Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

RIP Jacques Derrida - But What Were You On About?

Page: 1(2)

14:29 / 02.11.04

If you want a clear account of Derrida the best is The Tain of the Mirror by Rodolphe Gasche. Accepted by many Derrida scholars as an accurate discussion, it locates Derrida in the 'philosophy of difference' that arose in France post ww2 and which responded or tried to respond to Hegel and a breakdown in representational theory.

07:43 / 29.11.04

Can't say I know much about Derrida's work, having found it impenetrable and difficult to assess. But judgements can be made based on expert opinion, much as with evolution (which I think Deva references above), where expert opinion is overwhelming favourable, or evolutionary psychology, where expert opinion is sharply divided.

So, in the spirit of inquiry, how do the knowledgable respond to this or this? Are the following quotes (by a philosopher, one should note) complete misrepresentations?

I am, needless to say, with the vast majority of philosophers in thinking Derrida's work of a philosophical nature was badly confused and pernicious in its influence, and in the substantial minority within that group who formed that opinion after actually reading his work.

[In response to a criticism of the New York Times obituary]...there are no "appreciative quotes" from "American philosophers," because American philosophers thought he was a fraud, a betrayal to philosophy's grand history

ONLY NICE THINGS

12:13 / 29.11.04

Is it me, or is Brian Leiter having an imaginary argument with Mark Taylor there? Should we be surprised, then, that he declares himself the winner?

Given that Derrida's academic career from the mid-60s took place largely in America, I would be a little surprised to find that he was *universally* reviled in the US - reviled by the descendants of the anlysts, yes. In the absence of a poll, I don't think we can profitably comment either way... Leiter himself is by no means a fool, but as a lawyer and, I believe, a positivist he is almost certainly not Derrida's core audience.

Another perspective on the "abandonment of Derrida" can be found here.

15:34 / 29.11.04

I think the point is supposed to be that although Derrida had many admirers, most were and are literary theorists rather than philosphers. Whether that should matter is another question, though Leiter is commenting specifically on the philosophical weight of Derrida. BTW, are you using "descendants of the analysts" to mean "those currently employed in philosophy departments", Haus?

Anhhow, Leiter makes this claim quite forcefully and, as an intermitent reader of his blog I had thought he was a reasonably reliable source, although I know nothing about his philosphical standing.

ONLY NICE THINGS

16:23 / 29.11.04

BTW, are you using "descendants of the analysts" to mean "those currently employed in philosophy departments", Haus?

Not deliberately, but it may mean that de facto. I was aiming for "those whose philosophies extend primarily from a basis of analytical philosophy". Such a person might locate Derrida in the context of literary theory, and further deny that literary theory had any place in the study of philosophy. I'm, not sure I'd accept either argument at face value...

18:04 / 05.04.05

I don't see a hidden hand of Derrida in either David Foster Wallace or Don DeLillo.

While DFW strikes me as the more structurally adventurous of the two, I agree with the assessment of Infinite Jest as a fairly modernist novel, emotionally. Nowhere do I see the "nihilism" which critics argue as the only possible reaction to Derrida's philosophy.

Derrida didn't coin the term "language games" -- that goes back to Wittgenstein, whose Philosophical Investigations treads ground similar to Derrida's "signifier" and "signified" conceptions, I'd argue. David Foster Wallace has often mentioned Wittgenstein as a strong influence (as has David Rees of Get Your War On fame, interestingly enough); that Hari would use the term in what seems such a sloppy manner undercuts an already stillborn argument. (Mixed metaphor or language game?)

Page: 1(2)