RE: CT on Derrida for Daniel

That's just it, human experience is not exclusively rational, now I love
seeing rational characterizations of things and I think they are real but it
is only part of the story and there is the irrational side that the 'modern'
philosophers are blind to or afraid of. It is not all tame-able. It is
irrational to rationalize the irrational. That's one reason why we tell
stories. Myth does have truth that the philosophers are unequipped at
mining. They can try all they want but I won't shut my mouth. Rationalize
'Catcher in the Rye' and well it lays sagging in your hands like a wet
noodle.

Thanks for the link. Richard Rorty has also popped up quite a bit lately in
my getting to the bottom of this Derrida stuff.

Yah, Lewis isn't perfect. All this discussion reminds of my little girl,
she is often more fascinated with the packaging then the contents. I know
it is not always easy to tell the difference and I can hate the contents but
admire the packaging sometimes. I think that was a Lewis trait as well.
But the hate or love is actually based on the content not the packaging and
it appears that Derrida was saying this but of course it came wrapped up in
a lot of packaging and he said a bunch of other junk too.

Daniel

From: James Rovira

Here's the article I mentioned before, Daniel. The guy does a pretty
good job describing Derrida's thought to the limited extent that he does it:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2000/005/15.42.html

It's interesting that the article you posted earlier, about C.S. Lewis,
points out how he anticipated many of the more "radical" ideas that came
after him. I've always understood him to be a reader-response kind of
person, one that grounds the meaning of literary texts within an
interpretive community (so not just the author). The important point to
gain from all of this is the recognition that these seemingly repulsive
theories are the natural end products of the western rhetorical
tradition. You can't get anyone more squarely, conservatively in the
middle of it than Lewis, yet look what he believed...

If you read the link I posted above carefully, I think you'll see
Richard Rorty is the real bad boy (in the sense of the death of meaning)
of academia, not Derrida. I tend to agree. I can't stand his reading
of Heidegger.

Jim

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Mon Jan 6 13:56:23 2003