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

Chris Doss lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com
Sat Nov 7 15:06:12 PST 2009


Which is exactly what Ted is doing. He believes that honor killing is wrong. The real reason he believes that honor killing is wrong is that he lives in a secular, urban, cosmpolitan society, and not in a village in Pakistan. Just as, the real reason he doesn't believe in witches is that he lives in a secular, urban, cosmopolitan society, and not in a village in medieval Europe (or modern Nigeria). However, that's not good enough. He needs his to have the truth of his belief guaranteed by God, I mean, reason. If you notice, his whole argument is in the form, "if there is no guarantor that x is wrong, then I couldn't say that x is universally wrong. I know that x is universally wrong, therefore there must be a guarantor that x is wrong, which is why I know that x is universally wrong." It's totally circular. 

----- Original Message ---- From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>

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



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list