sadness of america/bad postmodernism

[Dave Monroe]

I'm not "vouching" for Derrida's (RIP) "phenomenal
scientific acumen."  I believe Sokol and Bricmont's
point is, he didn't claim any.  My point, however, was
that, if you're directing "Derrida-heads" to their
book, you might well have no read it all too closely,
if at all.  Perhaps, reading generously, a la, say,
Derrida, you MIGHT have MEANT to imply, more
generally, "poststructuralists," "postmodernists,"
"theorists," whatever, but that's not what you wrote,
so ...

So yr "logic" isn't all too "obvious," either, as no
one that I know of--me, anyone else on the list, Sokal
and Bricmont, Derrida or his commentators--has made
any claims for Derrida's scientific "acumen" or
"intuition" or whatever.  Again, to direct yr
attention to a text you've allegedly read, either here
or in hardcopy, "there is no systematic misuse of (or
indeed attention to) science in Derrida's work" ...

--- John Doe <tristero69 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Incidentally, if I have to point out the obvious
> logic here; if Derrida did a one-shot abuse, it can
> be for the simple reason that he only made one
> reference to an area of thinking he knows nothing
> about...so...if his one attempt to "use" his
> enormous scientific intuition was flawed, it
> doesn't shine well, now does it? Maybe he knew
> enough not to pretend to know more where he clearly
> didn't...I mean, getting real here, dude; are YOU
> prepared to vouch for his phenomenal scientific
> acumen? What's your "subtext" on that score?


	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com