That's hardly surprising, Cicero. He lives in a second reality and (evidently) you don't. There is no common ground for discourse in such a situation.
Still, it might be fun to see how he would "deconstruct" one of the greatest philosopher/theologians who ever lived. I mean, by Derrida's rule, the text (Confessions) must stand completely on its own, without recourse to the author's motives in writing, or his intentions.... But if this is so, then why would anybody go to the trouble of writing a book in the first place????
Talk about irrational!
You wrote, "Fortunately [Derrida] was surrounded by young women eager to butter him up." Yes; and probably he was perfectly willing to return the favor! :^)
Ever seen a picture of Steven Pinker? (I saw him on late-night TV once.) Jeepers, the guy looks like Adonis, or an angel of God. I bet he doesn't have any problem "meeting girls" (that is, assuming he likes girls). Sometimes I wonder whether guys like these cultivate such outrageous public speech/public personae because it helps "to attract mates" in due Darwinian style....
So maybe "girls" are attracted to "irrational" men???? Yeah, that's what I call "fitness value!"
I'm sorry for saying such silly things; but to me, Derrida and Pinker are just plain "silly" themselves. And I wonder why some women can be so gullible.
Thanks for writing, Cicero!
But surely not "soul" mates, I would hardly think.
Actually, I hate to be crass, but I think they were probably more interested in getting a good job recommendation from a big name guru than anything else. Graduate students.
I suggest we make inquiries of Materialists such as Dawkins or Pinker to the effect: Are all men (ie Mankind) created equal? Are they, then, endowed with inalienable rights? Do governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed? If the response to these questions is ‘yes,’ then let us further inquire if that ‘yes’ is categorical or conditional. We must suspect that the response would be heavily conditional. So conditional, in fact, that it would be in effect not a ‘yes’ at all, but a resounding ‘NO!’
That being the case, then it was Calvin Coolidge who phrased best what the response ought to be:
“No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions [the inquiries I listed above]. If anyone wishes to deny their truth and soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction cannot lay claim to progress.” (Philadelphia, speech commemorating the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 5, 1926)