Fruitloop said:
Wasn't Derrida's main point that we have to deconstruct the underlying logocentric oppositions in order to dismantle the power imbalances that they support, and ultimately to move beyond them into a terminology that no longer relies on these oppositions for meaning - i.e. to move into the realm of signs and marks from that of concept and *spirit* or whatever. How can you invert Grammatology's de-throning into some sort of re-throning of the logos? I await the next installment with substantial logical trepidation.
You're absolutely right about the *early* Derrida, and you're certainly right about his acolytes. A typical piece of his Dantonesque anti-logocentric rhetoric is the following, from Margins of Philosophy. Its worth quoting at length, because the second half of my proof will begin with a detailed critique of his reasoning here. Actually, I suppose we might as well start now:
"An opposition of metaphysical concepts (for example, speech/writing, presence/absence, etc.) is never the face-to-face of two terms, but a hierarchy and an order of subordination. Deconstruction cannot limit itself or proceed immediately to a neutralization: it must, by means of a double gesture, a double science, a double writing, practice an overturning of the classical opposition and a general displacement of the system…. For example, writing, as a classical concept, carries within it predicates which have been subordinated, excluded, or held in reserve by forces and according to necessities to be analyzed. It is these predicates… whose force of generality, generalization, and generativity find themselves liberated, grafted onto a ‘new’ concept of writing which also corresponds to whatever always has resisted the former organization of forces, which has always constituted the remainder irreducible to the dominant force which organized the--to say it quickly--logocentric hierarchy." (1984, 329-30)
I'm going to argue that, not only was Derrida quite wrong here, but that he later repudiated this position, and came to see logos as the precondition of all human life and thought. In later works, notably Specters of Marx, he is essentially preaching a logocentric theology, and indeed he has become the darling of the school known as "negative theology." You'll forgive the long and difficult quotation, and you'll appreciate that this is a complex matter, but I believe I can explain it in layman's terms, provided I am not overly distracted by the increasingly desperate attempts of Nino Savatte to derail our conversation. I'll do my best anyway. And now--bacon and eggs for me this morning!
I'm just pleased someone got it....
Or is it the case that you enjoy Philadelphia cream cheese and consider yourself to be a"Philadelphian"? Or perhaps it has something to do with your first name.
