|
Dank (pg. 15)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Woony
And I don't know how you got the idea that I protested against framing this discussion in the continental/analytic binary since my whole point has been that much of the deriding of post structuralism is due to the continental/analytic divide. The vast majority of the people making wide claims about all or most of poststructuralism being nonsense have been trained analytically |
Yeah, and you've already admitted that I have nothing to do with that background. You're just recoursing to the same strawman, over and over. How about you accept that the people in this thread making the cracks don't fit into "the vast majority" bracket you keep leaning on? It's especially rich given you had the temerity to try and problematise the idea of "post-structuralism" as a unified target. Funnily enough, this is exactly the kind of have-cake-and-eat reasoning so much post-structuralist thought uses as a foundation.
| quote: | | How are these two sentences related? There's a staunch difference between scholars not being able to agree on a single interpretation and a given reader not being able to crack the language of a text at all. |
How can you have any confidence you understand the language of someone if you have no confidence in knowing the intended meaning of that language? I'm sure Derrideans would argue that this was a meta-strategy he used to undermine the centrality of meaning, or some tedious to that effect. |
|
|
| Woony |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Yeah, and you've already admitted that I have nothing to do with that background. You're just recoursing to the same strawman, over and over. How about you accept that the people in this thread making the cracks don't fit into "the vast majority" bracket you keep leaning on? It's especially rich given you had the temerity to try and problematise the idea of "post-structuralism" as a unified target. Funnily enough, this is exactly the kind of have-cake-and-eat reasoning so much post-structuralist thought uses as a foundation.
How can you have any confidence you understand the language of someone if you have no confidence in knowing the intended meaning of that language? I'm sure Derrideans would argue that this was a meta-strategy he used to undermine the centrality of meaning, or some tedious to that effect. |
How is it a straw-man if the post you quoted above was me and Lews literally discussing how analytics (in plural) tend to approach poststructuralism and how poststructuralists (in plural) react? It wasn't even directed at you, hence why my last two posts were merely explaining my position from the post directed at Lews.
And your second paragraph happens all the time in philosophy. Kant scholars will largely agree on his given definitions of his central terminology yet have wildly different interpretations of what he was saying with that terminology. Derrida isn't some kind of crazy outsider, people are still arguing over some of the basics concepts of ing Plato. Every philosopher has flexible and shifting definitions to a certain degree. My comment to Lira wasn't some kind of statement on postmodernism, I was merely putting Derrida in a line of thinkers like Hegel, Nietzsche and Heidegge, on which there is little scholarly consenseus. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Woony
How is it a straw-man if the post you quoted above was me and Lews literally discussing how analytics (in plural) tend to approach poststructuralism and how poststructuralists (in plural) react? |
Lews wasn't discussing that at all. There isn't any mention in his last two posts about how analytics approach anything. He was specifically talking about how post-structuralists react to criticism by jousting with a strawman of what analytics supposedly do. If you pay attention, he's deliberately placing himself outside of your generic ripostes, and yet you still think he's talking about analytics vs continentals!
| quote: | | And your second paragraph happens all the time in philosophy... Every philosopher has flexible and shifting definitions to a certain degree. |
Why not broaden that sentiment to every writer, ever? More "problematising", but I think you know perfectly well why it applies more to Derrida than usual, which is why you specified "with authors like Derrida" in the first place. |
|
|
| Woony |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
He was specifically talking about how post-structuralists react to criticism by jousting with a strawman of what analytics supposedly do. |
But that's the exact point I was replying to! We were already talking in plural form and not personally since he reffered to continentals in plural. I was arguing that it's not a strawman for the reasons I mentioned in my post. I wasn't even trying argue against him as an analytic personally, just clarifiyng his idea of continentals using straw men as a defence shield which I don't think is entirely justified since there is a large amount of truth in that "straw man" for reasons I mentioned.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Why not broaden that sentiment to every writer, ever? More "problematising", but I think you know perfectly well why it applies more to Derrida than usual, which is why you specified "with authors like Derrida" in the first place. |
Yes but you are trying to make it only about poststructuralism when there are many similiar authors not in the poststructuralist tradition. I don't know why you keep refering to quotes I said to other people in different contexts to win some kind of technical argument when I hadn't even quoted any of your posts in like two pages. Even me and Lews had largely settled our personal dispute since he said that he actually read some of these authors and I've said that I'm not per se defending the whole poststructuralist movement. Hence why I found it would be interesting to argue on the more general points of the analytic/continental divide. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Woony
But that's the exact point I was replying to! We were already talking in plural form and not personally since he reffered to continentals in plural. I was arguing that it's not a strawman for the reasons I mentioned in my post. I wasn't even trying argue against him as an analytic personally, just clarifiyng his idea of continentals using straw men as a defence shield which I don't think is entirely justified since there is a large amount of truth in that "straw man" for reasons I mentioned. |
The important part here is not what analytics are guilty of doing. The important part is this part:
"There's rarely an acknowledgement that one can get it but simply not be impressed."
If you read back through this thread, what you've basically done over and over is imply that I personally haven't been taught it properly, or that we haven't engaged with it properly, or that critics of it generally aren't versed in the right kind of language to get it. I know you've been put in a defensive position in this thread, but there's something distinctly patronising about your line of defence, and I haven't really seen any evidence of you making that crucial acknowledgement that Lews states above. Whether you address me directly or not, it still looks like a sideways slight on our comprehension of the matter at hand.
That feeds into the Derrida thing. You are essentially making the excuse for Derrida that his critics just aren't versed in his language and so not truly qualified to pass opinion on him, and yet Derrida is absolutely infamous for being so obscure in his writing that even his staunchest disciples struggle to pin that language down. You yourself have admitted that, but now you're trying to walk it back. What you're doing is deflection, it's water-muddying, it's essentially self-contradiction to avoid making that aforementioned acknowledgement. And yeah, it's more than a little condescending. So that's why I continue to take umbrage.
(And incidentally, why can't I find faults in your posts to Lews when you took a post of mine toward him as an "argument" that you proceeded to argue with?) |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| To put it another way, you probably think I'm going into attack dog mode here and am just trying to "win" an Internet debate. But while I may be saying your specific arguments or contentions are wrong, I am at no point suggesting that you fundamentally do not know what you are talking about. |
|
|
| Woony |
No, I'm saying you are going into attack-dog-mode because you arguing on the behalf of Lews with a bunch of technicalities of who said what now, when you hadn't been involved in the argument anymore for like two pages and Lews and me had already mostly settled our personal dispute, since he admitted to liking the exact kind of authors I was trying to defend in the first place (hence why my "analytic strawmen" obviously wasn't directed at him personally in the last few posts, since I said that unlike him, the vast majority had not read these authors) and we agreed on our dislike of ty, second-rate poststructuralism as some kind of intellectual movement.
You and me had already settled our original argument earlier, hence I replied to you because I thought you were actually interested in arguing against the reply I made to Lews but you obviously aren't but instead interested in winning some kind of technicality of how I've been arguing in this thread (you seem to do this every time you get into an argument with someone on TA), which I'm not interested in, when the main dispute had alreay been settled. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| The way I see it, if you keep putting up a position and I can see obvious contradictions within it, I'll point them out, regardless of how many posts have elapsed since I last said anything. Especially since it's the same position you and I were going through about 10 posts earlier. But if you're not interested in arguing it, let's leave it there. |
|
|
| Woony |
| You're obviously very good at that style of surgically deconstructing (heh) someones argument and I can see why it's fun for you but I personally don't particularily take pleasure in it and I don't think it's very productive - the last 10 posts have been primarily about the meta-level of the way I and you have been arguing and only secondarily about the topic of poststructuralism. Yes, I did derail a bit with the continental/analytic stuff but I think it's a related topic and quite fascinating. |
|
|
| Lews |
Okay, so, several points.
One: I would like the record to state that at no point did I write that I like any of the aforementioned post-structuralist authors. What I did say was that not all post-structuralism was complete bull and that I had found some value in works of those authors.
Two: The ‘technicalities of who said what now’ are clearly of importance when we’re specifically talking about what philosophers said. Right?!
Three: The problem is, Woony, that at no point have you done anything to defend post-structuralism from the charge of being nonsense, other than to state that analytics just don’t get post-structuralism, which, as Jack has pointed out, is both patronising and annoying, as well as being my whole point. I said the chief defence of post-structuralism is that analytics just don’t get it and you said, well, that’s because analytics just don’t get it! The hubris behind this sort of post-structuralist argument (because it’s the view’s argument, not yours; I’m not trying to attack you) is just ridiculous.
Four: Derrida probably was intentionally using confusion as a meta-strategy to undermine the centrality of meaning, but, similar to what Habermas pointed out, that meta-strategy completely undermines his [Derrida’s] own point – which is one of the key problems with post-structuralism! It’s completely have-cake-and-eat-it-too in [almost?] every regard. It undermines itself constantly, thus requiring post-structuralism to reinforce itself at all times – which is its whole charge against other forms of philosophy! It problematises itself so much that its left with very little bite to actually attack with, leaving many people nonplussed with the whole endeavour.
Five: I hate lists to only have four items. |
|
|
| Woony |
It was never my goal to defend all of post structuralism. I just think that some great authors often get undeservedly trashed. I, maybe wrongly, assumed that you had not actually read these authors because my emperic experience hanging out on the internet is that most people trashing post structuralism have not. If you read from the beginning, the first two posts from you guys that initially started this discussion were incredibly patronizing in the way the average analytic on the internet trashes on postmodernism, like "yeah, of course it's complete bull, I'm not an imbecile" (without making any argument as to why) so I wrongly assumed you didn't know what you were talking about. If you had written "I have major issues with it but despite that I can see that some of the authors have value" I probably wouldn't even have started this discussion.
And I never said that it's impossible for analytics to get poststructuralism per se, I was replying to your point that I don't think it's a false defense mechanism - because the average analytic on the internet (or even academia) does not properly understand it, given how differently the two schools are trained. I don't see why this is such a crazy thesis, if an analytic said that the average continental does not understand logical formalism I would agree with them, as I've said countless times, it cuts both ways. You've never argued as to why this isn't the case except citing your own knowledge of post strucuralism (which I'm not doubting), while I have provided many examples and theories as to why the analytical tradition as an average might misunderstand continental thought. There's nothing ironic about this "defense" if it's true and I've given a lot of arguments as to why it might be (again, talking about the average analytic, not doubting the ability of an specific analytic to understand it)
Just for fun, the main problem with defending "post structuralism" against the claim that it's total nonsense is that I'm obviously not allowed to use any of the mantras of post structuralism without it being ironic. Well, just as an example, try defending logical formalism, against the claim that it's total nonsense without using the mantras of "logical, scientif, rigorous, accurate etc.". I think the same goes for most philosophical approaches. I would agree, that, given the full-out-deconstruction-view of poststructuralism (which I think is a bit exaggerated) it is logically headed towards self-collapse but I don't think that just because a way of thought can't metaphysically sustain itself that all of it's approaches or concepts are nonsense or worthless. Most of post structuralism has always been constituted mainly negatively (except Deleuze I guess) for a reason, except in some literature departments I don't think anyone is seriously claiming in 2017 that post structuralism can positively constitute a philosophy of endless deconstruction. So maybe that does ultimate doom the great project of positive post structuralism but meanwhile, it's negative project has already suceeded in the sense that people, even if they don't "believe" in the grand project of poststructuralism, are more careful and reflective with text and narratives now and I think Derrida is entirely happy with that from his grave. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by Woony
And I never said that it's impossible for analytics to get poststructuralism per se, I was replying to your point that I don't think it's a false defense mechanism - because the average analytic on the internet (or even academia) does not properly understand it, given how differently the two schools are trained. I don't see why this is such a crazy thesis, if an analytic said that the average continental does not understand logical formalism I would agree with them, as I've said countless times, it cuts both ways. You've never argued as to why this isn't the case except citing your own knowledge of post strucuralism (which I'm not doubting), while I have provided many examples and theories as to why the analytical tradition as an average might misunderstand continental thought. There's nothing ironic about this "defense" if it's true and I've given a lot of arguments as to why it might be (again, talking about the average analytic, not doubting the ability of an specific analytic to understand it) |
Right, but I have never said anything about analytic philosophy here. All I have said is that post-structuralism is mostly nonsense, and you have responded by attacking analytic philosophy – a telling defence. Perhaps you feel that is warranted due to your experiences leaving you with the heuristic that anyone attacking post-structuralism simply does not get it – but, again, that is my entire point. You assume just because I find post-structuralism to be nonsense that I am an analytic. If you want to talk about how the analytic/continental divide is real and is interesting, you might want to look at your own assumptions first. You assumed that because I don’t like post-structuralism that I am an analytic and that I don’t get post-structuralism, with little evidence for that assumption.
| quote: | Originally posted by Woony
Just for fun, the main problem with defending "post structuralism" against the claim that it's total nonsense is that I'm obviously not allowed to use any of the mantras of post structuralism without it being ironic. Well, just as an example, try defending logical formalism, against the claim that it's total nonsense without using the mantras of "logical, scientif, rigorous, accurate etc.". I think the same goes for most philosophical approaches. I would agree, that, given the full-out-deconstruction-view of poststructuralism (which I think is a bit exaggerated) it is logically headed towards self-collapse but I don't think that just because a way of thought can't metaphysically sustain itself that all of it's approaches or concepts are nonsense or worthless. Most of post structuralism has always been constituted mainly negatively (except Deleuze I guess) for a reason, except in some literature departments I don't think anyone is seriously claiming in 2017 that post structuralism can positively constitute a philosophy of endless deconstruction. So maybe that does ultimate doom the great project of positive post structuralism but meanwhile, it's negative project has already suceeded in the sense that people, even if they don't "believe" in the grand project of poststructuralism, are more careful and reflective with text and narratives now and I think Derrida is entirely happy with that from his grave. |
The fundamental difference is that logical formalism does not attack other views/systems for using its own logical, scientific, rigorous structures. It presupposes that they are true and then builds from there. It says, well, we need to start with something, let’s get on with it and build up from here. Post-structuralism says, lets deconstruct and de-legitimise everything and blow it all up, oh and by the way, we’re better than everyone else. I never argued that post-structuralism is worthless, I obviously said above that there is value in it, but it is inherently problematic (by nature). This problematic-ness, like I noted above and, as I mentioned, Habermas points out, attacks itself as much as it attacks any other views/systems. And yet, post-structuralism tries to lay claim to being better than those systems – leading to an inherent conflict in itself both on its own terms (being self-referential) and in the terms of others (being illogical). Consequently, it cannot help but be nonsensical. It defeats itself on its own terms and on the terms of others – and then it has the god damned gall to claim it is just not understood and that it is just too complex and obscure for the simple people to understand. It is patronising and presumptuous and, all-in-all, rather annoying. |
|
|
|
|
