With all the nutty and outlandish things deconstruction gets blamed for, it's refreshing to read thoughtful criticism of the philosophies of Jacques Derrida and John D. Caputo. The author, Brian Treanor, analyzes what he sees is the incommensurability between Ricoeur's and Kearney's diacritical hermeneutics and Derrida's and Caputo's deconstruction.
Treanor argues that while both hermeneutics and deconstruction deny our capacity to reduce all truth to master-narratives, hermeneutics avoids the pitfalls of relativism and nihilism, whereas deconstruction, while claiming not to be relativistic or nihilistic, flirts with both, for it cannot give a real reason for one action over another. Caputo disagrees that deconstruction is a form of relativism or an anything-goes nihilism; indeed, that's been his philosophical vocation for some time. That, and bringing our the religious implications of Derrida's thought. (His next book is What Would Jesus Deconstruct).
As Treanor points out, the relativism of deconstruction is a matter for debate. I think it isn't necessarily relativistic, but that's a post for another time. (Rest assured, it's coming). What I find intriguing at this point is that so many postmodern philosophers deny the charges against them of relativism and nihilism. Truly, many postmodernists see relativism and nihilism as bad philosophies.
In any case, Treanor's paper is a fascinating read for you philosophers.
Treanor argues that while both hermeneutics and deconstruction deny our capacity to reduce all truth to master-narratives, hermeneutics avoids the pitfalls of relativism and nihilism, whereas deconstruction, while claiming not to be relativistic or nihilistic, flirts with both, for it cannot give a real reason for one action over another. Caputo disagrees that deconstruction is a form of relativism or an anything-goes nihilism; indeed, that's been his philosophical vocation for some time. That, and bringing our the religious implications of Derrida's thought. (His next book is What Would Jesus Deconstruct).
As Treanor points out, the relativism of deconstruction is a matter for debate. I think it isn't necessarily relativistic, but that's a post for another time. (Rest assured, it's coming). What I find intriguing at this point is that so many postmodern philosophers deny the charges against them of relativism and nihilism. Truly, many postmodernists see relativism and nihilism as bad philosophies.
In any case, Treanor's paper is a fascinating read for you philosophers.