04.28.08
Well, maybe not
I received this question in a comment from my last post that I decided not to approve because of some of the additional ad hominems that were written. But this is probably something I should answer given the controversial nature of Jacques Derrida among some of my fellow Orthodox,
“What is the relation between “Writing and Difference” and orthodox christianity or salvation?”
What I think Derrida has in common with Orthodoxy, as I’ve written in some of my other posts on this subject, is a criticism of the Platonic, and western, way of defining things in terms of opposition, superiority and inferiority as well as his being against marginalizing people or things based on unqualifiable prejudice.
I like some of his language about not judging others, but this is a more slippery slope because of his atheism, rejection of Orthodox revelation, and I’m not sure I understand the “violence” of his methods in deconstruction. These concerns may rightly disqualify him from my further attention, and as I respect those who do not seem to respect him, I think I’ll not jump right back into studying him again, though I do like his oftentimes poetic way of expressing things.
Maybe I’ll read the Philokalia instead.
Bahadir said,
April 30, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Mrs. Elisabeth I took my answer and I shut up. Soon of course I realized the way I asked the question was highly rude. But for me philosophy means a thought process which can be done after the death of God.(I am not saying this in favor of philosophy, I am not from stupid Richard Dawkins gang, but it is a given fact since Greece.)When put together there is an inconvenient feeling like encest (as in the so-called islamic philosophy etc.)Like Kierkegaard points out there is an existential gap between Hegel’s system (I take it as “philosophy”) and belief. Like Wittgenstein show us in his Frazer comment silence is the only thing that can be performed after a certain line is crossed.
The western modern philosophic tradition is a pseudo experience of “the other” (What Foucault shows us in his history of madness about Cogito)It is an oscilation between deconstruction (nothing, madness etc.) and onthology (what Nietzsche calls forgetfullness against the weight of history) It is a theatre play, a pharanoia in search of “the sense of reality” and happiness. This is why we easterners can not understand it. Because we have already got that sense. Also it is a sign of a will for hegemony. The reason has assumed to be capable of experince the other(madness, god, or what calls thing-in-itself)without loosing control. But we easterners (sons of Rumi’s, Christ’s,Yunus’s) have no claim to experience the nothing without loosing our honor and pride. WE LOOSE OURSELVES IN GOD.(It is not pantheism also, you have made a conversation on it in some place in your book, anyway.)
So forget western modern philosophy. It is a conceited wishes circle. Ne sense of being one with whatever it is, be God, universe. It has not been even able to be one with nature, dont you see the condition of nature:))I am interested in Derrida only as a hobby. They are talking heads only.
Your site is amazing sister, a great effort. You have already found happiness…Best wishes, thanks….
Andrea Elizabeth said,
May 1, 2008 at 9:10 am
Thanks Bahadir.
I may pick up Derrida for entertainment/poetic purposes later, but not for enlightenment.