Live data from Hacker News

Jacques Derrida Interviews Ornette Coleman (1997) [pdf]

ubu.com

21–30 of 53 posts

Re: Jacques Derrida Interviews Ornette Coleman (1997) [pdf]

#21
post #3

Why is this here? What's the relevance? For those who don't know, Derrida was a French postmodern intellectual charlatan with absolutely no redeeming qualities. A good example of what one should strive not to become.

John Searle on Derrida:

With Derrida, you can hardly misread him, because he’s so obscure. Every time you say, “He says so and so,” he always says, “You misunderstood me.” But if you try to figure out the correct interpretation, then that’s not so easy. 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.

http://reason.com/archives/2000/02/01/reality-principles-an-...

Re: Jacques Derrida Interviews Ornette Coleman (1997) [pdf]

#22
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"For those who don't know, Derrida was a French postmodern intellectual charlatan with absolutely no redeeming qualities." This is a ridiculously inaccurate way to explain Derrida to "those who don't know" him. Derrida is one of the most important continental philosophers of the 20th century.

> Derrida is one of the most important continental philosophers of the 20th century. I never stated otherwise. What we both wrote is in no way contradictory.

Continental philosophy is not just postmodernism, which I don't like either. It's also 20th+ century german philosophy which is generally fairly straightforward and also french philosophy until the 60's. And while this kind of philosophy is certainly different from the formal one common in the UK (or maybe US) I would also argue that it is more interesting.

Re: Jacques Derrida Interviews Ornette Coleman (1997) [pdf]

#23

Just so everyone is clear here, while Derrida had an "uncertain" reception in some parts of the academy (those crusty old anglo-American philosophers), he was deeply influential, and by some peoples' accounts, one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century. So, dismissing him out of hand (especially rejections based on his ostensible obscurantism) is akin to saying that Donald Knuth is no good. If you g…

> So, dismissing him out of hand (especially rejections based on his ostensible obscurantism) is akin to saying that Donald Knuth is no good.

This is an invalid analogy if I ever saw one.

Let me try to make it more accurate.

For Knuth to be like Derrida his magnum opus would have to have been generated by just typing

cat /dev/random

and later claiming that MIX was somewhat defined in there as well as programs written in it. Then he would become famous Paris Hilton style and get a bunch of sycophants that defend his void verbiage no matter what (some because their entire carreers depended on it, others just because they are useful idiots).

Re: Jacques Derrida Interviews Ornette Coleman (1997) [pdf]

#24
post #3

Why is this here? What's the relevance? For those who don't know, Derrida was a French postmodern intellectual charlatan with absolutely no redeeming qualities. A good example of what one should strive not to become.

John Searle on Derrida: With Derrida, you can hardly misread him, because he’s so obscure. Every time you say, “He says so and so,” he always says, “You misunderstood me.” But if you try to figure out the correct interpretation, then that’s not so easy. 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 (…

Thank you for writing this. I wish I could upvote you more than once.

This is a very accurate way of describing him.

He used the usual tactics, creating a cult like following and dismissing those poor souls that actually tried to understand him in good faith.

These hacks (in the pejorative sense) also had a penchant for using math sounding language because in their sociopathic minds it lended credibility and gravitas to their speech.

Nothing but contempt for charlatans like him. Some excerpts to give a taste.

>The Einsteinian constant is not a constant, is not a center. It is the very concept of variability-it is, finally, the concept of the game. In other words, it is not the concept of something—of a center starting from which an observer could master the field—but the very concept of the game which, after all, I was trying to elaborate.

> This differential topology [topique différantielle] adjourns, guardian after guardian, within the polarity of high and low, far and near (fort/da), now and later. The same topology without its own place, the same atopology [atopique], the same madness defers the law as the nothing that forbids itself and the neuter that annuls oppositions.

The man is glorified poorly trained Markov chain.

Re: Jacques Derrida Interviews Ornette Coleman (1997) [pdf]

#25
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kind of agree with you. I've seen some of his interviews on Youtube and tried to read some of his work but couldn't find anything of substance. On the other hand, many smart people seem to disagree so it's very possible I am missing something. There's been a few debates on HN about deconstruction and both sides had good arguments.

Noam Chomsky summarized as follows: "As for the "deconstruction" that is carried out (also mentioned in the debate), I can't comment, because most of it seems to me gibberish. But if this is just another sign of my incapacity to recognize profundities, the course to follow is clear: just restate the results to me in plain words that I can understand, and show why they are different from, or better than, what others h…

Normally, I admire Chomsky, but this seems like a version of "if you won't educate me, how can I learn": http://www.derailingfordummies.com/derail-using-education/

Put in plain words, the point of Derrida is "there's no such thing as plain words". So the task which Noam Chomsky is setting before deconstructionists is not only onerous and a waste of their time, it is -- fundamentally, according to deconstructionist thought -- impossible.

It's like trying to grok zen. You either get it or you don't.

Re: Jacques Derrida Interviews Ornette Coleman (1997) [pdf]

#26

Derrida spoke of the absurdity of deriving meaning from an infinitely recursive and self referent system of language. Pureness of axiom isn't detectable in a mergable feedback loop. However, his critique doesn't show the shortcomings of how we neurologically handle symbols, it shows the incompleteness of human cognition. Derrida is to political epistemology as Turing is to serial bits or Godel is to arithmetic. Keep…

infinitely recursive and self referent system of language

No idea if this is actually what he said, but when I say the word "dog" while pointing at a dog, the recursion of language stops. It's amazing how so much philosophy is almost intentionally incorrect.

Re: Jacques Derrida Interviews Ornette Coleman (1997) [pdf]

#27

Derrida spoke of the absurdity of deriving meaning from an infinitely recursive and self referent system of language. Pureness of axiom isn't detectable in a mergable feedback loop. However, his critique doesn't show the shortcomings of how we neurologically handle symbols, it shows the incompleteness of human cognition. Derrida is to political epistemology as Turing is to serial bits or Godel is to arithmetic. Keep…

infinitely recursive and self referent system of language No idea if this is actually what he said, but when I say the word "dog" while pointing at a dog, the recursion of language stops. It's amazing how so much philosophy is almost intentionally incorrect.

... until a later bystander asks you, "What is a dog?" and you now have to define it without the associated dog present.

Or someone looks at another breed of dog and asks "What is that?" because he isn't aware of canine taxonomy and thinks only that original breed is a creature called "dog".

Welcome to Derrida's version of the halting problem. These are actual problems of NLP today.

Re: Jacques Derrida Interviews Ornette Coleman (1997) [pdf]

#28
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Noam Chomsky summarized as follows: "As for the "deconstruction" that is carried out (also mentioned in the debate), I can't comment, because most of it seems to me gibberish. But if this is just another sign of my incapacity to recognize profundities, the course to follow is clear: just restate the results to me in plain words that I can understand, and show why they are different from, or better than, what others h…

Normally, I admire Chomsky, but this seems like a version of "if you won't educate me, how can I learn": http://www.derailingfordummies.com/derail-using-education/ Put in plain words, the point of Derrida is "there's no such thing as plain words". So the task which Noam Chomsky is setting before deconstructionists is not only onerous and a waste of their time, it is -- fundamentally, according to deconstructionist th…

Reminds me of the parable of the Emperor And His New Clothes.

All the smart people who understand math, physics, chemistry, and biology are just too dumb to understand this wonderful new science. And those that understand this wonderful new science can't actually produce anything useful.

Re: Jacques Derrida Interviews Ornette Coleman (1997) [pdf]

#30
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Derrida is one of the most important continental philosophers of the 20th century. I never stated otherwise. What we both wrote is in no way contradictory.

That's not fair. Daniel Dennett and Thomas Metzinger have said interesting things.

Both are analytic philosophers.
Post reply on HN