Oh! Look at the pretty butterflies!

Jacques Derrida died the other day. I am among those who deride his work.

This is an attempt to defend him?

And it is false to suppose that modern unreason is a falling-away from the Enlightenment tradition of reason. It was the Enlightenment - above all its quest for a scientific materialist psychology - that gave birth to modern irrationalist views.

Derrida was an apostle of unreason. His reduction of rational logos to mere phallogocentrism is sufficient testimony to the fact. But this is to place it within one strand of the Enlightenment tradition.

I suppose I need to make "phallogocentrism" my Word Of the Day.

Logocentrism, also called phallogocentrism, is a term used in Deconstruction (1.) (a postmodern from of philosophy and literary criticism) to refer to the perceived tendency of Western thought to locate the Center of any discourse within the logos (speech and words) and the phallus (embodiments representing the male genitalia).

The reason for my hesitation should be clear by now.

1. In Continental philosophy and literary criticism, deconstruction is a school of criticism created by the French post-structuralist philosopher Jacques Derrida. Derrida offered what he called deconstructive readings of Western philosophers. Roughly speaking, a deconstructive reading is an analysis of a text that uncovers the difference between the text's structure and its Western metaphysical essence. Deconstructive readings show how Western texts cannot simply be read as a single author communicating a distinct message, but instead must be read as sites of conflict within a given culture or worldview. A deconstructed text will reveal a multitude of viewpoints simultaneously existing, often in direct conflict with one another. Comparison of a deconstructive reading of a text with a more traditional one will also show how many of these viewpoints are suppressed and ignored.

The central move of a deconstructive analysis is to look at binary oppositions within a text (for instance, maleness and femaleness, or gayness and straightness) and to show how, instead of describing a rigid set of categories, the two opposing terms are actually fluid and impossible to fully separate. The conclusion from this, generally, is that the categories do not actually exist in any rigid or absolute sense.

Deconstruction was highly controversial both in academia, where it was accused of being nihilistic, parasitic, and just plain silly, and in the popular press, where it was often seized upon as a sign that academia had become completely out of touch with reality. Despite this controversy, it remains a major force in contemporary philosophy and literary criticism and theory.

There's more but it's not worth my time. I'll go with the "just plain silly" bit.

I've heard Derrida speak in person at the U of MN, and it was all gibberish to me. Though I suppose it could be said to be evidence of my lack of erudition and sophistication. Of course, the purpose of the conference here was to prove the pedigree of Deconstructionism as a worthy descendant of Kant. I think that if Kant had heard their crap he would have reacted as Martin Luther did, when informed of the Peasants revolt of 1524 and said, "Kill the pigs!" (The politically correct sources I can find on the spur of the moment don't quote that phrase.)