[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Home]

RE: Derrida stuff

hi,
 
 Rab is absolutely right, and so is Mat. However, in our present context (of a philosophical discussion) this percentage/probability is insuffucient. That is, having a pretty good idea of what an author is talking about is not enough for the deep and complex arguments of philosophy. For Political philosophy this may not be a problem as all that really should matter is the (direct or indirect) practical application of th theories. The same goes for ethical philosophy. However, when we move into the (relatively) abstract realms of metaphysics, epistemology, language etc. then a scientific rigour is needed to prevent us talking meaningless, semiprofound nonsense.
However, this is not to say that Derrida thinks that all philosophy is nonsense (and he certainly does not propound the postmodern position of a completely free reading of texts). Derrida (subversively) strives for new levels of accuracy and above all Awareness of the abyssal complexity of things. He destructs to reconstruct with out the mistakes and assumptions that he sees in the history of western philosophy.
 
p.s to see some deconstructive reading in action, challenging the precise example of Rab's go to Paul de Man to see his essay on Locke "Allegories of Reading".
 
cheers,
andy.

Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail