Re: Derrida and Habermas -- PS

Jim writes:
<< Neither was I claiming that he endorsed a "generic principle" of any
kind -- simply within the context of the article, in this particular case,
he seemed to assume that political alignment means a philosophical one too.
>>

Alright. You originally wrote:

<< Let's assume Derrida and Habermas are completely at odds
philosophically -- so what? Does that mean they can't recognize some points
of political agreement and work together from there? Following the
reasoning of the article, it's like saying that when Jews and Christians
work together to complain about what they perceive as excesses in mass
media, that means that the Jews must be leaning toward thinking Christ is
the Son of God. >>

It sounded (and sounds) to me like you were saying, for instance, that the
"reasoning of the article" would disallow Jews and Christians from political
agreement, EVEN over issues not specifically related to either Judaism or
Christianity, without some manner of assimilation one way or the other. You
ask if, supposing two people to be "completely at odds philosophically,"
they can't "recognize some points of political agreement and work together
from there," suggesting -- or so it seemed to me -- that the author of this
article would answer in the negative, that he would say No, people
completely at odds philosophically cannot recognize some points of political
agreement and work together from there.

As it seems to me, the auther of the article would not have answered this
question in the negative, but simply saw a political document that he took,
rightly or wrongly, to be contrary to Derrida's philosophy, which
nonetheless had Derrida's own signature at the end, which ostensible
incongruity he took to be newsworthy.

-robbie
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Sat Aug 9 19:04:57 2003