Searle vs. Derrida

[Dave Monroe]

WWPS?  What would Pynchon say?  I don't imagine him as
a fan, but, tehn again, I don't imagine him as having
had a particular interest in Derrida OR Searle, so ...
and, apprently, you didn't notice that BBC notice
posted yesterday, or the fact that that Cambridge
incident comes up in seemingly everything being
written about him.  Not taht the ppers generally
expend much space to dead philosopher, much less to
every twist and turn of their careers, but ...

But, hell, even the headlines are rather less
flattering  (e.g., the NY Times' "abstruse") than one
expects in a situation in which there's no immediate
need to speak ill of the dead ...

But, again, Culler is one thing, I don't recall him
ever being a particularly great Derrida explicator
(I've been following along with, say, Simon Critchley
in particular in that reagrd), but referring to the
secondary literature is fine in terms of, say, it
helping to clarify a point or somesuch, but arguing
with a proxy (esp. given the sheer number and
variability of those available) is hardly arguing with
the man (or, rather, his texts) himself (themsleves)
...

--- jolly <jollyrogerx99 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Searle's critiques of Derrida and Culler are apt, to
> the point, and appropriate.  It's not even worth
> discussing.  Derrida's responses--Limited Inc.
> etc.-- were snide, childish and do not even address
> the points raised--just parisian-surrealist  ad
> hominems.  The denunciation of Derrida by hundreds
> of Harvard and Cambridge scientists and  logicians
> (including Quine and Barcan)  has conveniently  been
> overlooked now at his demise--and those denouncing
> him were not all "logocentric" conservatives or
> "jack-booted bourgeoisie" or whatever....