If some of our great minds, who are sympathetic to the French writers, don't get it right, what chance for the rest of us? You can see how people come to a view that this is an exclusive cultural activity for those in academe whose business it often is to pars the ostensibly inscrutable and talk to each other about it. — Tom Storm
I put most effort in trying to understand Deleuze. — Manuel
No one should worry about getting a philosopher right. A great philosopher is able to reach a wide variety of readers on many different levels. — Joshs
If you were to ask me what Derrida books to read to get the most consistent and clear sense of what he is trying to tell us , I would immediately answer , skip the formal works and go for the interviews( Points, Positions , Limited, Inc, Arguing with Derrida) . Here he was forced to do what he hated most, to summarize in a succinct sentence or two his major themes. — Joshs
I am saying that Foucault didnt understand Derrida based on my own reading of both Foucault and Derrida. — Joshs
He goes on to say that science is "imperialistic". — Manuel
I'm no scientistic person by any means, but if I were to start saying something like masculine power can be seen to be manifested in general relativity, I would be ridiculed, rightly so. — Manuel
:clap: :100:My personal belief is that we should take a bit more care not to deceive others and ourselves when it comes to communicating science to the outside world. Scientists tend to confuse models with reality, which amounts to perpetuating the myth that science is basically divine revelation, some set of incantations that opens a portal through the walls of our subjectivity that gives us direct access to nude reality itself. We're smart people, we don't believe this, but others do.
Feynman was a great layperson's pedagogue: no bullshit in his books. He's a good model for how other scientists should talk about their work and science in general. — Kenosha Kid
I've been on a cinema binge since the beginning of the pandemic so might I recommend Mulholland Drive — Maw
There's different levels and then there's wrong? No? If we say Derrida says nothing is true and nothing matters, do we not challenge and to some extent scorn that reading? — Tom Storm
Scientists tend to confuse models with reality, which amounts to perpetuating the myth that science is basically divine revelation, some set of incantations that opens a portal through the walls of our subjectivity that gives us direct access to nude reality itself. — Kenosha Kid
Do you have evidence of that?Sokal got his paper rejected from several journals before finding one stupid enough to publish it. — Kenosha Kid
Sokal is a leftist, and he's not an arsehole.I don't think it says much of anything at all other than Sokal was an arsehole with a conservative axe to grind and Social Text had trouble unpacking his paper and ill-advisedly published it anyway.
For example, we believe (rightly imo) that a scientific theory is legitimised by empiricism, but what legitimises empiricism? Somewhere along the line, you hit an overt or covert preference for one thing over another and find that, if you prefer the other instead, you get a different narrative. This doesn't mean that the other is better or that the first is necessarily untrue. If you compare a scientific review of climate change to a Trump rant about climate change, one does come off better than the other. But you can't elevate the former to the status of truth that way either, otherwise you're doing this: — Kenosha Kid
Such hoaxes are useful, if only to put reviewers and publishers on notice that they'd better work diligently. — Olivier5
Do you have evidence of that? — Olivier5
Social Text was non-peer-reviewed — Kenosha Kid
The end result is, irrespective of the platform, Sokal authored a nonsense paper, which is what he's remembered for. And rightly so. — Kenosha Kid
Still, the question remains: what passes for nonsense and what doesn't, in a Pomo frame? — Olivier5
I'm just not inclined to like Derrida. I don't like his followers, I've read a few of his essays and I didn't think them to be particularly interesting. Just like some people dislike or don't think much of Hegel, Heidegger or anyone else.
It's just not the type of philosophy I'm attracted to. But thanks for the pointers. — Manuel
There's different levels and then there's wrong? No? If we say Derrida says nothing is true and nothing matters, do we not challenge and to some extent scorn that reading? — Tom Storm
This seems to have always been p0m0's raison d'etre to occult, or obfuscate (i.e. "defer"), any distinctions, most explicitly between nonsense and sense. Distinctions as such are imposed, so the meta-subtext goes, by the self-serving biases (bigotry, domination) of 'the author' – system-imbedded 'subject' (regime) – and therefore can be 'deconstructed' (subverted? transgressed?) ... with Dada-like, obscurant gibberish?! :sweat:Can a distinction be made between nonsense and sense in a postmodernist framework? Because it's not clear to me that there can be such a thing. — Olivier5
st wanted to point out that Pomo should not be taken a coherent doctrine or school of thought, as evidenced by this opposition between him and Foucault. — Olivier5
Would you have an example of a specific point that Derrida made and Foucault misunderstood?
Also, would you mind pointing me to a Derrida text that you find clear and insightful? — Olivier5
I am asking for your opinion on the matter. Or anybody else for that matter.
Can a distinction be made between nonsense and sense in a postmodernist framework? — Olivier5
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.