[lbo-talk] How radical was Derrida? (was 'does anyone read poststructuralism anymore?')

[C. G. Estabrook]

A proof of God ought really to be something by means of which you can convince yourself of God's existence.  But I think that believers who offer such proofs want to analyze and make a case for their "belief" with their intellect, altho' they themselves would never have arrived at belief by way of such proofs.  --CGE

---- Original message ----
>Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 13:16:52 -0800 (PST)
>From: Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com>  
>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] How radical was Derrida? (was 'does anyone read poststructuralism anymore?')  
>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>
>Anyway, Ted's whole argument is the classic Moral Argument for the Existence of God*, which is invalid, and which has been known for hundreds of years to be invalid, unless you adopt an idealist/realist metaphysics, the adoption of which would have to be argued for first before making the moral argument and which I doubt either Marx, Husserl, or St. Whitehead would accept.
>
>*I.e. universal moral judgments require an objective moral criterion, and this we all call god.
>
>
>      
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk