Someone once complained, "You evangelicals treat Derrida as the postmodern bashing boy without the courtesy of understanding him properly first!"
Maybe, that's true!
But it seems odd to me why anyone should be faulted since (thanks to Derrida!) the meaning of the written text has been freed from authorial intent?
Maybe, that's true!
But it seems odd to me why anyone should be faulted since (thanks to Derrida!) the meaning of the written text has been freed from authorial intent?
Comments
Still, to be fair, I heard Derrida was himself quite a pleasant fellow, and that some aspects of his post-structural philosophy are nuanced enough to not deserve the vitriol it receives (but I'm too shallow to know how that's so).
BK
we could ask which 'crime' is worse: canceling authorial intention or judgment without a full trial? ;>)
As it is, I'm free to find critique the hidden layers behind the text... no? heheh...
are you SURE Derrida says/implies we shouldn't?
as someone who upholds authorial intent, do *you* feel you should? (I'd like to think that 'Love your enemies' can be applied hermeneutically as well...)
i'm actually reading up a bit on Derrida at the moment. it's pretty interesting, but for the life i find his own writing difficult to grasp (he seems to deliberately make it his works hard to understand! see his book 'Glas'; i haven't, but some say it's his most confusing since 'Post Card')
Well, to employ the 'reductio ad absurdum' argument, I dun need to affirm authorial intent. (or love my neighbor, for that matter)
All I need is to employ Derrida's position (as far as I'm sure of it heheh) and bring it to its conclusion... :) That's how it works...
therefore if the text is 'author-less' then you saying that "Derrida means so and so and so" is somewhat *inconsistent* with Derrida-ism, isn't it? You're still saying that Derrida *is the author* of something.
so, is there an author or not, 'as far as you are sure'? and are you SURE the reduction ad absurdum applies? why not just give hold your horses and seek to understand first? (u even conceded u don't understand him *properly*)
but how would we know if we don't bother to read him deeper and just engage in postmodern bashing?
how would u like it if someone did Reformed bashing without bothering to understand the Reformers and ppl like Piper, Sproul, et al? :)
question: do you know WHY Derrida removed authorial intent? do u know the problems/issues he was thinking through? do you see some *true* aspects of his philosophy? would you not agree that our language is to SOME degree socially constructed?
things like this la... don't be so heavy-handed on ppl mah... some more we always get upset when ppl misinterpret our own theology, rite?
"If I can defend the faith with all the reductio ad absurdum arguments in the world, but have not love, then I am nothing" (1 Cor 13 rephrased)
At last! Someone actually attempted to get out of the reductio ad absurdum argument... I was hoping for this challenge when I posted this.
(If I've no love, I am nothing, bro... But the argument still stands, rite? heheh... I thot we're talking abt issues, not abt people?)
I note the *what if*, so you're also not sure izzit? Let's have a deal: I'd be happy to show you WHY Derrida removed authorial intent and list down *true* aspects of his philosophy IF you are able to show me WHY Derrida didn't remove authorial intent and list down *false* aspects of his philosophy... heheh, how abt that? Like that onli fair mar... takkan lar, you send your horses charging and expect me to keep them in the stable meh? heheh... Bring em on, bro!
If you say: "Yes, I removed the author from the text, but this doesn't entail that you can ascribe just anything to anybody, for the simple reason that THERE IS NO AUTHOR."
Since there's no author, so I'm free to ascribe any meaning into this author-less text, no? There's nobody there.. so what's the problem? heheh...
Are you talking to me? (No author behind this comment lar...)
Therefore if the text is 'author-less' then you saying that "Derrida means so and so and so" is not *inconsistent* simply because there is no Derrida, the author. Am I missing stg here?
I'm still saying that Derrida *is the author* of something. But there is no Derrida. Hahah!
I'd stand corrected if anyone can show me from Derrida's works that this reduction ad absurdum doesn't applies... Unless shown otherwise, here i stand so help me God!
PS: I'd not like it if someone did Reformed bashing without bothering to understand the Reformers BUT.. Are you sure you are comparing orange with orange, my fren...??
Show me one Reformer who liberates the meaning of text from authorial intent, will ya? Only then wud the same irony applies...
i think my point is made: You're not sure and neither am I (I never said I was, i just threw out the challenge to show that you weren't as well).
so why don't we put aside the bashing and focus on understanding our French first? And, no, the argument does NOT 'stand' (yet!) because you are not sure, right?
whatever the ISSUE is, let's be fair. i'm not speaking as a Derridean but as a Christian. i have NO PROBLEM with using a 'reductio ad absurdum' argument, but i contend that NEITHER of us are sure of what Derrida actually wrote.
Not only that, if our FOCUS is on shooting ppl down, this doesn't help us much, it doesn't help them, nobody learns much, ppl get upset and Christians are known more as criticisers than builders. Wouldn't YOU prefer it if someone saw the good parts of your thoelogy BEFORE highlighting the negative?
it's just being nice and fair, my friend. :)
As for Reformed theology, of COURSE I don't intend to use 'reductio ad absurdum' on you. The analogy applies to 'mocking without understanding'. You don't like caricatures and 'quick-hits'; neither does Derrida, I suppose (whatever his philsoophy may IMPLY).
Dun be so quick to settle for a stalemate.. I just accepted your challenge that I'm sure that Derrida thinks we should not or could not get to the author's intended meaning... Dun back out on me ok?
That much i understand. IMHO it's a more daunting task for you to show otherwise...
Once and for all, I firmly agree with Vanhoozer that it's our *ethical responsibility* to understand the intended meaning of the text... We have that duty simply bcos we can and should get to authorial intent. If not why complain like you did? heheh
So you missed the point when you have yet to dismantle my crucial premise. That one thing I'm sure of derrida's philosophy which has the most impact on hermeneutics. I can list the good stuffs, but let's settle this one.
IMHO your admission that Derrida denied the 'presence' of the author is not a resolution to the problem.. You just dug the hole deeper!
"...treat Derrida as the postmodern bashing boy without the courtesy of understanding him properly first!"
that's the ONLY thing I was responding to. that u must understand ppl first before bashing them. If u can agree on this, let's move on :)
(and hey i didn't even say that i'm for Derrida's views. in fact, i'm just starting to read up on him...yes the dude is weird, but i enjoy reading weird ppl, i find they stimulate thinking somewhat)
but no problem, we can dig into him deeper...(only dontcha think we should start a separate thread?)
ok, u do your reading. i do mine. will revert later.
I agree that it's wrong to critique what we dunno.
Which comes to the question:
Are you sure that Derrida thinks we can/should get to authorial intent before you critique me? heheh...
IF i may say a good thing for the postmodern bashing boy, he's not all that diff from our evangelical interpreters... We always ask "What does it mean to you today" during CG, bible study before thinking abt the texts historical referent, if at all.
Nice post here:
http://alwynlau.blogdrive.com/archive/18.html