Chris Rickey wrote:
>Arch-deconstructionist. Well, I've been having problems assigning a name
>to that group of french (and some american) thinkers who adhere to to that
>style of thinking progulumated by Derrida. Apparently
>arch-deconstructionist doesn't fly. Suggestions would be appreciated. At
>any rate, both Nancy and Lacoue-Labarthe acknowledge a debt to Derrida,
>and openly practice a thinking that has been called deconstructionist, and
>at times imply that they want to push the envelope past even what Derrida
>has done thus far (hence the "arch-"). I don't think it would raise any
>eyebrows if I included Lacoue-Labarthe and Nancy in a group called
>deconstructionists. In any case, it wasn't meant as an insult.
Thanks for the help on Nancy and Lacoue-Labarthe. I didn't think you meant
"arch-deconstructionist" as an insult (although, discussing deconstruction
and intent together is always fun....). I certainly don't have a problem
with calling either JLN and PLL deconstructionist; they've been known to do
it themselves. I actually think of PLL as having a stronger debt to
Heidegger than to Derrida (but, well, JD has a pretty strong debt to
Heidegger so it could just be a question of how many steps there are
between Heidegger and PLL). I think "arch-" isn't great: it makes me think
of archvillains and archangels and higher rather than beyond. How about
post-deconstructionist? Neo-deconstructionist? If you want to convey the
sense of going beyond JD, how about meta-deconstructionist? I dunno; I'm
really just playing here. It seems like the question of what to call the
French is always a problem (with the exception of someone like JD):
post-structuralism always had problems (see Foucault's many tirades against
it). Postmodernism, well, that's good but, of course, part of what makes
it good is that it isn't exactly a rigid designator, eh?
I usually end up just referring to people by their names and let others
worry about what group to put them in....
Jonathan
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For we, which now behold these present days,
Have eyes to wonder, but lack tongues to praise.
Jonathan Maskit
pseudonym@xxxxxxx
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<///////////////////////////////////////
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
>Arch-deconstructionist. Well, I've been having problems assigning a name
>to that group of french (and some american) thinkers who adhere to to that
>style of thinking progulumated by Derrida. Apparently
>arch-deconstructionist doesn't fly. Suggestions would be appreciated. At
>any rate, both Nancy and Lacoue-Labarthe acknowledge a debt to Derrida,
>and openly practice a thinking that has been called deconstructionist, and
>at times imply that they want to push the envelope past even what Derrida
>has done thus far (hence the "arch-"). I don't think it would raise any
>eyebrows if I included Lacoue-Labarthe and Nancy in a group called
>deconstructionists. In any case, it wasn't meant as an insult.
Thanks for the help on Nancy and Lacoue-Labarthe. I didn't think you meant
"arch-deconstructionist" as an insult (although, discussing deconstruction
and intent together is always fun....). I certainly don't have a problem
with calling either JLN and PLL deconstructionist; they've been known to do
it themselves. I actually think of PLL as having a stronger debt to
Heidegger than to Derrida (but, well, JD has a pretty strong debt to
Heidegger so it could just be a question of how many steps there are
between Heidegger and PLL). I think "arch-" isn't great: it makes me think
of archvillains and archangels and higher rather than beyond. How about
post-deconstructionist? Neo-deconstructionist? If you want to convey the
sense of going beyond JD, how about meta-deconstructionist? I dunno; I'm
really just playing here. It seems like the question of what to call the
French is always a problem (with the exception of someone like JD):
post-structuralism always had problems (see Foucault's many tirades against
it). Postmodernism, well, that's good but, of course, part of what makes
it good is that it isn't exactly a rigid designator, eh?
I usually end up just referring to people by their names and let others
worry about what group to put them in....
Jonathan
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For we, which now behold these present days,
Have eyes to wonder, but lack tongues to praise.
Jonathan Maskit
pseudonym@xxxxxxx
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<///////////////////////////////////////
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------