Re: CT on Derrida for Daniel

Responses below...

Yocum Daniel GS 21 CES/CEOE wrote:

>I am not 'anti-rational' maybe more like "co-rational". Even if there are
>anti-rational philosphers, doesn't it mean that the philosophers mission "to
>know" is to know ratinally? So the irrational philosphers are rationalizing
>it? Well. I am not 'anti-rational', not all knowable things are modelable
>with any 'accurate' meaning but much is however.
>
The main issue with me isn't how you define your own philosophy, but
with how you understand modern philosophy. Point is there are modern
philosophers that adopt virtually every conceivable position in
relationship to reason: co-rational, anti-rational, rational. You seem
to define all modern philosophy as "rational" in nature, and that's
mistaken.

The point with the anti-rationalists is that knowledge isn't always
acquired "rationally." They may employ logic at times, but it's always
with tongue in cheek -- to demonstrate the limitations or failures of
logic.

>Language can also communicate emotion especially in fiction. Yes language
>is limited, but very powerful, Hence its ability to be semi-wild and still
>conduct meaning.
>
That's not too far from the way Derrida was presented in the link I
posted, actually :).

> I don't how you define modern philosphy but it is to me,
>trying to understand how we know or the pursuit of truth.
>
That's a branch of philosophy -- epistemology -- and it's as old as
philosophy, or close to it. There's nothing particularly modern about
it. Modern positions have their parallels in antiquity. They're not
exact parallels, but they are still there.

> If you are a
>'modern' philospher I asssume that means that all knowledge is ultimatley
>natural, which I don't see as truth.
>
That's characteristic of one group of modern philosophers -- but not
all. The problem isn't with you saying that modern philosophy is like
X, but that _all_ modern philosophy is X. All modern philosophy is X
and Y and Z and A and B and so on back around to X.

I'd agree with you if you said that the prevalent, common man's
philosophy has strong naturalist tendencies, but those are usually held
alongside some other ideas that contradict naturalism. You sound like
you're trying to work it out more than most do.

>I picked up a little book from the
>book store after I read some more Derrida stuff and its selling feature was
>a chonological list of philosphy and philosphers from the dawn of history to
>the present (and its cheap price), and it struck me with all this musing
>about truth and reality over the ages it doesn't seem to arrive anywhere,
>maybe its the journey thing or some people have odd aesthetics. I'll admit
>it fascinates me like disembowled bodies on the side of the ride, but I'm
>not proud of that. Like Lewis's transparent monsters in the _Pilgrim's
>Regress_.
>
>Daniel
>
Not everything is everyone's cup o' tea :). If you don't appreciate
these efforts...is that a statement about them or you? Lewis had a
higher opinion of the history of philosophy, you know...

Jim

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Mon Jan 6 16:46:18 2003