Re: Heidegger and the Political? A Question from a newcomer.



On Mon, 10 Apr 1995, Jonathan Maskit wrote:

> 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


I really spend too much time in this damn computer lab, but this was hard
to resist. Some help to this dilemma came my way via Derrida, whom I
will responsibly quote:

"I put quotation marks around 'Searle' and 'I' to make that beyond these
indexes, I am aiming at tendencies, types, styles, or situations rather
than at persons."(Limited Inc, 131)
(I should confess I seem to have copied the quote down incorrectly; I
don't know what should have come after "make" to make this sentence
grammatically complete. "clear" perhaps)

OK, so I can just say "Nancy" and things will be square, right?

We do, however, run into a problem later in the text when Derrida (or
should I say "Derrida"? - naw, the first is more appropriate) admonishes:

"Deconstruction, in the singular, is not 'inherently' anything at all
that might be determinable on the basis of this code and of its
criteria."(LI, 141)

So that seems to rule out "deconstruction" as an option.

How about "terroristic obscurantists" and call it a day? :)

Chris



--- from list [email protected] ---

------------------

Partial thread listing: