Re: Derrida and Habermas -- PS

What I was providing in the Jews/Christians example was an illustration of the
type of reasoning I thought I saw going on in the article, not the elucidation
of a general principle. From the author's description of the document, I
didn't get the impression that the statements within it were along the lines of
a Rabbi signing on to a document that said, "Since Jesus Christ is the Son of
God. . .", but seemed more along the lines of advocating a specific foreign
policy. The author of the article took for granted that this type of foreign
policy statement required modernist assumptions, but did nothing to support that
assumption.

As John pointed out, I haven't read the document that Habermas wrote and Derrida
signed.

But I did read the article's description of the document, and was responding to
that.

My last post, really, already addressed this. The description of the document
in the article wasn't sufficient to convince me that Derrida was making some
kind of philosophical compromise by signing it. Regardless of what the document
actually says, this is a certain failure on the part of the author of the
article.

But what do you expect from newspapers.

Jim

"L. Manning Vines" wrote:

> I wanted to add one bit, in case it makes my point a bit more clear:
> I said:
> << [The author of the article] 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.>>
>
> To change your Christians and Jews analogy, I'd say that the author of the
> article was reporting a situation that he saw not as Christians and Jews
> agreeing over excesses in the media, as in your example, but as the
> signature of a prominent rabbi appearing on a document that including a
> phrase like, "Given that Jesus Christ was the son of God, therefore. . . ,"
> which, it seems to me, would indeed be newsworthy happening.
>
> It seems to me that he might be mistaken in his understanding of Derrida and
> he might be mistaken in his understanding of the political document, but
> there is no certain error in his understanding of a connection between
> philosophy and politics.
>
> -robbie
> -
> * Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
> * UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Sat Aug 9 20:09:44 2003