Every Man a Derrida

[Outlander]

For many people, postmodern analysis and semiotics are dirty words, products of a rising barbarian anticulture bent on replacing Edward R. Murrow with the paparazzi. One of the bracing things about old-school postmodernism was the way it provided the tools of Enlightenment critical thinking to anti-Enlightenment folks: Islamists, post-colonial nationalists, psycho feminists, and so on. Deconstruction and anti-Orientalism were essential means for undermining what was perceived as a white male power structure.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Here you go INTJs, a nice tasty morsel of pomo. Consume and discuss!

[Monte314]

As a practicing mathematician, I do in fact think semiotics is a dirty word.

I have yet to encounter any substance in the field. Perhaps you can point out for us the contributions semiotics has made to authentic scholarship.

[taintedkitty]

Hmm. Monte314 brings up an interesting point. It was merely fascinating to me when I learned (and am still learning) about it. I would like to ask why it is you say so.

I have little to add to it, except that perhaps in my youth I really have not had the time to find out how it applies in the academic world.
What I can say is that postmodernism (not semiotics in particular) provides an understanding that reality is provisional. In that way, it is liberating.

The mainstreaming of pomo thinking has been largely a stealth project, something Americans do without committing overt acts of academia.

From the article, I do agree with this point. Postmodern thinking can be found in everything from video clips, advertisements, the way a information is presented and the younger generations, I believe are generally unaware that it is a new way of thinking, that things weren't always done this way.

My own immersion in some of these forms of media made it hard for me to believe that video clips weren't always done this way (where the artifice of film is foregrounded) and in my class there are others, who are even more immersed and unable to see that postmodernism, indeed does exist. To him it's just the way things are and he refuses to believe that this is an area of study.

We, the salt of the earth, are being systematically undermined by the American elites whose monopoly on good thinking is just a cover for self-interest.
As often as I may believe this mantra is "abused", I still put the term in inverted commas because there must be some truth, some reason to believe so in there even though I might not see, nor understand it. Although, I do question the person who leads the "salt of the earth" in their little uprising, as perhaps it might be their self interest.

And of course, the conclusion reiterates what I have been saying.

Ah, I find I am agreeing whole-heartedly with this article. I will be very interested to see any counter arguments. I've been looking for a way to be skeptical about postmodernism as it bothers me that the only criticism I have encountered so far is easily countered and based in misunderstanding the topic at hand. Let me learn!

[zibber]

As a practicing mathematician, I do in fact think semiotics is a dirty word.

I have yet to encounter any substance in the field. Perhaps you can point out for us the contributions semiotics has made to authentic scholarship.

Could you put into words why it seems so useless to you?

It can be abused or redundantly used, but semiotics has a large range of applications; from basic linguistics to deconstruction to broad cultural analysis.

As for deconstruction, based to a (large? I don't dare say) degree on the teachings of semiotics, that is of unimaginable value to any kind of discourse. Deconstruction has taught us not to confuse natural language for some kind of absolute system for representing external reality, but as a cultural phenomenon heavily shaped by the conventions and assumptions of the particular culture in which it developed. It reminds us to stay mindful of our own preconceptions (encoded in the very tool with which we practice discourse) at all times. If that's not useful, I don't know what is.

[Marcus]

This is a critique of Derrida, father of deconstruction:

...anyone who reads deconstructive texts with an open mind is likely to be struck by the same phenomena that initially surprised me: the low level of philosophical argumentation, the deliberate obscurantism of the prose, the wildly exaggerated claims, and the constant striving to give the appearance of profundity by making claims that seem paradoxical, but under analysis often turn out to be silly or trivial.

source:To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'd the similar impression about this article (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Über-intellectual without saying much.

[Monte314]

Could you put into words why it seems so useless to you?

It can be abused or redundantly used, but semiotics has a large range of applications; from basic linguistics to deconstruction to broad cultural analysis.

As for deconstruction, based to a (large? I don't dare say) degree on the teachings of semiotics, that is of unimaginable value to any kind of discourse. Deconstruction has taught us not to confuse natural language for some kind of absolute system for representing external reality, but as a cultural phenomenon heavily shaped by the conventions and assumptions of the particular culture in which it developed. It reminds us to stay mindful of our own preconceptions (encoded in the very tool with which we practice discourse) at all times. If that's not useful, I don't know what is.

It's not that semiotics itself has no value; it's the direction it's practitioners have taken it that gives it a bad name.

There is systematic symbolic thought (the foundations of mathematics, logic, set theory, authentic semiotics), and there is symbolic voodoo. Much of the published "research" I have seen in semiotics falls into the latter category. As a field of knowledge, it's become of refuge for intellectual wannabe's.

[zibber]

I can't say I have a lot of concrete knowledge of applied semiotics, but I see your point now. In that case, I would wonder if the mere foundations of semiotics (and core texts by people like Barthes and Foucault, for instance) aren't already an addition to our collective consciousness? Does there need to be a wealth of scholarly publications in order for something to be worthy of any respect? (Furthermore, do you even see the humanities as valid science?)

As for Derrida, well, he's Derrida. He can be kind of a prick in texts. There's one enjoyable polylogue he wrote about a semi-quarrel between Heidegger and Schapiro on the topic of a Van Gogh painting (and art (history) in general) which completely illustrates Marcus' point to me. What does that say about deconstruction, though? If your karate teacher is a jackass to you all the time, do you hate karate?

[Monte314]

Does there need to be a wealth of scholarly publications in order for something to be worthy of any respect? (Furthermore, do you even see the humanities as valid science?)

I believe that there is valid knowledge that is not addressed in the published scientific literature.

Were the humanities subject to consistently reproduceable experimentation, they would be valid empirical science. But not all science is empirical (mathematics, for example), so in my view, the humanities can be valid science to the extent that they can be rationally systematized.

[Smotor]

As for Derrida, well, he's Derrida. He can be kind of a prick in texts. There's one enjoyable polylogue he wrote about a semi-quarrel between Heidegger and Schapiro on the topic of a Van Gogh painting (and art (history) in general)

Ooh, where can I find this?