Talk:Jacques Derrida/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Interesting, but ...

There are some good bits here. Precious little about Derrida's position relative to the rest of French thought really (compared to the inevitable stuff about impact on the academy in the USA). Hardly enough on the relationship to Hegel (considering Glas). The discussion of translations ought to be secondary, really (unless we really want to privilege the non-francophone view of D). Charles Matthews 07:28, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Although contributions on Hegel would be welcome, you could make the same argument about Benjamin, Kant, Freud, Levinas, Artaud, Lacan, or Genet, although the argument may only be most compelling with respect to psychoanalysis and Derrida's own practise of literary criticism. I don't say this because I don't know that at part of Derrida's work very well. I don't think that translation is secondary or that there is an absolute priority for discussing Derrida in a "French" context except to explicate ways in which Derrida's French breaks with the tradition and even the unity of that language (senses of "plus d'un langue"). As for Derrida being French, he has commented that this may only be admitted if one says that he is also and at the same time Algerian and Jewish. There were some remarks (subsequently edited out for NPOV) I made previously about Heidegger trying to write the French and Americans out of the will, arguing that they didn't have the linguistic resources. I'd like to rework these, as translation remains a critical conduit in Derrida's defiance of this.

I think some remarks about the way in which the 1987 era debates about Heidegger and possibly de Man emphasized certain differences within deconstruction needs to be discussed (as I believe that these arguments between friends are where Derrida also meets some of his most salient critics), but I don't think any of the participants in those exchanges would welcome its appropriation to a geophilosophical privilege given to France, even if that was the stage on which so much of it happened (Cerisy-la-Salle is, after all, home to "le Centre Culturel International"). I don't say this to demean France (or "Continental Philosophy"), but one foregoes too much caution in speaking of "the francophone view" or "the non-francophone view" of his work, for no such consensus exists at these levels. I think something needs to be said about Derrida's ideas of cosmopolitanism and globalization. All these matters do require greater explication. Your objections demand further answer.

A larger problem looms, however. The piece is now running at the length limit and needs to be divided. I'm not entirely happy with the current organization and would very much like to make way for further discussion of the issues raised above and a few more. I'd very much appreciate feedback on this matter. Buffyg 13:49, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, if length is the issue I think Derrida on the Heidegger affair should really be with Heidegger; Derrida on de Man with de Man; and perhaps the Searle business deserves separate treatment also. None of these really speak to the importance of Derrida: if he were not so prominent a figure, they would hardly matter. The Cambridge honorary degree probably is a barometer of importance. As for my own slant: I've been going back to my older reading, and I see that what I was saying was very much what I'd picked up from Vincent Descombes in Modern French Philosophy, which IIRC is a translation of a work originally in French. Charles Matthews 18:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think I've got that cite from Descombes on a shelf somewhere and will add it to my list. I think one does need to discuss all of these "affairs" of Derrida and deconstruction but without accepting the sloppy terms in which they are most obviously offered. I'm not sure that everything about Heidegger that generated such controversy belongs on the Heidegger page -- the remark from Bennington I've cited (""Where does commentary on Heidegger stop and assertion by Derrida begin?"") does strike a chord. I'm interested in pursuing it in Lacoue-Labarthe from Heidegger, Art, and Politics to his remarks about pneuma and ruah in The Ister -- I suspect the linkage of these two words traverses through Derrida, particularly Of Spirit, and have to ask if there is a point where Lacoue-Labarthe's engagement with Heidegger can no longer be disengaged not just from his ties to Derrida but to a Heidegger that passes through Derrida. That's a lot of transit points. Later I'd like to go through an earlier essay like "Restitutions of the Truth in Painting" to start talking about Heidegger and Derrida in an earlier vintage, but there's a lot of homework to be done to pull that off before I'd have a result that I would then need to decide how to place. Similarly, I don't know if I could take the editorial decision that a discussion of Derrida writing on de Man, writing on Heidegger, Hölderlin, Rousseau, or the Jews in twentieth century European literature, simply belongs with either. I imagine a Derrridabase, hypertext carrying something like quantum records of so much terms and names: a Rousseau, but also a Rousseau after Derrida and a Derrida after Rousseau at this same juncture; so too for a certain vocabulary of psychoanalysis or Kantian or Hegelian metaphysics. As it is, I'm thinking of breaking out pieces on various works by Derrida into their own entries. I had a link to a review I wrote on Limited, Inc. that was pulled with a complaint about affiliate spamming (I'm not regretfully unaware of the mechanics) that I'd like to reconstitute to get that going. Buffyg 02:28, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'd say it is unfortunate that all works are cited as if their titles are in English in the original. And not a word about Tel Quel. Time to look at the French version, I think. Charles Matthews 14:04, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please chill out. I'm not writing you off, but I do have some serious reservations about some of the things you're saying and want to discuss them. While I've taken the time to contribute heavily to a rewrite, I will admit that I don't often take the time to consult the French version of every bit of Derrida I cite -- for that matter I don't often have the French, and I don't see any point in faking this by referring to an edition I've not read and for which I don't know pagination. I'm not affiliated with any university, so what I've got is what I've got without benefit of a research library. I'd like to be able to cite the French in the future, but that future isn't realistically near, even if it is a great deal easier to come by French texts since I moved to the UK. The title of a book translated into English is English, which is also the language of the vast majority of people reading this wiki, but it would certainly be reasonable to provide titles in both languages in the works cited section. Better yet would be to split off a multilingual bibliography in the wikipedia. Would you be willing and able to help with such an effort?

The word deconstruction, whether in English or French is in any case already a translation -- that's neither incidental nor because Derrida wanted to deconstruction to be entirely French. As for the French wiki, which is much shorter, doesn't mention Tel Quel, GREPH and the Haby Reform, Lyotard, Levinas, Deleuze, Cixous, etc. And considerable space is devoted to his reception in the United States. On the other hand, one finds references to the États Généraux de la philosophie, le prix Jean-Cavaillès, and l'association Jan-Hus. All of this suggests much more that needs to be done -- that's never been a dispute.

Derrida's position on philosophy, language, and nation is explicit, and I do believe that what you're arguing risks contradicting them for lack of caution. At the end of the first chapter of De quoi demain..., "Choisor son Héritage", which (not incidentally) recounts a great deal of Derrida's past in France, one finds the following:

"In le s'agit pas en effet de rien de moins : la signification de la philosophie. Son <<idée>>, son institution s'inscrit d'abord dans une langue et dans une culture, dans la langue et la culture grecques. Aussi n'existe-t-il nulle part ailleurs qu'en Grèce une chose qui peut se nommer rigoureusement <<philosophie>>. Ailleurs, s'il y a des pensées certes très puissantes, et autres que philosophiques, la philosophie comme projet spécifique d'une pensée de l'être est née en Grèce."

"Mais elle est née - et en cela on peut suivre Husserl et Heidegger - comme le projet universel d'une volonté de déracinement. Si la philosophie a une racine (la Grèce), son projet consiste en même temps à soulever les racines et à faire que ce qui se pense en grec -- et plus tard en allemand, selon Heidegger -- soit délivré en <<plus d'une langue>>. La philosophie se délivre donc, elle tend au moins à se libérer d'emblée de sa limitation linguistique, territoriale, ethnique et culturelle." (p. 38)

And further:

"De la même façon, si la philosophie greque est européenne au départ, mais si sa vocation est bien universelle, cela veut dire qu'elle doit sans cesse se libérer du relativisme. Le travail philosophique consiste en un affranchissement constant : tout faire pour reconnaître mais aussi passer, sans forcément la trahir, sa propre limite ethnocentrique ou géographique." (p. 40)

Buffyg 00:01, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Plenty to discuss here, then. I'll just note a few points - there are a couple of long obits from newspapers I'm going to read. On book title, I see Jean-Luc Nancy does give all titles in French. On Hegel, I thought that the article in citing aporia would note the connection, but I see the page for that has not much either. On the French context, the 1968 references seem a bit tangled (a short reference to the students, a longer one to international politics that manages to have parentheses within parentheses, and really should be sorted out). The French deconstruction article is brief but interesting.

Charles Matthews 06:10, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Many of these points are taken, if not already conceded. As for Nancy, I don't think that's decisive -- wouldn't it be reasonable for him to cite the French title of a book he read in French, even if he were writing in English? ;-> Do you have any good cites on 1968? I'd looked at Dosse, but I'm not comfortable citing him as a source without confirmation from another -- among other things, Dosse falls well short of the challenge of a history of structuralism laid out at the beginning of "Force and Signification". Buffyg 19:54, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Language ordinary people can understand"

In the Discussion of the Derrida article, an article I find very good and neither hagiography nor demonology (graphy versus logy, get it? nyuk nyuk nyuk: we write of saints but let demons speak Pandaemonium), we read the plaint that the article should be in language, ordinary people, can understand.

Language. Ordinary people. Understanding.

The problem is that what is meant by "ordinary" is anti-philosophical. Ordinary people don't turn to philosophy for vernacular concerns, instead they turn to it, in many cases, when they have extraordinary concerns and are indeed rather repelled by the suggestion that they are ordinary.

If I merely report that Derrida believed that systems of thought were undercut by reliance on that which they thought to erase, many Americans (who have a cultural, if buried, memory of psychoanalysis which was very popular in America up until 1980) are , like, details at eleven, and tell me something I don't know. So if I use "ordinary" language, I am reporting dead ideas which don't come to life in the mind of the reader and cause him to say, hey wait a minute, that is nihilism. The report is journalism and not the writing of an encyclopedia unless the writing of an encyclopedia is journalism, that is, the narrative of the Other which by narration keeps it at arm's length.

Things only get interesting when the encyclopedia writer departs from the ordinary and asks if Derrida's views self-apply, and the counterintuitive discovery illuminated in the text is that they do.

I think you can maintain NPOV but not be boring in a philosophical article by winding up the mechanism (or the charm, as in "peace! the charm's wound up" in Macbeth) and setting it to roll across the reader's mind...while adopting a light and almost tongue-in-cheek mode (which literally interpreted undercuts speech as did Demosthenes, who spoke to the sea with pebbles in his mouth according to legend).

Almost anything is preferable to the forced and false neutrality which confuses blind inheritance of "ordinary" language (and its categories) with a NPOV.

It seems to me that Wikipedia is here navigating uncharted waters, similar today to waters to the north of Canada opened up by global warming. Its writers cannot be legislators of an old fashioned POV like Diderot, or the Encyclopedia Britannica, but neither can they claim to speak for the ordinary slob, because such a generalized category is useless today.

In fine, language is a virus from outer space, there are no ordinary people, and understanding is an active verb.

All well and good; but I prefer to think of WP as standard prose and not playing self-referential or interrogative games. Wikis are dynamic - this is about as interesting as it needs to get. One man's point of view Charles Matthews 08:44, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edward G. Nilges: OK, standard prose, and I do NOT mean to imply that my discussion style should be recommended for Wiki articles: please refer to my contribution to the Theory section on Adorno in which I exercise iron self-control.

But if we do NOT play what you call "games", then we transmit a POV, the standard journalistic account, not of Derrida's thought, but as it registered on a preponderance of minds. The problem is that it is becoming increasingly obvious (in light of the numerous protests sent to the New York Times after his death against a superficial account of his thought) that Derrida in fact misregistered in a way that should be familiar to a student of the history of philosophy.

Spinoza misregistered as a licentious man, Socrates misregistered as a bad influence on youth, Peter Singer is misregistering as a mass murderer. I think Wikipedia can do better as a collective phenomenon.

An encyclopedia is not a dictionary, where a dictionary reports standard usage as a statistical matter. An encyclopedia can transmit knowledge about a philosopher only by running a simulation of the philosopher's thought in the reader's mind.

As to "self-referential games". This is a phrase frequently hurled at Derrida. It hides the grand fallacy, which is to avoid self-reference like the plague. The grand fallacy produced the verificationist criterion of meaning and truth. The grand fallacy stands outside political and social phenomena OF WHICH IT IS NECESSARILY A PART and the grand fallacy is productive of lack of humility.

The way to get to NPOV from POV is indeed self-referential and involves a humorous consciousness of the fact that one writes from a position, me from the Chungking Mansions in Hong Kong in a room half-height, like the office in which John Cusack works in Being John Malcovich.

If we think that an unanalyzed inheritance of standard, received categories is a NPOV then Derrida died in vain.

I think that a thorough, reliable account of who Derrida was, what he did and wrote, would be a very good thing in the first place. AFAIK the article isn't there yet (does it mention Bachelard and Derrida's formal connection as a student of his - I haven't looked recently?). I can sympathise with anyone who says 'not enough'; but given the debate, a slur-free piece of reporting is a good start. A thorough bibliography would be another part of the picture. I don't think the article has any business tackling the question of whether he lived, or even died, in vain: too soon to tell is the obvious verdict. Attacking NPOV is also not a good ploy. Attempts to write from a NPOV - even if flawed - are a hell of a lot better than not so trying, as looking round WP will surely convince one. Charles Matthews 13:44, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edward Nilges: I'm not attacking NPOV. Instead, writing journalistically and attempting "just the facts" in philosophy violates NPOV, because it replaces it by a POV in which the thought of an original philosopher will appear to be false.

Many philosophy survey classes create Fundamentalists, Creationists, and Islamo-Fascists by a dialectical process as the professor reports without passion or interrogation the skeptical views of the western tradition starting with Descartes, and the student, grinding through the financial demands of the American educational system or the classist demands of the French, decides on the basis of the evidence presented to believe ANYTHING but what seems to be claptrap by the time the class reaches Hume, and deep claptrap by the time of Kant.

I think there is a NPOV, but it's confuse with dictionary POV which can be attained in principle by polling people on their usages of words.

Of course, you can't poll cab drivers on Derrida (although they often have good insights: a NYT journalist described Francis Fukuyama's theses to a DC cab driver and the guy said, give me a break).

But this means that to preserve the dictionary approach you have to poll people "in the know" such as journalists and college professors.

But their very engagement with Derrida means that they will have a POV.

You can't get anywhere near a Fair and Balanced view from mere reportage of the views of three sets of people:

(1) People who understand Derrida and "believe" him: note that their belief itself will be interrogative and critical

(2) People who have adopted the pomo mantle and "believe" a misunderstanding of Derrida

(3) People who think he's full of horse puckey.

The only worthwhile sets are (1) and (3) but to describe the critical, interrogative view, you'd have to quote a representative of the view (may as well write this section yourself if you consider yourself type 1).

But this view can't be expressed neutrally and from the outside. It has to be set in motion as did Derrida set it into motion, SELF-REFLEXIVELY. The convergence of intellectual honesty as an ethos with the love of truth and humility doesn't permit "self-reflexive games", it commands them as does Wisdom in the Torah/Bible, "playing in the world".

And the reportage of the more amusing fellows in set (3) is a good way to avoid that "seriousness" which fails to self-apply and is the reverse of Wisdom.

Well, fortunately as it seems on your account, I have not studied philosophy in any formal setting; and retain therefore some naive hope that the English language can be used to discuss a philosopher without any of these preconditions. I'd have thought that we could present an argument that philosophy or JD is sui generis, and even an argument of JD why we couldn't, and so on, if that's what we needed. In practice it is about editing a page to produce a better approximation (wikijargon wabisabi), not pretending it's all finished. Which is quite a good counter to some of the infinite regress arguments, amongst other virtues. Charles Matthews 05:48, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ed Nilges: no, it is simply unacceptable that people "who have not studied philosophy in any formal setting" should NOT ONLY participate in the discussion (which is perfectly acceptable) BUT ALSO legislate the overall terms of discourse.

The journalistic misrepresentation throughout history of philosophers, which has in many cases in the West and in Islam gotten philosophers killed, results from this view, which is intolerance masquerading as tolerance.

The final product can and should be READ, of course, by people without formal training in philosophy. But it seems that here we are saying that it can and should be WRITTEN by pure of heart idiot savants who haven't read Plato and fail to realize how and in what way Plato, like Derrida, wasn't completely "serious" about what were thought-experiments, and who hasn't accessed modern scholarship which translates Symposium into "boy's night out" with an illuminating levity.

Phrases like 'unacceptable' and 'legislate the overall terms of discourse' are not, well, acceptable on a wiki. They certainly are completely out of focus with the social reality. No one 'legislates' here; the whole online world is entitled to edit as they see fit; and reference to Plato in this fashion seems to me to be fairly simple, old-fashioned intellectual snobbery. Charles Matthews 07:50, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ed Nilges: if an ordinary participant in a discussion cannot use the word "unacceptable", then you've just destroyed the very idea of NPOV and discussion.

You cannot scan an ordinary participant's discourse for keywords and purge "strong" words. This completely misses the whole point of open discussion: the discussion has to be open to strong views.

A similar logical error was pointed out by Derrida on "forgiveness". The only way to resolve strong views during a truth and reconciliation process is to take the rather strong meta-view that true forgiveness forgives the unforgiveable.

Furthermore and as you realize ("well"), you cannot avoid yourself the use of the word "acceptable" in a context of equal logical strength.

It is a mistake to believe that neutral language, purged by a merely syntactical process of strong words, is somehow more democratic than "strong" language. "We believe", after all, "these truths to be self-evident".

Finally, you managed to rip "legislate the overall terms of discourse" out of context. I think WE do so, but I think there are better and worse ways of doing so. The better ways generally involve what some people call "deep listening" and what I regard as far more than a superficial evaluation of syntax.

I see this venture self-destructing once it is claimed, syntactically, that a mere reference to Plato indicates "intellectual snobbery". The REAL snobbery today is one in which the ordinary person can't read or mention Plato without worrying, as in some sort of intellectual Gulag, about being denounced as a snob, or bourgeois running dog.

I'm not purging anything. I had a look at the contribution posted yesterday, to Talk:Visual Basic, from the IP number used for this page also. I suddenly find myself with plenty of other things to do on the site, which seem to have priority over replying to this kind of editorialising. Just a friendly suggestion: why not log in and introduce yourself? Charles Matthews 09:11, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Done. My logon id is now spinoza1111 and I have posted a self-introduction at the Miscellaneous section of the Village Pump.

You can sign and timestamp by adding four tildes. Charles Matthews 09:18, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Carsten Husek: I personally think that the figure of "ordinary man" (or Joe Six-Pack, as one might say) has its abiguities, too. For example, who says the "ordinary" man has any supirior "right" to "legislate" what is legible? The ideas of "ordinary" men are typically based on uncritical acceptance of received wisdom. Thus the ordinary or common does not constitute a privileged POV to judge anything. IMO, that means some difficulties sre to be exspected. And not only that: if Joe Six-Pack can say "ah, that's it" you can be sure that you have fallen prey to oversimplification. --134.100.1.177 13:48, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is a WP style guide. Since we often aim at a concentric development, with the opening para saying it once, and fuller versions following, the point seems to me not to have great impact. The use of hyperlinks means that the explanation of literary theory, say, can be taken off the page. There is no particular reason why careful expository arrangement and choice of language should dumb down the discussion. Charles Matthews 17:16, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cambridge University honorary doctorship controversy

I would expand this later.

Carsten Husek: sorry, but IMO all these things about affairs/controversy are not very helpful. In discussing Derrida, one should stick to his work. Maybe, as a compromise, you could do an extra article on this, see the handling of "the sokal affair" in the article on "deconcrruction".(4.2.05)

The reference to Hugh Mellor seems to me digressive. Looking at Mellor's comments in the Cogito interview, said to provide specific responses to Derrida, these specifically address "Signature, Event, Context" and Limited, Inc. and are not a strong reading of that material: Mellor trivializes Derrida argument by presenting only trivial but more or less indispensable elements as the sum total of what Derrida offers. There does not appear any particular reason to privilege Mellor as a critic of Derrida (there's no doubt that there was opposition to the award amongst the philosophy faculty, but was there any greater merit to their arguments over those of others? Mellor's comments do not indicate that he is any more competent in criticizing Derrida than the signatories of the published letter or Searle.) or use him as an example given that there's not sufficient space to treat arguments by both in this article. One ought to give some account of these issues in the reception of Derrida's work, but this example is not offered as instructive. Buffyg 17:38, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The reason I added the reference to Mellor was not that he may or may not have the strongest philosophical arguments against Derrida, but that he was the head of the Cambridge philosophy faculty and was the central opponent in the university. He had the (voting) power to oppose the award, whereas non-Cambridge academics could say what they liked but could do nothing about it. Hugh Mellor was also the main person in the widespread UK media controversy which surrounded this; i.e. it was he who was interviewed by the media. All told, AFAIK Hugh Mellor was the central person in the controversy other than Derrida.

Incidentally, a key point is that the honorary degree was proposed by non-philosophers at Cambridge, who knew little or nothing about the subject. By opposing it Mellor was making the important point that Derrida was regarded as a charlatan by many genuine philosophers (certainly those of the analytical tradition). (I was by the way a philosophy student at Cambridge at the time.) Ben Finn 23:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is arguable that the most publicly prominent remarks about Derrida's nomination were those published in the Sunday Times, as these point to opinions shared by a number of people, who, although not members of the Cambridge faculty, are all philosophers insofar as they have been admitted to teach on philosophy faculties at reputable institutions. I take your last remarks about "genuine philosophers" with a rock of salt, the more so given that the cautious quotation marks previously surrounding the "non" are quickly abandoned to the characterization that those so designated "knew little or nothing about the subject." One might accept the claim that some of these people, possibly a majority, were not so familiar with philosophy as Professor Mellor and company taught it in the Philosophy Faculty, but this does not justify the correlative argument that Mellor and company were either themselves particularly aware of Derrida's work or justified in their ignorance of it. Mellor's comments and those advancing claims of charlatanism showed themselves thereby to be of questionable qualification in remarking on Derrida's suitability for the honorary degree.

As you've stated Mellor's position, the emphasis on nominalism makes for a less than compelling philosophical argument and sounds rather like petty snobbery. Perhaps he was central from such a perspective, but that isn't attributing philosophical centrality to his position. As it is, we have addressed some of the sociological and institutional interests, but drawing these out further and contrasting them with philosophical issues would only seem to make Mellor look foolish — is that really what you're inclined to do for lack of options? Although Mellor's understanding of Derrida is incomparably better than the signatories of the letter to the editor (in that he shows some evidence of having read Derrida's work in part, as opposed to fabricating examples of it), he still fits well enough a pattern discussed already in the article (his characterizations are still substantially inaccurate for the pieces referenced in the manner I have previously described), so I don't see any reason to overrate his authority or significance in the matter at hand, which is not to say that I would wish otherwise to dismiss out of hand his professional accomplishments or other contributions to Cambridge University. Buffyg 00:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

'Perhaps he was central from such a perspective' - this was my main point and the reason I added the (small) mention of him to the article. Whatever the philosophical issues, Mellor was the central opponent to Derrida's honorary degree, as he was in a position to oppose it. It was Mellor who stood up in the Senate House and declared 'non placet' rather than the customary 'placet' when the degree was proposed. And Mellor was the Cambridge professor of philosophy at the time, the head of the subject (whether or not anyone may think he was qualified to judge in this case).

It is an extremely unusual situation for anyone to get an honorary degree not thanks to the recommendation of the relevant faculty, but in the face of their vociferous opposition! (Actually I can't think of any other cases when this has occurred.) Surely this merits a mention? Ben Finn 19:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

It is so much more unusual than having a colleague write a letter on departmental letterhead and invoking title in numerous associations, which she could not imagine she was representing under their bylaws and charter, to a minister of state, asking that the minister intervene in a manner completely without institutional provision to set aside your unanimous election by your colleagues to an honorary position? And thereafter cohabitating with that same person in a department at another university after strenuously and publicly protesting the previous incident? I think Marcus so exceptional as to establish that there is some level of extraordinary consistency in the measures undertaken by various of Derrida's ill-decided opponents to object to formal acknowledgment of his professional standing. No, the details are not quite the same and the differences ought to be accounted for, the more so where one can highlight more profound unities, but I think that further examination of these incidents ought to be a separate article — the larger array of incidents is undoubtedly of interest, but there's enough to be said in saying it reasonably well that, by way of volume in an article that approaches the recommended length limit, it does threatens to eclipse what I hold to be a still too cursory survey of Derrida's work (and I say that as one who has contributed as much to the volume of what's there as to imbalances in its composition). I would go so far as to say that an analysis of these incidents would be insufficient without paying greater attention to the work that they neglect, lest one without nearly enough self-conscious irony repeat gestures one finds objectionable. Buffyg 20:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think these incidents merit a separate article, but nor do I think the addition of my 14 words ("which had also been strongly opposed by the university's own philosophy professor Hugh Mellor") suddenly makes the article too long, or eclipses anything. Currently the section reads as if Cambridge University was in general support of Derrida, which misrepresents the situation, and hence arguably violates NPOV. (But having just taken a look at your 4000 word (!) unpublished open letter to the New York Times criticizing their obituary of Derrida, I doubt I shall convince you!)

How about as a compromise adding "which had also been strongly opposed by the university's own philosophy faculty", which is undoubtedly true and relevant, and does not suggest (if you think it otherwise would) that Hugh Mellor had the strongest arguments against Derrida? Ben Finn 20:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, to judge from the result of the vote, Cambridge University in fact generally supported awarding the degree, which is from several perspectives not therefore a matter of point of view. I'm not sure what to make of an allusion to my letter to the New York Times that emphasizes word count but says nothing about what was said on either side; its use as evidence of my susceptibility to rational persuasion is a considerable disappointment given possible implications of ad hominem argument. I don't care at all for the tone of propriety of cast by "the University's own Philosophy Faculty," as I have indicated that the interests of that propriety ought to be subject to scrutiny in a self-reflexive manner to justify that claim given its form, which is precisely where it can be seen to fail. If you feel it necessary to register objections, is the claim that "support for the honorary degree came down to a vote before the University faculty, which passed over the strenuous objections of some in the Philosophy Faculty" not a more defensible characterization? For the very same reason that one might find cause for concern in your presenting this as a matter of propriety, ought one not temper this observation by drawing out some of the irony that eludes it? Buffyg 23:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. My original wording and my revised one are both unarguably factually correct; and they are also I think relevant and neutral. It is highly relevant that the philosophy faculty opposed the degree; and it was not merely 'some' in the philosophy faculty. Apologies, but I don't have time to contribute to further discussion on this. Ben Finn 17:34, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I've now rewritten my latest wording a bit & incorporated it; I believe it's entirely neutral & true. FYI I've also modified the earlier sentence 'many analytic philosophers and scientists state their disagreement with his positions' - this understates what these people think; they don't just disagree with Derrida's views (after all, they routinely disagree with many different philosophical views) - they make a much stronger claim, namely that his work does not even count as philsophy. I have no doubt you disagree with them, but I've worded it neutrally. Ben Finn 23:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd have to insist that the characterization that "many" of the above "state their disagreement with his positions" is extremely POV, however subtle the expression of bias. It is precisely a question of exactly what means when one speaks of a "disagreement" with his "positions" in the plural; perhaps in the singular ("position," alluding rather more to his credibility and prominence than his works) the statement might be somewhat less contentious. I am not saying anything new when I highlight that the form of argument is itself what makes these claims already questionable: exactly how philosophical are the arguments presented about what is admissable as philosophy? It is entirely arguable, in philosophical fashion, whether these arguments should themselves not be credited as philosophy, particularly not by way of tautology. The latter submission cannot be assumed, whether under institutional aegis or not, particularly when the question is of what an institution ought to credit as philosophy, which is one stake of the case at hand, the more so given the claims of philosophy to exceed such contexts. I do not accept that the claim about pseudophilosophy is "stronger"; it is more strenuous an assertion, but it should not be so readily credited as rigourous. Buffyg 00:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Not used a talk page before so here goes... I removed "with some amusement" from the Cambridge bit, just because, while we can't really know if someone was genuinely amused or not, describing one party as coming out laughing seems to imply that they won the argumnent, thereby taking us further away from that elusive neutral POV.

I was reminded of Francis Wheen's anti-deconstructionist rhetoric in "How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World" where Derrida is described as "huffily dismissing the prankster-professor [Alan Sokal] as 'pas serieux'." I'm sure we agree that "huffily" wouldn't be appropriate here, and "with some amusement" has a similar effect.Util 01:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

That seems to me a torturous account of one speaking of irony with irony, resulting in haphazard conclusions ("seems to imply" and "a similar effect"). Ought one not acknowledge the tone set by publishing the interview under the title "'Honoris causa': This is also extremely funny"? Derrida was clear in several places in expressing that he was, among other things, able to find some of this state of affairs humourous. I'm happy to go back through and review the evidence, but need we establish whether he was at all amused or whether he was "genuinely" amused where there is a clear acknowledgement of a measure of amusement? I may be amused that I am having this exchange, but I am also quite serious about my willingness to go back, review the texts, and demonstrate textual support. Derrida's sense of humour and its philosophical validity are a stake here, and the evidence is that Derrida continued to insist on his claim that he takes humour seriously. Shall we invoke irony explicitly to clarify the characterization? Buffyg 08:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

My assessment was primarily of how it reads, I'm not disputing its relevance or the evidence. It seems to me that emotional states shouldn't be reported uncritically, especially when they are, as you say, important. Say, if someone has a stance on war or death (or anything likely to inspire fear) that involves not being afraid, it would hardly be apporopriate to say that they replied "fearlessly" to their critics, even if that was the tone they set for their response. If you can think of a better way to refer to Derrida's tone here, then great, although since it's mentioned in the next paragraph I'm not sure it's necessary. Util 13:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

You keep speaking of "emotional states," and I maintain as before that is not a justifiable characterization. I cannot subscribe to anything that follows this premise, particularly an extremely untenable analogy (as in: "because it is unlikely... it would hardly be appropriate"). We are not strictly concerned with Derrida's emotional state. Ironic amusement ("with some amusement") here is as well a textual effect; this does not simply embed uncritical assumptions about the affect of the statement's author, although in this case there is a question of ironic consciousness, of underlining and counter-signing an irony that was in some sense previously unwitting but was always legible. Derrida replies by elaborating an amusement that was already there. Amusement is thus a register of his reply, thus there is little ground to dispute that he observed with amusement. I'll think about better ways of saying this (I'm increasingly fond of the idiom), but it is without a doubt privatory to argue that the previously offered characterization is untenable or even lacks neutrality, particularly when one objects with so little caution. Buffyg 19:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Categories

I'm removing him from Category:Fascist/Nazi era scholars and writers since the "Fascist/Nazi era" ended when he was not yet 15 years old. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apparently you misunderstand the meaning of the category. The category is for people writing about the Fascist and Nazi era rather than people writing during it. If you're not clear on this, read through the entries in that category. Buffyg 09:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apparently you misunderstand the meaning of Derrida's work if you think he belongs in such a category. Of course the Nazi era was relevant to his work (as it must be for any philosopher or theorist since then), but to call Derrida a scholar writing about the WWII era seems to me absurd. --csloat 10:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For my own part, I'm not sure how you get from the characterisation of Derrida as someone who has written extensively about issues of the 1930s and 1940s (with particular reference to Heidegger, de Man, and Schmitt) to saying that Derrida's writing about this era is in some sense incidental, perfunctory, or otherwise like that of any other and from there to telling me that I don't understand Derrida's work on account of a small gesture noting it. Buffyg 12:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1990s

The section on the 1990s suggests that derrida's so-called "political turn" would have started with Specters of Marx .... Now I am one of those who believe that there was no real "turn" and that Derrida's work in the 90s and beyond has its roots in older work (certainly his nuclear war essays of the early 80s and even his "ends of man" piece in 1968), and I hesitate to start this discussion because last time I made this claim I was bitterly attacked (even though both Derrida and his best readers agree with my position on this), but I am concerned that for those who do believe in a "political turn" (or "ethical turn" as it was recently called) in the 90s, the correct "turning point" is his influential "Force de Loi" address published in the 1990 Cardozo Law Review from a symposium on "Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice" rather than "Specters of Marx". Shall we change this? I suppose that whole section could be rewritten. csloat (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Proseline

Some of the writing here is just: Date, sentence, repeat. Is not good style, and makes a poor read.Yobmod (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography

i don't know if this is feasible, but could someone seperate his bibliogphy in to sections. for exapmle, essay collections, single essays, full works... etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.86.127 (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Tag: improve references

• If you prefer it might be better to pick through the article, placing fact, verify, and original research tags at appropriate points throughout; if you think this would be more helpful.
• Also, primary source issues as discussed here: a number of cited passages contain information that is not explicitly supported in the cite. Secondary sources that cover Derrida in a manner adequate for the purposes of wikipedia exist, direct reading of primary text is not required. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the sources on Derrida in question to actually verify that they are not explicitly supported? Can you suggest the secondary sources that cover Derrida adequately? Or is this speculation on your part? Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

page numbers would be good for anything not demonstrated to exist in the cited the text. How many secondary sources do you need? The list seems endless, and this is just some of the books, if you want a list of papers we can sift through those also, but I take it youve have read everything written on Derrida; how else could you conclude that such writings are inadequate. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Jacques Derrida

By Geoffrey Bennington, Jacques Derrida Translated by Geoffrey Bennington Published by University of Chicago Press, 1999 ISBN 0226042626, 9780226042626 432 pages

• Derrida

By Christopher Norris Published by Harvard University Press, 1987 ISBN 0674198247, 9780674198241 271 pages

• Derrida: Screenplay and Essays on the Film

By Kirby Dick, Amy Ziering Kofman, Dick Kirby, Jacques Derrida Published by Manchester University Press, 2005 ISBN 0719070635, 9780719070631 144 pages

• Philosophy in a Time of Terror: Dialogues with Jurgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida

By Jürgen Habermas, Giovanna Borradori, Jacques Derrida Published by University of Chicago Press, 2004 ISBN 0226066665, 9780226066660 224 pages

• The Tain of the Mirror: Derrida and the Philosophy of Reflection

By Rodolphe Gasche Published by Harvard University Press, 1986 ISBN 0674867009, 9780674867000 348 pages

• Inventions of Difference: On Jacques Derrida

By Rodolphe Gasché Published by Harvard University Press, 1994 ISBN 0674464427, 9780674464421 286 pages

• Derrida: A Critical Reader

By David Wood Published by Blackwell, 1992 ISBN 0631161023, 9780631161028 297 pages

• Jacques Derrida and the Humanities: A Critical Reader

By Tom Cohen, Tom Cohen, (, ebrary, Inc Published by Cambridge University Press, 2001 ISBN 0511066066, 9780511066061 327 pages

• On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism After Structuralism

By Jonathan Culler Published by Routledge, 1989 ISBN 041504555X, 9780415045551 307 pages

• Structuralism and Since: From Levi-Strauss to Derrida

By John Sturrock Contributor John Sturrock Published by Oxford University Press, 1979 ISBN 0192158392, 9780192158390 190 pages

• Derrida and Husserl: The Basic Problem of Phenomenology

By Leonard Lawlor Published by Indiana University Press, 2002 ISBN 0253340497, 9780253340498 286 pages

• Ethics, Politics, Subjectivity: Essays on Derrida, Levinas and Contemporary French Thought

By Simon Critchley Published by Verso, 1999 ISBN 1859842461, 9781859842461 302 pages

• Derrida and Phenomenology

By William R. McKenna, Joseph Claude Evans Contributor William R. McKenna, Joseph Claude Evans Published by Springer, 1995 ISBN 0792337301, 9780792337300 214 pages

• Jacques Derrida: A Biography

By Jason Powell Published by Continuum International Publishing Group, 2006 ISBN 0826494498, 9780826494498 250 pages

• Hegel After Derrida

By Stuart Barnett Published by Routledge, 1998 ISBN 0415171040, 9780415171045 368 pages

• Dialogue and Deconstruction: The Gadamer-Derrida Encounter

By Diane P. Michelfelder, Richard E. Palmer Contributor Diane P. Michelfelder Published by SUNY Press, 1989 ISBN 0791400085, 9780791400081 352 pages

• Applied Grammatology: Post(e)-pedagogy from Jacques Derrida to Joseph Beuys

By Gregory L. Ulmer Published by Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985 Original from the University of California Digitized Feb 11, 2008 ISBN 080183256X, 9780801832567 337 pages

• Derrida and Negative Theology

By Harold G. Coward, Toby Foshay, Jacques Derrida Contributor Harold G. Coward Published by SUNY Press, 1992 ISBN 0791409635, 9780791409633 337 pages

• Wittgenstein and Derrida

By Henry Staten Published by U of Nebraska Press, 1986 ISBN 0803291698, 9780803291690 Deconstruction and Philosophy: The Texts of Jacques Derrida By John Sallis Photographs by John Sallis Contributor John Sallis Published by University of Chicago Press, 1987 ISBN 0226734390, 9780226734392 207 pages

• The Ethics of Deconstruction: Derrida and Levinas

By Simon Critchley Published by Edinburgh University Press, 1999 ISBN 0748612173, 9780748612178 293 pages

• Derrida, Responsibility and Politics

By Morag Patrick Published by Ashgate, 1997 ISBN 1859725457, 9781859725450 169 pages

• The Purest of Bastards: Works of Mourning, Art, and Affirmation in the Thought of Jacques Derrida

By David Farrell Krell Published by Penn State Press, 2000 ISBN 0271019921, 9780271019925 237 pages

• Derrida: Deconstruction from Phenomenology to Ethics

By Christina Howells Published by Polity Press, 1998 ISBN 0745611672, 9780745611679 175 pages

• The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida: Religion Without Religion

By John D. Caputo Published by Indiana University Press, 1997 ISBN 0253211123, 9780253211125 379 pages

• Jacques Derrida: Live Theory

By James K. A. Smith Published by Continuum International Publishing Group, 2005 ISBN 0826462812, 9780826462817 156 pages

• Understanding Derrida

By Jack Reynolds, Jonathan Roffe Contributor Jack Reynolds, Jonathan Roffe Published by Continuum International Publishing Group, 2004 ISBN 0826473156, 9780826473158 168 pages

• Derrida and Différance

By David C. Wood, Robert Bernasconi Contributor David C. Wood, Robert Bernasconi Published by Northwestern University Press, 1988 ISBN 0810107864, 9780810107861 98 pages

• Derrida for Beginners

By Jim Powell, Jim Powell Van Howell, Van Howell Published by Orient Longman, 2000 ISBN 8125019162, 9788125019169 185 pages

• French Philosophers in Conversation: Levinas, Schneider, Serres, Irigaray, Le Doeuff, Derrida

By Raoul Mortley Published by Taylor & Francis, 1991 ISBN 0415052556, 9780415052559 108 pages

• Derrida: Negotiating the Legacy

By Madeleine Fagan Published by Edinburgh University Press, 2007 ISBN 074862547X, 9780748625475 246 pages

• Jacques Derrida

By Nicholas Royle Published by Routledge, 2003 ISBN 0415229308, 9780415229302 185 pages

• Derrida

By Leonard Lawlor, Zeynep Direk Contributor Leonard Lawlor, Zeynep Direk Published by Routledge, 2002 ISBN 0415235812, 9780415235815 1320 pages

• Derrida on Time

By Joanna Hodge Published by Routledge, 2007 ISBN 0415430917, 9780415430913 256 pages

• Counterpath: Traveling with Jacques Derrida

By Catherine Malabou, Jacques Derrida Published by Stanford University Press, 2004 ISBN 0804740410, 9780804740418 330 pages

• Functions of the Derrida Archive: Philosophical Receptions

By Richard J. Lane Published by Akademiai Kiado, 2003 ISBN 9630579472, 9789630579476 129 pages

• Theories of Translation: An Anthology of Essays from Dryden to Derrida

By Rainer Schulte, John Biguenet Contributor Rainer Schulte, John Biguenet Published by University of Chicago Press, 1992 ISBN 0226048713, 9780226048710 254 pages

• Insister of Jacques Derrida: Of Jacques Derrida

By Helene Cixous, Ernest Pignon-Ernest, Peggy Kamuf Translated by Peggy Kamuf Illustrated by Ernest Pignon-Ernest Published by Stanford University Press, 2007 ISBN 0804759073, 9780804759076 160 pages

• A Derrida Dictionary

By Niall Lucy Published by Blackwell Pub., 2004 ISBN 0631218424, 9780631218425 183 pages

• Postmodern Platos: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Gadamer, Strauss, Derrida

By Catherine H. Zuckert Published by University of Chicago Press, 1996 ISBN 0226993310, 9780226993317 351 pages

• Derrida and Religion: Other Testaments

By Yvonne Sherwood, Kevin Hart Contributor Yvonne Sherwood, Kevin Hart Published by Routledge, 2005 ISBN 0415968887, 9780415968881 424 pages

• Someone Called Derrida: An Oxford Mystery

By John Schad Published by Sussex Academic Press, 2007 ISBN 1845190319, 9781845190316 211 pages

• Prophets of Extremity: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida

By Allan Megill Published by University of California Press, 1987 ISBN 0520060288, 9780520060289 423 pages

• Jacques Derrida: Critical Thought

By Ian Maclachlan Contributor Ian Maclachlan Published by Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2004 ISBN 0754608069, 9780754608066 166 pages

• Literature Against Philosophy, Plato to Derrida: A Defence of Poetry

By Mark Edmundson Published by Cambridge University Press, 1995 ISBN 0521485320, 9780521485326 243 pages

• Dante and Derrida: Face to Face

By Francis J. Ambrosio Published by SUNY Press, 2007 ISBN 0791470059, 9780791470053 240 pages

• Reading Derrida/thinking Paul: On Justice

By Theodore W. Jennings Published by Stanford University Press, 2006 ISBN 0804752680, 9780804752688 219 pages

• Saving the Text: Literature, Derrida, Philosophy

By Geoffrey H. Hartman Published by JHU Press, 1982 ISBN 0801824532, 9780801824531 216 pages

• Futures: Of Jacques Derrida

By Richard Rand, Jacques Derrida Published by Stanford University Press, 2001 ISBN 0804739560, 9780804739566 252 pages

• Taking on the Tradition: Jacques Derrida and the Legacies of Deconstruction

By Michael Naas Published by Stanford University Press, 2003 ISBN 080474422X, 9780804744225 211 pages

• Derrida and Deconstruction

By Hugh J. Silverman Contributor Hugh J. Silverman Published by Routledge, 1989 ISBN 0415030943, 9780415030946 258 pages

Semitransgenic (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the lengthy body of literature on Derrida - which secondary sources, exactly, do you suggest are preferable to the primary sources used for the specific claims? Please be specific - what claims from primary sources do you find non-obvious in the primary source, and what secondary source do you find preferable for that claim? Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't care less, simply demonstrating that reliance upon interpretations of primary sources is unjustifiable when copious reliable secondary sources are available. For an editor to say that every book or paper in print is inadequate really is an expression of utmost intellectual arrogance. This attitude does not serve the project. I have nothing more to say on the matter. Cheers Semitransgenic (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you don't actually have any evidence of primary sources that substitute for the claims made, are unwilling to discuss the issue, and are suggesting, among other things, that Derrida for Beginners, a comic book, and a mystery novel might be better sources, I have to say, I don't think you're in much of a place to tag the article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Derrida and his peers

A mention should be made of Jacques Ehrmann who was instrumental in introducing Derrida to Yale U. in 1968. See Texts about Jacques Ehrmann and footnote in Parages on the above Wiki page ... Yumgui (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The article needs a lead

I believe this article requires a lead. Is there anyone monitoring this page who could write it? I would be willing to give it a go, summarising the information that's currently in the article. I would be more confident in that attempt if I knew there was someone who could back me up, correcting anything mistaken, and making sure it was up to a good standard. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Use of the word profound

Obviously, in this context the word "profound" cannot be inserted without further qualificiation--add as a blockquote ref?--Artiquities (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

At the moment, I don't have a strong preference for putting either 'profound' or 'significant' in the lead section. For me any of the two is fine until we have references discussing extensively Derrida's influence and legacy.--Sum (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

There seems to be an edit war here between SummerWithMorons and Mtevfrog. I agree with Mtevfrog that the material SummerWithMorons wants to add is badly written. I'd like to encourage both editors to discuss things here (and SummerWithMorons to not refer to Mtevfrog's reverting him as vandalism). UserVOBO (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

W.V.O.Quine as "Republican Party" Stalwart?

I think it is probably a mistake in the editing, regarding critiques of Derrida, that led to a reference to the philosopher W.V.O.Quine as a "Republican" (referencing the Republican Party of the U.S.). The footnote leads to an interesting article, but the speculation in that article that Quine must have been a "good Republican" is not enough to make me believe that Quine had any special connection to any political party. Calling Quine "conservative" also seems somewhat confusing. Even the referenced article notes that Quine's epistemology is perhaps far more radical than that of Derrida. If no one either objects, or can explain why Quine should be referred to as a "Republican," I recommend deleting the reference to Quine altogether. I'll try to look on this discussion page in a few weeks, to see if there is some more information, and maybe I will at that time delete the reference that seems inaccurate. 141.156.216.220 (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. What a stupid claim. I will definitely take it out.Grunge6910 (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's a blog [[1] that has some supporting evidence for the claim that Quine was right-wing, together with a very cogent argument as to why Quine's political views are irrelevant. Such information, if suitably sourced, might be relevant to the Quine article but is completely irrelevant to this article. --RichardVeryard (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

But suitably sourced information may very well be relevant to the claim in this article that Quine was a conservative.Autarch (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The Lead

Recap of what is required in lead:

• The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article.

• It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies.

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). This is the challenge. --Artiquities (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The IEP and Stanford articles on Derrida both have good leads. They might be used as models. Grunge6910 (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Again reverts by Mtevfrog

Here yet again another revert by Mtevfrog. This ownership behaviour is bullying new contributors and disrupting the evolution of the article.--Sum (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I support Mtevfrog's edit. What the lead really needs (I tagged the article for lead expansion back in March) is a substantive explication of Derrida's life and philosophical work. Adding that he was, e.g., a writer adds nothing whatsoever to our understanding of his career. "French philosopher" does quite nicely and succintly, I think. Grunge6910 (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, since it is I who has been reverted, I naturally agree with Sum. I have no problem being reverted, per se, but in this instance I also feel that Mtevfrog is reverting what is a sound enough addition. Insofar as any reasonable adds to the lead are valid at this point. As regards the point made by Grunge6910: this is not about one edit, it is about the general attitude of a user. E.g., if I were to write a lead, the only thing that I can be sure of, is that Mtevfrog will revert it, on the other hand, I am also sure that the aforementioned is unlikely to prepare a text for the lead--so how to proceed? For the record, the range of Derrida's activities was not limited to the traditional sense of philosopher--as, say, Zizek's, also--and hence broadening out the range of activites is quite reasonable. Anyway, yes, I agree that Mtevfrog appears to be carrying on ownership behaviour --Artiquities (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've restored a quotation regarding the use of Derrida's ideas to the introduction that Mtevfrog deleted on the pretext that "This simply is not the right way to introduce Derrida." It is perfectly valid and appropriate for the lede. Given the accusations of ownership behaviour, it would be appropriate for Mtevfrog to discuss his/her reasons for wanting to delete here prior to removing new material. Neither the blanket removal nor acceptance of new material are useful to the development of the article. DionysosProteus (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is what is most troublesome, the blanket removals. Pretentious justifications like "This simply is not the right way to introduce Derrida," are mostly ridiculous, but what really hurts the collaborative improvement of the article is recklessly removing new additions. Instead, we should be welcoming and thankful to new contributors, doing only small tweaks/formatting to their additions, if they need any; only in this way the article will capitalize over time of a multitude of contributors.--Sum (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Mtevfrog's removal of the quote from the lead. UserVOBO (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. Mtevfrog should justify in more detail his/her edits on the talk page, but the removed quote was not particularly helpful and was indeed misleading in that it by no means sums up Derrida's work (for one thing, it made him seem like a philosopher whose work had primarily political implications, and it wasn't much more than a randomly selected quote from an obit). See below for my links to two excellent leads from other encyclopedic entries on Derrida. Maybe in the next couple days I'll try a write-up myself. Grunge6910 (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the quotation once again. Material whose inclusion editors regard as debatable requires, precisely, a debate. Mtevfrog, you do your arguments few favours with this manner of proceeding. Deletion without discussion here is inappropriate behaviour. Kindly desist.

With regard to the quotation, it quite clearly was not selected randomly. It supports and develops the previous sentence directly. In what way does the description of the critical engagements with "Plato, Aristotle, Shakespeare, Freud" etc. that his work inspired make it seem that the work had "primarily political implications"? That sounds like a cultural arena, not a political one. In what way is that emphasis misplaced? DionysosProteus (talk) 10:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If each interested editor were to add one or two contributons to the lead we will soon get one--it might begin as a patchwork, but it will soon take shape. Add the next line, a qualification perhaps. I think this is the advice HE would have given.--Artiquities (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the quotation again. It's not really about Derrida, and it's quite unhelpful in explaining either his life or his ideas. I would ask DionysosProteus not to restore it without first showing a consensus in its favour. If necessary, a request for comment could be placed. UserVOBO (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It's about Derrida's influence and the way in which his ideas have been used, as the discussion above clearly indicates. Kindly explain in what way, precisely, it is inappropriate. It is cited with a reliable source, and as such, should not be deleted without a clear consensus as to why it is inappropriate. Which, to date, doesn't exist. That's the way Wikipedia works, when reliable sources are provided. Feel free to make a request for comment. DionysosProteus (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No, if you want to add something to the article, you must ensure there's consensus in favour of the change, otherwise the material must stay out if it's removed. That's my understanding anyway. UserVOBO (talk) 03:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Then your understanding is incorrect. Consult the policy and guideline articles. Only additions that are unsourced may be treated in the way that you describe. DionysosProteus (talk) 07:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by consensus, which means that you don't try to make a change to an article when there's no agreement that it should be made. There's no agreement that the quotation you want to add is an improvement; I'd consider it unnecessary verbiage, since other material in the lead covers the same ground more succinctly. UserVOBO (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not the way it works. If you want something that is sourced removed, you need to demonstrate a consensus for it, not the other way around. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I've done a revamp of the lede. I've included the NTY article as a reference and tried to sum up the main points of his philosophical work. I'll add some details about his life and personality afterwards. I think my additions strike many of the notes that need to be struck. Thoughts? Grunge6910 (talk) 01:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Mtevfrog, I've reverted your removal of my edit. You need to explain in more detail your disagreement with additions to the lede. Grunge6910 (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

More lede thoughts

1. I agree with those who have said we should remove "post-structuralist" from the opening sentence. Very infrequently on bios of philosophers do we identify them with a particular movement in the opening sentence. Later on we say he is "identified with postmodernism and post-structuralism." That should suffice. I see no compelling reason to call him post-structuralist right off the bat.
2. I strongly dislike the paragraph about the 1980s culture wars. To me this sticks conspicuously out of place. Derrida's connection to the American cultural wars of the 1980s is tangential at best (cite me a place where he ever wrote about them), and his relationship with political conservatism also strikes me as trivial. Again, the paragraph before we note his work has had political implications and has been connected with political movements, and we note his unique approach to philosophy has made him controversial. Why, again, does this not suffice? Why include references to the culture wars and political conservatism when his connection to them is not nearly important enough to bear mentioning in the lede, which is supposed to summarize the principal aspects of his life and work? Grunge6910 (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I think all editors should let the lead (note sp.) continue to grow quite organically at this point--there are quite different perspectives within the currently active group of interested contributors as to what is key-- hence, efforts should be made that all be fairly inclusive until we see more clearly the range of material that editors are wanting to include. --Artiquities (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

An organic approach has left sore feelings and an inconclusive consensus (thus far). I'm suggesting we discuss the issues in a format a bit more meaningful than just our edit comments. Remember that the point of this page is to "provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article." Some users have suggested that any edit without consensus will be treated as vandalism. I suggest we try to build consensus. The two issues I've brought up are ones I think worth discussing. Grunge6910 (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it isn't absolutely necessary to have "post-structuralist" in the first sentence identifying him. I suggest, however, that it ought to appear in the first paragraph, since it is under this category that the majority of Wikipedia readers looking at this article are likely to have been introduced to him (I'm assuming it'll mostly be undergraduates from a broad range of disciplines). Perhaps we might split the post-structuralist and postmodernist identifications? The latter strikes me as far weaker than the former, though I appreciate that both have more to do with reception than Derrida's own descriptions. The qua construction looks unnecessarily technical too. The source for that is preview-able on google books, so I gave it a quick scan and corrected the page number in the citation. The claim that it's his "best known" statement isn't exactly supported by that source, so I added the WPost link too (which says just that).

With regard to the culture wars reference, the way in which his thought has been mobilised in the wider 'politics of culture' arena is an appropriate subject for the introduction. Perhaps it can be broadened from the narrow focus on the US? Can we do this without making it too vague as well? This appears to have happened with the development of the reference to use by "activist and other political movements" - are there right-wing groups that have used his ideas to develop their own? The quotation included "advocates of feminism, gay rights, and third-world cause", which is concrete and specific. In its current form, it could be referring to almost anyone. DionysosProteus (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

As of the patient work done by DionysosProteus up to this edit I feel like lead is now in the direction of a GA. Afterall, the MOS does suggest that the lead "tease" the reader to read on ... --Artiquities (talk) 07:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Artiquities

The user Mtevfrog tends to make unnecessarily dismissive and offenisive assertions in his edit summaries on this article--e.g., "clearly you lack knowledge of the subject," ... "Users lacking understanding of his work again undermine article. Pity" ... "This simply is not the right way to introduce Derrida," ... "Undoing poor changes: skewed, poorly written, not an improvement," ... "These changes are inappropriate, out of place, poorly written, do not improve the article, and are not based on any understanding of his work," ... "Removing sentence which does not belong in opening," --

This user never discusses his/her justifications on talk. He/she has already been accussed of ownership behaviour and bullying and there is no change. Any thoughts? --Artiquities (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

UserVOBO, please do not delete talk page comments. The criticisms detailled above are perfectly valid and appropriate and do not constitute a personal attack. They criticise editing behaviour. Even if they were, it is inappropriate of you to remove them.

Not only is the tone of the edit histories to which Artiquities refers inappropriate, but the points being made are highly dubious. Of course we understand that Derrida described deconstruction as an "event". The point is that the content of a Wikipedia article is meant to be broader than that dictated by authorial intentions. Plenty of sources--among them, the Oxford English Dictionary for heaven's sake--describe deconstruction as a critical method. The many academics who have taken it up use it as a critical method (not an "event"). Mtevfrog appears not only to be engaged in ownership editing, but to be plugging a highly non-NPOV agenda. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Under talk page guidelines, comments can be removed if they are uncivil or personal attacks. If you're in any doubt about that, kindly review them, and related policies such as WP:CIVIL. I am changing the title of this thread since "Poor attitude of Mtevfrog" is a blatant personal attack and as such unacceptable - just as it would be unacceptable to start a thread called, "Incompetent editing by Artiquities" or "Pompous and self-important attitude of DionysosProteus." I am also archiving it, since there is no possible way that it can lead to anything constructive. We discuss the article on the talk page, not other editors. Please accept that and move on. UserVOBO (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed UserVOBO's "archiving" of this thread, becasue it's blatently ridiculous. UserVOBO, you failed to engage with the points made that dispute your claim that this is a personal attack. Many concerns have been raised on this talk page regarding Mtevfrog's editing practice, none of which he/she has addressed here. The discussion concerns the obstacles to attempts made to improve the article, as well as specific issues of content involved in Mtevfrog's recent edits. UserVOBO, kindly desist in your attempts to stifle perfectly appropriate discussion. DionysosProteus (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Under WP:TALK, "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely incivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived." So you can certainly dispute the archiving if you like, but it was not "ridiculous" - it can be a quite appropriate way of dealing with a disruptive thread. The guideline makes it quite clear that article talk pages are for discussing the article, not other editors. I've had to inform DionysosProteus of this on his own talk page. UserVOBO (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

UserVOBO, kindly deal with the issue identified. Rhetorical attempts to make Artiquities's comments into something that they are clearly not aren't a substitute for that. They were neither "harmful", a "personal attack", "trolling" nor "vandalism", and it was inappropriate of you to delete them. DionysosProteus (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The talk page guideline, to which I just referred you, makes it totally clear that naming an individual editor in the title of a thread is a personal attack ("using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, since it places their name prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history"). As noted, this discussion is quite pointless, and should be stopped. UserVOBO (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticising the title of the section is one thing. The claims you've made about its contents is quite another. Concerns that particular editing behaviour is proving harmful to the development of the article is and remains an appropriate subject of discussion, despite your attempts to shut it down. DionysosProteus (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing articles, not the behaviour of individual editors. That's best dealt with on individual editor's talk page if there's a serious behaviour issue ("While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user"). UserVOBO (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is about the development of the article, despite your attempts to re-frame it as something else. When many editors all involved in attempts to improve the same article are all encountering the same obstacle, the article's talk page is a perfectly appropriate place to discuss that. Mtevfrog has been asked to discuss the changes here on several occasions and has refused to do so. I agree that a post to his/her user page is one appropriate route to dealing with that. That doesn't mean that a discussion about the edits here is inappropriate. DionysosProteus (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No, this discussion is a pointless back-and-forth between you and me. It has nothing really to do with the article, as should be obvious. The talk page guideline says that the talk page is for discussing the content of articles - not the behaviour of individual editors. Deal with it. UserVOBO (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That is because you have (1) deleted the discussion, (2) attempted to stifle it with an "archive" tag, and (3) mis-represented it. The changes being made without discussion are a problem. You may refuse to acknowledge that all you like, it doesn't change that fact. DionysosProteus (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, upon reflection, I would say the original title of this thread probably does come under "especially egregious." In the meantime, I, for one, have learnt quite a bit from the above discussion. --Artiquities (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What language did Derrida write in?

It's not clear to me from the article in which language Derrida wrote. I presume it was French, but did he ever write in other languages? If you know, please add a line to the article. Thanks! --Brian Fenton (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

From Points...interviews:

“ Q.: One gets the impression that you have, in the course of the last few years, deserted France for the sake of an American career. Is this a choice you are making?

J.D.: No, I am not emigrating! I have no American "career"! Like others, I teach every year, for no more than a few weeks, in the United States. It is true that my work is generously translated, received, or discussed in other countries. But I did not choose this situation. I live, teach, and publish in France. (1987 interview Heidegger, the Philosophers' Hell, p.189)

...Should I remind you, in addition, that I only ever write in French and that I attach great importance to this fact, as to all problems concerning idiom, natural and national language, traditions of thought, their filiations and genealogies? (October 1992 interview for the Cambridge review, p.416)

”

You can include it yourself to the place where it's missing.--Sum (talk) 09:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Delegitimizing Derrida and Hegel as not philospphy

This edit removed a referenced sentence arguing that it is "not really on topic." It's well known that it's a common argument among analytic philosophers to say that Derrida's work is not philosophy.--Sum (talk) 16:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

His embarrassingly small penis has often been credited for his great intellectual drive and desire to succeed

This statement should be checked by some kind of administrator. Derrida is one of the most famous scholars of the modern period, and absurd claims such as this need to be checked. (last sentence before contents...)

Um... this also probably needs checking (funny tho' it is): Derrida was a member of the *Village People*. Although his membership in Class IV, Section 1... [Recognition and Criticism, last sentence] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.200.200.231 (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Husserl in 1959

Congrats to all who've contributed to this article. I'd like to suggest some evolutions to this para, in regard to phenomenology and structure:

"In that context, in 1959, Derrida asked the question: Must not structure have a genesis, and must not the origin, the point of genesis, be already structured, in order to be the genesis of something?[29] In other words, every structural or "synchronic" phenomenon has a history, and the structure cannot be understood without understanding its genesis.[30] At the same time, in order that there be movement, or potential, the origin cannot be some pure unity or simplicity, but must already be articulated—complex—such that from it a "diachronic" process can emerge. This originary complexity must not be understood as an original positing, but more like a default of origin, which Derrida refers to as iterability, inscription, or textuality.[31] It is this thought of originary complexity that sets Derrida's work in motion, and from which all of its terms are derived, including "deconstruction"."[32]

Although the thrust seems coherent to me, the use of synchronic and diachronic - Saussurean linguistic tools - seems inappropriate in this context. The speech of 1959 was on Husserl, as was the work of 1962 which Derrida began in 1957/8. As far as I am aware, Saussure only made an appearance in the article versions of de la Grammatologie from 1965. I'd suggest this para be re-worked to accommodate the Husserlian framework in which it is set. Any takers or objections?

Dinogaletti (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Portrait

There is free equivalent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Derrida-by-Pablo-Secca.jpg made and gifted by one Wikipedia editor.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 11:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Page formatting.

I noticed that down in the references, a chunk of the footnotes (69-78) are somehow off to the right of the rest of the article so that I have to scroll to the right to view them. Maybe this is just my computer. I don't know enough about formatting these pages to fix it myself. Hacksaw45501 (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have the same problem with Chrome but not with Firefox.--Sum (talk) 08:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

copyedits, restructuring and sourcing needed

Ok, so I've gone through most of the article and removed chunks of peacock wording and unsourced stuff. However there is a huge forking problem with the 'criticism' section - this should be incude where appropriate in Derrida's chronology and works sections (per NPOV). There are also a few that test WP:UNDUE (African bias) in the amount of weight given to them. These sub-sections need to eb reduced--Cailil ^talk 19:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Material on criticism of Derrida's work

In this discussion (section above, DP) has been argued otherwise, but according to Template:Criticism section, content should be moved from criticism sections and integrated into the article. But no policy/guideline mandates this, it seems to be argued only in some essays.--Sum (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of moving this into a separate section, as 'what to do about the criticism material' seems to be a different discussion to the one the IP editor raised above. Yes, I see your thinking behind it now. I don't know, but I'm assuming that the suggestion to integrate on the template is about trying to resolve conflicts by locating criticisms more firmly within a historical/biographical context (hence integrating in the main text). I suggest, though, that a separate criticism section here is quite valid and I think the norm with philosophy articles. Actually, looking more closely at the template's page, I see that it's designed for cases where a "Criticism" section is just a collection of minor details bundled together to look more substantial. I don't think this is the case here (though there are no doubt more substantial criticisms of his thought around). I don't think that anyone is proposing that the article shouldn't have a criticism section. I'm not entirely sure what it is, exactly, that is being objected to with the tag there though. Missing material, hence undue weight given to present material? Biased accounts (NPOV)? I see that the Africa bit is suspect, but the rest? I've just scanned through the archives, but can't find a discussion there. Perhaps it refers to an older version--in which case, the tag should be removed. The concerns ought to be detailed here - if I've missed them, please point me in the direction. Took a quick look through the edit history but it wasn't obvious. What do you think about forking it out to a sub-article and summarising here?  • DP •  ^{huh?} 21:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Recycled Borges

"opening hiw article with:" what??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The REAL Teol (talk • contribs) 23:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)