×
welcome covers

Your complimentary articles

You’ve read all of your complimentary articles for this month. To have complete access to the thousands of philosophy articles on this site, please

If you are a subscriber please sign in to your account.

To buy or renew a subscription please visit Subscriptions.

If you are a print subscriber you can contact us to create an online account.

You can register for a free account to have four complimentary articles per month. We will occasionally email you a newsletter, from which you can unsubscribe at any time. We do not sell personal data or otherwise disclose personal information to other organisations.

Literature

Derrida: Thinking The Impossible

Roger Caldwell considers whether it’s possible to consider Derrida.

In all commentaries on Derrida sooner or later you will find the assurance that his argumentation is rigorous. This is surprising, in two respects. Firstly, commentators on philosophers such as Hume or Kant rarely feel the need to reassure the reader in this way. And secondly, these assurances of Derrida’s rigorousness often come in the context of arguments that not only do not give the appearance of being rigorous, but scarcely appear to be arguments at all – for example, arguments based on verbal punning, on a seemingly random association of ideas, or generalizing from what appear to be inadequate or eccentric data. Even supporters of Derrida like Richard Rorty have not hesitated to call his arguments “terrible”.