Discover

Islam and the West

Minsik readers
0.0
0 ratings
Other platforms
0.0
0 ratings
192
PAGES
~3h 12min
READING TIME
English
LANGUAGE
Van Nostrand 5 views
ISBN
0882757873
5 views
Minsik want to read: 0
Minsik reading: 0
Minsik read: 0
Open Library want to read: 0
Open Library reading: 0
Open Library read: 0

About Author

Jacques Derrida

The Searle–Derrida debate is a famous intellectual dispute opposing John Searle and Jacques Derrida, after Derrida responded to J. L. Austin's theory of the illocutionary act in his 1972 paper "Signature Event Context". In his 1977 essay Reiterating the Differences: A Reply to Derrida, Searle argued that Derrida's apparent rejection of Austin was unwarranted, but later refused to let this 1977 reply be printed along with Derrida's papers in the 1988 collection Limited Inc—in which a new text by Derrida responded to Searle's positions on the topic. In the 1990s, Searle clarified why he did not consider Derrida's approach to be legitimate philosophy. Commentators have sometimes interpreted the seemingly failed nature of the exchange between Searle and Derrida as a prominent example of a confrontation between analytical and continental philosophy, some having considered it a series of elaborate misunderstandings while others have seen either Searle or Derrida gaining the upper hand. While the fundamental opposition between the two philosophers lay in their different understanding of intentionality, the debate is famous for its degree of mutual hostility, which can be seen from Searle's statement that "It would be a mistake to regard Derrida's discussion of Austin as a confrontation between two prominent philosophical traditions", to which Derrida replied that that sentence was "the only sentence of the 'reply' to which I can subscribe".

Description

The sentiments at the heart of this book are admirable: an understanding that democracy is constantly evolving (“democracy is the only political system... which accepts its perfectibility.... Democracy is always to come”); the belief that it is only by engaging the Other that we can end humanity's struggles; the need to remember that there is no single way of being Muslim or Western. However, the ideas are enervated by their poor presentation; the conversation between Derrida and Chérif is meandering and esoteric and not intended for a general audience; furthermore, this slim volume is also deeply repetitive and all but devoid of actionable suggestions—readers will be frustrated by repeated calls for dialogue that come unencumbered by suggestions as to how to work toward that goal. The book's most peculiar flaw is its paucity of Derrida—the short conversation is overwhelmed by two introductions, a conclusion and a touching afterword—a eulogy to the philosopher, who died some 15 months after this discussion took place.

Detailed Ratings

0.0Emotional Impact
No ratings yet
0.0Intellectual Depth
No ratings yet
0.0Writing Quality
No ratings yet
0.0Rereadability
No ratings yet
0.0Pacing
No ratings yet
0.0Readability
No ratings yet
0.0Plot Complexity
No ratings yet
0.0Humor
No ratings yet