Re: Derrida and Habermas -- PS

Jim writes:
<< 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. >>

I do understand that the analogy was an illustration of the "type of
reasoning" that you thought was in the article (you said so when you first
made the analogy). My point (and my only point) was that I don't think the
type of reasoning in your example is represented in the article. I don't
think he was suggesting that anything interesting or suspicious was in
Derrida's political agreement with a philosophical opponent -- or that the
two men, or Christians and Jews, must be aligning themselves philosophically
to become aligned politically over any cause, like "excesses in the
media" -- but that something was interesting or suspicious in a particular
and specific political statement that he took to contradict particularly and
specifically whatever he knew or thought he knew about philosophy Derrida
has written.

He does not establish, as you say he does not establish, that the statement
requires "modernist" principles; nor does he establish, as you say he does
not establish, that Derrida has "postmodernist" principles that in specific
ways contradict the former. He assumes both, presumably supposing
(erroneously) that they would be obvious to the reader. No doubt he's
entirely wrong, not only in his supposition that the contradiction would be
obvious but even in identifying to himself a contradiction.

-robbie
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Sat Aug 9 21:12:11 2003