Studio8 - Uniting the Arts

Why should anyone bother to study Derrida, e-dog? Additionally, if we accept Derrida as partaking in the history of western philosophy ( though that is doubtful), shouldn't prospective students know something about Plato, Kant, Marx, etc, before taking on post-modernism? Before one does integrals, you must know trig.; similiarly, before one rejects "logocentrism," one should know something about logic. To be honest, rather than even opening Derrida, finish your macroecon. class, not to say biochemistry.

I defy you Monsieur E-dog, to provide any valid propositions or arguments (either tautological or empirically verifiable--in other words, true assertions), quoted or derived from Derrida's dadaist corpus....

philosophy is a mode of questioning. it is not a science nor does it it issue in propositions and demonstrative proofs. sure, many philosophers have done that, but usually they are invalid and in any casew, the real value of philosophy comes from its highlighting of themes and problems, not its offered solutions. so, right of the bat, i reject your challenge as itself a misguided one. i should also note that this conception of philosophy as primarily a matter of skeptically quesioning the assumed or given, rather than resulting in organized theoretical propositions, is not a postmodern addition but rather goes back to the best of Socrates.

even philosophical theorists, like marx or kant, don't primarily derive their importance from the precise thesis they defend, let alone the arguments they present, but rather from the visions they convey, the general outlook on life and culture, and the critical moves they promote.

why should anyone bother to study Derrida? depends on the person. i'd say only study derrida if after reading some stuff, you find it intriguing. if not, then study what intrigues you. that goes for anyone. i would, however, say that your insistence that everyone study macroecon and biochemistry is funny. biochem is a pernicious, cultural virus that in conjunction with physics, engineering, etc. will really give rise to the "death of man" talked about, though in symbolic terms, by some postmodernists. macroecon., as well as micro but maybe less so, is a thoroughly ideological discipline at least as practiced in the States. "economics" is n ot a science but a pseudoscience desgined to justify the exploitive capitalist system by making it appear ratoinal and inevitable. in fact, most economic theories or their concrete applicatrion fail the very test of empirical proof you desire from theory.