"It is, for instance, pretty suicidal for embattled minorities to embrace
Michel Foucault, let alone Jacques Derrida."
While the responses so far seem to make perfect
sense I've choosen to take on this
qoute in a diffrent manor.
What seems to be happening here is Sokal
seems to beleive that there is a logical
and progressive change between the ideas
of Jaques Derrida and Michel Foucault.
That is he seems to imply that Derrida
and Foucault are some how related.
Wahl ,however, would tell us
that Derrida and Foucault are related
only by "the schema of structuralism
that Derrida attacks is more or less the same
as the one to which Foucault adheres."
In essence Michel & Jaques are opposites.
Derrida acts as the anti-thesis
to Foucault's beleifs. In this interpretation
then Sokal seems to be the one offering the
veiw that would be "pretty suicidal" to
mintorites to adopt. That is in Sokal's
interpretation the views of Derrida & Foucault are both
"pretty suicidal" for minorties to adopt. Yet due to Wahl
one sees that Derrida & Foucault are opposites.
they are thinkers on two diffrent sides of the Gamut.
Hence Sokal's interpretation becomes tyranny.
It, in effect, says that minorties are hopeless. At the very least
if minorties adhered to one philosophy one would think
they would have some hope from their perspective.
however Sokal would tell us other wise.
effectively he seems to wish that minorties
would lose all hope. Perhaps another holocaust
is what Sokal wants. just this time the minorties would
volentarily throw themselves n2 the great fire.
I can't think of anything more Derridaen!
Michel Foucault, let alone Jacques Derrida."
While the responses so far seem to make perfect
sense I've choosen to take on this
qoute in a diffrent manor.
What seems to be happening here is Sokal
seems to beleive that there is a logical
and progressive change between the ideas
of Jaques Derrida and Michel Foucault.
That is he seems to imply that Derrida
and Foucault are some how related.
Wahl ,however, would tell us
that Derrida and Foucault are related
only by "the schema of structuralism
that Derrida attacks is more or less the same
as the one to which Foucault adheres."
In essence Michel & Jaques are opposites.
Derrida acts as the anti-thesis
to Foucault's beleifs. In this interpretation
then Sokal seems to be the one offering the
veiw that would be "pretty suicidal" to
mintorites to adopt. That is in Sokal's
interpretation the views of Derrida & Foucault are both
"pretty suicidal" for minorties to adopt. Yet due to Wahl
one sees that Derrida & Foucault are opposites.
they are thinkers on two diffrent sides of the Gamut.
Hence Sokal's interpretation becomes tyranny.
It, in effect, says that minorties are hopeless. At the very least
if minorties adhered to one philosophy one would think
they would have some hope from their perspective.
however Sokal would tell us other wise.
effectively he seems to wish that minorties
would lose all hope. Perhaps another holocaust
is what Sokal wants. just this time the minorties would
volentarily throw themselves n2 the great fire.
I can't think of anything more Derridaen!