Apr. 7th, 2008

monk222: (Rainy: by snorkle_c)
"French Theory: How Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, & Co. Transformed the Intellectual Life of the United States” by Francois Cusset

Stanley Fish applies his dialectical gifts on DECONSTRUCTION and the language of social constructs, in his review of the above book, which might be a good brain-buzz while remaining within the comprehension of a modest Liberal Arts student. I'm mostly convinced that I definitely need to get Fish's book on Paradise Lost.

The book is supposedly a defense of deconstruction against its uses as a political weapon, with Cusset maintaining that it is merely a critical perspective. However, I can see why conservatives would be more up in arms over deconstruction. After all, this is the party that holds more faithfully to the idea of self-evident truths, especially as embodied in the American way with its honoring of rights and property, and which is therefore more likely to be aggrieved by a discipline which denies knowable truths and holds all truths to be convenient creations.

Even so, I suppose the answer is to distinguish between philosphy and politics. Free-spirited inquiry befits philosophical investigations. Propositions that get stamped with the force of law through our democratic processes are another matter. Although the relationship between philosophy and politics may become more or less volatile at different times, I don't see anything inconsistent in this distinction. We can debate furiously over truths, and we can respect and abide the outcomes of our democratic contests.

Fish )
monk222: (Rainy: by snorkle_c)
"French Theory: How Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, & Co. Transformed the Intellectual Life of the United States” by Francois Cusset

Stanley Fish applies his dialectical gifts on DECONSTRUCTION and the language of social constructs, in his review of the above book, which might be a good brain-buzz while remaining within the comprehension of a modest Liberal Arts student. I'm mostly convinced that I definitely need to get Fish's book on Paradise Lost.

The book is supposedly a defense of deconstruction against its uses as a political weapon, with Cusset maintaining that it is merely a critical perspective. However, I can see why conservatives would be more up in arms over deconstruction. After all, this is the party that holds more faithfully to the idea of self-evident truths, especially as embodied in the American way with its honoring of rights and property, and which is therefore more likely to be aggrieved by a discipline which denies knowable truths and holds all truths to be convenient creations.

Even so, I suppose the answer is to distinguish between philosphy and politics. Free-spirited inquiry befits philosophical investigations. Propositions that get stamped with the force of law through our democratic processes are another matter. Although the relationship between philosophy and politics may become more or less volatile at different times, I don't see anything inconsistent in this distinction. We can debate furiously over truths, and we can respect and abide the outcomes of our democratic contests.

Fish )

Profile

monk222: (Default)
monk222

May 2019

S M T W T F S
    1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 28th, 2025 06:06 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios