October 13, 2004
Derrida
I am not going to eulogize Derrida, because it is probably unseemly and uncharitable to use words like "gasbag" or "con man" or "fraud" while speaking of the recently deceased. And anyway, I never met the man. Perhaps he was a wonderful sort who was simply a little confused in his writing. So confused that he perfected the art of writing without actually saying anything.
And this is the way to speak of Derrida. Not Derrida the man, who, as I mentioned, may have been good people and all that. Rather, we can attack the work he left, and preferably with a can of gasoline and a book of matches.
Go ahead, pick up one of his books and diagram several of the sentences. You might be surprised to learn that in many cases he really was saying nothing. Nada. Zip. Nil. Of course for someone who thought that language made communication nearly impossible, this is probably fitting.
Anyway, thanks to OGIC, I read this very funnny article in the Guardian. Especially read what Denis MacShane had to say.
Posted by erik at October 13, 2004 10:14 AM | TrackBackI could never figure out the deal was with Deconstruction (Heaven forbid you add "-ism"). The text means nothing till you add your opinions, experiences, and biases. It's nihilistic crapola. Just 'cause he's dead doesn't mean you can't call him a gasbag. I'm sure he was nice to puppies and small children.
Posted by: John Salmon at October 17, 2004 5:57 PMI love how Kofman sums up that he's not relativistic, just says you have to 'agree to a course of action' (based on nothing but what you agree to, of course). This, apparently, constitutes 'strict ethics'.
Which has nothing to do with what he's most known for anyway, and I must imagine would be ruddy hard if you can't pierce the meaning of words.
Posted by: DN at October 15, 2004 3:53 PMSee also Roger Scruton, and the comment from the research manager of the Campaign for Real Ale. Brilliant!
Posted by: Mark C N Sullivan at October 14, 2004 1:09 PM