4 ms·

Several random points (from a dev with a background in philosophy and linguistics). First, from the standpoint of intellectual history, it's probably most usef

Several random points (from a dev with a background in philosophy and linguistics). First, from the standpoint of intellectual history, it's probably most useful to cast conversations like this in terms of the split between analytic and continental philosophy (esp. postwar developments). The fact that he doesn't really mention the split and only talks of literary criticism is a very odd omission. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_philosophy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_philosophy Second, I applaud the author for taking the tradition that he's poking fun at as seriously as he does. There are scads of philosophy professors who simply sneer at those from the opposing tradition. This is a shame. Third, and related to the point above, it's a breath of fresh air to read someone who can genuinely straddle the two traditions. Richard Rorty is probably the best known philosopher that this can be said for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rorty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rorty Fourth, anyone interested in the ideas that underpin deconstruction should take a look at Saussure's "Course in General Linguistics". It's an utterly fascinating read that forms the basis for a huge amount of work in both contemporary linguistics and postwar French Continental philosophy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Course_in_General_Linguistics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Course_in_General_Linguistics Fifth, anyone who dismisses the techniques one of the world's greatest mathematician/logicians as a "cheap trick" without so much as a winking emoticon is immediately suspect in my book. ;)

reggieband 13y ago
I get that the original article was a joke - a sort of academic discipline ad hominem. But in case anyone actually wants to understand why literary criticism is seen as valid, they should read Rorty as you mentioned. Here is an paper that is worth the time: http://olincenter.uchicago.edu/pdf/rorty.pdf http://olincenter.uchicago.edu/pdf/rorty.pdf It isn't on deconstruction specifically but on why literary criticism has become so important in general.
- pdonis 13y ago
  I've read Rorty on this subject before, and the paper you linked to gives a good illustration of why, although I understand where he's coming from, I don't agree with him. He says: "Redemptive truth would not consist in theories about how things interact causally, but instead would fulfill the need that religion and philosophy have attempted to satisfy. This is the need to fit everything--every thing, person, event, idea and poem--into a single context, a context which will somehow reveal itself as natural, destined, and unique. It would be the only context that would matter for purposes of shaping our lives, because it would be the only one in which those lives appear as they truly are." He appears to think this is possible; I think it's a dangerous illusion. I don't think there is any one, single context in which our lives "appear as they truly are". Our lives are too complex for that. In fact, physics is too, although Rorty doesn't seem to realize that. He says that scientific inquiry could conceivably terminate; apparently he thinks that physicists who talk about a "theory of everything" mean that once we've found it, we won't need to do science any more. That's a dangerous illusion too. No matter how much we discover about the universe, there will always be more to discover, and that's what scientific inquiry is. Furthermore, even with the stuff we do know in science, there is always the possibility of finding new ways to look at it. Feynman once said that every theoretical physicist who is any good knows multiple theoretical representations for exactly the same physics. Each representation is useful in its own way, and no one of them reflects "the way things really are". Even putting them all together doesn't necessarily reflect "the way things really are". All of our knowledge is incomplete, even in physics. And if that's the case for physics, it's the case even more so for ourselves and our societies. We should not expect to ever be able to understand ourselves using one single context, any more than we can understand physics using one single context. And as Rorty describes it, the search for this one single context by intellectuals (which he defines, reading between the lines, as people who can afford to waste time in such pursuits because they don't have to do any productive work to make a living) is, in my opinion, a sad waste of human talents that could be put to better uses.
  - reggieband 13y ago
    "He appears to think this is possible;" I think you have completely misunderstood him. He is arguing against the fact this is possible. The whole point of the article is that there is no redemptive truth at all. The whole point of promoting the literary over the philosophic is to remove our need for redemptive truth. He argues that philosophy (and science) suffer the same mistake as religion in that they believe they are searching for Truth. Literature doesn't suffer from that mistake. Perhaps you only read the first 2 or 3 pages?
dcre 13y ago
Just for fun, here are a few more writers I think do justice to both sides: Stanley Cavell, Bernard Williams, Charles Taylor, James Conant, Cora Diamond. After writing them down, I'm noticing they're all analytic philosophers who lean a bit continental. I wonder, what are some examples in the other direction?
- daviddaviddavid 13y ago
  Jürgen Habermas comes to mind.
- conatus 13y ago
  Ray Brassier and the speculative realist pseudo-group are trained continental philosophers who also lean analytic. Becoming more and more common.

reggieband 13y ago

I get that the original article was a joke - a sort of academic discipline ad hominem. But in case anyone actually wants to understand why literary criticism is seen as valid, they should read Rorty as you mentioned. Here is an paper that is worth the time: http://olincenter.uchicago.edu/pdf/rorty.pdf http://olincenter.uchicago.edu/pdf/rorty.pdf It isn't on deconstruction specifically but on why literary criticism has become so important in general.

pdonis 13y ago
I've read Rorty on this subject before, and the paper you linked to gives a good illustration of why, although I understand where he's coming from, I don't agree with him. He says: "Redemptive truth would not consist in theories about how things interact causally, but instead would fulfill the need that religion and philosophy have attempted to satisfy. This is the need to fit everything--every thing, person, event, idea and poem--into a single context, a context which will somehow reveal itself as natural, destined, and unique. It would be the only context that would matter for purposes of shaping our lives, because it would be the only one in which those lives appear as they truly are." He appears to think this is possible; I think it's a dangerous illusion. I don't think there is any one, single context in which our lives "appear as they truly are". Our lives are too complex for that. In fact, physics is too, although Rorty doesn't seem to realize that. He says that scientific inquiry could conceivably terminate; apparently he thinks that physicists who talk about a "theory of everything" mean that once we've found it, we won't need to do science any more. That's a dangerous illusion too. No matter how much we discover about the universe, there will always be more to discover, and that's what scientific inquiry is. Furthermore, even with the stuff we do know in science, there is always the possibility of finding new ways to look at it. Feynman once said that every theoretical physicist who is any good knows multiple theoretical representations for exactly the same physics. Each representation is useful in its own way, and no one of them reflects "the way things really are". Even putting them all together doesn't necessarily reflect "the way things really are". All of our knowledge is incomplete, even in physics. And if that's the case for physics, it's the case even more so for ourselves and our societies. We should not expect to ever be able to understand ourselves using one single context, any more than we can understand physics using one single context. And as Rorty describes it, the search for this one single context by intellectuals (which he defines, reading between the lines, as people who can afford to waste time in such pursuits because they don't have to do any productive work to make a living) is, in my opinion, a sad waste of human talents that could be put to better uses.
- reggieband 13y ago
  "He appears to think this is possible;" I think you have completely misunderstood him. He is arguing against the fact this is possible. The whole point of the article is that there is no redemptive truth at all. The whole point of promoting the literary over the philosophic is to remove our need for redemptive truth. He argues that philosophy (and science) suffer the same mistake as religion in that they believe they are searching for Truth. Literature doesn't suffer from that mistake. Perhaps you only read the first 2 or 3 pages?

dcre 13y ago

Just for fun, here are a few more writers I think do justice to both sides: Stanley Cavell, Bernard Williams, Charles Taylor, James Conant, Cora Diamond. After writing them down, I'm noticing they're all analytic philosophers who lean a bit continental. I wonder, what are some examples in the other direction?

daviddaviddavid 13y ago
Jürgen Habermas comes to mind.
conatus 13y ago
Ray Brassier and the speculative realist pseudo-group are trained continental philosophers who also lean analytic. Becoming more and more common.