S > Status Update

Don't know that I've ever heard of him. His wkipedia makes him sound like a bland crank. Nothing at all like a Derrida. If he was anything more, it would appear that his time has passed.

That's what I'm leaning towards. And you're totally right: I shouldn't have invoked Derrida's name. I'm going on another Derrida kick, and it seems like the more I read him, the more interesting his projects become.

Scott wrote: "That's what I'm leaning towards. And you're totally right: I shouldn't have invoked Derrida's name. I'm going on another Derrida kick, and it seems like the more I read him, the more interesting hi..."

There are few philosophers who know the tradition as well as Derrida. I think most of the problem with him has stemmed from his American reception in literature departments rather than in philosophy departments. This thing about him doing 'lit-crit' or whatnot is simply incorrect. He's Heidegger's number one heir (although Heidegger didn't think much of him ; or probably knew much of him).

Nathan "N.R." wrote: "Scott wrote: "invoked Derrida's name...."

I'll be honest Nathan, I have a very complex relationship with Derrida. The whole reason I got into phenomenology and Heidegger is by way of Derrida. But my philosophy professor threw this curve-ball at me: https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/ha... It touches on the problem you mentioned: Derrida's reception in America. But man, Derrida is such an interesting writer.

Peeter's biography mentions that Heidegger knew about Derrida and his work, and Lucien Braun tried to schedule a meeting, but it never panned out.

At this stage, though, I feel like Derrida's work (overall, not his critique of presence) is sort of like a more academic phrasing of Blanchot's (don't quote me on that; I'm about to order The Infinite Conversation; apparently one of Blanchot's pet obsessions was 'the end of the book,' which totally resonates with some of Derrida's ideas in the Grammatology; also, Derrida and Blanchot {again, according to Peeter} were very close and fond of each other's work). Anyway, I apologize if I mentioned anything you already knew.

the Peeter did feature this AMAZING image:

Scott wrote: "I apologize if I mentioned anything you already knew.."

Not at all! And Blanchot I don't really know at all ; not even by second-hand.

Peeter's biography mentions that Heidegger knew about Derrida and his work

The ancedot I think I recall had Father William J. Richardson asking Heidegger what he thought of this young French philosopher and Heidegger sort of shrugging a lack of being impressed. And Richardson was disappointed by that response. (I'm not sure how much Richardson knew Derrida, but likely fairly well at that point since he is himself a Lacanian psychoanalyst.) But that's like a fourth or fifth generation anecdote probably.

Nathan "N.R." wrote: "Father William J. Richardson asking Heidegge...."

Nathan, I feel so bad. I refer to Heidegger all the time and I use him frequently in my thinking, but I still haven't finished all Division II of B&T. I keep restarting from the beginning and getting bogged down. I feel like Zeno's Achilles, infinitely removed from a finite end.

I really need to finish up and move on.