Hugo Holbling

Nice moves, Keith. Even if you end up disagreeing with thinkers on the dark side, you can't help but learn a great deal. I'm planning to re-read Kant myself, along with Derrida, Davidson and the stack of books that's steadily building up around me. Consequently, i'll be happy to wait until later in the year.

For an understanding of Rorty, i'd say the best place to start would be his Contingency, Irony and Solidarity, followed by the essays in Philosophy and Social Hope. If you're interested in more depth, move on to his Philosophical Papers (of which there are 3 volumes). For criticism, i've found the web decidedly unimpressive and full of mischaracterizations, so i'm trying this collection. By hook or by crook, i've managed to get a fair understanding of his work, so feel free to ask me if you have any questions (or if you want to indulge in the philosopher's favourite past-time: Rorty-bashing. ).

There's no simple way to gain an understanding of Derrida. You could start with Kamuf's Derrida Reader, but the important works are Of Grammatology and Writing and Difference; one of his later, more playful works may give a better appreciation of how he "does philosophy". I'll be very keen to discuss Derrida with you, either here or via PM.

Good luck with your reading. Just remember that i don't take myself seriously at all, so there's no harm meant in my Objectivist (and other...) jibes in your direction. I look forward to our next battle, perhaps in the realm of the postmodern and hopefully with plenty of rhetoric slung in my direction too.

Clutch

hugo, since you linked to this thread, let me cast my vote firmly in the middle. I like philosophy to be as clear as the subject matter permits, and I like it playful and humourous. My knock on Rorty would not be that he's too playful -- it's that there's not a whole lot there, content-wise, at the end of the day. Derrida too often gets lumped in with more extreme sorts of French obscurantism -- to my eye, he's much clearer than, say, Deleuze -- but again the reason I'm not really interested in either is because the writing tends to be over-the-top obscure, with overtones of coterie-mongering. Of course, they're free to have a vision of philosophy on which clarity is not the overarching goal, in which the hiddenness of the message is part of the subversiveness of philosophy, or whatever. It's just not my bag, baby.

Bluenose

Some authors/teachers divide philosophy into Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics. My first teacher [qv my post supra] felt that how philosophy was defined and divided revealed more about the philosopher/author/teacher and their thoughts than about the whole vast realm. [Think of all the psych stories or jokes that involve some line like "Your question says more about you than the mere words in the question..."]

One direction I am tending is to use the axiology aspect as a foundation for looking at the emphasis of each "author/poster" as coming from unique backrounds of education and experience which color the comments and questions asked.

At the moment it seems to me that doing philosophy on the Sec Web is dealing with basic metaphysical questions AND watching for the psychological/axiological clues dropped [sometimes unknown by the posters].

Have you all tried to walk a mile in the other posters' shoes before you give your instant critique?

Edit to add: YOU plural
The last question is general/rhetorical and not directed at any one presently on Sec Web. I wonder now if I should have asked that question of "X" [as in the thread "Why is X stalking Y?]

Hugo Holbling

Thanks for your comments, Clutch, and for resurrecting my topic. Perhaps i can engage middle-of-the-road types by trying for a little humour and greater clarity? I think it's worth a shot.

I'll let your comments on Rorty pass for now, even if i am the resident defender of unsavoury philosophical ideas. Even relativists take breaks...

Hugo Holbling

I'm interested to hear more about how you're using axiology here. Still, your caution against dismissing the ideas of others is a wise one, methinks, and i for one will try harder in this respect - although if i go any further along the relativist road, i may explode in a puff of smoke.