You can't "disprove" someone who doesn't have a thesis. Or whose "thesis" is about "things" that condition the possibility of proof/disproof itself. This is why people object to Heidegger and Paul de Man on the basis of their politics rather than on the basis of their work.
Perhaps, but Derrida, at least from what I can make of what he's written, is ultimately attacking the possibility of proof/disproof itself by means of that system. If it were shown (using the system that Derrida uses to make his attack) that Derrida ultimately failed to undo the consistency of the system he was criticizing, there would no longer be an undoing of the system as shown by the system's own implications (or at least not the one that Derrida argued.)
I will also say that this is purely hypothetical; to call my knowledge of Derrida (and any other continental philosophy at that) "inadequate" would be much too generous. It's more or less a possibility that I'm noting along the way.
Comments 2
Reply
I will also say that this is purely hypothetical; to call my knowledge of Derrida (and any other continental philosophy at that) "inadequate" would be much too generous. It's more or less a possibility that I'm noting along the way.
Reply
Leave a comment