Moliere

Ahhh -- ok. That's fair. Plus, it keeps things interesting when we find places to dispute rather than simply dismiss.

We'll see if life allows me to keep up on TPF or not. But it's been nice to be participating again.

I guess I just don't feel challenged because it seems to me to be a matter of preference, but then when I say so it seems like you don't acknowledge i...

Alright, @"Jackson" -- if you're willing to spit it out I'm willing to hear it. How does Hume undermine all of this? I believe that's basically last w...

Heh, you say that -- but from my perspective it seems you keep coming back! :D

OK, this is interesting. So, it is safe to say deconstruction is not a way of proceeding in the world. And it's larger than what I was imputing -- a w...

I'm honestly at a stage where I cannot tell if deconstruction is algorithmic or not, though I do see it as a method. In the same way that analysis is ...

Heh, I, for one, never think there's anything useful in philosophy -- so asking me, well... I'm the wrong source. :) But there is something beautiful ...

In the most general sense, for understanding deconstruction! :D But also clearing grime off old memories. One of the questions I'm coming to right now...

Really? I actually found it helpful.

I was just responding to what you said -- you prefer Tristan Tzara.

Thanks for all these. This is good stuff to work with. One of the problems I was having in thinking through what to quote is there was always these tw...

We all have our preferences -- surely you can see how there's more value to deconstruction than what the original article stated though, yes?

This is good. Then I think I'm on the right track.

You may ask! However, there are others in the thread who'd do better than I -- and, in truth, the whole thread is basically asking this question :D Wh...

Heh. It's a good role to play. One I'm appreciating, given where my understanding is at. I have no quote on his skepticism. One of the reasons I've sa...

Heh. Funnily enough, at least with where I'm at now with Derrida, I'd still agree that he's a skeptic here :D -- at least, because of my understanding...

I sometimes read philosophy in that mode, and sometimes I read philosophy in another mode. With respect to Derrida I'd say that I'm attempting to maxi...

I think this is a different sort of reading than what I'm giving. Can you see the difference? Or is there a real reading to which you're referring, a ...

Perhaps for Hume there isn't really that necessity (I mean, if I were to talk strictly of Kant, I wouldn't call him a skeptic -- since he squarely den...

Cool. "skepticism insists on the validity of the factually experienced world, that of actual experience, and finds in it nothing of reason or its idea...

Is it not a fact that you experience? A little simpler than The World of Facts or something phenomenological, just the world I experience, and "I expe...

I read it as "the world experienced" -- as in, the world I experience, in fact.

No worries. Cross-posting between different posters is all. This is where it's from.

What for? At this point I'm only parsing theories from one another, making distinctions, that sort of thing -- attempting to come up with something of...

I see this as being in agreement with what I said, so I'll just ask the question again: How would you interpret the Husserl quotation? Is it just wron...

I think that's a good approximation on general skepticism -- the radical skeptic claiming the world could be radically otherwise, Humean skeptic denyi...

How would you go about interpreting Husserl in the quotation? What made sense to me was Hume's arguments regarding causation -- on the conceptual side...

One thing to keep in mind is that "skepticism" itself is already a term with a multiplicity of meanings -- so much so that I don't feel like I'm in co...

That's too much work for me to want to pick up :D I'll fully admit I'm running from impressions of having read, here -- just out of interest, and to h...

I'll admit that the skepticism I have in mind in saying he's a skeptic isn't so specific as Humean skepticism -- what I have in mind is less precise: ...

I'll admit -- this is close to what I feel on Derrida too. I really think we could come together on our reading of Derrida. There's enough between us ...

In that sense I'd say that I agree with you -- Derrida is a skeptic. I suppose I feel more empathy with his skepticism than Hegel's optimism? But that...

Heh. It's not a bad place to be. I'll admit to choosing the same with other authors.

I agree that Hegel is a concrete thinker, tho -- just fyi

Ahhhhh... OK. I'll admit that this critique is a bit beyond me. I just think your critique is of a higher level than the original article -- the origi...

Saussure is the guy I read, at least his course in general linguistics. Just for background. Would you disagree with Derrida's desire to try to move o...

OK, this gets close to our disagreement on Derrida. But it's a good expression, I think, because what I've said would put him squarely against Kant --...

Now I have been loosy goosy in my thinking, so please forgive me for this specificity. I only focus on it because this is what I'd agree to, and agree...

Or, tradition? Naw, that's not right. There are more than one traditions which he is targeting... but a mode of philosophy, maybe.

Heh, I haven't read that one. Maybe I will some day later. I'm always looking for references. I think skeptic is a good epithet; with respect to scien...

I could never get the hang of deconstruction, I just felt like I could not infer some place to go from what I read: oftentimes I couldn't follow a par...

Yeah, that's my impression, for the most part. Analytic philosophy is more popular in US phil.

I wouldn't be the one to ask, cuz I'm not really in institutional philosophy. I just like to read books.

Oh, yeah, definitely not scientific in the modern sense -- so I take your point about the distinction being unclear or poorly named. I mean much more ...

But again, I'm putting forward categories here to be able to say how the original article's author could get more out of Derrida if they read it diffe...

"scientific" broadly construed, yes -- in the same way I'd classify Aristotle as a scientific philosopher. It deals with arguments dealing with the na...

One way of reading a text is with an eye towards self-consistency or refutation. I'd like to call this the "hard-nosed" approach -- reading it as one ...

Even more reason to think he misread :P :D Or, more circumspectly, he could get more out of it if he wanted to.

That's cool. It's been awhile since I've studied many of these guys. I'm just talking shop for fun. Two "ways" which philosophers do philosophy can be...