>In 1992 some academics at Cambridge University, mostly not from the philosophy faculty, proposed that Derrida be awarded an honorary doctorate. This was opposed by, among others, the university's Professor of Philosophy Hugh Mellor. Eighteen other philosophers from US, Austrian, Australian, French, Polish, Italian, German, Dutch, Swiss, Spanish, and British institutions, including Barry Smith, Willard Van Orman Quine, David Armstrong, Ruth Barcan Marcus, and René Thom, then sent a letter to Cambridge claiming that Derrida's work "does not meet accepted standards of clarity and rigour" and describing Derrida's philosophy as being composed of "tricks and gimmicks similar to those of the Dadaists". The letter concluded that:
>>... where coherent assertions are being made at all, these are either false or trivial. Academic status based on what seems to us to be little more than semi-intelligible attacks upon the values of reason, truth, and scholarship is not, we submit, sufficient grounds for the awarding of an honorary degree in a distinguished university.[168]
>In the end the protesters were outnumbered—336 votes to 204—when Cambridge put the motion to a formal ballot;[169] though almost all of those who proposed Derrida and who voted in favour were not from the philosophy faculty.[170] Hugh Mellor continued to find the award undeserved, explaining: "He is a mediocre, unoriginal philosopher — he is not even interestingly bad".[171]
They were right about Derrida and wrong about not understanding that honorary doctorates are excuses for press conferences and receptions.
To be fair there’s a lot of impressionistic thinkers. From Bergson to Berdayev.
>semi-intelligible attacks upon the values of reason, truth, and scholarship
Positively dripping with seethe lmfao
Is that wrong, though?
“I always dream of a pen that would be a syringe.”
dunno anon he's prtygud
You're easily impressed.
>similar to those of the Dadaists
Oh so NOW you care about the western Aesthetics??
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????????????
Speak English motherfricker.
USA Academia not admitting their supposed "philosophical seriousness" was just an institutional gimmick. Quine and Searle especially couldnt bear to see their "heritage" used against them.
>René Thom
>Ruth Barcan Marcus
>David Malet Armstrong
>Willard Van Orman Quine
>Barry Smith (ontologist)
Literally who
>Jacques Derrida
oh he is that fellow who write some interstings things yeah I recall him, even read some writings that talked about his ideas
Derrida won
Gatekeepers lost
You're a weeb. Your opinion doesn't matter.
but he's right, Derrida has been more influential than all of these "top of my class" breastsucking philosophers - mostly because he did try to do something new while most of these guys hold to their jobs, write papers on irrelevant topics, if lucky they manage to write some that will be quoted for about 10 years, if not they are completely forgotten.
Derrida tried to push the boundary of what can be said in academia and how it can be said, and although a lot of what he said is forgettable shit, he survives as someone who at least made you think about the non-trivial matter of how we should be doing research in the humanities (if at all). Today you can see a similar thing happening around people like Donna Haraway, where she writes totally unintelligible articles but then speaks about why writing like this is an attempt at some form of radical action and radical change in how the humanities function in academia. It made no fricking sense to upheld research in the humanities to the same scientific rigour as research in physics, but the eternal anglo, in his infinite autism, has decided that this is the one and only way one should read books. Therefore he is disregarded (as always) by the French, the German and overall the rest of the non-autistic or less-autistic (in the case of the German) intellectual world as just mentally ill.
He is discarded because he's a cancerous third world coper. Edward Said, Him, Spivat have done more damage to philosophy and research than the stagnation bought about by the no-namers you mention.
And what a sad way to look at philosophy. Whether you, the individual, be remembered or not.
quine is more known than derrida i think. and david armstrong is famous in analytic metaphysics
>quine is more known than derrida i think
More known by who? I don't think that's the case. His wikipedia page is less than half the size as Derrida's, and I didn't even know him before your post, although I'm not knowledgeable at all in philosophy, but that's the point, I know nothing about philosophy but I've heard of Derrida.
>I know nothing about philosophy but I've heard of Derrida.
That's definitely everyone else's point. It's obvious you 'know' about Derrida becasue you're an animu-gay/TV Tropes addict who's heard of "deconstruction", but have no interest in philosophy in any technical form, because in that case you'd definitely have heard of Quine, especially since his ideas are discussed and refereed to frequently enough by people interesting in computing.
Basically, high IQ doesn't guarantee you'll be rich, but it will guarantee you won't be a literal hobo.
At least in this pozzed globohomosexual climate we live in