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

[Chris Doss]

Anyway, my whole point was that the following arguments are invalid and therefore false.

Premise 1: I have beliefs about x.
Premise 2: I believe that my beliefs about x are universal.
Premise 3: My beliefs about x can only be universal if there is some guarantor that they are universal.
---------------------------
Conclusion: There is a guarantor that my beliefs about x are universal. (And this we all call God.)

(Note that this is also Plato's argument [or rather one of them] for the existence of Forms.)

OR

Premise 1a: I have universal beliefs.
Premise 2a: If I have universal beliefs, there is a guarantor that I have universal beliefs.
------------------------------
Conclusion 1: There is a guarantor that I have universal beliefs.
Premise 1b: If there is a guarantor that I have universal beliefs, then I have universal beliefs.
------------------------------
Conclusion 2: I have universal beliefs.

This last one is called "begging the question."