March 28, 2013

"An exercise in virtuosity, with undeniable intelligence, but with no particular relation to the history of philosophy..."

"... Can come back when he is prepared to accept the rules and not invent where he needs to be better informed."

25 comments:

Sam L. said...

My deconstruction of him says there's no there, there.

EDH said...

Why did I assume it was about Jesus Christ?

cold pizza said...

Your words are meaningless to me. -CP

rhhardin said...

Derrida is a virtuoso reader.

His early stuff looked at how good authors are forced to claim what they do not want to claim.

His later stuff is more about religion texts, with the virtuouso reading continuing.

It's all excellent.

Established philosophers hate him.

Cavell pointed out how Derrida misread Austin, the only honest criticism that I'm aware of.

John Lynch said...

Deconstruction is a coup d'etat against the past.

rhhardin said...

Guys will like Derrida's _Spurs_, except skip the preface that somebody or other wrote.

_The Gift of Death_ chapter 3 "Whom To Give to" might interest women as well.

Althouse might like _Memoirs of the Blind_.

traditionalguy said...

Binary thought seems so easy in the digital age. Derrida uber alles!

He posits that our ideas must contain dark matter necessary to contrast the very idea that seems to give us light.

OK. Is it a categorical argument after all? It asks us to link boundaries within our mental processes to reality of experiences, and everyone has different experiences.

Of course our DNA uses 4 molecules arranged in a complex code that excludes more than it includes. Hmmm?

YoungHegelian said...

As a younger man, I wanted to like Derrida. I really did.

I read him in English. I read him in French. Finally, I just had to wonder what the fuss was all about. Hadn't this linguistic stuff been done better by Hammann & late Wittgenstein? I had to agree with Searle's criticisms that it's never really clear what Derrida's on about, and when pressed, the issues changed in mid-argument.

The greatest evil that Derrida did wasn't anything he ever did. It was what his "methodology" did in the hands of less talented scholars, who turned a technique that preached a technique of deeply reading an author to discover where the author's very language subverts his claims, into an excuse not to read at all, and to use a text as a springboard for the deconstructionist's meanderings.

I agree with rhhardin that his early stuff is the best. But then, I would, wouldn't I?

bagoh20 said...

O.M.G. Do people really?

Alex said...

Actually understand the context around an author's work is important.

tim maguire said...

The whole gang of mid-century French philosophers, Satre, Derrida, the bunch, Liberal Arts would have been better off had they never been born.

Some folks love them, god knows why.

Michael K said...

It's too bad he got in the third time.

Sigivald said...

rhhardin: I tried to read Grammatology and was unable to.

Where do you get this idea about it being "all excellent"?

(I'm not an established philosopher, but I do have the training, and every fiber of my being tells me that, like Baudrillard, he's a hack, not saying anything at all.

And this isn't anti-French or anti-Continental bigotry, since I love Merleau-Ponty and Nietzche.

But Derrida? Lots of big claims and deliberately confusing syntax, hiding nothing.

Searle was right.)

rastajenk said...

It's Basketball Time Again!

rcommal said...

God, the memories just keep flooding back. Anyone else remember when, of all things, the soap opera "General Hospital," I think it was (unless it was "All My Children," or maybe "One Life to Live) featured a significant subplot involving deconstruction? I kid you not: There was such a happening. It was supposed to be, I thought at the time and still do, some sort of homage to a current trend and a grab at a specific youngish, academic trend.

It was also hilarious, and I total "WTF?" epiphany for me.

And that was even before "WTF?", as a shorthand designation, became ubiquitous.

rcommal said...

That second "trend" should be "demographic."

Joshua said...

Be paid weekly and earn like a boss! I just bought a great Mazda MX-5 from having earned $7126 this past 4 weeks and $10k past month. Without any doubt this is the easiest and most comfortable job I’ve ever had. I began this 6 months ago and right away was bringing in more than $83 per/h. Here’s what I’ve been doing Rich45.com

YoungHegelian said...

@Joshua,

You just posted an advert in a thread on Jacques Fucking Derrida! For what, all six people who are going to see it?

Whatever you're being paid to do this, it's waaaaaaay too much!

bagoh20 said...

Yea, but how many philosophers have a Mazda MX-5, and make 83 bucks an hour?

rcommal said...

That powerful brew. Derrida. Foucault. Etc. + add-your-own add-ins in. Customize, and then drink up and propose a toast: Here's mud in your eye.

YoungHegelian said...

@bagoh20

Yea, but how many philosophers have a Mazda MX-5, and make 83 bucks an hour?

Everyone's that's got an endowed chair, for one.

This textbook made Irving Copi a millionaire back when being a millionaire really meant something.

William said...

I never read Derrida. I had the vague sense that his books would be difficult and full of eye glazing prose. And beyond that, if you really hunkered down and truly understood them, you would be mastering an intellectual discipline that told you nothing useful about the world. It would be like studying the Galenic principles of medicine and the proper application of hot and cold remedies for yellow and black bile diseases. It all makes sense and be totaly useless......Anyway, how do you deconstruct a double helix?

creeley23 said...


It was what his "methodology" did in the hands of less talented scholars, who turned a technique that preached a technique of deeply reading an author to discover where the author's very language subverts his claims, into an excuse not to read at all, and to use a text as a springboard for the deconstructionist's meanderings.

Sounds like our local Gatsby Project.

Rusty said...

creeley23 said...

It was what his "methodology" did in the hands of less talented scholars, who turned a technique that preached a technique of deeply reading an author to discover where the author's very language subverts his claims, into an excuse not to read at all, and to use a text as a springboard for the deconstructionist's meanderings.

Sounds like our local Gatsby Project.
Like what the left likes to do with history.

rastajenk said...

My bracket is deconstructing before my very eyes.