What’s Wrong with the World

Ah! A public book burning! A good sign that civilization isn't completely dead.

I toss in Susan Sontag, Against Interpretation. A literary critic trying to bring an end to literary criticism by means of a critique of literary criticism. A wet blanket on a weekly book club meeting, to say the least. And while we're at it, the whole offensive pile of Jaques Derrida's output.

An anti-list should include The Da Vinci Code & American Freedom and Catholic Power. Both are the pride of Hell's literary division for their work in drawing so many middle brows into the void.

The works of Karl Marx?

I agree Da Vinci Code is garbage. But does it really rise to the level of being publicly burnable? I think even many middle-brows quickly grew too embarrassed to mention having enjoyed it in the wake of the film version. But then again, perhaps you are right.

"And while we're at it, the whole offensive pile of Jaques Derrida's output."

A commentator after mine own heart. I thought of saying that but didn't. Glad you did.

Could we include Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions???

...that they had been consigned to the flames, so that we could discuss the temperature at which ignorance burns... To the flames, go.

Welcome to the World of Farenheit 451!

Could we include Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions???

I don't know. Maybe. It has been so long since I read it that it is a bit hazy, but I'm uncertain as to whether Kuhn was really arguing for a "science is just another perspectival discourse" view of the matter.

He said he wasn't. But in that case, he should have done things a _whole lot_ differently. And the history certainly wasn't good enough to justify the wretched and mischievous philosophy. It's done a lot of harm, that's for sure. I can still recall the first time I heard a non-philosopher use the word "paradigm" in a semi-Kuhnian sense as though it were just some ordinary word. Gave me the creeps. Now it's used that way all over the place, of course.

Well, my vague sense of the matter is that he wasn't attempting to go all postmodern on science, but that he intended to critique naive views of scientific progress, falsificationism, etc., only to do so in a sloppy manner. Scientific research does tend to occur within broad research programmes, so in that limited sense, the paradigm idea is not so foul; but that is hardly all that remains to be said of the matter. We wouldn't say, unless we are Robert Sungenis, that heliocentrism is a mere paradigm.

Could we include Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions???

Well, I suppose we could, but just as long as you realize that in so doing, Hans Kung's Theology For The Third Millennium goes down with it (Kung tries to apply Kuhn's benighted thesis to theology). Eh, you probably wouldn't mind. Neither would I.

An Inconvenient Truth

Maybe I am 1) being irrationally spiteful or 2) overly fond of the idea of burning childrens' books, but can we burn the books of Todd Parr?

This isn't kindling--more like lighter fluid. But this thread does bring to mind one of my favorite quotations from Cassius Jackson Keyser's book Mathematical Philosophy, p. 17:

Indeed, if the pretentious books produced in these troubled years by men without logical insight or a sense of logical obligation were gathered into a heap and burned, they would thus produce, in the form of a bright bonfire the only light they are qualified to give.

An American Catholic Catechism, by Richard McBrien, priest.

"I agree Da Vinci Code is garbage. But does it really rise to the level of being publicly burnable?"

Indeed it does. The New Class high-brows always had Bertrand Russell, Joseph Campbell and their entire
academic milieu to confirm them in their unbelief. The bourgoise needed their indifference to be entertainingly justified by a grand conspiracy theory, complete with a film adaptation. Countless thousands are more vacuous for the experience.

Machiavelli's The Prince.

Paul Barnes beat me to it. The complete Karl Marx was my first thought.

Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex and Germaine Greer's The Female Eunuch.

I seem to recall P.J. O'Rourke commenting that it wasn't all that profound for Sartre to pen, "Hell is other people." when you consider that Simone was hanging around his house at the time.

Mein Kampf

I'm wondering if some of the books (Das Kapital & Mein Kampf) that inflicted the most damage were actually ever read. In the case of Marx the validity of much of his diaganosis was quite accurate. Unfortunately, it gave his prognosis undeserved credibility.

The bourgoise needed their indifference to be entertainingly justified by a grand conspiracy theory, complete with a film adaptation. Countless thousands are more vacuous for the experience.

A fair point.

It's great that you're all going through so much trouble to be caricatures of conservatives.

I, for one, would be willing to wager a large sum of money - say, $100 - that neither Byronicman nor Lydia have read more than 50 pages of Derrida.

I'd assuming those 50 pages would be from Of Grammatology, and I wouldn't include the translator's preface. Maybe I'm wrong about that, though. Maybe it was "Differance" or "Structure, Sign and Play"?

But hey, let's all cheer and burn books we've never read. It's fun!

Kevin,

An article from one of my favorite obscure magazines says that it was. http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/10/mein_royalties.php/

I, for one, would be willing to wager a large sum of money - say, $100 - that neither Byronicman nor Lydia have read more than 50 pages of Derrida.

You'd be out a benny on that one.

But hey, let's all cheer and burn books we've never read. It's fun!

Why not? Derrida himself made a career of it.

"I'd assuming those 50 pages would be from Of Grammatology..."

Does that mean Mike says we're allowed to burn Of Grammatology, provided we've read more than 50 pages of that particular one? Is it worth the price?

Is it worth the price?

Well, there is a logical conundrum here. If the book really ought to be burned, it's for the simple reason that (hey Mike, check out Maximos' thesis, speaking of not reading what you are criticizing) reading it will be damaging to your intellectual health. You ban a book from the same motive that you put one on a required reading list. If the right books go on the right lists, a public service is rendered.

Not into burning books myself. If an author's ideas are wrong or dangerous, let them be shown as such in open, hospitable discussion. Those eager to burn a book may even have something to learn from the author.

Step2,
Your source says how many copies were purchased, not how many were read. It also indicates sales took off after he took power, thanks to his government's bulk purchase and not prior. I think Hitler's rise was due to factors far greater than his talent for writing persuasive polemics.

However, Kyle R. Cupp seems to think "we may even have something to learn from the author."

Not into burning books myself. If an author's ideas are wrong or dangerous, let them be shown as such in open, hospitable discussion. Those eager to burn a book may even have something to learn from the author.

Go wring your hands somewhere else.

Thebyronicman,

Is asserting a couple of counterpoints tantamount to wringing one’s hands?

Another reason I’m opposed to book-burning: If we want to have a society in which there is freedom to express and discuss one’s ideas, we have to keep open the possibility that books will be written that are devilish and dangerous. To impose some authority to destroy books deemed to be evil hinders the freedom of thought and expression of everyone. It may be all well and good if the authority has the moral sense to discern which books are suitable for the public good and which are not, but I see no way to guarantee that the authority has such moral sense. In our morally bankrupt society, I certainly wouldn’t trust any authority with that power.

I nominate the collected works of Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club -- as much as I enjoyed it -- included. I think they adequately fill the requirements, particularly "leaving the void of ignorance and depravity."

Oh, and Philip Pullman's Golden Compass trilogy -- whatever it's official title is. Child sacrifices have never sat well with me.

Okay, Kyle, I'll have people bring their own copies of the books and burn them on private property.

Bar-b-que at Lydia's house!!!

Apparently we've agreed to burn Rodak's computer (wink).

Fortunately, Steve, I don't own most of these. And I'd be looking for a place with a big, open, paved space, which my house doesn't have.

Is asserting a couple of counterpoints tantamount to wringing one’s hands?

This thread is not a discussion about the moral legitimacy of book burning, Kyle. Clearly we've already decided in favor of it. Now we're just going to get down to burning some books. Unless you've got a pernicious tome to offer to the flames, move along.

What, you don't want to leave 120 Days of Sodom lying around for your children to engage in open, hospitable discussion and thus expand their minds?

What we need is a good old-fashioned church parking lot.

What, you don't want to leave 120 Days of Sodom lying around for your children to engage in open, hospitable discussion and thus expand their minds?

Nope. De Sade's works may possess a certain formal literary quality, but the notion that they exhibit any sort of profundity that renders them worth preserving is just bunkum. You can lend eloquence to discussions of unspeakable perversions and depravities, but in the end, you're still addressing abominations which St. Paul indicated it is shameful even to name. You're not even putting lipstick on a pig; you're engaged in a quintessential act of nihilism: associating the good of beautiful, eloquent uses of language, a distinguishing characteristic of humanity, even the divine image in man, with infernal and blasphemous subjects. Seen in this light, such works are the literary analogue of a black mass.

Burn them.

Just to be clear -- in case I was misread -- that comment was a response to Lydia's "Fortunately, Steve, I don't own most of these" and was sarcastically intended.

Preach on, Maximos.

Machiavelli's The Prince.

Why?

Ah, the smell of burning hellish books reminds me of the olden days when our government allowed us unwashed peasants to burn leaves in the fall...makes we want to break out in song! Books are burning, Lord...Kumbayah! With all the heat we're generating, how bout roasting some weenies?

I'm particularly incensed at Mr. Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason," and his "Metaphysics of Morals"... in German. Burn.

O.k., let's move beyond books and start focusing on authors. First, a retroactive burning at the stake for De Sade, Marx, Freud, Hitler, Kant (we'll argue aboute Locke, I know) et al.

Once we reacquaint our countrymen with this virtue of this socially wholesome practice, we can work on contemporary threats. I have first dibs on Dawkins.

La Mettrie, man is nothing but a machine, the ultimate blurring of ontogenies, the greatest category mistake of all. An idea that for the worst has seeped into everyday language ,lent itself to dehumanization in various fields, spread it's pernicious self down through the centuries, and has lent itself to power grubbers and statist thugs the world over.

Margaret Sanger, but I think Planned Parenthood has beat us to it. From what I've heard, they've been buying her old books and releasing "edited" copies ever since it became unfashionable to talk of blacks and Catholics in terms of "society's undesirables."

Koran.

In the same vein, Book of Mormon.

"Machiavelli's The Prince.

Wh"y?

This is one of the first books to cheerlead for consequentialism.

This is one of the first books to cheerlead for consequentialism.

Is THAT all?

But even if it were so, considering that practically we all are more or less consequentialists most of the time, you would face a strong popular disagreement with your verdict.

So perhaps you should look for other incriminating reasons for burning "The Prince" than consequentialism.

btw., if "this is one of the first books to cheerlead for consequentialism" what would be the other few?

I'm particularly incensed at Mr. Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason," and his "Metaphysics of Morals"... Burn.

Why???? You Kant do that!

"...we all are more or less consequentialists most of the time, you would face a strong popular disagreement with your verdict."

First, speak for yourself. Second, the fact that an odious practice or concept has taken root necessitates it's removal. Prepare a flame for "The Prince"

odious practice or concept?

Now what exactly is odious about a concept that an act is moral if its outcomes are good?

Georg Berkeley was a rather outspoken believer of consequentialism. Would you characterise him as a supporter of "odious practice or concept"?

Was Jesus promoting "odious practice or concept" when saying "by their fruits you shall know them"?

But perhaps you meant "utilitarism"?

You'd be out a benny on that one.

Really? What have you read? I'm genuinely curious.

Does that mean Mike says we're allowed to burn Of Grammatology, provided we've read more than 50 pages of that particular one? Is it worth the price?

Is this an admission?

I'm particularly incensed at Mr. Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason," and his "Metaphysics of Morals"... in German. Burn.

My head esplode.

I think I'll bow out of this particular intellectual blackhole now, thanks.

T. Hanski says: Now what exactly is odious about a concept that an act is moral if its outcomes are good?

Does this mean if killing all Muslims in the United States would send a stark message to terrorists and, consequently, deter them from committing any future terrorist attacks; this genocide is not only justified but is moral?

Hey, hey, hey! Let's just throw the books into the flames; do we have to read them before we toss 'em? How about Roger Haight's Jesus: Symbol of God? That one ought to burn quite nicely!

"Now what exactly is odious about a concept that an act is moral if its outcomes are good?"

That rationalization has been served up to justify the most hideous of acts; Hiroshima, euthanasia, warehousing of the poor, etc. etc.

Utilitarism is consequentialism in full flower. Let's toss John Stuart Mill into the pit. And Georg Berkeley sounds like a candidate, though I never heard of him. Better to be too zealous than too lax.

Pass the lighter fluid. We're just getting started.

Pass the lighter fluid. We're just getting started.

Good -- while you're at it, throw in this post/thread as well.

Nice one, Aristocles. Top prize goes to Steve for "Bar-b-que at Lydia's house!!!" Because sweet, tangy flavor is the sign of a high-falutin book burning.

Really? What have you read? I'm genuinely curious.

Oh, about the first 60 pages of Of Grammatology. I think that would qualify me to win the bet though.

Just kidding, I really did struggle through the whole thing about 10 years ago. I'd say I would have found his cafe philosophe obscurantism just silly in a clever and erudite way (the sort of thing that confirms most folks in the idea that philosophy is just word games played by smart people and designed to make them feel stupid) if it weren't that so many bright and directionless young literary students of our time (much like yourself, it would appear) had actually taken him half as seriously as he was taking himself. Of course I immediately was able to "deconstruct" the disastrously erroneous presuppositions on which Derrida's thesis is based, the more publicized of which I need not mention, but chiefly the idea that logos doctrine is something that could have been originally understood at all in terms of presuppositions, instead of the immediate apprehension of reality. But (ehem) "what is truth?"

The trouble with the philosophes is that they have always been accepted rather on the basis of the fashionable political positions which they espouse, instead of the rigor of their thought and the light that it brings. The obscurantism of Derrida and his kind is what is so pernicious. Philosophy, you see, is not for academics--it is for people; the philosopher is either a public servant or a public menace.

But of course I'm neither an academic, nor a trained philosopher, nor an ex-pat living in Paris. I'm just some guy. So I suppose I could be just all wrong. Being that the former is true, the latter likely is as well.

De Sade's works may possess a certain formal literary quality, but the notion that they exhibit any sort of profundity that renders them worth preserving is just bunkum. You can lend eloquence to discussions of unspeakable perversions and depravities, but in the end, you're still addressing abominations which St. Paul indicated it is shameful even to name. You're not even putting lipstick on a pig; you're engaged in a quintessential act of nihilism: associating the good of beautiful, eloquent uses of language, a distinguishing characteristic of humanity, even the divine image in man, with infernal and blasphemous subjects. Seen in this light, such works are the literary analogue of a black mass.

Maximos, at the risk of sounding like I'm sucking up to my host, I really must say "bravo" to this post. Bravo. As Letterman once said to Schaeffer, "you've crystallized my thoughts exactly."

...The trouble with the philosophes is that they have always been accepted rather on the basis of the fashionable political positions which they espouse, instead of the rigor of their thought and the light that it brings.

Doesn't this apply to The Prince?

I'd say I would have found his cafe philosophe obscurantism just silly in a clever and erudite way (the sort of thing that confirms most folks in the idea that philosophy is just word games played by smart people and designed to make them feel stupid). . .

Ahhh. So your ability to understand is the universal standard. If something is obscure to you, then darn, it must be obscure for everyone!

Of course I immediately was able to "deconstruct" the disastrously erroneous presuppositions on which Derrida's thesis is based, the more publicized of which I need not mention, but chiefly the idea that logos doctrine is something that could have been originally understood at all in terms of presuppositions, instead of the immediate apprehension of reality. But (ehem) "what is truth?"

For the sake of my curiousity, what are some of the "disastrously erroneous presuppositions" you're talking about?

I can't follow the last part of this paragraph. You're saying that Derrida says the logos is all about "presuppositions" (propositions?) as opposed to some immediate apprehension of reality? This seems like a non sequitor in terms of Of Grammatology, but I'm hardly an expert on that book.

Does this mean if killing all Muslims in the United States would send a stark message to terrorists and, consequently, deter them from committing any future terrorist attacks; this genocide is not only justified but is moral?

Oh boy, what a bizarre and utterly unrealistic scenario.

And what does it have to do with idea of consenquentialism - or a concept that an act is moral if its outcomes are good? Unless you think that consenquentialism defines as "good" anything that promotes one´s goals and is completely neutral about the choice of the means. In that case I think you should acquaint yourself better with the concept.

And, by the way, I don,t think killing every moslem in the US would stop world islamic terrorism.

With few exceptions (sorry T.Hanski), it's clear most of us know which titles should be torched.

Given the season of Lent, it's probably more fruitful to revisit and expand on Maximos's Canon of Conservative Literature. Folks could offer books that have helped one in their search for the Truth. This probably means jettisoning the largely meaningless term "conservative".

For what it is worth, I propose; Myles Connolly's spiritual masterpiece, "'Mr. Blue", "Quo Vadis by Henryk K Sienkiewicz and Henri de Lubac's "The Drama of Atheist Humanism"

Ahhh. So your ability to understand is the universal standard. If something is obscure to you, then darn, it must be obscure for everyone!

But you've misunderstood me (must be that nasty differance at work). I don't mean to say that Derrida is difficult to understand, and is therefore bad. It is true that he is difficult to understand, but so is Thomas Aquinas. The point that I make is that where Thomas' goal is to bring light, to remove obstacles to understanding reality, Derrida's goal is to obscure that which has already been understood. This is what deconstruction is about. It's what differance is about. Once you do understand Aquinas, things are clear. To understand Derrida is to find meaning and reality obscured.

I can't follow the last part of this paragraph. You're saying that Derrida says the logos is all about "presuppositions" (propositions?) as opposed to some immediate apprehension of reality? This seems like a non sequitor in terms of Of Grammatology, but I'm hardly an expert on that book.

I'm afraid I can't get drawn in to a protracted discussion on Derrida, since I really just came here to burn his books, not debate them. But he doesn't waste much time in assaulting classical metaphysics in On Grammatology, so start from the beginning and you'll be on to it before long. I'm working from memory myself, since I don't have the book in my library currently (burned it).

And Georg Berkeley sounds like a candidate, though I never heard of him.

Kevin has never heard of George Berkeley, yet he thinks he knows enough about consequentialism to send the guy to the pit.

Better to be too zealous than too lax.

wow!

And that from someone who talks of evil of Hiroshima, euthanasia, warehousing of the poor, etc. etc.

well, good night.

"I really just came here to burn his books, not debate them."

I love that line. Stick to that attitude. (I come not to praise Caesar...)

The conditional statement made is simply a hypothetical based nowhere in fact but was intended only to examine a point.

It is not stating that killing Muslims would actually result in the prevention of terrorist attacks in reality.

It is basically inquiring into the matter wherein let's suppose that killing Muslims would consequently deter any future terrorist attacks; would that end justify the means?

I was merely thinking along the lines of Kevin's though who subsequently posted: "That rationalization has been served up to justify the most hideous of acts; Hiroshima, euthanasia, warehousing of the poor, etc. etc."

To understand Derrida is to find meaning and reality obscured.

Your logical, rational mind doesn't see that this sentence contradicts itself?

Will familiarity with Georg Berkeley or a doctorate in Philosophy allow me to find the moral nuance within genocide? Come on, T. Hanski emerge from your library of soul deadening books, drop the shallow sophistry that serves only to obscure the truth and choose life. Please.

A prayer for us all;
"Pray always for all the learned, the oblique, the delicate. Let them not be quite forgotten at the throne of God when the simple come into their kingdom."
Evelyn Waugh

Your logical, rational mind doesn't see that this sentence contradicts itself?

No more than Derrida himself is self-contradictory. But I think he would see this as a virtue, whereas I don't. But let me play this out for a moment. Supposing I were to say something like this: "All truths claims are merely plays for power." Now this is a statement that is, on one level, readily understood by anyone who reads it. On a second level it is, of course, self-contradictory in that it implies at the same time a moral judgment against mere plays for power, and yet if the statement is to be true then the statement itself is a mere play for power and by implication should not be trusted on that basis. And around we go. So when I say "to understand Derrida...", I mean only, "to get his message", which, when received, ultimately undermines the objective foundation of knowledge, language and meaning. In seeking to undermine classical metaphysics, he cuts off the branch on which he is sitting. Certainly this is self-contradictory. But without a doctrine of logos, you've just got turtles all the way down. Anti-realists have the privilege of resting on the capital of realistic metaphysics as a support for their anti-realist musings, which is why they can even write at all. Yeah, it's self-contradictory, which is why reading them is dangerous to one's intellectual health, and believing them absolutely fatal to it.

You won't get anywhere with Mike, Byronic. Check out his blog and (by my memory of it from some time back--I haven't looked lately) you'll see why. He's really into this stuff.

I don't expect to get anywhere with him. I'm just trying to shoo him away from our little book burning party (and that Kyle guy too). But I might be going about it all wrong. Yeah I did check out the blog for a few minutes. I see what you mean.

I'm into Derrida myself. He was a great idol-smasher.

I'm into Derrida myself. He was a great idol-smasher.

Iconoclasm is easy. Anyone can do it. All it takes is the ability to sneer. The iconoclast is free from the burden of having to build anything. As any child knows, it's much easier to tear something down than to build something. Any knucklehead with a ball and crane can destroy a cathedral in a few days time, a work of art that took 200 years to build. But no one is interested in the crane operator. Yet, centuries later, people flock from the world over to tour the cathedral, and to find out just what sort of society is capable of even dreaming up such a thing as the cathedral of Chartres, let alone building it. Just what sort of civilization is capable of such a sustained, common effort that could realize the beauty, magnificence, and transcendence of the Gothic cathedral? The man who journeys three thousand miles to visit the home of the German bomber pilot who dropped the 500 pounder on St. Paul's is more than a bit perverse, wouldn't you say?

Have you been to Chartres? Your Jacques Derrida is rather small in comparison.

Kevin,

Will familiarity with Georg Berkeley or a doctorate in Philosophy allow me to find the moral nuance within genocide?

That I don't know.

Besides, who and where asks you "to find the moral nuance within genocide"? You are getting frantic with figments of your own imagination. Please do relax.

I just pointed out that someone who cheerfully declares his unawareness of George Berkeley while making assertions about consenquentiality makes public his utter ignorance of the subject. He can not be taken seriously any more than someone talking about General Relativity who has never heard of Einstein.

Good day to you.

Wow. Look what reard it's head. Not only does this confirm my choice of The Prince for the flames, perhaps it belongs on the short list.

We each have our vocations, Byronicman. Some, like St. Thomas Aquinas, are called to build great systems of thought. Others, like Derrida, are there to make sure we don't confuse our buildings with Truth itself. But Derrida is not interested in simply tearing down. He was actually quite affirmative. He deconstructed in the name of and out of love for the undeconstructible. Deconstruction presupposes reconstruction.

Unfortunately, I haven't been to Chartres, but your description has certainly made me want to visit.

We each have our vocations, Byronicman. Some, like St. Thomas Aquinas, are called to build great systems of thought. Others, like Derrida, are there to make sure we don't confuse our buildings with Truth itself.

But you don't know what Thomas' moderate realism is do you? It doesn't fall prey to the danger you imagine Derrida tried to save it from.

But Derrida is not interested in simply tearing down. He was actually quite affirmative. He deconstructed in the name of and out of love for the undeconstructible. Deconstruction presupposes reconstruction.

Nonsense. Laughable nonsense.

T Hanski,
Are you saying that one has to know who Alfredo Rocco is before one can have an informed opinion on Fascism? Hundreds of millions know first hand Communism is an evil delusion, yet can't tell you a thing about Marx. Are they wrong?

According to Consequentialism the morality of a particular act is contingent on the result achieved. The bombing of a civilian center can thus be termed "good", if it produces the desired effect; victory.

Since the Fall, we have been born with an infinite capacity to rationalize our darkest deeds. It is a tribute to modern man though, that we could construct an entire school of philosophical thought to serve as an intellectual ruse for our worst impulses.

Now, stoke the flames and toss your Bentham books in.

But you don't know what Thomas' moderate realism is do you? It doesn't fall prey to the danger you imagine Derrida tried to save it from.

I didn't say it did. You presume too much.

Nonsense. Laughable nonsense.

Not at all. I'll let Derrida speak for himself:

"I never said everything is linguistic and we're enclosed in language. In fact, I say the opposite, and the deconstruction of logocentrism was conceived to dismantle precisely this philosophy for which everything is language. Anyone who reads my work with attention understands that I insist on affirmation and faith, and that I'm full of respect for the texts I read."

Derrida deconstructed in the hope of that which is to come. Another telling quote of his:

"We are by nature messianic. We cannot not be, because we exist in a state of expecting something to happen. Even if we're in a state of hopelessness, a sense of expectation is an integral part of our relationship to time."

My interpretation of Derrida may be wrong, but I can offer evidence in support of my interpretation.

Can you?

You can make Derrida say anything you want. That's part of his dubious charm, especially to his defenders. The same is true of Heidegger. Any criticism will always be said to be based on a "misinterpretation." All of which is pretty darned ironic considering the scorn post-modernists heap upon those who insist that there is a real, objective meaning to the writings of, say, Shakespeare. Or anybody the deconstructionists happen to want to deconstruct.

My interpretation of Derrida may be wrong, but I can offer evidence in support of my interpretation.

Can you?

Let me see what I can whip up for you.

First off, Derrida's wordgames have got you hoodwinked. You don't see what his philosophy actually accomplishes, what its final effect is on the mind that follows it out. The mind is imprisoned in a subjectivity from which it cannot escape, held captive by differance, and bound by the freedom to deconstruct any "text" Everything is a "text" for Derrida, and a text can never come to a resting place in meaning, since differance leaves the enigmatic trace behind which we cannot go.

You don't see the immediate implications of Derrida's disconnecting of knowledge from language, and neither are you recognizing that his statement "we cannot be", means "we cannot know". He does enclose us in language by denying the passive receptivity of the mind to logos. There's no embodiment of truth in philosophy for Derrida, since knowledge and meaning are always deferred. The Logos is knowledge incarnate, and thus, philosophy can be true. But not for Derrida, for whom inherent in the logos doctrine is an unjustifiably phallo-centric submission to presence, based on erroneous presuppositions that must be destroyed.

Kant defended his philosophy on the grounds that he was saving faith for man. But of course his errors destroy faith for the same reason Derrida's do--if one follows out the implications of his philosophy. "Grace builds on nature", you see. But grace cannot penetrate nature if nature is captive to Kant's categories, or to Derrida's differance. So, Derrida's remonstrations
notwithstanding, he makes everything linguistic and encloses in language. If there is any faith available to a Kantian or a Derridean, it is a fideism not worthy or serious intellectual engagement, most especially for a Catholic, which is what you claim to be, is it not?

You can make Derrida say anything you want. That's part of his dubious charm, especially to his defenders. The same is true of Heidegger. Any criticism will always be said to be based on a "misinterpretation." All of which is pretty darned ironic considering the scorn post-modernists heap upon those who insist that there is a real, objective meaning to the writings of, say, Shakespeare. Or anybody the deconstructionists happen to want to deconstruct.

Ah, Lydia, it is so, what you say. Derrida is the philosopher's Oscar Wilde, a pied piper for the merely bright and intellectually pretentious. There's not an ounce of protein in him, but plenty of poison. To the flames.

And really, there's much good in Wilde, so my intention was not to deride him.

You can make Derrida say anything you want. That's part of his dubious charm, especially to his defenders. The same is true of Heidegger. Any criticism will always be said to be based on a "misinterpretation."

I'm not interested in making Derrida say anything I want or in freeing Derrida from any criticism that may come his way. My interest is in understanding his philosophy. I'm not opposed to criticism of Derrida, either. There's plenty there to criticize. But let's criticize what he actually said, not some fiction that has no correspondence to reality.

If you believe texts have real, objective meaning, then make an attempt to understand the real, objective meaning of Derrida's writings and to criticize that real, objective meaning. If you're not interested in understanding the philosophy of Derrida, fine, but then what basis do you have to say anything about his project?

"...there's much good in Wilde,"

Gross understatement. The Picture of Dorian Gray belongs in the Canon of Conservative Literature.

"...there's much good in Wilde,"

Gross understatement. The Picture of Dorian Gray belongs in the Canon of Conservative Literature.

Well I certainly agree, I couldn't agree more. I think you take my point though. Wilde should be read in his entirety, but too many take him as a libertine hero, which he was, briefly, in his heyday. But in no way is he a libertine hero. He's a cautionary tale. And, I trust, now with the Lord.

If you believe texts have real, objective meaning, then make an attempt to understand the real, objective meaning of Derrida's writings and to criticize that real, objective meaning.

I think that's what we're doing. But does Derrida's own system (it's not really a system, but I use the term loosely) allow it? The truth is, there's no profit to be had from him. Oh, a seasoned professional may enjoy an excursus into Derrida for occasional distraction and exercise. But life is short, and time is precious. Not enough time for me to waste on the man's relentlessly profuse prevarications. As Maximos has well said:

It would have been better for all the world had they never been written, or, having once been written, that they had been consigned to the flames, so that we could discuss the temperature at which ignorance burns.

I wonder, Kyle, if you are at all familiar with the delightful speculations of Owen Barfield? He's a very minor philosopher, of course, and burdened with an occultism and some Christian heterodoxies which ought to give caution to a sober Catholic. But on the whole he's simply a marvelous read, every one of his books. Not as a main course, but certainly a delectable aperitif. Any man whom C.S. Lewis credits as "the wisest of my unofficial teachers" deserves attention, for my money, at least.

I'm ready to burn some religious book-age: Richard McBrien's Catholicism and Encyclopedia of Catholicism. Here's some ethics lighter fluid: Boston College's own Lisa Sowle Cahill's Sex, Gender, and Christian Ethics and her representing GLBT as something needed to be "revisited" by the Church.

Thank you for offering an analysis of Derrida's thought, Byronicman. If I have been hoodwinked by Derrida's word games, you have not yet removed the blindfold covering my eyes. All you have given me is your as of yet unsupported synopsis of Derrida work, much of which differs from my understanding of the man's project. You may be right; I'm open to being persuaded that Derrida's work is bad news, but I need evidence from the texts.

However, as you said, this thread is about naming books for the fire, you have not the time to spend on Derrida’s “relentlessly profuse prevarications,” as you call them, and here I am being something of a troll. I’d love to discuss Derrida’s works, but this seems not to be the time or place. If opportunity presents itself in the future, I’m game.

For the record, I am Catholic, and I am not a Derridean, though Derrida has undoubtedly informed my philosophical thinking.

I haven’t read Owen Barfield, but I’ll look into him. He was an Inkling, right? Thanks for the recommendation.

Kyle-

Well I certainly wouldn't presume to think that I'm the man to persuade you of anything. LIke I said, I just came here to burn some books. But, in the interest of the public good, you are clearly a person of intelligence, and since you have a taste for the speculative, I really think you will enjoy Barfield. In fact, I can almost guarantee it. Yes he was a sometime Inkling, although not an Oxford resident like Tollers and CSL et al. I'd suggest starting with Saving The Appearances and Poetic Diction.

Kyle,
For what it's worth, I suspect you'll find Barfield a treat and a challenge. I think that his Speaker's Meaning and Poetic Diction, are well worth a read. The former turns out to be a linguistic argument against evolution. Try also Lionel Adey's C. S. Lewis's Great War with Owen Barfield, which recounts the three decades long debate between the two. It's both fun and enlightening.
Cheers.

Barfield served as a marvelous corrective to the young CSL. As much as Tolkien was an influence in his conversion, I think Barfield gets too little credit (from others) for really sending Lewis on his way, for straightening him out on the "chronological snobbery" problem which was no small feat.

Michael Bauman--boy, would I love to be involved in a Barfield discussion group. It's seems so hard to find anyone who's interested in him and who knows his books.

Books to Singe but not to consign to the Flames.
I haven't checked out all of the thousands of posts above, but did anybody mention Descartes? A father of both reductionism and skepticism, a forerunner to deviations on subjects such as epistemology and the Self, a influence on unrestrained speculation of the sort that has helped philosophy separate itself from what is derisively called common sense.

In the words of a venerable Catholic philosophy prof friend of mine, "Philosophy never quite recovered from Descartes." I call RD "the father of navel gazing".

Now, now, chaps. I think Descartes gets a bad rap in Catholic circles. I'm going to vote strongly against either singeing or burning him. I'm of the highly controversial point of view that the right sort of modernism (in the sense of 17th and 18th century) is Christianity's best friend. I'm not trying to initiate a debate on this point, merely to raise an objection to any Descartes-burning.

Lydia,

If you are speaking of the sort of modernism that has allowed the sciences to flourish, certainly I'd agree (though it needed the order brought by the medieval synthesis upon which to build). There needed to be a shift towards a greater concentration on efficient causation, which necessarily leads to looking at the atom, or in other words, to stare at one's navel. But then again, it's inevitable that the more man stares at the atoms that "make up" the world, the more apt he is to lose his own proper place in it. So the trade-off