I don't think its worth your time to convince me, MOI, of the worthlessness of the big three (Derrida, Barthes, Foucault...let's sneak in Lacan, too) because I'm just a modestly capable layman who is largely uninformed. But it clearly is worth your time to prove them wrong to their peers.
I'm not persuaded by your example that because a lightweight linguistic writer made a dumb statement about meaning, you are therefore excused from exposing the egregious flaws in people like Barthes, etc. I'm quite certain that major thinkers in the fields we're talking about leave large gaps and potential mistakes open for others to examine and remedy. No truly worthy and complex idea can be completely covered by one mind. When we question the arguments of the experts in ways that respect their efforts we are making a contribution to knowledge. That's what scholarship is. Anything less is not scholarship and is therefore invalid as rebuttal and unworthy as a contribution to knowledge. It's just barroom banter. So, yes, write your rebuttal of....why not start with Barthes (kinda tough since you seem to agree with him) and get it published and be the proved expert? Let's imagine the old western movie where one rumpled cowboy in the darkened saloon is boasting he could blast that outlaw in the street to kingdom come but never makes a move to go outside. It's the mysterious new sheriff who grimly steps outside to have the showdown with the outlaw who deserves the heroine's admiration, win, lose, or draw. Every artist who has earned the title goes up against the best that ever were with every new artwork. It's do or die every single time. None of them gets a pass. I don't think anyone can be creative without challenging the best...to seek to better them. As the great Sir Joshua Reynolds said to his Academy students, "Those who (are content to) follow are necessarily behind". Being creative means going out into the street to have the showdown with that scary hired gunman from Abeline. Take bullets. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sat, September 29, 2012 6:26:11 PM Subject: Re: Aesthetic Ideal I genuinely sympathize with much of your position here, William, but I'm damned if I'll spend countless hours explaining why a given philosopher is worth no time at all. Besides, consider the assignment this would entail. I would have to explain in detail why I cannot agree with a very, very large number of philosophers and critics I've read over the years. You sound as though you'd have me write a whole book each. For me it's much more satisfying to try to something creative than to spend a lifetime destroying. Much of what I've been writing amounts to the reason I reject various earlier thinkers. A quintessential specimen is a popular book by an academic philosopher called THE MEANING OF LANGUAGE. The third sentence of that book is, "The central feature of bits of language -- what makes them language -- is that they have meaning." I did read that whole book, but in truth that line on page one should have been enough to tell me this guy is going to irremediably muddled throughout. I feel sure you'd be able to name prominent critics in your field you intensely disdain, and whose lengthy book you'd recoil from critiquing at great length for the very reason the guy has nothing worth pondering. In a message dated 9/29/12 5:43:14 PM, [email protected] writes: > OK,Cheerskep has spoken. He has examined all the most influential people > in > depth and has decided they're all wet. Ordinarily, a scholar who decides > so and > so -- a most influential one --is dead wrong will write a book explaining > himself. If I really knew Barthes and Harris, for instance, were > empty-headed > philosophers and linguists or whatever, I'd get it in a book and lay claim > to > their mountain-top positions. It kinda bothers me when someone who claims > to > know so much, enough to topple the kings of elite academic criticism, says > he > doesn't have time to explain himself. It's one thing to dismiss a little > mind > with little ideas, not nice but understandable; it's another thing to > stand > aside and say the big minds are too stupid to refute with argument.
