I have answered Dr. Alan Sokal's challenge ("the Sokal Hoax")
mus...@volcanomail.com
the author if the infamous "Sokal hoax," which purportedly proved
the "charlatanism and nonsense of prominent French intellectuals"
-- the most prominent of which was certainly Jacques Derrida.
Dr. Sokal has repeatedly claimed that nobody has responded to his
challenge to debate this matter. He claims this despite the fact that
I wrote to him years ago in answer to this very challenge. I have
written to him yet again, and we'll see if he responds this time. I
doubt he will. But if any Sokal-lover wishes to step in and take his
place -- to demonstrate the "meaninglessness" or "charlatanism"
of writers like Jacques Derrida or Michel Foucault, I certainly invite
you to do so.
This is the text of my latest response to Dr. Sokal:
Dear Dr. Sokal --
I am responding to your repeated invitation for somebody to "defend"
the "prominent French intellectuals" you parodied in your famous
article. I was surprised to see fairly recent comments you made that
"nobody" has yet responded to your challenge -- when, in fact, I have
been trying to do so for years now. As yet, however, I cannot find
anyone on "your side" of the argument who is able to hold his own in a
debate with me about this matter.
So I thought I'd finally go to the source. I realize you're very busy,
so my proposal is simple: You claim that nobody can explain to you the
"nonsense" you see in the "prominent French intellectuals" you cited in
your hoax. Jacques Derrida is probably the most prominent target in
your hoax, and whose name inevitably comes up in every discussion I
read about "the Sokal affair." In a written statement after your hoax,
you assert that it confirms that it was not simply your "own
inadequacy" that made you "unable to make head or tale of jouissance or
differance." The reason you mention differance, of course, is because
it is one of the few neologisms coined by Derrida. (You knew this, of
course, because you have read the relevant literature whereof you
speak; your scholarly integrity and scientific rigor would naturally
preclude you from making pronouncements -- or even very profitable
insinuations -- about authors you have never read.)
The proposal, as I say, is simple: All you have to do is email back to
me anything Derrida has written that you consider to be "meaningless,"
and I will be able to explain what he's talking about -- as per your
challenge. You can simply cut and paste something if you'd like -- it
would only take a minute.
Of course, I have to limit the choice of texts I can speak about to
those I have actually read. So we should stick to any of the central,
well-known books and essays, e.g., Of Grammatology, Limited, Inc., The
Post Card, Writing and Difference, Dissemination, Given Time, Of
Spirit, The Ear of the Other, "Structure, Sign and Play in the
Discourse of the Human Sciences," etc.
I can also perfectly "defend" whatever "nonsense" you think you see in
Michel Foucault, Judith Butler or Hayden White as well. Since it's all
reportedly nonsense, you should be able to stick your finger in any of
these texts and find a "meaningless" paragraph rather quickly.
In any case: you will agree with me, I'm sure, that it would be the
height of intellectual dishonesty if you were to publicly assert, yet
again, that nobody has taken you up on your offer to explain or
"defend" any of the "prominent French intellectuals" you parody in your
hoax.
I look forward to our discussion!
James Whitehead
<mus...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1124932325.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
You appear to assume that the heavy weight boxing champion of the world is
the best boxer - or miss world the most beautiful woman. - i.e. there is
nothing outside the context......
mus...@volcanomail.com
James Whitehead wrote:
>
> You appear to assume that the heavy weight boxing champion of the world is
> the best boxer - or miss world the most beautiful woman. - i.e. there is
> nothing outside the context......
? um... Have I yet made any claims about "context" at all? I don't
understand what your objection is... Please clarify.
James Whitehead
<mus...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1125159789.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
who - that is which group is Sokal talking too - that is my point.... where
there appears two or more contexts-
The context might be that of the academic group to which Derrida belonged-
as opposed to Sokal's which was another... and you put yourself
inadvertently perhaps of doing the very thing JD would oppose - i.e. giving
an explanation....
mus...@volcanomail.com
James Whitehead wrote:
>
> who - that is which group is Sokal talking too - that is my point.... where
> there appears two or more contexts-
>
> The context might be that of the academic group to which Derrida belonged-
> as opposed to Sokal's which was another... and you put yourself
> inadvertently perhaps of doing the very thing JD would oppose - i.e. giving
> an explanation....
er... well, I'm not really interested in which "group" Sokal thinks
he's talking to. I'm talking about the explicit claims he actually
makes -- i.e., that he has "demonstrated the charlatanism and nonsense
of prominent French intellectuals" like Derrida and Foucault. It's
simply a false assertion, no matter who his audience is.
James Whitehead
<mus...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1125257793....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
the point is that Sokal is not interested in the likes of us - or the said
intellectuals - the idea of nonsense lies within certain groups - and has
different meanings within them....there are plenty of examples in Derrida
that would fall into the category within certain groups - philosophy itself
is to be regarded so... and if Derrida was not dead and could be bothered
might well take argument with your kind offer...
mus...@volcanomail.com
James Whitehead wrote:
> the point is that Sokal is not interested in the likes of us - or the said
> intellectuals - the idea of nonsense lies within certain groups - and has
> different meanings within them....there are plenty of examples in Derrida
> that would fall into the category within certain groups
Yes; and this is all I'm asking for: Just *one example* of some
"nonsense" that Derrida has written, from any "group's" perspecitve.
James Whitehead
<mus...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1125519807.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
or all of J.D.s oeuvre is nonsense.
mus...@volcanomail.com
James Whitehead wrote:
> > Yes; and this is all I'm asking for: Just *one example* of some
> > "nonsense" that Derrida has written, from any "group's" perspecitve.
> I've given one elsewhere - but simply from the Tractatus point of view much
> or all of J.D.s oeuvre is nonsense.
uh.. OK, can you show it to us? Just quickly paste in your analysis of
Derrida's nonsense, or just paste in a quick link to where this
analysis can be found.
James Whitehead
<mus...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1125632181....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"All sentences of the type "deconstruction is X" or "deconstruction is not
X" a priori miss the point, which is to say that they are at least false. "-
care to explain?
Lets call the above sentence S - surely S expresses the proposition that S
is false?
mus...@volcanomail.com
an apple; it's something that happens at a moment of reading another
text. Hence, it is false to use identity statements such as
"deconstruction is X."
Why don't people ever pick out the major arguments that Derrida
actually makes about actual philosophical issues? i.e., the conceptual
relation between speech and writing in Western philosophy; His critique
of Levi-Straussian or Joseph Campbellian structuralism; his critique of
Saussurean linguistics, and his own philosophy of linguistics; his
various analyses of Plato, Husserl, Heidegger, etc. etc. etc.?
Can somebody please point out the "nonsense" in the actual
philosophical arguments he actually makes about things that
philosophers actually talk about...?
1Z
mus...@volcanomail.com wrote:
> Can somebody please point out the "nonsense" in the actual
> philosophical arguments he actually makes about things that
> philosophers actually talk about...?
I think Mr Whitehead's point is that nonsense is -- for Postmodernists
anyway -- in the eye of the beholder. OC, for the Tractarian
Wittgenstein, practically any traditional metpahysical statement
is is nonsense, so Deconstructionism must be nonsense with bells and
whistles on. In Witt.'s eyes.
1Z
mus...@volcanomail.com wrote:
> Why don't people ever pick out the major arguments that Derrida
> actually makes about actual philosophical issues?
They can't understand him ?
James Whitehead
<mus...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1125645330.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
****Yes; and this is all I'm asking for: Just *one example* of some
"nonsense" that Derrida has written, from any "group's" perspective.****
Now you've changed what you originally asked for - after first ignoring and
avoiding the examples i gave.
You have it seems reduced your open challenge to one of asking for someone
to point out the nonsense in the sensible writings of Derrida - and not the
nonsensical.
And even there i have done just this - from the point of view of the Vienna
Circle the writings of Derrida (in the main) would be considered as
"nonsense".
So I've given both specific examples - which you appear unable to address
and a very general one which you also have failed to address. No wonder
Social didnt reply - it appears to be a waste of time.
"A text remains, moreover, forever imperceptible." -J.D.
James Whitehead
"1Z" <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125676192.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
rows between arts and science depts in universities - especially amongst the
more second rate academics (following rather than leading) seem sadly
inevitable - and as deconstructionism looks like a method but isnt the-
'wanting knock down arguments set' - get as upset as a plumber looking at a
duchamp.
mus...@volcanomail.com
Then they should either aquaint themselves with the philosophical
tradition that would allow for such understanding -- or, if they're not
interested, they should not pretend to forward arguments about writers
they don't read.
mus...@volcanomail.com
>> ****Yes; and this is all I'm asking for: Just *one example* of some
>> "nonsense" that Derrida has written, from any "group's" perspective.****
>
> Now you've changed what you originally asked for - after first ignoring and
> avoiding the examples i gave.
Which "examples"?? Do you mean the magazine clip you produced about
whether decontsruction is or is not something? I did answer you,
thusly:
...well, obviously he's saying that deconstruction is not an entity,
like
an apple; it's something that happens at a moment of reading another
text. Hence, it is false to use identity statements such as
"deconstruction is X."
> You have it seems reduced your open challenge to one of asking for someone
> to point out the nonsense in the sensible writings of Derrida - and not the
> nonsensical.
If Derrida writes nothing but nonsense, wouldn't it be logical to
provide and example *first* from the major works that constitute
Derrida's important contributions? You could quote anything you like
from _Of Grammatology_ or _Limited Inc._ or _Writing and Difference_,
or _Given Time_ or whatever...
> And even there i have done just this - from the point of view of the Vienna
> Circle the writings of Derrida (in the main) would be considered as
> "nonsense".
Wow -- the "Vienna Circle," which has never read nor commented upon any
of Derrida's writings, has demonstrated his writings to be nonsense!
Oh mighty Vienna Circle!
This about what I expect from people who have strong opinions about
books they don't read.
James Whitehead
<mus...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1125689173.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> James Whitehead wrote:
>
> >> ****Yes; and this is all I'm asking for: Just *one example* of some
> >> "nonsense" that Derrida has written, from any "group's"
perspective.****
> >
> > Now you've changed what you originally asked for - after first ignoring
and
> > avoiding the examples i gave.
>
> Which "examples"?? Do you mean the magazine clip you produced about
> whether decontsruction is or is not something? I did answer you,
> thusly:
>
> ...well, obviously he's saying that deconstruction is not an entity,
> like
> an apple; it's something that happens at a moment of reading another
> text. Hence, it is false to use identity statements such as
> "deconstruction is X."
But that is what you (and J.D.) have just done! (x = it's something that
happens at a moment of reading another text or x = it is false to use
identity statements such as "deconstruction is X." etc etc)
Further answering your question to any logical atomist - its nonsense -
being neither a logical proposition or an empirical statement - and that
tradition of logic in philosophy is closely allied to science and underpins
Sokal's thinking - his metaphysics- so of course he will find Continental
philosophy odd - but that does not excuse his playing the hoax.
>
> > You have it seems reduced your open challenge to one of asking for
someone
> > to point out the nonsense in the sensible writings of Derrida - and not
the
> > nonsensical.
>
> If Derrida writes nothing but nonsense, wouldn't it be logical to
> provide and example *first* from the major works that constitute
> Derrida's important contributions? You could quote anything you like
> from _Of Grammatology_ or _Limited Inc._ or _Writing and Difference_,
> or _Given Time_ or whatever...
I have done - but it doesnt from the L.A./ V.C. point of view - we simply
as - is it science or logic - if neither its nonsense.
>
> > And even there i have done just this - from the point of view of the
Vienna
> > Circle the writings of Derrida (in the main) would be considered as
> > "nonsense".
>
> Wow -- the "Vienna Circle," which has never read nor commented upon any
> of Derrida's writings, has demonstrated his writings to be nonsense!
> Oh mighty Vienna Circle!
Yes and all past and future metaphysics - thats the whole point of their
philosophy - or a major one. You asked for an example - i provided one and
now your being flippant and avoiding a response. A thank you would have been
nice.
I'll spell it out - anyone adhering (at this moment in time) to the ideas
of Wittgenstein in the Tractatus - A.J. Ayer ... - The Vienna Circle etc. -
which has roots in and through science - would regard Derrida's writing as
nonsense - or perhaps much of it. What Wittgenstein spotted is that is
nonsense is extremely interesting and caries with it something he said was
beyond language - such as ethics and aesthetics - two attributes found in
the work of J.D.
>
> This about what I expect from people who have strong opinions about
> books they don't read.
>
I have read* them and admire his work - J.D. was a very significant figure -
so much i would say it maybe is the case that one cant read Derrida... i
have also read Wittgenstein and Ayer. Perhaps Sokal was attacking the
second rate followers of Deconstruction who J.D. himself attacked as not
getting the correct end of the stick - notably many who praised him in Lit
Crit Depts of US universities - though the resulting publicity was no doubt
not wasted on the master.
Do you read him in english or french?
James Whitehead
<mus...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1125688575.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Its perfectly possible to argue against books one hasnt read. I find the
idea of understanding J.D. a puzzle? As if one can finish him off or some
such like?
1Z
Q: How do you scientifically test whether something you don't
understand is incomprehensible to you because
a) it is nonsense per se
b) you are too ignoratn to understand it
A: You write something which you KNOW to be nonsense, and submit
it to the aleged nonsense-merchants for approval.... if they
don't spot it is nonsense, they are presumably not too
bothered about the sensicallity of anything else.
1Z
mus...@volcanomail.com wrote:
> If Derrida writes nothing but nonsense....
....the "Vienna Circle," which has never read nor commented upon any
> of Derrida's writings, has demonstrated his writings to be nonsense!
I see you still haven't realised that JW is talking about
nonsense-to-such-and-such-a-reading-audience rather than nonsense
simplicter.
mus...@volcanomail.com
1Z wrote:
> > Then they should either aquaint themselves with the philosophical
> > tradition that would allow for such understanding -- or, if they're not
> > interested, they should not pretend to forward arguments about writers
> > they don't read.
>
> Q: How do you scientifically test whether something you don't
> understand is incomprehensible to you because
> a) it is nonsense per se
> b) you are too ignoratn to understand it
>
> A: You write something which you KNOW to be nonsense, and submit
> it to the aleged nonsense-merchants for approval.... if they
> don't spot it is nonsense, they are presumably not too
> bothered about the sensicallity of anything else.
...and here I am given yet *another* reason why it is perfectly
acceptable scholarship to mount arguments against books one has not
read! I guess this is why people like Sokal have a ready audience...
1Z
It is already acceptable (PoMo) scholarship to base arguments on
science you don't understand. I've lost count of the number of people
who have informed
me that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle "proves" their brand
anti-realism...but are unable to recognise it when I write it down.
mus...@volcanomail.com
James Whitehead wrote:
> Now you've changed what you originally asked for - after first ignoring and
> avoiding the examples i gave.
>
> You have it seems reduced your open challenge to one of asking for someone
> to point out the nonsense in the sensible writings of Derrida - and not the
> nonsensical.
>
> And even there i have done just this - from the point of view of the Vienna
> Circle the writings of Derrida (in the main) would be considered as
> "nonsense".
*This* is a demonstration that Derrida's theses are nonsense? *This*
constitutes an argument against Derrida?
> So I've given both specific examples - which you appear unable to address
> and a very general one which you also have failed to address. No wonder
> Social didnt reply - it appears to be a waste of time.
*This* is a demonstration that Derrida's theses are nonsense? *This*
constitutes an argument against Derrida?
> "A text remains, moreover, forever imperceptible." -J.D.
*This* is a demonstration that Derrida's theses are nonsense? *This*
constitutes an argument against Derrida?
mus...@volcanomail.com
1Z wrote:
> It is already acceptable (PoMo) scholarship to base arguments on
> science you don't understand. I've lost count of the number of people
> who have informed
> me that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle "proves" their brand
> anti-realism...but are unable to recognise it when I write it down.
Has anybody like Derrida or Foucault ever done so?
No?
Then it's irrelevant.
mus...@volcanomail.com
1Z wrote:
> It is already acceptable (PoMo) scholarship to base arguments on
> science you don't understand. I've lost count of the number of people
> who have informed
> me that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle "proves" their brand
> anti-realism...but are unable to recognise it when I write it down.
Has anybody like Derrida or Foucault ever done so?
mus...@volcanomail.com
1Z wrote:
> Q: How do you scientifically test whether something you don't
> understand is incomprehensible to you because
> a) it is nonsense per se
> b) you are too ignoratn to understand it
>
> A: You write something which you KNOW to be nonsense, and submit
> it to the aleged nonsense-merchants for approval.... if they
> don't spot it is nonsense, they are presumably not too
> bothered about the sensicallity of anything else.
If Sokal had submitted the essay to Derrida or Foucault -- the writers
"you don't understand" -- then what you write above would make perfect
logical sense.
mus...@volcanomail.com
James Whitehead wrote:
> Its perfectly possible to argue against books one hasnt read.
Not according to any standard of scholarship I know. If you seriously
believe this, there's nothing more to say.
1Z
If those gentlemen have some other means of justifying their claims,
they are evidently failing to communicate it to the bulk of their
audience -- an audience
which considers itself "up" on PoMo/PostStruct, and which has
been educated at public expense.
James Whitehead
<mus...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1126139000.2...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> James Whitehead wrote:
>
> > Its perfectly possible to argue against books one hasn't read.
>
> Not according to any standard of scholarship I know. If you seriously
> believe this, there's nothing more to say.
>
Well i've noted your unwillingness to reply to now at least a couple of
examples which you asked for...
But here is *someone* making an argument against a whole *pile* of books he
has never read -
"I will take a single example, but I do not believe one could find, in the
entire history of philosophy "
James Whitehead
<mus...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1126138570.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
From a certain philosophical point of view it does - yes.. (and this has
been given) but more particular is the often cited purpose of D which is
to critique Western Metaphysics and theory theses building and structure-
and cited by his supporters! To insist his arguments are anything like
theories of language is i think to either misunderstand or misrepresent his
writing. Futher such a critical view one would expect
the old guard - AKA Sokal to see this as nonsense.
But here is some more....
"Without exhausting all the implications and the entire structure of an
"event" like this one, which would merit a very long preliminary analysis,
the prerequisite I have just recalled appears evident; and for anyone who
doubts this, it would suffice to consult our schedule in order to be certain
of it. But are the prerequisites of a context ever absolutely determinable?
Fundamentally, this is the most general question I would like to attempt to
elaborate.
Is there a rigorous and scientific concept of the context? Does not the
notion of context harbor, behind a certain confusion, very determined
philosophical presuppositions? To state it now in the most summary fashion,
I would like to demonstrate why a context is never absolutely determinable,
or rather in what way its determination is never certain or saturated." -
J.D.
Argument 1 - from a certain logical point of view
Such a theory falls victim to self-reference and would by some logicians
therefore be rejected as nonsense. So here from a logical point of view is
an argument Against Derrida -
"I will say that it is even, fundamentally, the properly philosophical
interpretation of writing. I will take a single example, but I do not
believe one could find, in the entire history of philosophy as such, a
single counterexample, a single analysis that essentially contradicts the
one proposed by Condillac, inspired, strictly speaking, by Warburton,....
The history of writing will conform to a law of mechanical economy: to gain
the most space and time by means of the most convenient abbreviation; it
will never have the least effect on the structure and content of the meaning
(of ideas) that it will have to vehiculate.. The same content, previously
communicated by gestures and sounds, henceforth will be transmitted by
writing,." -JD
Argument 2 - from an "Empirical point of view"
"According to the Whorfian stance, 'content' is bound up with linguistic
'form', and the use of the medium contributes to shaping the meaning."
"Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767-1835) was the first European to combine a
knowledge of various languages with a philosophical background; he equated
language and thought exactly in a hypothesis we now call the
'Weltanschauung' (world-view) hypothesis, in fact a version of the extreme
form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Humboldt maintained that language
actually determined thought:"
This contradicts the by Condillacian argument (which is OK) but is a
counter example - Derrida assertion again is in question "but I do not
believe one could find, in the entire history of philosophy as such, a
single counterexample" . we can - but more significantly the context in
which Derrida makes this assertion - is itself undermined by his previous
assertion that "determination is never certain"- this is at odds with his
belief in an impossibility. That is a context in which the condillacian
argument or Derrida's is not fixed - "
" 1.. that, to that extent, it was first related to the concept and the
adventure of phonetic writing, valorised as the telos of all writing, even
though what was always the exemplary model of scientificity - mathematics -
constantly moved away from that goal; - JD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Many alternative theories have been developed in order to explain the
invention of writing. In the eighteenth century William Warburton (1738),
Bishop of Glouscester, introduced an evolutionary theory of writing. In his
book based on his observation of Egyptian, Chinese, and Aztec manuscripts,
he introduced the first evolutionary theory of writing. He argued that all
scripts originally developed from narrative drawings. Although some have
argued his theory does not offer a perfect explanation of the origin of
particular writing systems, it has remained dominant for more than two
hundred years (Schmandt-Besserat, 1996).
Archaeological findings at Uruk since the 1930s have instigated criticism of
the universal pictographic theory. Archaic tables excavated have
contradicted Warburton's theory. This has been because there were rarely any
true pictorial signs in these tables. Even with few being truly pictorial,
they were uncommon. This raised a series of uncertainties about all scripts
having originated from narrative drawings (Falkenstein, 1964;
Schmandt-Besserat, 1996).
In the search for the origin and invention of writing several scholars have
attempted to link writing, abstract counting and accounting. These include
Oppenheim (1959), Falkenstein (1964) and Amiet (1966). Falkenstein argued
that cuneiform writing was originally created for the exclusive purpose of
recording economic transactions. Oppenheim (1959) revealed the cuneiform
envelope containing tokens used for accounting purposes. The numbers of
tokens inside the envelope reflect the economic transactions incised on the
surface of a cuneiform envelope. Amiet (1966) interpreted clay counters in
envelopes of the prehistoric period as representing commodities."
mus...@volcanomail.com
OK -- so now we're changing the subject. But note that you have
admitted that neither of "those gentlemen" had ever used the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle to justify an "anti-realism" (whatever that's
supposed to be). I invite you, by the way, to show me any
"anti-realism" forwarded in the arguments of "those gentlemen."
About your new argument: You're clearly wrong, since it is precisely
people like myself who are the audience of these writers -- and we
understand it perfectly well. If you don't understand it, that is
simply because you're probably not acquainted with the philosophical
tradition and philosophical conversation of which they are a part.
That can be corrected rather simply with a better education on your
part.
1Z
mus...@volcanomail.com wrote:
> 1Z wrote:
> > > > It is already acceptable (PoMo) scholarship to base arguments on
> > > > science you don't understand. I've lost count of the number of people
> > > > who have informed
> > > > me that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle "proves" their brand
> > > > anti-realism...but are unable to recognise it when I write it down.
>
> > > Has anybody like Derrida or Foucault ever done so?
>
> > If those gentlemen have some other means of justifying their claims,
> > they are evidently failing to communicate it to the bulk of their
> > audience -- an audience
> > which considers itself "up" on PoMo/PostStruct, and which has
> > been educated at public expense.
>
> OK -- so now we're changing the subject.
Yes: we have changed it to the subject of whether the majority of
self-styled postmodernist/poststructuralists can achieve the
intelectual standards you require of critics of PM/PS, namely reading
the original texts.
> But note that you have
> admitted that neither of "those gentlemen" had ever used the Heisenberg
> Uncertainty Principle to justify an "anti-realism" (whatever that's
> supposed to be).
Indeed. But how relevant is that when their self-styled followers
do ? It may mean that they have higher standards, but only at the
expense
that they can be accused of failing to disseminate them.
> I invite you, by the way, to show me any
> "anti-realism" forwarded in the arguments of "those gentlemen."
"Il n'y a pas d'hors-texte".
Now, you are going to tell me I have misunderstood that, and I am going
to say that if ever a statement invited misunderstanding that one did.
(At least Dennett managed to add a cautionary footnote to his "we are
all
Zombies").
> About your new argument: You're clearly wrong, since it is precisely
> people like myself who are the audience of these writers -- and we
> understand it perfectly well.
Nope. You have admitted to not understanding the extract from Deleuze
you quoted.
> If you don't understand it, that is
> simply because you're probably not acquainted with the philosophical
> tradition and philosophical conversation of which they are a part.
1. Maybe. If Derrida, whom I find incomprehensible, wants to criticise
Heidegger, whom I also find incomprehensible, I'll happily leave them
to it.
Just don't tell me it's something I *should* care about.
2. The "it's your problem for being too stupid, not our problem for
talking nonsense" approach is precisely the argument that Sokal's hoax
addressed.
> That can be corrected rather simply with a better education on your
> part.
Hmmm. Am I the only one with a problem ? What about the education
that causes people to base their world-view on an equation they cannot
recognise when it is written down?
Kater Moggin
> "Il n'y a pas d'hors-texte".
> Now, you are going to tell me I have misunderstood that, and I am going
> to say that if ever a statement invited misunderstanding that one did.
> (At least Dennett managed to add a cautionary footnote to his "we are
> all Zombies").
You'll be very interested to learn that Derrida managed to
add a whole book (or at least a this will not have been a
book), as well as some later elucidations of what you presented
as a contextless remark.
> 2. The "it's your problem for being too stupid, not our problem for
> talking nonsense" approach is precisely the argument that Sokal's hoax
> addressed.
For certain people, being stupid isn't a problem -- it's a
solution.
-- Moggin
James Whitehead
"Kater Moggin" <kimm...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:kimmerian-AF899...@news.verizon.net...
how does one become stupid?
vin...@gmail.com
> James Whitehead wrote:
> >
> > who - that is which group is Sokal talking too - that is my point.... where
> > there appears two or more contexts-
> >
> > The context might be that of the academic group to which Derrida belonged-
> > as opposed to Sokal's which was another... and you put yourself
> > inadvertently perhaps of doing the very thing JD would oppose - i.e. giving
> > an explanation....
>
> er... well, I'm not really interested in which "group" Sokal thinks
> he's talking to. I'm talking about the explicit claims he actually
> makes -- i.e., that he has "demonstrated the charlatanism and nonsense
> of prominent French intellectuals" like Derrida and Foucault. It's
> simply a false assertion, no matter who his audience is.
Ah, sneaky you. Can you point out one (just one) passage where Sokal specifically criticizes Derrida or Foucault? I smell a giant straw man argument here. If you had bothered to actually read "fashionable nonsense", examples abound. They are so over the top, that it is unbelievable anybody would listen to these charlatans. And please, spare us the "but, but, but, zey are really poztmoderniztz"...
Anarcissie
Xox
> wrote:
>> James Whitehead wrote:
>> >
>> > who - that is which group is Sokal talking too - that is my point....
>> > where there appears two or more contexts-
>> >
>> > The context might be that of the academic group to which Derrida
>> > belonged- as opposed to Sokal's which was another... and you put
>> > yourself inadvertently perhaps of doing the very thing JD would
>> > oppose - i.e. giving an explanation....
>>
>> er... well, I'm not really interested in which "group" Sokal thinks
>> he's talking to. I'm talking about the explicit claims he actually
>> makes -- i.e., that he has "demonstrated the charlatanism and nonsense
>> of prominent French intellectuals" like Derrida and Foucault. It's
>> simply a false assertion, no matter who his audience is.
>
> Ah, sneaky you. Can you point out one (just one) passage where Sokal
In the paperback, pgs. 3, 8, 270 for Derrida; also, Derrida
was included the hoax / parody article. Foucault is criticized
by implication on 154, 160, 210, and 270, by which I mean that
he is cited or quoted as praising some of the bad people.