4 ms·

Some of this is interesting, but mind-reading is not a thing. Or maybe mind-reading is a thing when one is French.

• orwin 4y ago
  It's not mind reading. It's opposing a book against itself. The author himself is irrelevant. If you're successful, you can then emit theories on why. Those aren't scientific but a new way of reading the book. If you can't find any 'key' or if the theories you emit makes you read the book the same way, it's a solid theory.
  • smitty1e 4y ago
    > you can then emit theories on why And therein lies the rub. Derrida didn't really write "Speech and Phenomena" as a subliminal manual on the joys of Emacs; I just pulled that line of nonsense from an unlikely place. Yet we are beset everywhere with abject folly passed of as some Hermetic wisdom. If it sells books, fine. But let us not claim an author said things that are simply not in view. Label "Pulp Fiction" as such.
    • orwin 4y ago
      Unlike deconstruionnists as portrayed in the media, Derrida doesn't care at all about the author, or about what he said. What the author want to convey or want to explain does not matter. You can read Emma Goldman as a disapointed revolutionnary, or you can read her book as a description of the failing of the Russian revolution from a specific point of view. What this point of view isn't "Emma Goldman" herself but discovered by reading the book itself. In a perfect world, i should have read her without knowing her wikipedia page to be able to deconstruct "My Life". I do not have the time to do so (and i already know her wikipedia page, so i would be biased).