> I'm not sure how to say this without being blunt: You're completely
> missing the point of her argument. Nowhere does Butler claim that
> "biological facts must not be real". As shag points out, your responses
> in this thread are making Butler's point for her--and you don't seem to
> realize it!
>
>
>
This is like the fifth post in the last half-hour that's accused me of not understanding Butler's text, which I've now read and re-read about 12 times. Which brings this to mind:
> JOHN SEARLE: With Derrida, you can hardly misread him, because he's so
> obscure. Every time you say, "He says so and so," he always says, "You
> misunderstood me." But if you try to figure out the correct
> interpretation, then that's not so easy. I once said this to Michel
> Foucault, who was more hostile to Derrida even than I am, and Foucault
> said that Derrida practiced the method of obscurantisme terroriste
> (terrorism of obscurantism). We were speaking French. And I said,
> "What the hell do you mean by that?" And he said, "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."
Seth