Re: the riotous life

John G.

I have suggested that before one criticizes an author's work, one should have
a "working knowledge" of the primary texts by that author.

You accuse me, because I did this, of some sort of "snootiness" or of
constructing a "chimera."

Silly me.

What COULD I have been thinking?

Clearly, this is not the place to make such a demand.

And you wonder why I think any discussion with you about such texts is
irresponsible.

Incidentally, you keep bringing up Heidegger and the notion of a
"thing-in-itself," as if this is somehow related to Derrida's reading of
poetry. You might want to first actually read *Of Spirit,* in which Derrida
rather thoroughly critiques Heidegger's philosophical evolution and
demonstrates quite vividly what it is about Heidegger's work that made it not
only possible, but quite likely that he would eventually align himself with
one of the worst evils of the 20th Century. He also shows at precisely what
point in Heidegger's thinking this horrifying moment occurred and what the
monstrous aspects of Heidegger's thought were, both intellectually and
politically, that led to it. Then you might want to read *Che Cos'e la
Poesia?* in which Derrida explicitly speaks about his own notions of what a
poem might be (quite different from Heidegger's and not at all reflected in
your question to me) and also speaks about the problem of asking "What is..."
in regard to poetry.

But I suppose this suggestion that you actually read the relevant primary
texts carefully before you criticize these ideas will be seen as more
intellectual elitism.

There is only one thing to do when someone would rather argue than read.

Stop.

All the best,

--John

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Wed Mar 5 16:34:20 2003