speaking of Derrida, though…

I’m back into Martin Hägglund’s Derrida book, Radical Atheism, and really enjoying it. Hägglund knows how to get right to the point.

a sample

Most of you have seen this, but this was Leiter at his below-the-belt worst:

“Jacques Derrida has died… …according to the BBC. He died last night in Paris, age 74, from pancreatic cancer. Alas, he is being referred to as a philosopher.”

Alas, it was from this remarkably callous post that I first learned the news.

I don’t see much excuse for a statement like this at a time like that. And let me add, I am not a Derrida fan in the least, and also did not find the much-protested NY Times obituary to be out of line at all. (I thought it was shallow and flip, but not especially insulting, and needless to say I did not sign the petition against it. If you profit from a good deal of unthinking adulation, you can also expect to be the object of a good deal of unthinking critique.)

Leiter’s post, however, was the sort of thing that only an aggressively vicious person could write at the very moment when someone dies of pancreatic cancer. Mr. Leiter, the same thing could easily happen to you without much notice, and I can promise I won’t choose that very moment to say “alas” if you happen to be praised.

He also kept piling on for a few days, as you’ll see if you read some of his ensuing posts from the rest of October 2004. Leiter is the Rush Limbaugh of analytic philosophy.

Burns vs. Leiter

I thought Michael O’Neill Burns at DAILY HUMILIATION did a nice job responding to Brian Leiter.

My sense of Leiter is probably the same as that of most people in our circles. Well, perhaps just a touch more positive– he does offer quite a bit of useful information on his blog.

However, Leiter manages to combine the stereotypically jerkish traits of a dogmatic analytic philosopher with the stereotypically jerkish traits of the self-appointed kingmaker (“I dub thee #5 in epistemology”), and has devoted his recent years to amassing a great deal of institutional power that is not necessarily paralleled by great quality in his original work. Leiter is essentially a bully, and bullies are always worthy of our contempt.

What we should avoid doing, however, is falling into the role vis-à-vis Leiter of “you hurt my feelings” continentals. He and his like will always have contempt for what all of us do, and the proper reaction to this is twofold:

1. Stop expecting any sort of institutional recognition or inroads in the universe they dominate.

2. Also face the hard reality that there’s a grain of truth in their criticisms of mainstream continental philosophy. We really have been guilty of writing too many book reports and not enough philosophy.

In short, my attitude toward Leiter is roughly the same as my attitude toward Alan Sokal. They’re not especially deep or intellectually meritorious figures, and no one will be reading them or even remembering them a few decades hence. But at the same time– don’t be offended by them (they’ll never appreciate you no matter what, so don’t bother), but try to recognize that they occasionally burst balloons that deserve to be burst.

Anyway, thanks to Mr. Burns for his brief solo raid behind the walls of Barad-Dur.

citing the citation

Allusive Affinities liked the recent post on style.