As a prof of mine once said, some things are so silly that all you can do
is agree. (He was referring to Rorty calling Derrida a romantic, and
Derrida agreeing.)
I must say, though, that this--
> The works of Derrida,
> Foucault and Lacan will never breach class and be understood by those who
> are not doing a philosophy or cultural studies major at university
--is plainly, empirically, false. (At least the stuff about being
understandable only by phil/cultstud majors; I don't know what "breach
class" is supposed to mean.) Frankly, I suppose that one of the reasons I
got into Foucault in the first place is that, relatively speaking, he's
pretty easy. Tricky, sure, and some high-powered minds have been badly
fooled--but Foucault sure doesn't hurt the brain like Kant and Hegel. Or,
ahem, Marx, for that matter.
Matthew
---Matthew A. King---Department of Philosophy---York University, Toronto---
dear readers, my apologies.
I'm drifting in and out of sleep.
---------------------------------(R.E.M.)----------------------------------
is agree. (He was referring to Rorty calling Derrida a romantic, and
Derrida agreeing.)
I must say, though, that this--
> The works of Derrida,
> Foucault and Lacan will never breach class and be understood by those who
> are not doing a philosophy or cultural studies major at university
--is plainly, empirically, false. (At least the stuff about being
understandable only by phil/cultstud majors; I don't know what "breach
class" is supposed to mean.) Frankly, I suppose that one of the reasons I
got into Foucault in the first place is that, relatively speaking, he's
pretty easy. Tricky, sure, and some high-powered minds have been badly
fooled--but Foucault sure doesn't hurt the brain like Kant and Hegel. Or,
ahem, Marx, for that matter.
Matthew
---Matthew A. King---Department of Philosophy---York University, Toronto---
dear readers, my apologies.
I'm drifting in and out of sleep.
---------------------------------(R.E.M.)----------------------------------