/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10501161]

>When Ong, who is Asian-American, brought up the topic of American imperialism, Searle responded “American imperialism? Oh boy, that sounds great, honey! Let’s go to bed and do that right now!” the complaint states.

>Searle was particularly hostile to Derrida's deconstructionist framework and much later refused to let his response to Derrida be printed along with Derrida's papers in the 1988 collection Limited Inc. Searle did not consider Derrida's approach to be legitimate philosophy or even intelligible writing and argued that he did not want to legitimize the deconstructionist point of view by dedicating any attention to it.

>Searle has argued that critics like Daniel Dennett, who (he claims) insist that discussing subjectivity is unscientific because science presupposes objectivity, are making a category error. Perhaps the goal of science is to establish and validate statements which are epistemically objective, (i.e., whose truth can be discovered and evaluated by any interested party), but are not necessarily ontologically objective.

How can one philosopher be so based?

[Anonymous No.10501722]

>>10501161
Imagine being so brainlet you can't even refute Derrida/Heidegger properly.

Fucking Anglo philosophers...