On page 8 of that book Geoff Bennington says "It is, of course, impossible to write a book of this sort about Derrida."
And, then, of course, he goes on to do the impossible. This notion of "the impossible" is, in itself, a key concept in Derrida's thought, but we're getting ahead of ourselves.
If you can't explain something, you don't understand it. If no-one can explain it, no-one understands it and it doesn't mean anything. A theory with no predictive power is useless.
I can explain it. Geoff Bennington can explain it. However: you have to meet us partway. You have to read the whole damn book, not just the Amazon previews.
Seriously: is that too much to ask?
Has anyone explained Derrida using words of four letters or less, without a single pun?)
Has anybody explained Kant, or Einstein, or Descartes or Newton or any other difficult thinker in words of four letters or less?
Is there any point attempting to understand this philosophy?
Yes.
Will it make me a better person?
Yes, in my experience. (It is largely about ethics, believe it or not.)
Will it enable me to organise society better?
To a certain extent, yes. And it will better help you understand why certain efforts to organise society are doomed to fail.
Will it help me understand the universe more fully?
Yes, definitely.
Or will it simply mean I can count myself part of an in-group that has no discernible external beliefs?
It has discernible external beliefs, I'm afraid. I hope that's not a deal-breaker for you.
Has anybody explained Kant, or Einstein, or Descartes or Newton or any other difficult thinker in words of four letters or less?
Four letters? No. Not even this sentence has only words of four letters or less.
However many major contributions of Newton, Descartes, and Einstein to mathematics and science have been broken down and simplified until they both can be and are routinely taught to high school students. Seriously, when I graduated from grade 12 I understood the basic coordinate system (Descartes), simple Calculus (Newton), conservation of momentum (Newton again), the Newtonian theory of gravity (Newton again) and the Special Theory of Relativity (Einstein).
Furthermore if you pick up The Feynman Lectures on Physics you will find understandable expositions of all of these, and plenty more. All are covered, along with a great many other things, in the first half of the first book alone. Often a major concept, such as basic Calculus, is explained in just a few pages.
Given that that's what scientists tend to do with their theories, are you surprised that they would look for something similar with other people's theories?
Okay, so he deliberately threw me by using a term in an in-group way in a book meant to explain things? Do you see how that is unhelpful? However, I put the book on my wishlist after reading the parts I could; obviously I need to read the whole thing to have a proper opinion.
On the basis of your answers I shall read the Bennington suggested, but I must admit I'm not optimistic. Discernible external beliefs are not a deal-breaker; they are the point of the deal.
I would like to conclude there (feel free to have the last word; that is not an attempt to cut off the discussion on my terms, but merely to get on with some work :-) You have been somewhat persuasive and very civil in the face of my disagreement, thank you. Thank you also for your time, I owe you a beer/coffee (and by then maybe I can have done the reading and we can talk properly.)
Before you go ahead and order the Bennington, let me ask you a question: have you read much in the broader philosophical tradition? In other words, are you relatively up to speed on, say, Plato and Descartes and Kant, for example?
If not, the Bennington isn't going to be of much use.
Derrida situates himself within a particular tradition; it's (necessarily) hard to read him in isolation.
And, then, of course, he goes on to do the impossible. This notion of "the impossible" is, in itself, a key concept in Derrida's thought, but we're getting ahead of ourselves.
If you can't explain something, you don't understand it. If no-one can explain it, no-one understands it and it doesn't mean anything. A theory with no predictive power is useless.
I can explain it. Geoff Bennington can explain it. However: you have to meet us partway. You have to read the whole damn book, not just the Amazon previews.
Seriously: is that too much to ask?
Has anyone explained Derrida using words of four letters or less, without a single pun?)
Has anybody explained Kant, or Einstein, or Descartes or Newton or any other difficult thinker in words of four letters or less?
Is there any point attempting to understand this philosophy?
Yes.
Will it make me a better person?
Yes, in my experience. (It is largely about ethics, believe it or not.)
Will it enable me to organise society better?
To a certain extent, yes. And it will better help you understand why certain efforts to organise society are doomed to fail.
Will it help me understand the universe more fully?
Yes, definitely.
Or will it simply mean I can count myself part of an in-group that has no discernible external beliefs?
It has discernible external beliefs, I'm afraid. I hope that's not a deal-breaker for you.