The visibility of the visible cannot by definition be seen “called the unbeseen, as one speaks of the unbeknownst. Memory or not and forgetting as memory and without memory.
Though Derrida addressed the American Philosophical Association on several occasions[citation needed] and was highly regarded by contemporary philosophers like Richard Rorty, Alexander Nehamas,[23] and Stanley Cavell, his work has been regarded by other Analytic philosophers, such as John Searle and W. V. Quine, as pseudophilosophy or sophistry. John Searle, a frequent critic of Derrida dating back to their exchange on speech act theory in Limited Inc (where Derrida strongly accused Searle of intentionally misreading and misrepresenting him), exemplified this view in his comments on deconstruction in the New York Review of Books, February 2, 1994 [3], for example:
...anyone who reads deconstructive texts with an open mind is likely to be struck by the same phenomena that initially surprised me: the low level of philosophical argumentation, the deliberate obscurantism of the prose, the wildly exaggerated claims, and the constant striving to give the appearance of profundity by making claims that seem paradoxical, but under analysis often turn out to be silly or trivial.
Foucault who is often considered as Derrida's contemporary, also revealed his dissatisfaction of Derrida's style of writing in a conversation with Searle. According to Foucault, Derrida practises the method of obscurantisme terroriste (terrorism of obscurantism) [24]. Searle quotes Foucault's explanation of the term as the following:
He writes so obscurely you can't tell what he's saying, that's the obscurantism part, and then when you criticize him, he can always say, "You didn't understand me; you're an idiot." That's the terrorism part.
A controversy surrounding Derrida's work in philosophy and as a philosopher arose when the University of Cambridge awarded him an honorary doctorate, despite opposition from members of its philosophy faculty and a letter of protest signed by eighteen professors from other institutions, including W. V. Quine, David Armstrong, Ruth Barcan Marcus, and René Thom. In their letter they claimed that Derrida's work "does not meet accepted standards of clarity and rigor" and described Derrida's philosophy as being composed of "tricks and gimmicks similar to those of the Dadaists." The letter also stated that "Academic status based on what seems to us to be little more than semi-intelligible attacks upon the values of reason, truth, and scholarship is not, we submit, sufficient grounds for the awarding of an honorary degree in a distinguished university."[25]
[edit] Intentional obfuscation
Noam Chomsky has expressed the view that Derrida uses "pretentious rhetoric" to obscure the simplicity of his ideas.[26] He groups Derrida within a broader category of the Parisian intellectual community which he has criticized for, in his view, acting as an elite power structure for the well educated through "difficult writing" and obscurantism.[26] Chomsky has indicated that he may simply be incapable of understanding Derrida, but he is dubious of this possibility.[26]
Emir Rodríguez Monegal alleged that many of Derrida's ideas were recycled from the work of Borges (from essays and tales such as "La fruición literaria" (1928), "Elementos de preceptiva" (1933), "Pierre Menard" (1939), "Tlön" (1940), "Kafka y sus precursores" (1951)[27]), opening his article with:[28]
I've always found it difficult to read Derrida. Not so much for the density of his thought and the heavy, redundant, and repetitive style in which it is developed, but for an entirely circumstantial reason. Educated in Borges's thought from the age of fifteen, I must admit that many of Derrida's novelties struck me as being rather tautological. I could not understand why he took so long in arriving at the same luminous perspectives which Borges had opened up years earlier. His famed "deconstruction" impressed me for its technical precision and the infinite seduction of its textual sleights-of-hand, but it was all too familiar to me: I had experienced it in Borges avant la lettre.
i didn't read the whole quote, b.c. it's long, but every school of philosophy accuses every other school of philosophy of being "sophist", i.e. a souless, corporate, sell-out bastard, peddling ideas and religion for personal profit.
it's all very dicanc.
that's my word verification, but it's a new philosophical term.
dicanc: an idea or value system which believe inherently in condemnation of the ideas, practices, or beliefs of others.
wolfboy i don't condemn anything "inherently," i have an extremely open mind and i'm open to anything that helps me or anyone else. i condemn things that i suspect are harmful and dangerous. i have a special kind of condemnation for insidious and demoralizing things. i have a big problem with powermongering and unjust authority. i would never bother to take a stand against something just for the sake of it. we all have better things to do than that.
i was just thinking, maybe i shouldn't be so harsh in my condemnation. a lot of people have fallen for the derrida ish. i'm not trying to embarrass anyone and i'm sorry for stomping on toes. maybe i should have just said - be careful about derrida, he might have scammed your mind.
Derrida had his place, but I agree, he just plays games with words, and in that sense, that was his contribution, that one can make truths of anything.
But I will never believe anyone who asks me to believe them when their main point is that there are no truths.
to me, this quote proves foucault's claim that derrida wrote in deliberately obscure language that contains little real substance, and that any critique of it precipitates the "you don't understand it, yr an idiot" response.
I commented with the Wikipedia quote. Mostly cause I was having difficulty with understanding the quote, and was sort of relieved to find I wasn't the only one.
I think pluralism has different meanings too. A pluralist in art is a good thing as far as I can tell. My favorite artists claim to be, or are described as pluralist. Maybe this is something different entirely. I thought it just meant someone who has different "styles" (Richter, K n' M, Dubeffet, and maybe me).
I would rather call him a confusion-ist. And that's what I like about him, it keeps you wondering and thinking and rethinking and then back to wondering again. a little like believing in impossibility.
That's definitely a good thing jc, but why believe in impossibility, when it, in fact, is, meaning there's no need to believe in it, as your thoughts are bound by it.
I guess I'm saying that impossibility is possible, so there's no need to believe in it.
I rather believe in unicorns.
Does that make sense?
And from the point of view of Derrida, who is trying to make statements on the nature of reality, it definitely should matter that others understand what you're saying, if not, you're effectively a solipsist, potentially a sophist, and are not achieving your goal.
To me, he's a great writer actually, as he does make you think, but not much of an academic, even a critical social theorist, if the point is to inform people about what's really going on.
That actually may be too strong though, because I do find him and his compatriots super exact and bang on at the same time.
All that mumbo jumbo, if you take the time to figure out what they're trying to say from the point of view of time itself, e.g., unbeseen, then it makes for some pretty cool stuff, ontologically that is.
i don't find that derrida makes me think. i've never had the impression that he intends me to. most often it seems like he's trying to stun me into awe over his grandiloquence. there's a big word. i'll use just about anything as an excuse to think about things, but really. reading derrida reminds me of JZ Knight channelling ramtha... with a fancy nihilistic twist. where's the substance? and does it measure up to the bombast?
anyway, again sorry for harshing. here's a unicorn chaser as a gesture of good faith...
A Love for Art was a collaborative blog for visual artists, musicians, writers, and social scientists. This blog has evolved into a new blog called BETA, go check it out!
18 comments:
"derrida was a cult leader."
- kathryn yee
Lack of philosophical clarity
Though Derrida addressed the American Philosophical Association on several occasions[citation needed] and was highly regarded by contemporary philosophers like Richard Rorty, Alexander Nehamas,[23] and Stanley Cavell, his work has been regarded by other Analytic philosophers, such as John Searle and W. V. Quine, as pseudophilosophy or sophistry. John Searle, a frequent critic of Derrida dating back to their exchange on speech act theory in Limited Inc (where Derrida strongly accused Searle of intentionally misreading and misrepresenting him), exemplified this view in his comments on deconstruction in the New York Review of Books, February 2, 1994 [3], for example:
...anyone who reads deconstructive texts with an open mind is likely to be struck by the same phenomena that initially surprised me: the low level of philosophical argumentation, the deliberate obscurantism of the prose, the wildly exaggerated claims, and the constant striving to give the appearance of profundity by making claims that seem paradoxical, but under analysis often turn out to be silly or trivial.
Foucault who is often considered as Derrida's contemporary, also revealed his dissatisfaction of Derrida's style of writing in a conversation with Searle. According to Foucault, Derrida practises the method of obscurantisme terroriste (terrorism of obscurantism) [24]. Searle quotes Foucault's explanation of the term as the following:
He writes so obscurely you can't tell what he's saying, that's the obscurantism part, and then when you criticize him, he can always say, "You didn't understand me; you're an idiot." That's the terrorism part.
A controversy surrounding Derrida's work in philosophy and as a philosopher arose when the University of Cambridge awarded him an honorary doctorate, despite opposition from members of its philosophy faculty and a letter of protest signed by eighteen professors from other institutions, including W. V. Quine, David Armstrong, Ruth Barcan Marcus, and René Thom. In their letter they claimed that Derrida's work "does not meet accepted standards of clarity and rigor" and described Derrida's philosophy as being composed of "tricks and gimmicks similar to those of the Dadaists." The letter also stated that "Academic status based on what seems to us to be little more than semi-intelligible attacks upon the values of reason, truth, and scholarship is not, we submit, sufficient grounds for the awarding of an honorary degree in a distinguished university."[25]
[edit] Intentional obfuscation
Noam Chomsky has expressed the view that Derrida uses "pretentious rhetoric" to obscure the simplicity of his ideas.[26] He groups Derrida within a broader category of the Parisian intellectual community which he has criticized for, in his view, acting as an elite power structure for the well educated through "difficult writing" and obscurantism.[26] Chomsky has indicated that he may simply be incapable of understanding Derrida, but he is dubious of this possibility.[26]
Emir Rodríguez Monegal alleged that many of Derrida's ideas were recycled from the work of Borges (from essays and tales such as "La fruición literaria" (1928), "Elementos de preceptiva" (1933), "Pierre Menard" (1939), "Tlön" (1940), "Kafka y sus precursores" (1951)[27]), opening his article with:[28]
I've always found it difficult to read Derrida. Not so much for the density of his thought and the heavy, redundant, and repetitive style in which it is developed, but for an entirely circumstantial reason. Educated in Borges's thought from the age of fifteen, I must admit that many of Derrida's novelties struck me as being rather tautological. I could not understand why he took so long in arriving at the same luminous perspectives which Borges had opened up years earlier. His famed "deconstruction" impressed me for its technical precision and the infinite seduction of its textual sleights-of-hand, but it was all too familiar to me: I had experienced it in Borges avant la lettre.
i didn't read the whole quote, b.c. it's long, but every school of philosophy accuses every other school of philosophy of being "sophist", i.e. a souless, corporate, sell-out bastard, peddling ideas and religion for personal profit.
it's all very dicanc.
that's my word verification, but it's a new philosophical term.
dicanc: an idea or value system which believe inherently in condemnation of the ideas, practices, or beliefs of others.
Are you saying you understand the Derrida quote?!
wolfboy i don't condemn anything "inherently," i have an extremely open mind and i'm open to anything that helps me or anyone else. i condemn things that i suspect are harmful and dangerous. i have a special kind of condemnation for insidious and demoralizing things. i have a big problem with powermongering and unjust authority. i would never bother to take a stand against something just for the sake of it. we all have better things to do than that.
i was just thinking, maybe i shouldn't be so harsh in my condemnation. a lot of people have fallen for the derrida ish. i'm not trying to embarrass anyone and i'm sorry for stomping on toes. maybe i should have just said - be careful about derrida, he might have scammed your mind.
Derrida had his place, but I agree, he just plays games with words, and in that sense, that was his contribution, that one can make truths of anything.
But I will never believe anyone who asks me to believe them when their main point is that there are no truths.
I think pluralism is for clowns.
ky-- my comment was about the wikipedia quote.
i find a certain irony in a bunch of tenured philosophy profs calling someone else a sophist.
...not that im a fan of derrida.
to me, this quote proves foucault's claim that derrida wrote in deliberately obscure language that contains little real substance, and that any critique of it precipitates the "you don't understand it, yr an idiot" response.
I commented with the Wikipedia quote. Mostly cause I was having difficulty with understanding the quote, and was sort of relieved to find I wasn't the only one.
I think pluralism has different meanings too. A pluralist in art is a good thing as far as I can tell. My favorite artists claim to be, or are described as pluralist. Maybe this is something different entirely. I thought it just meant someone who has different "styles" (Richter, K n' M, Dubeffet, and maybe me).
I would rather call him a confusion-ist. And that's what I like about him, it keeps you wondering and thinking and rethinking and then back to wondering again. a little like believing in impossibility.
In other words his quote doesn't have to make sense and you don't have to understand it, it just has to make you think and engage you into thinking.
That's definitely a good thing jc, but why believe in impossibility, when it, in fact, is, meaning there's no need to believe in it, as your thoughts are bound by it.
I guess I'm saying that impossibility is possible, so there's no need to believe in it.
I rather believe in unicorns.
Does that make sense?
And from the point of view of Derrida, who is trying to make statements on the nature of reality, it definitely should matter that others understand what you're saying, if not, you're effectively a solipsist, potentially a sophist, and are not achieving your goal.
To me, he's a great writer actually, as he does make you think, but not much of an academic, even a critical social theorist, if the point is to inform people about what's really going on.
That actually may be too strong though, because I do find him and his compatriots super exact and bang on at the same time.
All that mumbo jumbo, if you take the time to figure out what they're trying to say from the point of view of time itself, e.g., unbeseen, then it makes for some pretty cool stuff, ontologically that is.
Egad, I don't even understand myself anymore.
Wolfboy, help me and my vernacular!
Oh wait, stay strong, save YOURSELF.
Woh, we're made of some pretty strange stuff.
Long live ALfA!
and long live unicorns!
i don't find that derrida makes me think. i've never had the impression that he intends me to. most often it seems like he's trying to stun me into awe over his grandiloquence. there's a big word. i'll use just about anything as an excuse to think about things, but really. reading derrida reminds me of JZ Knight channelling ramtha... with a fancy nihilistic twist. where's the substance? and does it measure up to the bombast?
anyway, again sorry for harshing. here's a unicorn chaser as a gesture of good faith...
I like unicorns.
Olivia told me a story about a unicorn princess with hands and feet made of rainbows.
yr good faith was never in doubt, KY, but thanks for the unicorn gesture anyway. :)
Post a Comment