3 ms·

I think Derrida would've been much better off, in terms of intellectual legacy, if he had a student who took him somewhat less seriously on that point, perhaps

I think Derrida would've been much better off, in terms of intellectual legacy, if he had a student who took him somewhat less seriously on that point, perhaps even against his wishes. Say, someone who was willing to write even a fairly difficult and technical book, but in straightforward, fairly clear prose, attempting to explain at least a version of the main ideas Derrida's works dealt with You want to know the funny thing? He did exactly that. One of Derrida's most prominent students, Geoff Bennington, wrote a book (with Derrida's approval and authorization) which attempted to summarize Derrida's work for the general reader. To make the game more interesting, he attempted to do so without directly quoting Derrida a single time. And, just to put a nice bow on it all, Derrida read the manuscript, and wrote a piece (which is published in the same volume) outlining briefly the parts of his philosophy he thought were excluded by Bennington's summary.

_delirium 16y ago
Interesting, perhaps that would be a better place to start. I've attempted to read some Derridean secondary literature, and it has not been very enlightening at all; much harder to read than Derrida himself, actually. Two random entry points I've attempted, besides some miscellaneous journal articles, are through Paul de Man and Michael Marder (the latter because the idea of a realist reading of Derrida interests me), and both had such annoying prose that it was hard to get anywhere. It was like someone was parodying Derrida while writing about him or something.
- michael_dorfman 16y ago
  There is one factor which counts above all others in trying to understand Derrida: you need to have an intimate understanding of the work he is commenting upon. Trying to read Derrida on, say, Condillac, is absolutely pointless if you haven't read the Condillac. Fortunately, in the course of his career, Derrida read through a large swath of the philosophical corpus, so it should be pretty easy to find a work of his which comments on something you already know well.
Robin_Message 16y ago
On page 8 of that book Geoff Bennington says "It is, of course, impossible to write a book of this sort about Derrida." (Unfortunately the conclusion of that thought is on the next page, which Amazon isn't showing me, but I'm assuming he means what he says here.) If you can't explain something, you don't understand it. If no-one can explain it, no-one understands it and it doesn't mean anything. A theory with no predictive power is useless. (As an aside, I had a look at some of Geoff Bennington's other freely accessible work and came across the gem "The end of communication is the end of communication." That's a clever pun, but was it really the best way to explain an obtuse philosophy that others regard as simply an edifice of clever puns and tricks, void of thought? Ballsy, but surely not the best way. Has anyone explained Derrida using words of four letters or less, without a single pun?) I am wasting too much of my time, and yours, so my parting shot shall be this: Is there any point attempting to understand this philosophy? Will it make me a better person? Will it enable me to organise society better? Will it help me understand the universe more fully? Or will it simply mean I can count myself part of an in-group that has no discernible external beliefs?
- michael_dorfman 16y ago
  On page 8 of that book Geoff Bennington says "It is, of course, impossible to write a book of this sort about Derrida." And, then, of course, he goes on to do the impossible. This notion of "the impossible" is, in itself, a key concept in Derrida's thought, but we're getting ahead of ourselves. If you can't explain something, you don't understand it. If no-one can explain it, no-one understands it and it doesn't mean anything. A theory with no predictive power is useless. I can explain it. Geoff Bennington can explain it. However: you have to meet us partway. You have to read the whole damn book, not just the Amazon previews. Seriously: is that too much to ask? Has anyone explained Derrida using words of four letters or less, without a single pun?) Has anybody explained Kant, or Einstein, or Descartes or Newton or any other difficult thinker in words of four letters or less? Is there any point attempting to understand this philosophy? Yes. Will it make me a better person? Yes, in my experience. (It is largely about ethics, believe it or not.) Will it enable me to organise society better? To a certain extent, yes. And it will better help you understand why certain efforts to organise society are doomed to fail. Will it help me understand the universe more fully? Yes, definitely. Or will it simply mean I can count myself part of an in-group that has no discernible external beliefs? It has discernible external beliefs, I'm afraid. I hope that's not a deal-breaker for you.

_delirium 16y ago

Interesting, perhaps that would be a better place to start. I've attempted to read some Derridean secondary literature, and it has not been very enlightening at all; much harder to read than Derrida himself, actually. Two random entry points I've attempted, besides some miscellaneous journal articles, are through Paul de Man and Michael Marder (the latter because the idea of a realist reading of Derrida interests me), and both had such annoying prose that it was hard to get anywhere. It was like someone was parodying Derrida while writing about him or something.

michael_dorfman 16y ago
There is one factor which counts above all others in trying to understand Derrida: you need to have an intimate understanding of the work he is commenting upon. Trying to read Derrida on, say, Condillac, is absolutely pointless if you haven't read the Condillac. Fortunately, in the course of his career, Derrida read through a large swath of the philosophical corpus, so it should be pretty easy to find a work of his which comments on something you already know well.

Robin_Message 16y ago

On page 8 of that book Geoff Bennington says "It is, of course, impossible to write a book of this sort about Derrida." (Unfortunately the conclusion of that thought is on the next page, which Amazon isn't showing me, but I'm assuming he means what he says here.) If you can't explain something, you don't understand it. If no-one can explain it, no-one understands it and it doesn't mean anything. A theory with no predictive power is useless. (As an aside, I had a look at some of Geoff Bennington's other freely accessible work and came across the gem "The end of communication is the end of communication." That's a clever pun, but was it really the best way to explain an obtuse philosophy that others regard as simply an edifice of clever puns and tricks, void of thought? Ballsy, but surely not the best way. Has anyone explained Derrida using words of four letters or less, without a single pun?) I am wasting too much of my time, and yours, so my parting shot shall be this: Is there any point attempting to understand this philosophy? Will it make me a better person? Will it enable me to organise society better? Will it help me understand the universe more fully? Or will it simply mean I can count myself part of an in-group that has no discernible external beliefs?

michael_dorfman 16y ago
On page 8 of that book Geoff Bennington says "It is, of course, impossible to write a book of this sort about Derrida." And, then, of course, he goes on to do the impossible. This notion of "the impossible" is, in itself, a key concept in Derrida's thought, but we're getting ahead of ourselves. If you can't explain something, you don't understand it. If no-one can explain it, no-one understands it and it doesn't mean anything. A theory with no predictive power is useless. I can explain it. Geoff Bennington can explain it. However: you have to meet us partway. You have to read the whole damn book, not just the Amazon previews. Seriously: is that too much to ask? Has anyone explained Derrida using words of four letters or less, without a single pun?) Has anybody explained Kant, or Einstein, or Descartes or Newton or any other difficult thinker in words of four letters or less? Is there any point attempting to understand this philosophy? Yes. Will it make me a better person? Yes, in my experience. (It is largely about ethics, believe it or not.) Will it enable me to organise society better? To a certain extent, yes. And it will better help you understand why certain efforts to organise society are doomed to fail. Will it help me understand the universe more fully? Yes, definitely. Or will it simply mean I can count myself part of an in-group that has no discernible external beliefs? It has discernible external beliefs, I'm afraid. I hope that's not a deal-breaker for you.