October 09, 2004

• Cue endless jokes about deconstruction...
• There is something really icky about memorializing someone with an insult like that when there's no murder or theft involved. No banana for you, Mr. Skrik.
• *grabs popcorn, turns pets into monsters, wonders if Baudrillard will kick off next
• mwhybark: you call that 'memorializing'? I don't think that's what Skrik was doing. I think he was expressing an opinion about a guy who's just died. And a not unreasonable one. Derrida was absolutely full of it. Have you ever read any of his stuff?
• Duh this entry will be read by generations of the future. DUh.
• what mwhybark said. even if it wasn't intended to be memorializing in the first place, this is kind of socially gross. today has been a depressing one so far.
• No banana for you You don't know what you're saying. The grapheme you uttered is a subversion of Seinfeld's Soup Nazi's "no soup for you". The intention behind the grapheme in its original context reinforced the impression of Gerry and his associates as the positively connotated characters (formerly know as the heroes). Subverting this grapheme in this new context, you signify your agreement with the sentiments formulated by the original poster (me). You have been damned by the words of your own mouth: you agree that Derrida was (is) a fraud. A satirical Derridaean response. There is no meaning in langauge, Derrida argued. Polysemy is inherent in everything that can be written, and therefore ambiguity abounds (did you really say yes, or was it a no?). Consider the fact that Derrida used language to convey this truth all over the world - thereby contradicting himself - and charging the gullible money for entrance to his seances. Not fraud? Or should I call it something else because the dishonest bugger is dead?
• "charged"
• And replace every appearance of "grapheme" with "gramme". It's been a long time since I subjected myself to Derrida.
• You don't have to like the guy - I certainly don't. But it's still rather crass to report his death with an insult.
• Shrik, the least you could do is provide a link or two proving he's a fraud. I'm genuinely curious.
• Ah, okay, never mind, I'm a bit slow today.
• ...It's been a long time since I subjected myself to Derrida And judging from your understanding of his work, it is clear that you didn't do it for very long, or very effectively, at the time. Here's your homework, Skrik: go back and show me where Derrida argues that there is no meaning in language. In the meantime, you might wish to lay off both the insults and the memorializations. What you've done is one of the worst examples of trolling I've yet seen on here on Mofi.
• What you've done is one of the worst examples of trolling I've yet seen on here on Mofi. Worst example of trolling? Meh. Skrik comments are quite mild and apropos of his MoFi persona. Still, if it is trolling, you have fallen for it.
• Derrida was a fucking idiot and if you disagree that makes you a fucking idiot as well. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
• I am displeased with the discourses interpellating my subject position in this public space.
• .
• Ambiguity abounds. Thinking about it keeps our ears from banging together, whipping out from the wings to collide stage center in the admission-free playhouses most prefer to keep tucked inside our skulls. Of course, it might be a theatre if I say it is...but I said 'playhouse', so where does that leave us?
• Is it the form here to squeal "troll" every time somebody expresses an opinion which you don't like, or otherwise acts in a way your mommy might not approve of? Just wondering.
• There is no meaning in langauge, Derrida argued. Polysemy is inherent in everything that can be written, and therefore ambiguity abounds (did you really say yes, or was it a no?). That polysemy is inherent in language seems obvious; that ambiguity abounds also seems obvious. Are you really contradicting either of those statements? I admit, I haven't read much Derrida, but I think by saying this implies that "there is no meaning in language" is taking a somewhat complex argument and reducing it to silliness. Closer might be that meaning is a bit more diffuse and harder to pin down than once believed.
• John Searle: I once said this to Michel Foucault, who was more hostile to Derrida even than I am, and Foucault said that Derrida practiced the method of obscurantisme terroriste (terrorism of obscurantism). We were speaking French. And I said, "What the hell do you mean by that?" And he said, "He writes so obscurely you can't tell what he's saying, that's the obscurantism part, and then when you criticize him, he can always say, 'You didn't understand me; you're an idiot.' That's the terrorism part." And I like that. So I wrote an article about Derrida. I asked Michel if it was OK if I quoted that passage, and he said yes.
• Decani: Of course. It's the Internet(s), after all. Actually, not really. It usually depends on the forcefulness/vitriol of a comment. I've been here pretty much since day one, and have seen few troll callouts, at least relative to the constant hue and cry on MetaFilter. Skrik is rad and I love his contributions... but this really is a "troll" in the classic sense, to wit: "A post (on a newsgroup, or other forum) that is solely intended to incite controversy or conflict or cause annoyance or offense, or a person who posts these" (that definition is from the Wikipedia article). If he had said "controversial" and added a link to some anti-deconstructionist website, and editorialized later on in the thread, that would have been cool with me, and would have made for a better FPP than a single link to a news article. But calling someone (particularly a highly influential figure in letters, whether you like him or not) "the biggest intellectual fraud of the 20th century" on the front page while announcing his death smacks of bad form. In my opinion. Put another way... I'm no Catholic and really couldn't give a shit about the Pope, but when he kicks off I'll start flinging poo if the inevitable FPP is filled with bitching. I could care less if comments in the thread laud or blaspheme his memory, but don't lay the prejudice out on the front page while rushing to be the first person to announce someone's demise. I hated Reagan with a passion, but I appreciated the understated tone of that FPP while enjoying the mighty debate about his legacy within. To Skrik: No offense intended... I've had folks bitch about a BushFilter post of mine, so it's cool. I just personally prefer the discourse on the front page to be more respectful when speaking of the dead. But that's just me, and your mileage, of course, may vary. On preview: great link from homunculus.
• Skrik wins, even if I'm still right.
• Heh, the bone, I didn't see this as a troll just because I have heard deriding comments like skrik's comming from philosophers (both on the internet and in person) all the time about whatever famous philosopher they happen to dislike, And I have found that they really do it in a playful manner without meanning harm or wanting to spark debate. Its similar to the kind of comments we made about Rick James' death, if you reflect about it.
• Do unto others, right, teh_Bone? I'd laugh like a drain to find that I, after my demise, was still causing disputes about my worth. But don't get me started on the Poope.
• My &deity;, I have to go prove he was a fraud, now.
• Fair enough. And all was well in the land of MonkeyFilter. I just double posted if it makes anyone feel better. *tosses banana to skrik*
• Well, the_bone, I didn't read Skrik's comment that way at all. I think there's far too much hypersensitivity on display with these (in my brief time here) frequent bleats of "troll" whenever someone has the effrontery to be a bit critical or forceful in their opinions. I also find the automatic, hat-doffing "respect" granted to people simply because they've pegged out to be utterly irrational and ridiculous. I wouldn't show Hitler any extra respect simply because he'd died and I don't see why anyone should feign respect for any deceased person when they'd disliked them in life. And when the Pope - that evil spreader of anti-human, anti-rational, savage old bullshit - finally croaks and falls off his geriatromobile, you can bet I'll be celebrating very, very vocally. And that isn't a troll, it's just an expression of an attitude you may not happen to share.
• Here's a bit longer news story. I'm ambivalent about Derrida.... I like that he separates an author's words from the ultimate meaning of the text (if, indeed, there *is* an ultimate meaning). Read his take on the death of the author and you can see this, as well as his silly sense of humor. (After writing a whole essay on the death of the author, he *signs* the damn thing.) On the other hand, the man is maddening. I agree that he writes in a needlessly obscure style that his fellow deconstructionists tried too hard to copy, and led to a whole lot of muddy, horrendous writing. When I read him, I often want to yell "Tell me what you mean, dammit!" All the same, pancreatic cancer is *never* a fun way to go.... and I salute the crazy smart, frustrating, annoying man he was.
• I watched the presidential debate last night (sorry if that opening clause seems out of place in this thread, but please let me finish before finalizing your judgment of it), and I heard Bush trumpet his environmental policies, deride Kerry for bad fiscal judgment, and complain that Kerry is unethical. And at least 40 percent of the country believes him enough to vote for him. Derrida looks like a freaking genius to me.
• Hey! Look! puppies!!!
• How to Deconstruct Almost Anything: A how-to guide for aspiring deconstructionists.
• blah blah obdurate blah blah smarter than everyone blah blah blah.
• Come on skrik, we're talking about literary theory. As far as I'm concerned, if you're not building things, you're already a fraud. Within the fraudulent game of shuffling words on paper, Derrida was an undeniable master. I have been reading his essay "On the Name" for literally 5 years. It's an engagement with Plato's Timaeus that relates late Platonic metaphysics to Derrida's own theory of language. I don't understand this essay, nor do I expect that I ever will. But it has undeniably enriched my reading of Plato. So I guess I'd vote to put away the broad brush and to discuss the man with charity on the day of his death.
• We have two threads for this guy but none for Rodney Dangerfield? No respect, even in death.
• What is... a pancreas?
• Incidentally, and just to Godwin things, 'biggest intellectual fraud of the 20th century' is a very big claim. Bigger and more fraudulent than Goebbels? Ok, probably more intelectual. :-)
• Actually, invoking Derrida is considered Godwinesque in some circles.
• Another masterpiece of a poem, beeswacky.
• Today I lack tact and say Jacques DerriDaDa just cancelled his act.
• a funeral fanfare, no cymbals please.
• Derri-da-da-da
• Derrida was probably a genius and certainly a nice guy -- I met him and talked with him. I've never been able to understand his books, but I personally would hesitate to call somebody a fraud, let alone "the biggest intellectual fraud of the 20th century," just because I couldn't understand their writing. People I respect get a lot out of his works, and that's good enough for me.
• I got quite a lot of useful stuff out of Writing and Difference. The later gear maybe less so, but hey, I owe the guy. RIP.
• Jacque Der(r)ided.
• Wait, Decani Godwinned. That trumps a simple win. I'm still right.
• Sorry, but Decani's reference to Hitler doesn't qualify for the Godwin award - he didn't compare anyone to Hitler.
• People blame Derrida for what's happened in the humanities ( which I won't elaborate on, but you know what I'm talking about ) They were going to implode anyway. " Deconstructist Theory " was just the poison they willing swallowed. They saw it as their salvation and slayer, and it spread like a wildfire because the whole scene was ready to burn already. Derrida was a theorist. You can't blame him for theorizing ! Secondly the guy's dead, what more do you want.
• Com'on guys! Skrik DID say RIP meaning requiescat in pace prior to his comment. I mean, if he'd said RIPOFF, that would have been a whole 'nother thing. And Skrik, I loved your deconstruction--although it wasn't near obtuse enough. I will say in defense of Derrida that he gave the world something to discuss. RIP
• I find rumors of the death of the humanities greatly exaggerated. Why, yes, it's harder than it used to be. But then, there are SO MANY people in college nowadays, the noise is astounding.
• The humanities are also not all post-modernists. Some of us are practically positivists.
• You say banana, I say ba-nay-nay. I believe we see differing meanings here. Apologies for any flinging. But do let's keep the insults off the front page, 'kay? Apish civility is cherished.
• The NYT obituary is pretty naff. It's full of errors -- the writer doesn't know the differ(a)nce between a Doctorat and a Doctorat d'Etat, he describes a "right of passage" (rather than a "rite"), he gives an erroneous pronunciation of Derrida's name, and blithely mischaracterises the work of L
• "." for BlueHorse (Good to see that academic civility is alive, if not well.)
• An oldie but a goodie: The Postmodernism Generator. Keep hitting refresh!
• Well, I think that to call Derrida the biggest intellectual fraud of the XX century is a bit over the top. Surely, Jacques Lacan was a much bigger fraud.
• path: did someone suggest I compared Derrida to Hitler? How very unfortunate for them. That's the second time in the last two days someone here has been deeply confused by elementary logic. Saying "I don't rate Hitler so I wouldn't be nice about him after he died, so why should someone who doesn't rate Derrida be nice to him after he died?" is not in any way drawing a comparison between Hitler and Derrida. It is making a point by using a more persuasive illustration of that point.
• Lacan, fraud, etc. Lacan had a fraudulent side to him. He was also the first to joke about it. JL, however, provided a comprehensive and innovative rereading of Freud which revitalised an intellectual position overrun by anti-intellectuals and americanised ego-worshipping (quite the reverse of Freud's position) hacks and nullities. If some of it was overblown and/or thrown onto the fire in the spirit of generating controversy, all of it was a lot more fun than much of the neutered pap that passes for intellectual discourse in the humanities these days. The mathemes to which Sokal refers were in my view the sign of an exhausted intellect playing with the re-presentation of ideas already formed. It doesn't invalidate the idea, although it probably proves that his pretention to advanced math was a fraud. Of course, this might not be everyone's idea of fun. Ainsi soit-il.
• Also, welcome, Skeptic. I'd love to have more Euros on this site, not to mention more Asians and South Americans, Easter Islanders, etc.
• Me too. Where are the Easter Islanders??
• Language Hat: Why do you not welcome Christmas Islanders? This is a non-discriminatory islandfilter.
• I don't think you compared Derrida to Hitler. You compared what Skrik wrote about Derrida to what you might say about Hitler were Hitler to have died today, concluding that it was acceptable practice. path, defending you, misinterpreted my observation that you Godwinned to imply that this was my perception. It's not. In my definition of Godwin's law, invoking Hitler or the Nazis as an illustrative example to uphold argument N is Godwinning. Apparently others maintain differing definitions of Godwin's law than I. I can live with that.
• In my opinion, any discussion about the merits and content of Godwin's law is as valuable as any discussion of who was the better captain of the Enteprise.
• And not one smidgeon more.
• Only is it Godwinning if you are having a discussion on fascism, genocide or the nature charismatic leaders? The Godwin rule was originally just an observation, but people uphold it as a rule because it is intellectually lazy to just reach for the Nazis whenever you want to find an example. There are much better analogies - I liked the Reagan one. Personally, I think Reagan was one of the worst leaders in the free world in the late twentieth century (he's in the running with Thatcher), but I purposely didn't go into the thread about his death because I knew I couldn't be civil. (Now enough time has passed - let the trickle down pile on begin.) About Derrida - I am not at all familier with his work, only the general effect of French post-modern thinkers on the humanities. I think that it has been a important new look for many disciplines. Sometimes their ideas are followed dogmatically, even when they are not productive, and I personally hate the fashion for incomprehensible writing (is this in imitation of the original, or just imitating very bad translations?) - but that is because I am a bear of very little brain, and long words bother me. (I prefer to use lots and lots of short ones). But in my field (social history), the last two decades have brought a new focus on words and labels that has been very fruitful. Instead of just imposing modern ideas and categories, we now talk about how contemporaries envisoned their world (also called the "linguistic turn"). I just found out last year that in the 16th century, there was no word for "middle sort" or "middle class", even though there was a socioeconomic group that would look like a middle class to a modern historian. But how did they see themselves, if they had no word for it? Maybe they were beginning to form a conciousness - the phrase "middling sort" emerged in the next generation. But until those words appear, it would be hard to argue for a self-aware group of people. Zemat - The Captain of Enterprise 1701-C.
• I don't think mentioning the Nazis is intellectually lazy. I think, in fact, that it's a very useful tool for keeping us straight. Nazis are pretty much a universally agreed set of standards for what is unacceptible in public policy. So when somebody is proposing a public policy that the Nazis would have believed in, you can point out to them that they're stepping beyond the bounds of the acceptible by pointing out that they're doing what the Nazis would have done. Example (my finest hour in interpersonal argument): Me: 'We need to build more homeless shelters in Toronto. Winters are very cold here, and homeless people will freeze to death if left outside at night.' Right Wing Yahoo: 'Heh, well maybe we shouln't build the shelters and then the problem would just go away on its own!' Me: 'Oh, that's a great idea! Actually, I like it so much that we should give it a catchy sort of name to sell it to the public, like... how about "the final solution to Toronto's homelessness problem"!' Case closed. See, I think this is a really good evocation of the Nazis because it clearly illustrated that killing lots of poeple was wrong, something that people are actually inclined to forget. Where evoking the Nazis is not a good idea (and where it becomes a genuine Godwin) is when you're using it to discuss something that is a bad analogy ('I think slander should be illegal' 'bookburning Nazi!') or when it's something the Nazis did that wasn't part of that bundle of unacceptible 'Nazi things' ('I like dogs and children.' 'So did Hitler!'). Nazis also help to spot bad reasons for supporting poeple. A very well known, and apt, argument is a: 'he is failthful to his wife, and therefore would be a good leader' b: 'but Hitler was faithful to Eva, and was a very bad leader'. Clear evidence that 'family values' do not a good leader make in-and-of themselves. Incidentally, the Godwin observation should really be extended to communists as well as Nazis. These days I see many more false analogies made about the USSR than about the Nazis. Oh, and Picard. Deffinately Picard.
• The idea that mentioning any subject whatsoever should ipso facto shut down all subsequent conversation seems to me arbitrary. This is a forum, but it isn't Usenet. Why does anyone have to bother observing this so-called law? It seems a pointless tradition to me. Hitler was still alive when some of us were young, why shouldn't we be able mention his mane if talking about something from those days? Or why can't I refer to Nazis and say "Dubya is not a Nazi, but he is a fascist", for example? [In fact, I think I have said that here before without shrieks of Godwin rising to the skies.] /Asking, because I really don't grasp why this should carry over into into other venues on the interwacky. So many things I don't grasp.
• I was not formerly aware Hitler had a mane, but, then, I am such a treasury of ignorance. = name
• That would definately not be godwinning, beeswacky, because that is an appropriate use of a comparison to Nazis. (ie - pointing out that another inappropriate comparison was wrong). I think what turned Godwin's observation into the "rule" is the frustration people felt at the over use of one historical group/person - I know I do. (I disagree with Dreadnought - I think it is intellectually lazy. Why not use Cromwell, when trying to describe a fanatical leader? Stalin for a brutal, paranoid dictator? Or Turkmenbashi?) But actually, I think what it was suposed to be Godwinning was not a mention of Nazis or even a comparison of something (offline) to Nazis. It was when one person in a thread say "You're a Nazi!" At which point, all discussion did not cease, but all productive/intelligent discussion would. (Except when talking with neo-Nazis, I supose. They would probably take it as a complement.)
• Wikipedia entry; I looked it up out of curiosity. Clearly, there are indeed a large number of interpretations. I maintain that my initial use herein is a pun, and therefore dependent upon the inherent ambiguity of language, and therefore a propos even if not in canon, or, as the Wikipedia entry maintains, losing the battle. But like I said, Skrik wins.
• Liked hearing Churchill say Nazi on the radio -- inimitable. He was my first serious attachment to anyone outside my family. My eldest relatives described to me what a Great Man he was, so when a big picture of Churchill appeared on the cover of Life magazine I took possession of it and wore it to tatters taking it to bed with me every night. (My unfeeling older brothers made rude noises about that, of course, but I was in love and didn't care.) I was totally confident Churchill would always triumph. Then, after the war, when he wasn't returned to office, I was shocked by the treachery of it, as I then saw it. Those ingrates, those wretches! To this day, I can't read "Ivy Day in the Committee Room" without weeping. But if there's one hereditary imbecility I have got, it is being loyal, no matter how lost the cause. Vote for Winston!
• Arg. Late to the party; they're deconstructing Goebbels. I feel like people who think Derrida to be a fraud don't have a sense of humor when reading criticism. He's fucking hilarious, he knows that he's fucking around, and that's the point. And while the link that kwyjibo put up was much, much better than the crap denuciations here, it missed the point that deconstruction is not about binary opposition. It's about removing binary opposition as a frame, and instead focusing on tension between the many forces (binary or plural) that are contained in a text. And frankly, the fact that there's been plenty of crap deconstruction theorists following in Derrida's footsteps shouldn't be a mark against him or his theories.
• Js: if he didn't accept an honorarium, I'd agree with you. But his fucking around made him money. Or even if he'd gone into real show sbuiness, instead of the academic variety... And I think Barthes did a better job of focussing on the polysemy of the text. At least he tried to communicate.
• Barthes was a post-structuralist doing semiotic work. While there's definitely an overlap between that and deconstruction, Barthes was a lot more serious (well, as serious as essays on wrestling can be). Maybe this is because I come at Derrida more from an art theory perspective than a lit theory one. Still, Derrida's "diference" and work on the uncertainty of logos are great philosophical advances. The problem is that it's hard to go much further without totally denying the consensual nature of meaning and turning everything into a muddle, which is what a lot of post-Derrida deconstructionists have done. And again, even if he took money for it, the guy is a riot to read. Better than Baudillard, though that guy is also hilarious, and I believe that they both intended to be. As someone who's read a lot of theory, that alone gets them on my good side.