Ramesh KC
Thinker/Critical writer
The most radical philosopher of Fearism, Desh Subba has been battling over the
issues of meaning, in Jacques Derrida's deconstructionism. Subba who is founder of
Fearism and recently Trans Philosopism battles with the notion of deconstruction
that term has multiple meaning. It is not inherently so meaning changes according
to time and space, Subba said. Derrida discovered that
text has multiple misreading and interpretations at the end of the process
meaning disappears.
Derrida was nihilist Subba is a optimist.
Deconstruction is a postmodern philosophy but Subba goes beyond.
Deconstruction a mental phenomena but Fearism is neuro biological. Deconstruction dismentle the
very text through psycholinguistic way. In a nutshell Derrida considers consciousness is primary for Desh fear is primary, which deconstruct the
psychological structure of knowledge. Commentator Adnan Shafi deals with Desh
Subba's Trans Philosophiism for formidable challenges to do construction. He writes an article in Kashmiri Horizon. He questions the first book by Derrida's "Of
Grammatology" and its basis. He discusses writing and in play of language. But hunger, poverty and war are not
only play of language it has empirical basis which defines illusion and play in
discourse. According to famous Marxist philosopher Fredrick Jameson post
modernism is cultural logic of late capitalism which is decadent and useless
theory call so because deconstruction as a part of postmodernism defies the
value of the enlightenment which believes in fact, truth and rationality. Post
structuralist like Derrida, Foucault and Deluze are advocate of meaningless and
irrational. German philosopher Martin Heidegger first used the word Destruktion
later Derrida developed as deconstruction. Deconstruction was a
product of Europe west and Fearism is product of East. We can see
commonalities and contradiction in both philosophies. Before Fearism there were
dialogue and research between Derrida, Buddhist and Hindu
philosopher. These studies were religious and metaphysical. But Fearism
emphasizes the practical aspect logo centrism is a basis of deconstruction since
plato western metaphysics built upon the idea of truth, law and nationality.
Derrida deconstructs this notion and bring back to marginalized in the center
Fearism also deconstructs truth the logos like deconstruction leaves body alone
but Fearism carries it. According to Harvard University psychologist, linguist and postmodernist
Steven Pinker has done more work to our
intellectual climate. It attaches truth and empirical world and negate the very
rationality of enlighten world. This vast subjective philosophy of Derrida is blamed for
deconstruction, Fearsm is not destruction. Its knowledge is ignored by thinkers. But Desh Subba, Michael Fisher and other fearists thinkers have developed and propagating it.
Fearsim deals with life positively and believes in reality. It also
applied to ecology, crime, mental illness and social sciences. In another formidable
book Derrida contradicts Foucault's 'Madness and Civilization' and questions to him because mad people are victim of socio-historical. They have been
marginalized for centuries they are matter of spectacle not human treatment. He
deconstructed the very idea of madness from narrow view. Because madmen
cannot enter the city of philosophers, likewise works of poststructuralist are
intellectual. Fearism involces in sociobiology. Deconstruction was a
response of Hegel Heidegger and Sartre. It is built upon European mainstream
philosophy but Fearism is universal and everywhere. Deconstruction creates the
thought paradigm but Fearsim challenges the very idea of thought itself.
According to U.G. Krishnamurti fear is connected to native intelligence of the
body. As Derrida put that metaphysics centers around the logos which has to be
dismantled in order to open new view in the text. In "Of grammatology", he
deconstructed the very language of philosophy and philosopher of language by
Jean Jacques Rousseau and very notion of spoken world. According to Derrida at least
written text has a space for tracing which he borrowed by Sigmund Freud
metaphysically he is influenced by Heidegger and psychologically by Freud. Derrida
was a mysterious philosopher who spiritualized, mystified and psychologized. The
Fearism is less mystified but built upon real human phenomena.
Philosopher Montagine said that we need to interpret interpretation more than
interpret thing, like deconstruction, Fearism does it. Western discourse has
maintained in the binary opposition include nature/culture day/night and
male/female. This opposition some are important for him.
Derrida opens more room in multiple way as signified hints various
kind of interpretation. Enlighten philosopher Rene Descartes said famous line, "I think therefore I am". But in Fearism, "I fear therefore I am suitable". Nietzsche was a
philosopher who proclaim that every text has multiple meaning which means
death of God. Derrida also in Nietezschean question the very notion of author.
because everything has said and we are interpreting the previous discourses.
There is no finality in deconstruction but lot of space remain for further east west
dialogue for deconstruction and Fearism in the republic of words.
Comments
Adnan, it is so great to have this quick summary of a critique of Derrida via Trans Philosophism (a la Subba). I still need to re-read your critique, and I am not an expert at all on Derrida's work. It is wonderful Subba's philosophy is being taken more serious by people like yourself. (Note: it would be good to have you write a short bio about yourself and where you work, e.g., in a university, etc. to add to this piece).
After reading just three paragraphs, although your writing and thought is easy to follow and you seem very knowledgeable on the topic, I felt a 'gap' in the ideas as you proceeded. As I have read and studied Subba's contribution (e.g., philosophy of fearism) for some 9 years, it seems to me one of his major contributions to philosophy is to ask what is the most fundamental motivational reality going on? And, we have to look at that reality, and bring it into every fabric of philosophy, and more specifically into language studies and literary studies, and ultimately, yes, meaning-making. This I believe ought to be in your opening remarks and at core what discussions ought to be in assessing Derrida's work (e.g., grammatology) in light of fearology (for e.g.).