Archive for the Jacques Derrida category

Dascal on controversies

Posted on August 10th, 2008 in Chaim Perelman, Darwinism, Gilles-Gaston Granger, Hegel, Jacques Derrida, John Searle, Kant, Karl Popper, Lakatos, Marcelo Dascal, Mary Hesse, Schopenhauer, Thomas Kuhn, argumentation, epistemology, paraconsistency, philosophers, philosophical style, positivism, pragmatics, rationality, scientific revolution, speech acts.

Dascal, Marcelo. Types of polemics and types of polemical moves. In S. Cmejrkova, J. Hoffmannova, O. Mullerova, and J. Svetla, Dialogue Analysis VI (= Proceedings of the 6th Conference, Prague 1996), vol. 1. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer, 15-33, 1998 [Reprinted in H.S. Gill and G. Manetti (eds.), Signs and Signification, vol. II, New Delhi: Bahri Publication, [...]

The Institution of Philosophy (1)

Posted on August 10th, 2008 in Collingwood, Descartes, Donald Davidson, Heidegger, Jacques Derrida, Marcelo Dascal, Quentin Skinner, Quine, Richard Rorty, academia, analytical philosophy, continental philosophy, historiography of philosophy, intellectual life, irrationalism, modernity, philosophers, positivism, postmodernism, progress.

Cohen, Avner; Dascal, Marcelo; eds. The Institution of Philosophy: A Discipline in Crisis? La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1989. When I first surveyed this anthology four years ago, the name Marcelo Dascal, whose work is currently under review, was unknown to me. My assessment of this book was . . . er . . . [...]

Dascal on disputation & the analytical-continental divide

Posted on August 6th, 2008 in Carnap, French philosophy, Habermas, Heidegger, J. L. Austin, Jacques Derrida, John Searle, Kant, Karl Popper, Marcelo Dascal, Richard Rorty, Thomas Kuhn, Yehoshua Bar-Hillel, analytical philosophy, argumentation, continental philosophy, historiography of philosophy, intellectual life, irrationalism, philosophers, philosophical style, positivism, postmodernism, progress.

Dascal, Marcello. How rational can a polemic across the analytic-continental ‘divide’ be?, International Journal of Philosophical Studies 9(3): 313-339, 2001. In order to specify controversy’s position within the large family of polemical dialogues, I propose to distinguish between three members of the subfamily to which controversies belong. I will call them ‘discussion’, ‘dispute’, and ‘controversy’. [...]