I think that very last sentence really identifies a lot of the problem .
Derrida is largely understood in connection with a whole web of other
people with very different ideas from him, some of whom do have at least
some of the characteristics ascribed to Derrida on this list. Derrida
isn't Foucault and he isn't Deleuze or Guattari or Fish or Rorty or Iser
and he's not even Spivak...and he's certainly not any of those moron
literary critics in the 80s and 90s that were "doing deconstruction"
without studying any of the philosophy...just applying a method which I
couldn't stand half the time.
The other half of the time it really did help me see new things in old
texts, though.
Jim
Omlor@aol.com wrote:
> That's not Derrida. It's me (with a little Deleuze and Guattari added
> for spice).
>
> All the best,
>
> --John
>
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Tue Aug 12 00:00:37 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Oct 16 2003 - 00:28:15 EDT