What do you think?
Rate this book
Cultural Memory in the Present
La hospitalidad
Anne Dufourmantelle asiste al seminario de Jacques Derrida y le pide el texto de las dos clases acerca de la hospitalidad y la hostilidad, el otro y el extranjero. Las presenta en este libro en que aparecen intercaladas, página a página, las voces de ambos pensadores. La xenofobia, la disolución de lo privado en lo público,
155 pages, Paperback
First published November 13, 1997
40 people are currently reading
744 people want to read
About the author
Jacques Derrida
650 books1,795 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 33 reviews
March 23, 2016
The law of hospitality, the express law that governs the
general concept of hospitality, appears as a paradoxical
law, pervertible and perverting. It seems to dictate that
absolute hospitality should break with the law of
hospitality as right or duty . . ..
The facts present an incontrovertible coincidence as I remain puzzled and dazed: I retired after reading to the conclusion and found my waking conditioned by the attacks in Brussels. AD's invitation is actually a response, we as hosts are hostages and the immigrants keep language and their interred kin as vestiges of home. I imagine this seminar was much more personal for Derrida than he affects.
general concept of hospitality, appears as a paradoxical
law, pervertible and perverting. It seems to dictate that
absolute hospitality should break with the law of
hospitality as right or duty . . ..
The facts present an incontrovertible coincidence as I remain puzzled and dazed: I retired after reading to the conclusion and found my waking conditioned by the attacks in Brussels. AD's invitation is actually a response, we as hosts are hostages and the immigrants keep language and their interred kin as vestiges of home. I imagine this seminar was much more personal for Derrida than he affects.
July 9, 2025
My updated review
5 Stars.
My review below as a frustrated PhD student hating my life, where I gave this text 2 stars.
Deliberate obfuscation, messy and full of subtle self aggrandizing. A more interesting text would be Derrida as a foreigner but also a sophist. He spends time analysing Socrates embrace of the foreigner, as he doesn't use, abuse or understand the rhetoric of the courts, but ironically Derrida would be fitting of the sophistry that Socrates attacked. The narrative here is at odds with itself consistently, even the book cover is at odds with the Derrida persona. He famously didn't allow photographs of himself to be used until later in his career and here is a photograph which is intensely narcissistic, gazing and posing. What do these things say? Was he aware of these points? Detractors would say that he was, that it was a deliberate deconstruction of himself? Derrida hated biography and didn't want to talk about himself at all, it was always an artificial distance that he created in embracing a deconstructive subjectivity that didn't allow subjectivity. Doesn't this make him a foreigner? that his ideas don't fit anywhere? and he is a contentious, playful, infuriating writer without standard academic purposes or intentions? What has Derrida to say on surveillance but the most banal? (See page 54/55).
Concepts can be siphoned from the muddy narrative and have been used in interesting ways but rarely developed much beyond the act of naming. Unconditional hospitality and conditional hospitality are examples of this. Within the literature these terms are used and the citation is span amongst a brief explanation of the idea, often more illuminating than this text, but that's where it stops. Used in conjunction with Levinas, the work can have moments of application and of value. Deconstruction on hospitality is a task that has infinite potential but the focus needs to be on expressiveness, creativity and clarity with meat for the reader to chew on. Something that this text rarely offers and is self aware at its lack, almost haughtily so. The juxtaposition of the two texts adds nothing to either, it's stylistic incongruity means nothing. They must be read separately but they are together, this choice is representative of the foreigner of course. What does this do for the reader? Is Derrida trying to create this unease, this lack of cohesiveness? Again, this seems to be the projections of myself filling in the blanks and trying to make sense. Is Derrida aware that using the I in the way he does without incorporation of himself, is recreating the foreigner? I honestly have no idea
The task would be to strip this text and rewrite it using the occasional nuggets of wisdom that Derrida provides, using the author's voice and experience as a key. Writing about the foreigner from the third person actually means that you are writing from the position of authority. Writing from the third academically presupposes a distinct objective predicated on distance. Writing therefore needs to be first person when addressing the other and it needs to include the author as part of the story, for simply writing about 'others' can have the same problem mentioned.
5 Stars.
My review below as a frustrated PhD student hating my life, where I gave this text 2 stars.
Deliberate obfuscation, messy and full of subtle self aggrandizing. A more interesting text would be Derrida as a foreigner but also a sophist. He spends time analysing Socrates embrace of the foreigner, as he doesn't use, abuse or understand the rhetoric of the courts, but ironically Derrida would be fitting of the sophistry that Socrates attacked. The narrative here is at odds with itself consistently, even the book cover is at odds with the Derrida persona. He famously didn't allow photographs of himself to be used until later in his career and here is a photograph which is intensely narcissistic, gazing and posing. What do these things say? Was he aware of these points? Detractors would say that he was, that it was a deliberate deconstruction of himself? Derrida hated biography and didn't want to talk about himself at all, it was always an artificial distance that he created in embracing a deconstructive subjectivity that didn't allow subjectivity. Doesn't this make him a foreigner? that his ideas don't fit anywhere? and he is a contentious, playful, infuriating writer without standard academic purposes or intentions? What has Derrida to say on surveillance but the most banal? (See page 54/55).
Concepts can be siphoned from the muddy narrative and have been used in interesting ways but rarely developed much beyond the act of naming. Unconditional hospitality and conditional hospitality are examples of this. Within the literature these terms are used and the citation is span amongst a brief explanation of the idea, often more illuminating than this text, but that's where it stops. Used in conjunction with Levinas, the work can have moments of application and of value. Deconstruction on hospitality is a task that has infinite potential but the focus needs to be on expressiveness, creativity and clarity with meat for the reader to chew on. Something that this text rarely offers and is self aware at its lack, almost haughtily so. The juxtaposition of the two texts adds nothing to either, it's stylistic incongruity means nothing. They must be read separately but they are together, this choice is representative of the foreigner of course. What does this do for the reader? Is Derrida trying to create this unease, this lack of cohesiveness? Again, this seems to be the projections of myself filling in the blanks and trying to make sense. Is Derrida aware that using the I in the way he does without incorporation of himself, is recreating the foreigner? I honestly have no idea
The task would be to strip this text and rewrite it using the occasional nuggets of wisdom that Derrida provides, using the author's voice and experience as a key. Writing about the foreigner from the third person actually means that you are writing from the position of authority. Writing from the third academically presupposes a distinct objective predicated on distance. Writing therefore needs to be first person when addressing the other and it needs to include the author as part of the story, for simply writing about 'others' can have the same problem mentioned.
May 21, 2024
I’m simply not smart enough for Jacques Derrida.
February 3, 2021
A brilliant and very original work, and the most coherent of Derrida i’ve read so far (but i haven’t read him a lot).
September 28, 2023
Reading this alongside Confucius would be interesting.
The Bible: when bad men come knocking at your door you give up your guest as you should always tell the truth (this is law)
Confucius: when your dad steals a goat you lie to protect him from persecutors at the door (as filial piety is the law)
But Confucius is not the answer to the West's issues (as a lot of people feel proud to proclaim when they know a bit about him). Lying to protect your dad turns into lying to protect your state imo, and you've given hospitality to governing powers, and the big bad man at the top of them.
Sexual overtones to hospitality are interesting. Interested in the idea that when you love someone you give them hospitality (of body and mind) and this is one of the narratives which is consistently against the laws of telling the truth, of filial piety, of political obedience, of religion - the political importance of love affairs?
The Bible: when bad men come knocking at your door you give up your guest as you should always tell the truth (this is law)
Confucius: when your dad steals a goat you lie to protect him from persecutors at the door (as filial piety is the law)
But Confucius is not the answer to the West's issues (as a lot of people feel proud to proclaim when they know a bit about him). Lying to protect your dad turns into lying to protect your state imo, and you've given hospitality to governing powers, and the big bad man at the top of them.
Sexual overtones to hospitality are interesting. Interested in the idea that when you love someone you give them hospitality (of body and mind) and this is one of the narratives which is consistently against the laws of telling the truth, of filial piety, of political obedience, of religion - the political importance of love affairs?
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 4, 2024
Desde una perspectiva filosófica, la hospitalidad es vista como una virtud ética, la cual se sitúa en el cruce entre la moralidad y la política, implicando de por si la apertura al otro como la responsabilidad que dicha apertura conlleva. Con el texto “La hospitalidad” Jacques Derrida profundiza la idea de que la hospitalidad es incondicional, lo cual supone una paradoja, ya que ofrece una ilimitada acción que socava la seguridad y la estabilidad del anfitrión. Sin embargo, esta hospitalidad incondicional se presenta como una ideal que orienta nuestras acciones hacia una acogida generosa y sin reservas, un compromiso que nos insta a repensar las fronteras y las normas que definen nuestras relaciones con los demás.
El texto en cuestión es el producto de una invitación de Anne Duforumantelle a Jacques Derridad a responder acerca de la hospitalidad, convocándolo a explorar no solo el concepto de hospitalidad en sí mismo, sino también la esencia de la pregunta que lo rodea. En este diálogo, Jacques Derrida no responde de manera directa, sino que despliega la cuestión misma, explorando cómo la hospitalidad se relaciona con lo extranjero, lo otro y la pregunta fundamental que suscita. La hospitalidad se presenta como un acto que nos cuestiona en nuestros supuestos saberes y certezas, introduciendo la posibilidad de separación y confrontación dentro de nosotros mismos.
Personalmente, si bien profundiza en un tema tan crucial para la contemporaneidad, resulta algo denso el desarrollo de su planteamiento, la complejidad de los argumentos pueden resultar abrumador, independientemente de los muchos anclajes de la literatura clásico para poner como ejemplo. En si el texto contribuye al debate sobre la ética y la justicia en la sociedad, las cuestiones relevantes como la identidad, la alteridad y el poder.
El texto en cuestión es el producto de una invitación de Anne Duforumantelle a Jacques Derridad a responder acerca de la hospitalidad, convocándolo a explorar no solo el concepto de hospitalidad en sí mismo, sino también la esencia de la pregunta que lo rodea. En este diálogo, Jacques Derrida no responde de manera directa, sino que despliega la cuestión misma, explorando cómo la hospitalidad se relaciona con lo extranjero, lo otro y la pregunta fundamental que suscita. La hospitalidad se presenta como un acto que nos cuestiona en nuestros supuestos saberes y certezas, introduciendo la posibilidad de separación y confrontación dentro de nosotros mismos.
Personalmente, si bien profundiza en un tema tan crucial para la contemporaneidad, resulta algo denso el desarrollo de su planteamiento, la complejidad de los argumentos pueden resultar abrumador, independientemente de los muchos anclajes de la literatura clásico para poner como ejemplo. En si el texto contribuye al debate sobre la ética y la justicia en la sociedad, las cuestiones relevantes como la identidad, la alteridad y el poder.
April 9, 2025
Here are my takeaways from Derrida deconstructing hospitality and autochthony! Hospitality, when you're offering what you have, has predominance because what does it mean that that property is yours in the first place? That is radical conditionality.
Absence preceding presence, lack preceding the substance>> the guest becomes the host and the host becomes the hostage.
'Hostis' can mean host, hotel, hostage, hostile, and hospitality.
The Foreigner deconstructs what it means to dwell, to be at home. The law that is prior to the law is the presence of another human bring right in front of you.
Also the stories of Oedipus and Lot?? Wild.
There's never been a time of 'pure' America, or 'pure' any country... what does it mean to be a citizen of a place?
Absence preceding presence, lack preceding the substance>> the guest becomes the host and the host becomes the hostage.
'Hostis' can mean host, hotel, hostage, hostile, and hospitality.
The Foreigner deconstructs what it means to dwell, to be at home. The law that is prior to the law is the presence of another human bring right in front of you.
Also the stories of Oedipus and Lot?? Wild.
There's never been a time of 'pure' America, or 'pure' any country... what does it mean to be a citizen of a place?
October 28, 2021
Ótimo conteúdo teórico, não à toa Derrida é referência nos estudos da hospitalidade. Formatado com a bunda.
December 24, 2020
Genio, Derrida.
May 12, 2024
Heb hem maar diagonaal gelezen maar vond het saai & moeilijk te begrijpen
April 18, 2008
I'll provide a more substantial review later, but can I just lodge a complaint about the 'Liquid Sky' jacket photo of JD? I'm considering pasting over it with another photo...or with a picture of his cat.
May 2, 2015
Can't believe I'm giving Derrida four stars. Still in shock.
March 11, 2023
I have been looking forward to reading the review of this essaybundel, I was curious to find out what people thought but also understood of this small collection of 3 lectures on hospitality.
I had never read anything by Derrida before nor had I ever read a 'deconstructivistic' work, not of my knowledge at least. And I have to say, it had me baffled most of the times. It is not that I found the subject matter difficult to understand but the emphasis that Derrida puts on the form (and therefore language) of his argument was very confusing and often a bit annoying to me. I really tried to understand what he said, read and re-read, sometimes looking up references but it was such tedious work that I sometimes found myself asking myself if he did it on purpose?
But maybe I am not being very fair. Being a very analytical person that always looks for patters, not being able to find any when reading it made me obstinate. I have been reading this with a group of others and they all seemed to get the general gist. Most of them had read it twice, also most of them skipped certain long passages so maybe I also have to read it again. Show a bit more patience. And maybe it is also a bit like a muscle I need to train, reading and rereading, getting acquinted with the flow of the passages, sentences, words.
Yet I have the feeling that he is actually saying some interesting things and feel a bit sad that I so not seem to entirely grab them. Take the paradox of hospitality that Derrida so often talks about, the law- and the laws of hospitality that need each other to exist but also are contrary to one another. The way he connects that to unconditional (eg without name or language) and conditional (eg with name and/or lingual understanding) to this concept seems very interesting and also seems to be one of the core difficulties of our nation states, borders and refugee crisis today.
I wish I would understand it better. Will try again I think, maybe on a later time I will not understand what made this book such a hassle for me to read. I think I would recommend this if you are interested in the theme of hospitality nowadays and maybe also Derrida or at least a new way to look at it from a lingual, cultural and philosophical perspective. Would not recommend for people that like plot oriented books ;)
I had never read anything by Derrida before nor had I ever read a 'deconstructivistic' work, not of my knowledge at least. And I have to say, it had me baffled most of the times. It is not that I found the subject matter difficult to understand but the emphasis that Derrida puts on the form (and therefore language) of his argument was very confusing and often a bit annoying to me. I really tried to understand what he said, read and re-read, sometimes looking up references but it was such tedious work that I sometimes found myself asking myself if he did it on purpose?
But maybe I am not being very fair. Being a very analytical person that always looks for patters, not being able to find any when reading it made me obstinate. I have been reading this with a group of others and they all seemed to get the general gist. Most of them had read it twice, also most of them skipped certain long passages so maybe I also have to read it again. Show a bit more patience. And maybe it is also a bit like a muscle I need to train, reading and rereading, getting acquinted with the flow of the passages, sentences, words.
Yet I have the feeling that he is actually saying some interesting things and feel a bit sad that I so not seem to entirely grab them. Take the paradox of hospitality that Derrida so often talks about, the law- and the laws of hospitality that need each other to exist but also are contrary to one another. The way he connects that to unconditional (eg without name or language) and conditional (eg with name and/or lingual understanding) to this concept seems very interesting and also seems to be one of the core difficulties of our nation states, borders and refugee crisis today.
I wish I would understand it better. Will try again I think, maybe on a later time I will not understand what made this book such a hassle for me to read. I think I would recommend this if you are interested in the theme of hospitality nowadays and maybe also Derrida or at least a new way to look at it from a lingual, cultural and philosophical perspective. Would not recommend for people that like plot oriented books ;)
April 24, 2022
This little book, one of the results of Derrida’s ‘political turn’ in the 1990s, comprises a short text written for the International Parliament of Writers and two lectures on the theme of hospitality. Because most of the book is in spoken language, it is slightly less difficult to read than other Derrida books, although the thinking is just as demanding.
Derrida’s ‘interrogation’ of the idea of hospitality largely circles around Sophocles’ ‘Oedipus at Colonus’ and several works by Plato and Kant. Reading, interpreting, dismantling and reinterpreting those texts in a way only Derrida is capable of, Derrida tries to show the ‘paradox’ of hospitality. On the one hand, the unconditional, absolute Law of hospitality compels us to let the foreigner in our home, regardless of who s/he is. On the other hand, the ordinary laws of hospitality transform the idea of hospitality into a ‘right’ which is subject to certain conditions. While the Law of hospitality is ineffective because of its absoluteness, the laws of hospitality are the very betrayal of hospitality.
Of course, Derrida is uninterested in relieving those tensions; although there’s certainly an ethical dimension to this work, Derrida doesn’t want to simply deduce a moral truth from his reflections. This book is not about solving political problems, but about opening up unexpected pathways that may lead us to a novel understanding of ourselves, and the foreigner knocking on our front door.
Derrida’s ‘interrogation’ of the idea of hospitality largely circles around Sophocles’ ‘Oedipus at Colonus’ and several works by Plato and Kant. Reading, interpreting, dismantling and reinterpreting those texts in a way only Derrida is capable of, Derrida tries to show the ‘paradox’ of hospitality. On the one hand, the unconditional, absolute Law of hospitality compels us to let the foreigner in our home, regardless of who s/he is. On the other hand, the ordinary laws of hospitality transform the idea of hospitality into a ‘right’ which is subject to certain conditions. While the Law of hospitality is ineffective because of its absoluteness, the laws of hospitality are the very betrayal of hospitality.
Of course, Derrida is uninterested in relieving those tensions; although there’s certainly an ethical dimension to this work, Derrida doesn’t want to simply deduce a moral truth from his reflections. This book is not about solving political problems, but about opening up unexpected pathways that may lead us to a novel understanding of ourselves, and the foreigner knocking on our front door.
April 3, 2022
Jacques Derrida, Akdeniz havzasının temel yasalarından konukseverlik yasası üzerine düşünüyor. Başta Sophokles'in Oidipus Kolonos'ta oyunu ve Platon'un bazı diyalogları olmak üzere antik Yunan kültürünün konuk ile evsahibi, yabancı ile yerli arasında ilişkileri nasıl dokuduğunu, günümüzde bunları nasıl yorumlayıp tartışabileceğimizi -çağın örneklerinden faydalanarak- anlatıyor. Derrida'yı Anne Dofourmantelle takip ederek metne paralel bir metin kaleme alıyor. (Tercihan herhangi birinden başlanabilir.) Derrida'nın meselesi yabancı sorunu ve alma-verme ilişkisine uzanırken bize bir kimliğin kuruluşunda yabancının ve ötekinin rolünü düşündürüyor. Bu bakımdan aynılık-başkalık meselesinin antik Yunan'da ne kadar merkezi bir sorun olduğunu da gösteriyor.
Her açıdan güncel ve okunmaya değer, üzerinde kafa patlatılması gereken Derrida'nın bu tarz konferans metinlerinin Türkçede sayısının giderek artmasını dileyerek bitiriyorum.
Her açıdan güncel ve okunmaya değer, üzerinde kafa patlatılması gereken Derrida'nın bu tarz konferans metinlerinin Türkçede sayısının giderek artmasını dileyerek bitiriyorum.
September 18, 2024
Perhaps it's just because I'm unfamiliar with Derrida and his normal way of going about things, but I felt continually quite confused by the text. It often caught me on the line of thinking there was something bigger that I was missing, and thinking that I'd encountered someone who was using words to try to sound poetic, repeating phrases that carried no weight over and again to make it seem as if they meant something.
I'm quite sure that there are important aspects to the text I missed, as Anne Dufourmantelle’s addition generally helped clear things up and definitely added understanding and significance to what I'd read. But even then I often felt unsatisfied, like I was leaving quite confused what the point was and how exactly my concept of hospitality could mature from what was being discussed.
I'm quite sure that there are important aspects to the text I missed, as Anne Dufourmantelle’s addition generally helped clear things up and definitely added understanding and significance to what I'd read. But even then I often felt unsatisfied, like I was leaving quite confused what the point was and how exactly my concept of hospitality could mature from what was being discussed.
December 25, 2024
Una aproximación a través de un diálogo que desmenuza el planteamiento filosófico de “la hospitalidad” desgastando todas las implicaciones existentes al rededor del tema, entre ellas las creencias compartidas sobre “lo otro” “el extranjero” “las fronteras” y “los lugares donde venimos” para darle un sentido complejo a el acto mismo de recibir lo ajeno. Me encanta que la reflexión más fuerte es la implicación propia y personal que tenemos nosotros mismos en el proceso de ver a un “otro”.
El lenguaje es un elemento primordial y actúa como arma de doble filo porque es bello y necesario pero también creo que este libro no se digiere fácilmente y por lo tanto se lleva su tiempo. Buena lectura para pensar pensamientos.
El lenguaje es un elemento primordial y actúa como arma de doble filo porque es bello y necesario pero también creo que este libro no se digiere fácilmente y por lo tanto se lleva su tiempo. Buena lectura para pensar pensamientos.
March 29, 2025
A fascinating subject that I feel isn’t very well served by the format. It is apparently a collection of dictated oral lectures given by Derrida, and while it is possible to follow and learn the ideas, it reads very much like a lecture and is thus not super well organized or full with necessary context. The dialogue written by Anne Dufourmantelle feels more intentional and adds to the ideas on hospitality, and I found that reading each section separately as their own whole was easiest for me to follow and annotate. Overall some really cool and theoretically useful ideas that I wish were more intentionally organized into written work
May 20, 2025
Look at that smolder. Every photo I see of Derrida makes me think he'd be a good drag queen. I did love this book. I am grateful for the ways that he examines the violence of being "at home," and in turn making someone a stranger. What harm had to occur in order to live where I live? Why should there be a requirement for someone to be allowed in? Why is there a border in the first place? I also appreciate the ending highlight of the Sodom story. I wish more people saw the true violence within the story: one of abuse and rape, not homosexuality.
December 8, 2025
My first Derrida experience, and honestly not one that took me aback with its complexity, in fact I would state that it’s right about exactly where I am in my studies. These concepts were still novel, representing as they do a solid introduction to the field of critical legal studies, the field of critical border studies, and ultimately the timely concept of “Absolute Hospitality”. I highly appreciate Derrida’s literary and mythical metaphors, and I believe them to be the highlight of the text.
November 4, 2023
"op het eerste gehoord is het bij deze collegereeks alsof je luistert naar het ontstaan van een muzikale partituur die het denkproces hoorbaar maakt" (p. 114).
Soms lastig te volgen doordat het niet zozeer een theorie over gastvrijheid is maar een gedachtegang over dit concept toont. Zeer boeiend en het epiloog van Anne Dufourmantelle is erg goed.
Soms lastig te volgen doordat het niet zozeer een theorie over gastvrijheid is maar een gedachtegang over dit concept toont. Zeer boeiend en het epiloog van Anne Dufourmantelle is erg goed.
May 5, 2025
don’t make me review this. i sat for 2 hours and let words and stories wash over me I DONT KNOW! Okay? I have it in my goodreads and i have no clue and what does 3 stars mean? haha i don’t know but whatever LOL i could say 5 stars. i could say 0, what if i said 11. just trying to make myself seem smart but don’t be fooled, i read but did i READ?
May 30, 2024
i like the way derrida writes its weird and sticky! i find it very very cool the way that he unspools contradictions from the inside and makes you dizzy with them.
i read this one in one sitting and was definitely dizzy with the concept of hospitality... in a cool way though
i read this one in one sitting and was definitely dizzy with the concept of hospitality... in a cool way though
August 20, 2025
Yes my head hurts but no one gets at the politics of space like Derrida - except everyone because Derrida doesn’t really “get at it” he just deconstructs it beyond my comprehension and I don’t know what to do with all this or anything
February 12, 2024
“Forse solo chi sopporta l’esperienza della mancanza di casa può offrire ospitalità.”
August 3, 2024
i think ive read too much re derrida and this topic to appreciate this book fully. i found AD's bit on animals a bit confusing too.
September 10, 2024
Derrida’s radical thinking of ethical notions is somewhat disturbing, thereby meaningful in that it provokes us to reexamine our conventional thoughts.
Read
March 26, 2025U know. I actually did read this entire book. And it was good!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews