Talk:Jacques Derrida/Archive 1

message: I deleted the following sentence: 
:In addition, the modernist scientists Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont have accused him of "scientific incorrectness" in their book Fashionable Nonsense.
As the article on Fashionable Nonsense states, Sokal and Bricmont planned to do this, but eventually dropped the idea. In fact, on page 7 of the book, they write
:For example, although the quotation from Derrida contained in Sokal's parody [the paper Transgressing the boundaries, which sparked the Sokal affair] is rather amusing, it is a one-shot abuse; since there is no systematic misuse of (or indeed attention to) science in Derrida's work, there is no chapter on Derrida in this book.
Jitse Niesen 22:20, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Older/2

message: I took out the following sentence:
:He is not known to have any involvement in the French "events" of May 1968, unlike many of his colleagues. 
I believe that his "involvement" in May 1968 was as much as many of his colleagues; it might be more accurate to say he had a different perspective on it than many of his colleagues; certainly he met Blanchot during a protest at this time, and his essay "Ends of Man" was written at this time; I think it's inaccurate to say it is only influenced by the vietnam war (though certainly that was an important issue that spring; witness Chicago).  It would be fair to say he was influenced by events in Czechoslovakia that month as well.  I'm not an expert on this question but I'm certain the original entry is misleading.
:Yes, the original was misleading.  Derrida was involved initially in subscribing to certain documents of protests and attended some of the demonstrations.  He is said to have withdrawn as May marched on.  The "unlike" may stand, but it needs determination (not to mention correct) characterization.  I'm looking for more source material on this; the previous comment was made on thin research.  As for Vietnam: there is no intended claim that protest against Vietname is the substance of "The Ends of Man" but that the ability to register his protest against the war was an essential precondition to Derrida's participation in the conference where that essay was first presented.  This does demand clarification.
Buffyg 00:29, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  May 1968 

message: The Current events page lists Derrida's death on October 9, while this page says it was October 8. Which is correct? roozbeh 22:12, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
He died on the 8th (yesterday), and it was announced the 9th (today). -- Rbellin 23:22, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Day of death

message: I am a bit suspicious of the closeness of this paragraph to the New York Times obituary (page 3).  The same claims about the de Man affair, and the same quotes.  Is this close enough to be possible infringement?  I don't know.  (In addition, this probably belongs in the Paul de Man article, not the Derrida one, and it shows a pretty shallow understanding of the issues in any case.  This blogger takes it as an example of manifest anti-intellectualism from the Times, and I am inclined to agree.)-- Rbellin 21:57, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the offending paragraph because it was not only plagiarized but factually incorrect and indecent to his memory.  I've also made remarks about Times obit in an open letter from my blog. Buffyg 02:02, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's one thing to remove material for plagiarism and incorrectness, but what is this nonsense about it being "indecent to his memory"? If something happens to be true and relevant, it ought to stay in, however unflattering it may be. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a book of condolences. 217.43.44.169 17:36, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  The two are not so easily separable.  It is entirely within your power to judge the material which was removed and the article from which it was taken, so there's no point in mooting whether it "happens" to be true.  That can be firmly established -- follow the link if you'd like to know more about the facts I've drawn upon.  Repeating utterly falsehoods to claim that Derrida might have condoned anti-Semitism or been unable to criticize Heidegger's fascism, particularly by ignoring the fact that so many of these matters had answers from Derrida's hand while he lived, is, however, indecent.  No longer discussion or criticism, it's speaking untruth about the man to make points that are no longer properly about Derrida.  That's indecent to someone's memory when made part of what claims to present an account of his life and work.  Buffyg 19:44, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright on de Man pgph?