[David Sucher on the accessibility of theories of deconstruction.]
>
>sp/n: i suppose you would like particle physics to made accessible as well?
>
Steve, I think you are here both claiming authority for post-modernism and
relating that authority to that of the physical sciences. For a
post-modern to do this is both ironic and sad--is not avoiding authority
one of the reasons that Derrida writes so indirectly? (This observation, I
believe, is an example of deconstruction in plain language.)
In fact, particle physics has been made accessible. There are many
excellent popularizations. I think there's a role for non-technical
summaries as well as abstract theoretical work; not everyone is a
philosopher, after all, and if the theories are going to be made useful to
the educated public, they are going to have to be communicated in language
the educated public understands.
I also have the strong sense that in pomo philosophy, as in formalist
mathematics, elegant formulations are more important than accessible ones.
While that's sometimes fun (I have a math degree, did you know?) it's hell
for students who aren't themselves planning on being philosophers. As a
technical writer, I know that many post-modern basics can be put in much
simpler, if less elegant, language.
Consider the style Foucault adopted near the end of his career. Much
clearer and more direct than his earlier work (and generally less popular
with fans of his earlier works.) Now--I don't know this, that'll be for
his biographers to sort out--however, I think part of what went into the
change was that he knew his time was limited and--showy obscurity became
less important to him, and communicating more so. Perhaps we had best
consider his example and reasons.
R.
>
>sp/n: i suppose you would like particle physics to made accessible as well?
>
Steve, I think you are here both claiming authority for post-modernism and
relating that authority to that of the physical sciences. For a
post-modern to do this is both ironic and sad--is not avoiding authority
one of the reasons that Derrida writes so indirectly? (This observation, I
believe, is an example of deconstruction in plain language.)
In fact, particle physics has been made accessible. There are many
excellent popularizations. I think there's a role for non-technical
summaries as well as abstract theoretical work; not everyone is a
philosopher, after all, and if the theories are going to be made useful to
the educated public, they are going to have to be communicated in language
the educated public understands.
I also have the strong sense that in pomo philosophy, as in formalist
mathematics, elegant formulations are more important than accessible ones.
While that's sometimes fun (I have a math degree, did you know?) it's hell
for students who aren't themselves planning on being philosophers. As a
technical writer, I know that many post-modern basics can be put in much
simpler, if less elegant, language.
Consider the style Foucault adopted near the end of his career. Much
clearer and more direct than his earlier work (and generally less popular
with fans of his earlier works.) Now--I don't know this, that'll be for
his biographers to sort out--however, I think part of what went into the
change was that he knew his time was limited and--showy obscurity became
less important to him, and communicating more so. Perhaps we had best
consider his example and reasons.
R.