As to Derrida, I ask it again: What did he say that is so profound?
I agree that important readings are sometimes created by poor writers. Marx himself, despite flashes of brilliance, wasn't exactly the model of clarity. But obtuse composition, as Mills said, is just as often a disguise for shallowness.
-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of james at communistbanker.com Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 8:21 AM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: RE: [lbo-talk] Re: Butler on Derrida
Now I'm embarassed to have agreed with your previous post. I also crave clarity and power, but lots of important and rewarding writing is not clear and powerful. Unfortunately for us, some powerful thinkers are less than powerful writers. Unfortunately for you, you'll never know if you refuse anything that's unclear.
How can you know what Derrida's 'supposed' greatness lies in if you don't read it? And whilst Alain de Botton's prose might be clear - even powerful - it's also vacuous and moronic. You'd realise that if you engaged with some of his sources, which are more difficult than de Botton gives credit for, but also much more rewarding than his patronising therapeutic interpretation.
I think it was Hegel that said form is only the form of its content, which is true to a point. But great content can sometimes come in awful form. And appealing form is often contentless, as readers of de Botton really ought to realise.
James Greenstein
--- "Michael Dawson" <MDawson at pdx.edu> wrote:
From: "Michael Dawson" <MDawson at pdx.edu> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:41:02 -0700 To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> Subject: RE: [lbo-talk] Re: Butler on Derrida
I don't crave certainty. I crave clarity and power in what I read, particularly in nonfiction. Jared Diamond. Alain DeBotton. Noam Chomsky. C. Wright Mills. Doug Henwood.
What did Derrida ever argue that mattered, and how many verbose pages did it take him to say it?
And as for his supposed greatness as a philosopher, it all rests on a pretty sophomoric view of truth and knowledge. He over-corrected an error that is more cleanly and powerfully corrected by people like Cornel West and the pragmatists he updates.
As for scorn, it seems Joanna and I have hit a nerve with Jim A. We just don't think the game is worth the candle with JD. I'd be interested to hear Jim's short, sweet statement of why the candle should be burnt.
-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Doug Henwood Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 6:51 AM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: [lbo-talk] Re: Butler on Derrida
jimi ayler wrote:
>all the dungeons i frequent in nyc are
>all about the evaporation of meaning into the
>immateriality of the text
I'm reminded of the thread the other day on cognitive style & politics. "Conservatives" are said to dislike ambiguity and to crave certainty and stability. Seems like some of our left Derrida-haters share that preference.
Doug ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk