John Searle famously remarked that Derrida gives bullshit a bad name. Striking indeed is the French penchant for pseudo-literary vaporosity.
"Something" took place, we have the feeling of not having seen it coming, and certain consequences undeniably follow upon the "thing." But this very thing, the place and meaning of this "event," remains ineffable, like an intuition without concept, like a unicity with no generality on the horizon or with no horizon at all, out of range for a language that admits its powerlessness and so is reduced to pronouncing mechanically a date, repeating it endlessly, as a kind of ritual incantation, a conjuring poem, a journalistic litany or rhetorical refrain that admits to not knowing what it's talking about. We do not in fact know what we are saying or naming in this way: September 11, le 11 septembre, September 11. The brevity of the appellation (September 11, 9/11) stems not only from an economic or rhetorical necessity. The telegram of this metonymy—a name, a number—points out the unqualifiable by recognizing that we do not recognize or even cognize that we do not yet know how to qualify, that we do not know what we are talking about.
For the entire piece, go here. You are forgiven if you have had enough.
Todd Beamer knew right away.
Let's Roll.
Posted by: Joe Odegaard | Monday, September 11, 2023 at 08:21 AM
The late Roger Scruton was onto Derrida and his ilk.
How many college students eventually regretted every minute they wasted on such dreck? Makes you wonder if the reading process was part of the punishment, followed by the inevitable regurgitation struggle sessions.
Posted by: reply | Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 09:21 AM
Searle was right!
Posted by: Dmitri | Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 02:09 PM