4 ms·

Since the onslaught of ignorant anti-continental quips has already begun, I'd like to suggest two texts by Richard Rorty—an American pragmatist with an extremel

by mbrock 12y ago

Since the onslaught of ignorant anti-continental quips has already begun, I'd like to suggest two texts by Richard Rorty—an American pragmatist with an extremely lucid writing style—that show how it is indeed possible to find Derrida interesting without being a charlatan or stupid: Here, a short review that gives a very brief introduction/defense (in a sort of backhanded way, though): http://www.lrb.co.uk/v06/n03/richard-rorty/signposts-along-the-way-that-reason-went http://www.lrb.co.uk/v06/n03/richard-rorty/signposts-along-t... "Derrida’s principal theme in these essays is the attempt of the tradition to make language look less sprawling by trimming off unwanted growth. This is done by making invidious distinctions between true (e.g. ‘literal’ or ‘cognitively meaningful’) language and false (e.g. ‘metaphorical’ or ‘meaningless’) language. He is arguing that this attempt cannot succeed, because it is just the latest version of the onto-theological attempt to contrast the Great Good Resting-Place with the sprawling world of time and chance. He wants to convince us that there is no natural hierarchy of discourses or jargons, no structure topped off by the super-language which gives us a grip on all the others, the words which classify all the other words. There is no privileged language in which to state invidious distinctions between true and false language. There is no linguistic material out of which we can forge clippers with which to snip off unfruitful linguistic suckers. He thinks Heidegger betrayed his own project by trying to separate ‘real’ language (the Call of Being, the kind of language which ‘is what it says’) from ‘inauthentic’ language (words used as means to technocratic ends, chatter, the jargon of this or that disciplinary matrix)." And here, a full essay on Derrida titled "Philosophy as a Kind of Writing": http://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/theory/Rorty-Philosophy-as-a-Kind-of-Writing-1978.pdf http://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/theory/Rorty-Philosoph... I don't have time to write more in depth about this. It's at least heartening that the most cynical and flippant comments have been downvoted.

wfn 12y ago
> And here, a full essay on Derrida titled "Philosophy as a Kind of Writing": http://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/theory/Rorty-Philosophy-as-a-Kind-of-Writing-1978.pdf http://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/theory/Rorty-Philosoph... Thanks for this, I haven't read it before. For anyone curious, it is a very clear-headed and well-articulated take by an American philosopher (analytic and later (him becoming a prominent participant of) pragmatic (if you could call it that?) tradition) on Derrida's conception of philosophy / approach to truth (so to speak.) There's a very nice part about what he considers to be the constructive component in Derrida's system/view, and it is detailed and honest (in the sense of capturing many nuances), I think. A very nice and easy-going read, would recommend to anyone interested.
coldtea 12y ago
>how it is indeed possible to find Derrida interesting without being a charlatan or stupid Charlatan or stupid? How provincial one must be to come to that conclusion. As hackers (geeks etc) we are generally mostly accepting of an empiricist, show-me-the-numbers, kind of analysis (and analytical philosophy), but it's by far not the only one, or the most potent, when outside the realm of hard sciences. The anglosaxon positivist/reductionist philosophical school is not the only one out there, just as Hollywood and the emphasis on the "plot" is not the only movie tradition. It's like someone working on imperative programming all your life, and asking "what's this BS Prolog thing, that's not real code" or "LISP is pretentious and doesn't have a proper syntax".
- steveklabnik 12y ago
  > Charlatan or stupid? How provincial one must be to come to that conclusion. It's a reference to Chomsky's criticism of postmodernism: http://www.critical-theory.com/noam-chomsky-calls-jacques-lacan-a-charlatan/ http://www.critical-theory.com/noam-chomsky-calls-jacques-la... (Not that I particularly agree with Chomsky here, mind you...)
cbd1984 12y ago
Is it possible for someone who understands Continental philosophy to disagree with it?
- steveklabnik 12y ago
  Of course. There are several significant families of thought within "continental philosophy", and they don't agree with each other. Just like any broad tradition.

by mbrock 12y ago

wfn 12y ago

> And here, a full essay on Derrida titled "Philosophy as a Kind of Writing": http://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/theory/Rorty-Philosophy-as-a-Kind-of-Writing-1978.pdf http://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/theory/Rorty-Philosoph... Thanks for this, I haven't read it before. For anyone curious, it is a very clear-headed and well-articulated take by an American philosopher (analytic and later (him becoming a prominent participant of) pragmatic (if you could call it that?) tradition) on Derrida's conception of philosophy / approach to truth (so to speak.) There's a very nice part about what he considers to be the constructive component in Derrida's system/view, and it is detailed and honest (in the sense of capturing many nuances), I think. A very nice and easy-going read, would recommend to anyone interested.

coldtea 12y ago

>how it is indeed possible to find Derrida interesting without being a charlatan or stupid Charlatan or stupid? How provincial one must be to come to that conclusion. As hackers (geeks etc) we are generally mostly accepting of an empiricist, show-me-the-numbers, kind of analysis (and analytical philosophy), but it's by far not the only one, or the most potent, when outside the realm of hard sciences. The anglosaxon positivist/reductionist philosophical school is not the only one out there, just as Hollywood and the emphasis on the "plot" is not the only movie tradition. It's like someone working on imperative programming all your life, and asking "what's this BS Prolog thing, that's not real code" or "LISP is pretentious and doesn't have a proper syntax".

steveklabnik 12y ago
> Charlatan or stupid? How provincial one must be to come to that conclusion. It's a reference to Chomsky's criticism of postmodernism: http://www.critical-theory.com/noam-chomsky-calls-jacques-lacan-a-charlatan/ http://www.critical-theory.com/noam-chomsky-calls-jacques-la... (Not that I particularly agree with Chomsky here, mind you...)

cbd1984 12y ago

Is it possible for someone who understands Continental philosophy to disagree with it?

steveklabnik 12y ago
Of course. There are several significant families of thought within "continental philosophy", and they don't agree with each other. Just like any broad tradition.