Apr 21st, 2006, 12:16 AM
Well, according to Derrida, semantic value is latent and does not always depend on the author's intent. Applying this to Derrida, taking "logos" as the Greek constituent of "logocentrism", "logos" has many implications of which I can only assume he WAS aware. Namely, not only does "logos" translate to "word" (in the Greek language it applied to both spoken and written utterances) but in post-Enlightenment thinking it referred to pure reason and even abstract thought. Hence, we have the words "reason" derived from the Latin "ratio", yet "logic" derives from "logos".
So, applying Derrida's understanding of textual meaning, we can infer that Derrida, in accusing Western modernity of logocentrism, had actually expressed the fact that Derrida was full of shit.
Getting back on topic, I think that there is something to say that the internet as a mode of conveying knowledge has led to a drastic shift in paradigm from analytical digestion to encyclopedic fact-collecting. As a personal testimony, I'm taking a class right now on Anselm. I can go to wikipedia or the online Catholic Encyclopedia and tell you all you wanted to know about Anselm, but to actually discern what to think about Anselm I have read academic reviews or, God forbid, listen to a Doctor of Philosphy by actually attending class. Give it another decade or so, and things might revert back when free access to academic journals is granted.
The main deal with the internet is that there no longer is a monopoly on "sacred knowledge" within formal Academia. There are ups and downs to this. It used to be that to become an expert required intelligence, ambition, and discipline, but now it seems it only requires Google. Borrowing Anselm, I could find a summary of the Ontological Arugument and some handy translations into what it means, and I could think myself an expert on it because I know what Anselm had to say about it. But at present, the best forms of digestion you can find usually involve angsty rebuttals from kids still pissed-off over years of Sunday School.
As for the academic journal versus the book in terms of creating new knowledge, I think the age of the book is more or less over. The vast majority of academic books on my shelf were written before 1950, and the exceptions are books simply for the fact that the author had to present an entire realm of history in his terms. Take a classic of the 21st Century, The Eternal Soul. Coeternalism could be explained in a few paragraphs, but an adequate explanation of why it's necessary required a long history of relevant religious philosophy. This strategy has its roots at least ot the 19th Century; you have Hegel who said "History follows patterns, let me guide you through the last 3000 years to show you how." A short while later, you have Marx saying in Das Kapital "Political history is the history of class-warfare. Let's look at the last 3000 years to see why."
|