Hugo Holbling

Well, here we go again... I'm starting this thread to discuss some aspects of continental philosophy with thefugitivesaint, August Spies and of course anyone else who cares to join in. I'll begin by posing a few questions for the Saint and invite him to answer those that interest him, or offer his own; there's no need to address all of them! I anticipate agreeing with him a good deal but, as usual, i'll try to adopt a contrary position wherever possible and fight its corner to maintain a debate.

Let's begin:

1. Did Foucault go too far in his critique of the enlightenment project? In general, how well does the latter stand up to the attacks made on it by continental philosophers, and how would you describe its status today?

2. To what extent is the dismissal of Derrida's work in certain circles due to the influence of de Man and the popularization of deconstruction in literary theory? Where is Derrida himself in error?

3. Does continental philosophy/postmodernism encourage global skepticism and, if so, have they gone too far? How and why should we set limits on our skepticism/methodologies?

4. (For August) Is there a place for psychology/psychoanalytics in philosophy? If so, what are the lessons we can learn from those who have followed such an approach?

Over to you guys...

thefugitivesaint

Got the message. Will be formulating a response and posting it when i get a chance. The questions are somewhat vague in the scope so be prepared for some long-winded diatribe from my corner expressing both the positive and negative aspects of Decon, derrida and foucault.

I may not be a fan of PoMo but i know that it has a good deal to offer my critical thinking skills in the way of cognitive tools. Yep.

-theSaint

Hugo Holbling

Roger that. The questions were purposely vague to give you a chance to take this discussion wherever you like; i didn't want to pin you down by specifying a point of contention.

I look forward to your response, saint.

Luiseach

I notice in your original post that anybody is allowed to join in the discussion. Before I give my tuppence worth, though, I just want to verify if it's okay for me to participate.

Thank you in advance,

Luiseach

P.S. I quoted the question that I'm especially interested in.

Luiseach

By the way, if others are more interested in addressing different questions from the one I'm especially keen on, I hope you don't mind if I read along with the debate anyway, and perhaps join in if I can contribute something useful.

Hugo Holbling

Of course! I've addressed my questions to August and the Saint because we've talked before about participating in such a thread, but anyone's input would be welcomed. As i said above, the questions i posted were just thrown out to start us off; i'll be glad to discuss the one you quoted, or any others you suggest. Bear in mind, however, that i don't have as much time as i'd like, so you might have to wait on a (detailed) reply.

Please post away...

Luiseach

Thank you very much, then, and I completely understand about the time issues. I hope you don't mind if I start off small...I don't want to blast the thread with a huge post!

I study deconstruction, Derrida et al and postmodernism (I like the PoMo version of the term, though!) in relation to literary theory, which is why I am interested in the question I quoted. I'm pleased to see that at least one of the pariticipants is sceptical about postmodernism, however, since although I regularly 'deconstruct' literary texts (or allow them to deconstruct themselves), I too harbour certain reservations about the process. I am also interested in the dismissiveness shown Derrida et al by some members of the philosophical community; deconstruction, although often pooh-poohed by a few of the more traditional literary critics, nonetheless has a wide currency in the academy. I tend to see it as one of many critical 'tools' that can be used when necessary. As Saint pointed out, PoMo can sharpen one's critical thinking skills. Chewing-gum for the mind.

'2. To what extent is the dismissal of Derrida's work in certain circles due to the influence of de Man and the popularization of deconstruction in literary theory? Where is Derrida himself in error?'

As we know, 'deconstruction' is difficult to summarise; Derrida has become connected with the term, and the term itself seems to resist conventional definitions, but the 'practice' of deconstructing has nevertheless influenced disciplines beyond the borders of philosophy proper. Literary studies have went through some drastic changes since the advent of deconstruction - for the better, in my opinion - and so I don't see Derrida or deconstruction as baddies.

I am aware, however, that many philosophers view his writings as controversial. One of Derrida's critics says this:

The French excel in fabricated terms of shifty meaning which make it impossible to detect at what point philosophical speculation turns to gibberish. Deconstruction is a theory which appears to lend itself most readily to babbling obfuscation.
(Peter Lennon)

Others have implied that Derrida is not a 'proper philosopher' at all, but rather a 'failed theorist' (Henry Erskine-Hill). David-Hillel Ruben dismisses French philosophy as run by a system of 'mandarins and gurus and fashions.'

Despite the outrage, deconstruction has merrily made inroads into literary theory, indeed it has become part and parcel of many literary critics' potential modus operandi - de Man and others have adapted the philosophy to the tackling of texts.

Deconstruction in literary theory undermines the primacy of the author of a text; this so-called 'death of the author' (to borrow a now-cliched phrase) seems to allow the critic to read the disenfranchised text without considering the intentions of its originator. Removing the issue of authorial power from a text opens it to interpretations which are limited only by the text itself (and the text is not necessarily confined within the pages of the book).

As important as deconstruction is in literary studies, the theory is still viewed by many with suspicion. We need to remember that the heart of the controversy surrounding Derrida is the fact that his writings are a critique of philosophy itself. His work challenges 'truth' and 'knowledge,' and questions the authority of philosophy by pointing out the significance that philosophy is (like other disciplines) writing, and therefore literary. I think that this might be one reason why Derrida/deconstruction is frequently dismissed in certain circles - 1. because it undermines the foundations of philosophy as an authority on truth and knowledge; and 2. because literary critics have popularised deconstruction as a way for dismantling texts, demonstrating in effect that the critical eye can be turned on texts claiming authority, rigour, logic, and so on - including, of course, philosophical texts.

It's a cheeky wee theory. ;-)

P.S. Goodness, I said I wouldn't start with a long post, and I have done so. :-D

August Spies

Hello hugo, et al. Like i've said before continental philosophy is something i’ve very interested in but not necessarily something I am any kind of authority on, so these are just some random thoughts...

I am really not sure why this is addressed to me, but regardless;
Yes. Psychology, in a broad since, is very important in philosophy imho. Philosophy is an attempt to understand the nature of reality, but more specifically to deal with the "nature" of man.

I think continental philosophy has always had a firm root in psychology. And psychology has borrowed from philosophy. An obvious parallel being Nietzsche's concept of the Apolline (rational, imagistic, need for structure and control of the dionysiac) and the Dionysiac (emotional, irrational, drunkenness) and Freud’s concepts of the Id and Ego.

My main interest in continental philosophy is its attempt to provide a critical analysis of modern society. What problems does modern society pose is ultimately bound up with what effects does it have on its members. Which is psychological in a sense.
Marx talks often in texts like the economic manuscripts about what effects the modes of production have on man. The modern worker is alienated from himself in this current situation. Saying something like that is judging society on psychological grounds, how it effects the human mind.

The Frankfurt school deals with this in more depth. Marcuse, in his one-dimensional man devotes about half the book to the idea of "one-dimensional thought." Modern society has succeeded in making us think in a flat simple one-dimensional way.

My personal favorites these days, the situationists, base much of their critique on somewhat psychological grounds. For them modern capitalism has attacked who we are as humans. After defeating the "natural alienation" man confronts (the struggle to survive) capitalism was intent to continue itself, expand itself. To do this it needed new markets. After conquering nature it moved on to conquer human nature. It creates a "spectacle" as it were, and feeds people images. False-needs or manufactured needs. But living in this spectacle affects significantly how we think.

and of course many others are concerned with this as well. Foucault, in books like "madness and civilization," tries to map out how humans have thought about things in different ways. (In this case how we have thought about madness.)

sorry this is rambling a bit, perhaps it can be a springboard to a more specific discussion. But I would say YES. The effects society has on our psychology is one of the most important things we can think about.

to paraphrase Vaniegram (sp?) "What is the point of a society where the guarantee of not dying of starvation is the chance of dying of boredom."

August Spies

Deconstruction in literary theory undermines the primacy of the author of a text; this so-called 'death of the author'

The "death of the author" was a term first used by Barthes and Foucault (friends). The two are not considered deconstructionists though, right? Asking just for clairity, though I think the idea of the death of the author certainly fits in with Derrida.

peace

Luiseach

You're right, Spies (thanks for pointing that out!)...as you are no doubt aware, they are considered thinkers in their own right. I've never thought of them as 'deconstructionists' in the same way that Derrida is. But their thinking does mesh gears with postmodernist thought in general (indeed some of their work forms the corpus of books backing up the PoMo process). And yes, the idea of eliminating the author from the critical process works well with Derrida's thought, largely because his emphasis is on the text and how it functions, not its creator.

I'm beginning to see why some creationists don't like Derrida too much. Deconstruction and biblical authority don't mix very well - oil and water!