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.
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.
I haven't finished reading whole interview/discussion, but to bridge Coleman's treatment of improvisation vs composition over to the software domain: the "philharmonic" wanted a "waterfall" version of music composition, where everything was written down in advance and completely choreographed, with no notes, chords, phrasing, tempo, volume, tone left to chance; this upset Coleman, who believed in a more "agile" version of music. In Coleman's life in the jazz community with jazz musicians, he said he'd rehearse to review brand new pieces with them and lay down the framework; in the second rehearsal, the other musicians would riff on the themes, find new things to say, fill in the gaps. The jazz performances would work out just fine, just-in-time, like "agile". The classical "philharmonic" musicians couldn't relate to this at all.
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 had been doing long before and and have continued to do since without three-syllable words, incoherent sentences, inflated rhetoric that (to me, at least) is largely meaningless, etc. That will cure my deficiencies --- of course, if they are curable; maybe they aren't, a possibility to which I'll return."
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.
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.
A number of these "deconstruction" texts are bad, like any other philosophy or attempt in any field. Not because of how it's written - the thinking behind it is bad.
Other of these can indeed be stated in simpler words, and remain enlightening and profound observation (what Chomsky asks).
But in general, what Chomsky says is BS. It's analogous to: this Charlie Parker jazz piece is meaningless. Play it to me with conventional harmony, and show me how it's better than John Phillip Soussa. Oh, and stick to 4/4 and triad chords.
The whole idea behind those philosophical attemps is that they work in the limits of the language, e.g. in "advanced mode", and deal with stuff that's not relatable with "plain words", the same way "fuck my life" is not analogous to "oh, how unfortunate I feel at this moment", even if they mostly convey the same message.
If plain words don't work, then invent new notation like physics and math do. Its nonsense because there is no "higher" concept. They are expressing pretty conventional concepts ... like for example the simple concept that language and meaning have a cultural context ... a concept which can be expressed both with simple language and simple anecdotes.
You ever notice how the best practitioners of Math, Physics, and Computer Science produce great output in multiple fields. Not just their chosen field. Like they might be 99.99 percentile in one field, and in another field they are 99 percentile. In other words they produce useful and interesting artifacts across a whole slice of human endeavors. Whereas it seems to me these post-modernists mainly focus on one thing ... this post-modern bullshit. And everyone I meet that spends time on this post-modern stuff is pretty third-rate in everything else they do.
>If plain words don't work, then invent new notation like physics and math do
Or, you know, do it like philosophy and poetry and literature do, and combine the words in new clusters, assign them new meanings, invent a few helper words, etc.
>Its nonsense because there is no "higher" concept. They are expressing pretty conventional concepts ... like for example the simple concept that language and meaning have a cultural context ... a concept which can be expressed both with simple language and simple anecdotes.
That you can express the core concept doesn't mean you can express it's nuances. I can play "My favorite things" melody from a fake book in the July Andrews version, but that doesn't convey much about Coltrane's version.
In the scope of what those philosophers describe and work with, reducing it to something like "that language and meaning have a cultural context" is like saying "I've read War and Peace. It's about Russia, right?".
>You ever notice how the best practitioners of Math, Physics, and Computer Science produce great output in multiple fields. Not just their chosen field. Like they might be 99.99 percentile in one field, and in another field they are 99 percentile. In other words they produce useful and interesting artifacts across a whole slice of human endeavors.
No, I don't notice it. It's a myth invented by some hackers (ESR comes to mind) to feel good, and is a tired form of self-praise.
I know some hackers etc that dabble in music, painting etc. Nothing to write home about, and no great artist (as in, someone in the canon of western arts) was at the same time a great math, physics or hacker (DaVince comes to mind as the exception that proves the rule). To put it in another way, you might find 5 such cases. You won't find 10.
Richard Feyman, for example, was just a guy that could play some bongos (nothing to write home about) and could write amusing personal anecdotes in clear prose (again, no Hemingway).
Or you mean different fields in sciences? Again, I don't much see that. There are some cases, but most are few and far between. Take the great Physisists -- not much of a contribution to mathematics, if any (when they were not even quite mediocre in that field, like Einstein). Now, mathematicians doing well in Computer Science (like Turing and others) is mostly because Computer Science is just an ad hoc domain of applied Mathematics.
"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.
This quote contains his criticism very clearly:
"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 had been doing long before and and have continued to do since without three-syllable words, incoherent sentences, inflated rhetoric that (to me, at least) is largely meaningless, etc. That will cure my deficiencies --- of course, if they are curable; maybe they aren't, a possibility to which I'll return."
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.
That is very harsh critique which you leave unsubstantiated. Did you have something particular in mind? Preferably something you have made an honest attempt to benevolently interpret.
This being said, I too am confused about this being popping up on the front page uncommented.
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.