going-towards, throwness too, give the human search for knowledge abd being real meaning. Being is surely found in such propostional aspects of life-
Maybe I am full of it and have been outside a classroom too long! Geez...
I love Nietzsche, though I guess if I liked him I should hate him. Therefore, I read Derrida's spurs. The one redeeming quality is that is discussed the propositional aspects (if that makes sense to anyone) of Nietzsche that resonates with Irigaray. Zarathustra went down, a going-towards, an being-in: this motion of truth seeking has some kind of fascination to me. Perhaps it is the fiction writer still lurking inside of me, but the phenomenological language or being-in, going-towards, throwness too, give the human search for knowledge abd being real meaning. Being is surely found in such propostional aspects of life-
Maybe I am full of it and have been outside a classroom too long! Geez...
March 28, 2013
The best piece of philosophy I've read this year. The title of this book - "Éperons" - carries in French two opposing implications. An éperon could be either a jabbing implement or a defensive buttress. In English, this is translated as "Spurs". Spurs spends the bulk of its length putting forward a new analysis of Nietzsche's views on truth and "Woman" - one which is both non-misogynist and believable. When it comes to Nietzsche, that's quite a feat! Derrida ends with a more generally post-structural analysis of Heidegger's reading of Nietzsche, and Nietzsche's note "I have forgotten my umbrella".
October 6, 2008
This slim text on Nietzsche and Heidegger caused a storm in European Nietzsche circles when it was first released in 1978, and it is often cited today as evidence of Derrida's apparent command of Nietzsche's philosophy. In the text, Derrida primarily deals with the issue of women in Nietzsche, and brings his misogyny back to the problem of truth itself. This is a very rich and dense text, with issues as broad as Mauss' 'The Gift,' madness, and a very tight hermeneutic reading of Heidegger's Nietzsche work. Nevertheless, I am still left wondering what all the excitement is really about.
March 10, 2008
Derrida at his most playful and absurd - in short, at his best. Ties the will to knowledge to castration anxiety. Really a book about "women" and misogyny in Nietzsche. Likens authors to spiders. Extra points for the chic early 80s geometric motif.
October 20, 2012
I don't understand this book.
May 26, 2022
This is what the Frenchman actually believes...
February 3, 2023
It is a slightly different book than other Nietzsche narratives. In general, writers and thinkers write and try to convey what they understand from Nietzsche, what Nietzsche tells, but Derrida has explained his own philosophy through Nietzsche in this book. Derrida's opposition to western metaphysics and Christian morality is almost the same position as Nietzsche. Both thinkers see western metaphysics as responsible for the separation of philosophy from society and write in order to cut off this dead arm.
There is always a limit in front of us, and no matter who we are, we are forced to live "harmoniously" in a system and we are directed to it. Even the directing genius positions itself again according to the spontaneously formed social morality at the point where it remains incompatible... and as he moves around in this limited cycle, some people see that there is a limit drawn to him. This awareness of boundaries is a phenomenon that causes a person to move away from the society in which he is now left to rot. Here, when Derrida says Nietzsche, he means people who have moved beyond these concepts in their own reality, that is, to the other side of the border, moving away from society and everything that society calls truth, morality, good and bad.
The book is a perfect example of Nietzsche deconstruction... I wrote his review a little late, but Derrida's way of explaining himself through Nietzsche was quite nice. The fact that he does this in a philosophical sense makes the book very original. I say definitely read it. Have a pleasant reading.
There is always a limit in front of us, and no matter who we are, we are forced to live "harmoniously" in a system and we are directed to it. Even the directing genius positions itself again according to the spontaneously formed social morality at the point where it remains incompatible... and as he moves around in this limited cycle, some people see that there is a limit drawn to him. This awareness of boundaries is a phenomenon that causes a person to move away from the society in which he is now left to rot. Here, when Derrida says Nietzsche, he means people who have moved beyond these concepts in their own reality, that is, to the other side of the border, moving away from society and everything that society calls truth, morality, good and bad.
The book is a perfect example of Nietzsche deconstruction... I wrote his review a little late, but Derrida's way of explaining himself through Nietzsche was quite nice. The fact that he does this in a philosophical sense makes the book very original. I say definitely read it. Have a pleasant reading.
Read
November 9, 2021This is not a review of the book, but a comment on a practicality that kept me from reading it (though I tried). Looking above, one will read the following: "Published 1979 by University of Chicago Press (first published 1978)". It seems strange - does it not? - to put out a second edition of a book within a year of the first one (as opposed to reprinting it)? Well, the point of this post is to explain (and comment on) the reason. The 1978 edition in question (which I found at the Internet Archive) is, like the second one, a parallel French/English text, only, for some reason that truly defies understanding, the texts are consecutive rather than actually parallel! So, you get the French text on p. 2 and the translation on p. 3, and so on, but to go from 2 to 3 you have to turn the page! My question then is this: How is it possible for the book to have gone through every stage of the publishing process without a single individual at U. of Chicago P. noticing the absolute idiocy of having an ostensibly parallel text on consecutive pages, thus necessitating a hasty second edition? I would be grateful if anyone could explain this occurence, which, to me, is even more engimatic that a Derridean text! I look forward to hearing your ideas!
August 28, 2022
The analysis Derrida provides is excellent. I haven’t come to grips with all of it, I’ll revisit it in future, but that which I have understood is more than enough to earn that praise.
Having said that, the edition I purchased (University of Chicago Press, 2017) was full to the brim of inexplicable editorial decisions. The margins are enormous; sometimes (though not often), when text is given in a language other than English, it’s simply not translated; the text is left-aligned, rather than justified, with no indentations at the start of a new line; the English pages have retained the French quotation marks; the wrong dash is used frequently; there are a number of illustrations included after the introduction, which are never mentioned anywhere in the book. Speaking of the introduction, it doesn’t introduce the text, preferring instead to assume the form of a piece that requires the reader already be familiar with several of Derrida’s texts. The English text of Derrida’s analysis takes up 55 pages. If one must publish such a short text in isolation, at least go to the effort of including an index.
A number of absurd choices, but none of those reflect on Derrida or the quality of his analyses.
Having said that, the edition I purchased (University of Chicago Press, 2017) was full to the brim of inexplicable editorial decisions. The margins are enormous; sometimes (though not often), when text is given in a language other than English, it’s simply not translated; the text is left-aligned, rather than justified, with no indentations at the start of a new line; the English pages have retained the French quotation marks; the wrong dash is used frequently; there are a number of illustrations included after the introduction, which are never mentioned anywhere in the book. Speaking of the introduction, it doesn’t introduce the text, preferring instead to assume the form of a piece that requires the reader already be familiar with several of Derrida’s texts. The English text of Derrida’s analysis takes up 55 pages. If one must publish such a short text in isolation, at least go to the effort of including an index.
A number of absurd choices, but none of those reflect on Derrida or the quality of his analyses.
February 23, 2025
Soit l’histoire de l’être ouvert par la différence ontologique, qu’en devient-il quand cette différence est la différence sexuelle ? L’idée vue depuis le genre, reste-t-elle philosophique ? Qu’implique l’équivalence : la vérité sérait la femme ? Tout cela est examiné à travers des écrits de Nietzsche sur la femme, ainsi que le commentaire d'Heidegger qui a esquivé d'y affronter. La question de leur style permet d’entretenir les parodies, tout en approfondissant leur legs.
Avec l’essai « Interpréter les signatures (Nietzsche/Heidegger) : deux questions », la filiation déconstructrice des grands et derniers métaphysiciens allemands se clarifie.
Avec l’essai « Interpréter les signatures (Nietzsche/Heidegger) : deux questions », la filiation déconstructrice des grands et derniers métaphysiciens allemands se clarifie.
December 22, 2022
Στα ελληνικά "Έμβολα Τα Ύφη του Νίτσε" .
Αρκετά challenging για κάποιον μη μυημένο στην φιλοσοφία . Έχει ενδιαφέρον πως αντιστρέφει τον λεγόμενο μισογυνισμο του Νίτσε και του δίνει άλλη διάσταση.
Το τελευταίο κομμάτι με το τι σημαίνει ξέχασα την ομπρέλα μου θα μπορούσε κάποιος να το σκιπαρει γιατί φτάνει στα σημεία της ακραίας σημειολογίας που δεν έχει και καμιά σημασία ενώ χρησιμοποιεί και ψυχανάλυση ως ερμηνευτική μέθοδο(?)
Τώρα τι εννοεί ο Νίτσε με αυτήν την φράση δεν νομίζω να είναι τόσο δα σημαντικό.
Αρκετά challenging για κάποιον μη μυημένο στην φιλοσοφία . Έχει ενδιαφέρον πως αντιστρέφει τον λεγόμενο μισογυνισμο του Νίτσε και του δίνει άλλη διάσταση.
Το τελευταίο κομμάτι με το τι σημαίνει ξέχασα την ομπρέλα μου θα μπορούσε κάποιος να το σκιπαρει γιατί φτάνει στα σημεία της ακραίας σημειολογίας που δεν έχει και καμιά σημασία ενώ χρησιμοποιεί και ψυχανάλυση ως ερμηνευτική μέθοδο(?)
Τώρα τι εννοεί ο Νίτσε με αυτήν την φράση δεν νομίζω να είναι τόσο δα σημαντικό.
February 8, 2022
This is poor. I came to it directly after reading Derrida's lecture series Heidegger: The Question of Being & History. (Recommended.) There's an amusing riff about Nietzsche's single sentence fragment "I have forgotten my umbrella" towards the end. I can imagine this going down well when this was delivered in person. It's a good self-parody. There are some earlier asides about Heidegger (and some gags) that are suggestive. But this feels scant, hardly engaged with.
December 5, 2025
This is, unfortunately, quite bad, Derrida become parody of himself. In attempting to counter a "phallogocentrism" which would take woman as substantive truth, reserving for the masculine the work of philosophy, Derrida attempts to make of woman dissimulation, thus reducing her to allegorical figure. All in the name of attempting to wring feminism out of Nietzsche, a futile effort if there ever was one.
December 26, 2019
Jacques Derrida has never been my favorite. I've tried, but the (French) postmodern philosophers just don't resonate with me...
June 22, 2020
The foreword by Agosti is one of the best things i done ever darn read
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews