Wednesday, February 13, 2019

Language v. experience debate

Bruce started this FB and Ning thread. My initial response is below. See the links for much more.

That discussion is the straw that broke my IC back. To me they are a bunch of dogmatic, religious fundamentalists of the privileged access to direct and superior experience variety. It's almost as bad as trying to reason with a Dumpster, since both denigrate valid reasoning.


At least a few of the postmetaphysicians in this forum agree with the following critique:
"Two main aspects of Derrida's thinking regarding phenomenology remain clear. Firstly, he thinks that the phenomenological emphasis upon the immediacy of experience is the new transcendental illusion, and secondly, he argues that despite its best intents, phenomenology cannot be anything other than a metaphysics. In this context, Derrida defines metaphysics as the science of presence, as for him (as for Heidegger), all metaphysics privileges presence, or that which is. […] Phenomenology is a metaphysics of presence because it unwittingly relies upon the notion of an indivisible self-presence, or in the case of Husserl, the possibility of an exact internal adequation with oneself."
And consistent with Balder, according to Caputo:

"Deconstruction is an experience of the impossible, which means that diffĂ©rance is an 'absolutely general condition' of experience. […] DiffĂ©rance is not an absolute but a point of view whose fruitfulness Derrida invites us to consider and explore. It is not an intellectual intuition but a framework or condition of experience. That does not reduce it to a theory of mere appearances as opposed to a noumenal being outside time and space […] since the point of departure of phenomenology, no less than deconstruction, is to undo the phenomonal/noumenal binarity."

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.