↪L'éléphant
It's a quote that has nothing to do with skepticism, and it's not from Derrida. — Streetlight

Are you really a robot? Can't think for yourself. I say that's skepticism based on my thoughts of what skepticism is. I don't care whether he claims he's a skeptic. His criticism is a form of skepticism.

When I say I'm putting in my critique as skepticism, I don't need Derrida to agree with me. I'm not here to point out that Derrida is a self-proclaimed skeptic. I am here to point out that my conclusion about his ideas led to my criticism that his is a form of skepticism.

That's the quote. From a high quality writer -- Miller. Anymore questions? Oh yeah, you can't digest what you read.

You have proven yourself time and again that you can't...digest what you read.

Worse are those who have read and claim that they understand Derrida then when put to the test, they write blarbles.

Same peanuts and nuts.

I suppose. There's no telling when deconstruction ends, and when his critique on phenomenology begins.

I'm not sure if this is meant as a compliment or a snipe. — Tom Storm

Derrida, too, must acknowledge that the ground upon which his criticism is organized is on non-existent ground. Miller is pointing out the irony, or the parallel, if you will.

Thank you for your input.

To all,

I have copypasted here a passage from J. Hillis Miller as to what exactly the deconstruction is. Please read and if you have any doubts as to the strength of this explanation by Miller, please look him up. Also look up Julian Wolfreys.

Deconstruction as a mode of interpretation works by a careful and circumspect entering of each textual labyrinth. The [deconstruction] critic feels his way from figure to figure, from concept to concept, from mythical motif to mythical motif, in a repetition which is in no sense a parody. It employs nevertheless, the subversive power present in even the most exact and ironical doubling. The deconstructive critic seeks to find, by this process of retracing, the element in the system studied which is alogical, the thread in the text in question which will unravel it all, or the loose stone which will pull down the whole building.

The deconstruction, rather, annihilates the ground on which the building stands by showing that the text has already annihilated that ground, knowingly and unknowingly. Deconstruction is not a dismantling of the structure of the text but a demonstration that it has already dismantled itself. Its apparently solid ground is no rock but thin air.

The uncanny moment in Derrida’s criticism, the vacant place around which all his work is organized, is the formulation of this non-existence of the ground out of which the whole textual structure seems to rise…

(J. Hillis Miller, Theory Now and Then, 1991, 126.)
Credits to Julian Wolfreys, Deconstruction – Derrida, 1997

The preconditions of skepticism are that there has to be an objective or 'true' world to be skeptical of? — Tom Storm

Skepticism is skepticism towards knowledge. This is actually what we throw doubt at whenever we are skeptical about a claim.

So there is an infinite number of points between any two points? — baker

It depends if you're talking about a line segment or a line that has both ends expanding. And I don't know why you asked this question.

Which is one more reason why run of the mill people should not get involved with philosophy. — baker

So far, the only criticisms I've encountered when it comes to postmodernism is that --they're hard to understand! lol. Then spend more time with it until one understands what the fuck they're talking about.

The nuance of postmodernism, most especially the deconstruction theory, gets lost in the narrative when explained by a professor. Often, it is explained through the lens of humanities, not philosophy, and I don't think the one doing the teaching doesn't know the difference.

When they relegate the questioning of hard-held assumptions by society, they turn to sociology, history, and political science, which is frustrating because the actual harm that results from such haphazard handling of philosophical theories gets lost in the mix.

Just because a postmodern philosopher questioned the status quo, it doesn't mean that philosopher had made his case. The learners just willy-nilly accepted such theory because it is explained as facts, instead of an analysis. For once, let's go against the prominent philosophers and make our case.

I don't need anyone to explain it to me because I know it very well. I just find it interesting that many who like to talk about deconstruction can't substantiate much of what they say. Very often it seems to me they simply make things up. Pretty cynical if you ask me. Skeptical, even. — Streetlight

Can you explain in your own words what deconstruction theory is?

“Unremittingly, skepticism insists on the validity of the factually experienced world, that of actual experience,
and finds in it nothing of reason or its ideas. — Joshs

In that sense Derrida is not a skeptic because I don't think he believes in the validity of the factually experienced world -- Or, at least, that it's not a Humean construct of the mind where one can separate the experienced world from the concepts. If Derrida's philosophy is to apply to all text, and everything is text, then it follows that the experienced world is not so easily separable from concept -- hence, not a skeptic in this sense. — Moliere

I find your conclusion startling. :yikes:

To put it in formatted form:

Joshs: skepticism insists on the validity of the factually experienced world, and finds in it nothing of reason or its ideas.

You: In that sense Derrida is not a skeptic because I don't think he believes in the validity of the factually experienced world

There's always thanksgiving.

April fool's had passed.

To all, this is your chance to come up with a solid argument argument against critical theory and deconstruction theory by using skepticism as a criticism.

Can anyone quote a passage or some passages of Derrida that substantiate the charge of skepticism? — Streetlight

His deconstruction theory alone is a poster child for this. So don't ask for a passage -- ask someone to explain the deconstruction theory and you get your answers. Skepticism should be the conclusion. I don't think Derrida himself would claim himself as a skeptic (if anyone knows, post it here). But you or Moliere or Joshs should certainly arrive at that conclusion. Or declare it is not skepticism.

See this post talking about logocentrism. Ask yourself if deconstruction theory's findings are warranted.

Just a general thought on deconstruction theory -- it is designed to question the truth we attached to what we say (in text) as being externally substantiated. So it is a tool to put doubt in our assumptions.

Critical theory is itself a form of skepticism.

Philosophy is an ultra-retrograde and sub ordinate reactive-process.

Ultra-retrograde: where a subject is thought about from multiple different depths using the active-brain.

Sub-ordinate: where a subject is filtered through self-psychoanalysis (psychology is a rank higher than philosophy.

I use philosophical thought based on not understanding, understanding data partially or misunderstanding- otherwise it becomes a psychology discussion.

Data becoming knowledge is a mental switch from philosophy to psychology.). — Varde

This should have been in the introduction post.

You can ease your readers into these new terminologies by prefacing with a statement and definitions. Despite the seemingly undisciplined format that philosophical discussions use, there are always the existing pioneering thoughts/ideas that we use as foundation or starting ideas. Philosophy is a language, after all, that's shared by a community of philosophers and interpreters.

I think this is fair to say.

Say a circumstance were to come bestowing upon you the final choice, the decision that ends us all, the choice to let humankind as a whole perish (painlessly and instantaneously), should you choose to let it happen? — TheSoundConspirator

No. I don't subscribe to a dictatorship.

8] The universe is continuous. Between any two points there is at least one other point. — Clarky

For the benefit of the members here, this is the euclidean geometry.

Oh yeah, I am interested already. So, I guess your future thread then? hehe.

Has philosophy helped or changed you in any way? How? — Tom Storm

Yes. In my dealings with people and (ethics and epistemology). For example, I now know that people would cling to their belief in the face of evidence and proof to the contrary. Also, the way I view life in general. If we stop caring about material things, we could relax and be more accepting.

Interesting. In relation to pessimism, I'm not sure we can 'choose' such an outlook. Can we become pessimists by reading books? I did read some Dan Brown a few years ago and it did almost have that effect, it was so astoundingly awful. — Tom Storm

Yes, I believe we could be. I sought philosophers for their take on almost anything -- how to live your life, reality, the world, cosmic, etc.

So, I was attracted first to the cynics -- because they're the zero-fucks-given philosophers. I mean this. I thought, wow, okay, those were the ancients who didn't give a fuck! lol. How cool is that?

Then there's Schopenhauer and the hell-is-other-people Sartre. I said no to those. I couldn't subscribe to that kind of thinking when I myself was trying to want to love life.

There is almost a thread in what you have said - under what situation would we abandon philosophy? — Tom Storm

Where is thread? What's the title?

As I understand it, it's Michel de Montaigne: "To philosophize is to learn how to die."

I've always been struck by the quote although I am not sure I what it means. It sounds romantic. — Tom Storm

Is that right? I've read Michel de Montaigne a long time ago. But couldn't remember that line. But Jackson said Socrates/Plato.

Yes, I am too. Brief and to the point, but brings a lot of punch. And oh yeah, when I read that line the first time, I literally thought of abandoning philosophy because I didn't want a pessimist view of the world.

Socrates/Plato. — Jackson

Thank you!

Did you guys know that to philosophize is to start dying? This was credited to some philosopher. And it's not pessimism like Schopenhauer. I don't know who to credit this to. And I don't think "death" here is literal.

I think what that means is this is the last journey humans do and will perpetually be in the state of non-human related daily activities. You go to another realm where grocery lists and electric bills aren't relevant or existent. I don't know.

I voted yes on both. I have a book that anthologized new ideas on metaphysics. Nah. They're not new ideas, just different emphases on how to look at reality.

Hi Tzeentch, I've maxed my limit on disgreeing post, unfortunately. (As a self-imposed rule on my posting habits, when I disagree with a post, I limit my posts to two and that's it.)

Edit1: This is due to the fact that I've been accused twice of picking a fight when my posts had gotten more aggressive. And I already agree that at that point, my post did sound aggressive, though not intentionally. So, here we are now.

why is it when an animal is cruel we excuse it as practice or instinct, but when a human does it we label it as malignant aggression? — Tzeentch

It's not cruelty when animals hunt. Humans hunt for entertainment. Farm animals supply the food.

Shame the rest of the internet doesn't have a filter. We would be in a much better place. — Bird-Up

Thanks. But don't give me too much credit. I'm in the process of changing my approach to responding to posts I disagree with. :halo:

Ooh... :naughty: — Baden

Not anymore. I lost the 666.

Why is it that when an animal exhibits such behavior we excuse it, but when a human does it we label it as malignant, though? — Tzeentch

So humans need to practice to hunt to survive? What happened to farm animals, manufacturers, distributors, and supermarket stores?
No, I don't see that what the wolves are doing applies to humans.

Wolves are notorious where I live for killing cattle without eating it. Killing for the sake of killing, it seems. — Tzeentch

No they have a reason-- training for hunting. If cattle is made available, that's where they're going to practice.

This distinction divorces human aggression from animal aggression, in opposition to the widely accepted myth that 'malignant' human aggression has its roots in an animal past. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I agree. No maliciousness in animals, except what's programmed into them such as being head of the pack, scarcity of food, training the youngs to hunt, etc.

But let's not pretend this is about writing a one sentence PM. The PM will almost certainly be responded to and very often instigate a debate. — Baden

As a solution, you might want to create a noreply PM:

Please do not reply to this PM. Replies to this PM are routed to a robot moderator with no pulse. Its alphabet consists only of CAPTCHA acronym which stands for Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart.

I deleted my last post to @Down The Rabbit Hole because upon reading it myself, it sounded so rude. I then realized that when posting in response to a post I disagree with, I should be très poli lest I'd be labeled picking a fight, which is not my intention. Sometimes, posts that disagree could come across as impolis.

.

the quality or state of being probable; the extent to which something is likely to happen or be the case. — Down The Rabbit Hole

That's not what you said in your previous post.

Probability is the extent to which something is likely to be true or false etc. We can do a rough calculation of this. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Incorrect. Please try again.

My overall impression is that postmodernist philosophers want to shake off that role of teacher that is otherwise so often taken for granted when it comes to philosophers (and people of cultural importance). It seems that they're trying to make philosophy be about thinking, an exercise in thinking, in different modes, as opposed to being yet another form or source of ideology. — baker

Good observation. Postmodernists' critical theory world view is the extreme form of skepticism of all things humans. I don't subscribe to it. It puts doubt on your own thinking of what's really driving cruelty, suffering, ignorance, absurdity, goodness, benevolence. They complicate issues, leaving you with confused state of mind and existence. It can be a bad prescription for hopelessness.

Sometimes I think of them as securing their lucrative posts in the academia and beyond by publishing books that won't ever give definitive answers to human issues.

Sorry if this sounds like a rant.

I am interested in how people assign probabilities. — Down The Rabbit Hole

First try to understand what a probability is.

Money that grow on trees.