sadness of america/bad postmodernism

[John Doe]

I've read "Of Grammatology" cover to cover ( and then
some ) roughly 11 years ago...and no there is no
systematic abuse...he rarely alludes to
it...however...the Weinberg quote was bad enough; it
shows blatant ignorance...my broad point is that
maybe, just maybe, philosophers can be a little weensy
bit more cautious before they make poignant and grand
statements that attempt to reduce certain manners of
thinking ( in this case scientific ones )to mere
rhetoric...brilliant folks since at least the time of
Euclid recognized this "way" of thinking as more than
mere rhetoric, so why would Post-modernists feel oh so
suddenly insightfull and use cheap but elaborate
sematic play to undermine something that has - and
STILL has despite their feeble objections - worked
since it's inception?...'things that make ya go
"hmmmmmmmm"....'

--- Dave Monroe <monropolitan at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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
> 



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