3 ms·

I guess my disagreement with you is that I don't believe the original author was trying to make fun of deconstruction, only to make an attempt to understand and

I guess my disagreement with you is that I don't believe the original author was trying to make fun of deconstruction, only to make an attempt to understand and explain it as an outsider. Well, we certainly disagree there. I don't think the piece was written as a good-faith attempt to explain deconstruction, but rather, as an attempt to ridicule and dismiss it, for the most part. But is it possible that writing in a more obtuse manner is rewarded within academic circles, which I believe is the argument actually being made? It's possible, but not accurate. Philosophers are not obscure just for the hell of it, any more than physicists are. And any outliers who are perceived as being needlessly obscure are not rewarded for this-- quite the contrary. From the author's and your comments, I guess it should have been "Choose an accepted, face-value interpretation of the text." Actually, we don't "choose" the interpretation at all when we read a text. But here I don't see your argument. From your other posting, Derrida then goes through the entire Platonic corpus, and quotes every time the word "pharmakon" certainly sounds formulaic. Is it's not a formula for lit crit, what is it? This is indeed the crux of the biscuit. The fact that (in his reading of the Phaedrus) Derrida quoted every time the word "pharmakon" came up does not make this a general formula to be applied to every other text. In fact, I can't think of another example where Derrida did something similar to another text (i.e., pulling out all of the instances of a particular word in an author's corpus.) In other words: the way that Derrida read the Phaedrus is not a model for how one should read another text. What is noteworthy is that Derrida found the tools for reading the Phaedrus within the Phaedrus itself; he did not apply some outside formula to the text. If the philosophy cannot be explained to an outsider, then to what extent is it a real thing, and to what extent is the collective hallucination of the in-group? It can be explained to an outsider, if that outsider has the necessary background and patience. You wouldn't expect to be able to explain a proposed proof of the Riemann Hypothesis to someone who didn't know algebra, would you? In order to properly understand Derrida's philosophy, you need a solid understanding of the philosophies of Husserl, Heidegger, Hegel, Freud, Nietzsche and Levinas. (Derrida admits as much in one of his notable early works.) I promise you that to anyone who has that background, Derrida will be perfectly understandable. (Basically, no-one has explained it to me yet, and I don't get it, and I'm damm smart, so it's either way over my head, and therefore very smart indeed, or bunk.) That is an adequate representation of Chomsky's view. Unfortunately, it's a category error. Chomsky is indeed, very smart. That doesn't mean that he should expect his genius to transfer to disciplines outside his own. If Chomsky had the patience (and inclination) to adequately study Continental Philosophy, I guarantee he'd be able to understand it in a year or two of study. The fact that he's not interested in doing so, and that no-one else is willing to try to spoon-feed it to him is no reflection on the discipline itself. As I see it, in this case the insiders are dismissive of the outsiders -- "you have to read all these works to even understand what we are talking about, and we might still say you are not in the in-group and you are just trying to make fun of us." Given that, it is hardly surprising when outsiders are dismissive of you. I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to the author of the piece, who certainly is dismissive of deconstruction, and seems to have an axe to grind. Furthermore, the pseudo-quote you offer is a canard: this is what all disciplines do. And, in fact, Derrida has a nice interview on the subject on "The Ethics of Discussion", which states that the sine qua non for any ethics of discussion is to actually read the work one is criticizing. You wouldn't trust a film critic who didn't see the film, right? So, why is it so much to ask that someone actually read a philosopher (and the prerequisites he relies upon) before dismissing him?

Robin_Message 16y ago
I accept that I am insufficiently knowledgeable to continue discussing philosophy. As a final question, what benefit could I gain from understanding Derrida? Is there an elevator pitch or value proposition? > So, why is it so much to ask that someone actually read a philosopher (and the prerequisites he relies upon) before dismissing him? It is indeed not too much to ask. However, if a pure scientist says to me, "I can't explain it, but we're discovering something we think is interesting," I have more faith in her than a philosopher saying much the same thing, and I'm more happy for e.g. the government to fund her research and not the philosopher's. Is that wrong?
- michael_dorfman 16y ago
  As a final question, what benefit could I gain from understanding Derrida? Is there an elevator pitch or value proposition? I find Derrida to be a fascinating philosopher for several reasons. One, his thought has a profoundly ethical component (influenced by Levinas). Second, he questions many of the assumptions that other philosophers have taken for granted (in a way similar to Nietzsche). Third, he has a very subtle phenomenology which I personally find very compelling (i.e., it seems to aid my understanding of the world.) Of course, your mileage may vary. However, if a pure scientist says to me, "I can't explain it, but we're discovering something we think is interesting," I have more faith in her than a philosopher saying much the same thing, and I'm more happy for e.g. the government to fund her research and not the philosopher's. Is that wrong? Obligatory joke-- College president, to the head of the physics department: "Why do you need such a big budget for equipment? Why can't you be like the mathematics department? all they ask for are pencils and wastebaskets. Or, better yet, like the philosophy department-- all they ask for are pencils..."
philwelch 16y ago
"In order to properly understand Derrida's philosophy, you need a solid understanding of the philosophies of Husserl, Heidegger, Hegel, Freud, Nietzsche and Levinas." If I already perceived half of those guys as going in the wrong direction entirely, is there any value to reading what is essentially a commentary on them? I must say, a long exposure to the analytic tradition has, to me, evaporated all these excuses. When you're saying something about morality or the nature of knowledge, you can state it directly, even at the risk of restating some elements that others have stated. This is true even if you're directly responding to them (in which case you restate the points you are responding to). The main prerequisite is a training in logic, simply because many statements in analytic philosophy are most clearly expressed in variously-formal logical forms. On the other hand, if you're only offering a commentary on past philosophers, perhaps some novel technique of reading their texts (which, judging by your posts, seems to be Derrida's primary innovation) is enough of an innovation.

Robin_Message 16y ago

I accept that I am insufficiently knowledgeable to continue discussing philosophy. As a final question, what benefit could I gain from understanding Derrida? Is there an elevator pitch or value proposition? > So, why is it so much to ask that someone actually read a philosopher (and the prerequisites he relies upon) before dismissing him? It is indeed not too much to ask. However, if a pure scientist says to me, "I can't explain it, but we're discovering something we think is interesting," I have more faith in her than a philosopher saying much the same thing, and I'm more happy for e.g. the government to fund her research and not the philosopher's. Is that wrong?

michael_dorfman 16y ago
As a final question, what benefit could I gain from understanding Derrida? Is there an elevator pitch or value proposition? I find Derrida to be a fascinating philosopher for several reasons. One, his thought has a profoundly ethical component (influenced by Levinas). Second, he questions many of the assumptions that other philosophers have taken for granted (in a way similar to Nietzsche). Third, he has a very subtle phenomenology which I personally find very compelling (i.e., it seems to aid my understanding of the world.) Of course, your mileage may vary. However, if a pure scientist says to me, "I can't explain it, but we're discovering something we think is interesting," I have more faith in her than a philosopher saying much the same thing, and I'm more happy for e.g. the government to fund her research and not the philosopher's. Is that wrong? Obligatory joke-- College president, to the head of the physics department: "Why do you need such a big budget for equipment? Why can't you be like the mathematics department? all they ask for are pencils and wastebaskets. Or, better yet, like the philosophy department-- all they ask for are pencils..."

philwelch 16y ago

"In order to properly understand Derrida's philosophy, you need a solid understanding of the philosophies of Husserl, Heidegger, Hegel, Freud, Nietzsche and Levinas." If I already perceived half of those guys as going in the wrong direction entirely, is there any value to reading what is essentially a commentary on them? I must say, a long exposure to the analytic tradition has, to me, evaporated all these excuses. When you're saying something about morality or the nature of knowledge, you can state it directly, even at the risk of restating some elements that others have stated. This is true even if you're directly responding to them (in which case you restate the points you are responding to). The main prerequisite is a training in logic, simply because many statements in analytic philosophy are most clearly expressed in variously-formal logical forms. On the other hand, if you're only offering a commentary on past philosophers, perhaps some novel technique of reading their texts (which, judging by your posts, seems to be Derrida's primary innovation) is enough of an innovation.