Discover

The other heading

Minsik readers
0.0
0 ratings
Other platforms
0.0
0 ratings
129
PAGES
~2h 9min
READING TIME
English
LANGUAGE
Indiana University Press 3 views
ISBN
0253316936
3 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

"Prompted by the unification of Europe in 1992 and by recent events in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, Jacques Derrida begins this compelling essay on contemporary world politics with the issue of European identity. What, he asks, is Europe? How has Europe traditionally been defined and how is the current world situation changing that definition? Might the prospects of a New Europe demand not only a new definition of European identity but also a new way of thinking identity itself?" "Like a navigator, Derrida sets out from a Europe that has always defined itself as the capital of culture, the headland of thought, in whose name and for whose benefit exploration of other lands, other peoples, and other ways of thinking has been carried out. If such Eurocentric biases are not to be repeated, Derrida warns, the question of Europe must be asked in a new way; it must be asked by recalling another heading. Not only is it necessary for Europe to be responsible for the other, but its own identity is actually constituted by the other. Rejecting the easy or programmatic solutions of Euruocentrism or anti-Eurocentrism, of total unification or complete dispersion, Derrida argues for the necessity of working with and from the Enlightenment values of liberal democracy while at the same time recalling that these values do not themselves ensure respect for the other." "Navigating in and through texts of Marx, Husserl, and especially Valery, Derrida seeks a redefinition of European identity that includes respect both for difference and for universal values. The Other Heading appeals eloquently for a sustained effort at thinking through the complexity along with the multiple dangers and opportunities of the contemporary world situation without resorting to easy or hasty solutions."--BOOK JACKET.

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