Cultural Relativism is Incoherent

Cultural Relativism is an incoherent ethic and epistemology. You see, there are cross cultural logic rules that apply in every culture. These rules are the basis for the natural law of Sheriff's Law, also known as the Law of Logic. You can prove, cross culturally, the validity of logic starting either with ideas, or with sense experience. Either you can say, in the abstract, that it is impossible for A and not A to exist in the same time and the same place in some ideal or hypothetical world, or, in the alternative, you can say that, in the concrete, it is impossible to have a physical (A)pple and no physical (A)pple in your left hand, at the same time in the same place in the material universe. Thus, both in the abstract, and in the concrete, we can see that it is factually and logically impossible for A and not A to exist, or be asserted, in the same time and the same place. Moreover, that which is logical is defined as that which does not involve a logical contradiction. In other words, as long as you do not assert that some statement or argument (A) pertains, and the same time in the same place that you are asserting that (not A) pertains, then you are making a logical statement or argument. Logical statements or arguments are permitted and are considered valid, while illogical or logically contradictory arguments are not permitted and are not considered valid. Given the foregoing, there a number logical fallacies which cannot be permitted, and which are invalid. These logical fallacies include: 1. The fallacy of appealing to an authority; 2. The fallacy of hypocrisy;
3. The fallacy of shifting ground; 4. The fallacy of appealing to conventional morality;
5. The fallacy of appealing to the mob; 6. The fallacy of asserting the validity of the precedent by affirming the consequent; 7. The fallacy of deriving a conjunction from a disjunction;
8. The fallacy of lying; and the fallacy; and the fallacy of making a personal or ad hominem attack. Accordingly, we can say that while the idea of cultural relativism is incoherent, the idea of moderate relativism is not. Moderate relativism allows for a reasonable range of statements or argumentation which do not involve logical fallacies or sophistry. Finally, another reason that logic, logical reasoning, and logical principles are cross culturally valid, is that you can teach the typical 5 year old in any culture, the use and principles of logic in about one hour. Thus, it is possible for any person to engage in deconstruction activities using logic.

(C)Perpetual Copyright 2011 by Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Coif, and Neothomism, P.C. (PA)

Fejfar, A Review of the Book, For Derrida by J. Hillis Miller

J. Hillis Miller, in his book, "For Derrida," seems to have read Derrida on another planet. Miller presents Derrida as a progressive philospher. In fact, if you go to the source material on Derrida, namely, his books, "Of Grammatology" and the "Force of Law," you find that Derrida is incoherent at best, and a nazi fascist, at worst. In "Of Grammatology" Derrida spends most of his time in meandaring babble, only, to come to the conclusion, that, "a literary essay is evil." In doing this, Derrida violates both Ockham's Razor and Logical Positivism. Morover, it is difficult to see how Robin Hood, or The Three Musketeers, or The Count of Monte Cristo, are in any way evil. In fact, one might observe that Derrida's ariticle itself, is a literary essay, of a sort, such that Derrida, to be logically consistent, must condemn his own book as an evil essay. Next, in the Book, "The Force of Law," Derrida spends most of his time referring to some mythical "Benjamin" character, and quotes the obscure Benjamin for all sort of uninteresting, and unsubsatiated propositions. The conclusion that Derrida comes to in, "The Force of Law," on his own, without Benjamin's help, is that he recommends that everyone follow the example of the Nazi's, and become a terrorist who "spills blood on the floor" just for the sake of violence as violence. Clearly, Mr. Miller has not bothered to read Derrida's most significant "academic" works, and thus his book review is quite absurd.
(C)Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Derrida is Trashed

For some reason, some people seem to think that Jacques Derrida is a competent philosopher. In fact, Derrida is a loser philosopher. Derrida has two major works that are often cited, "Of Grammtology" and "The Force of Law." The problem, however, is that both of the foregoing essays are incoherent crap. In Of Grammatology, Derrida spends the whole essay, essentially babbling, and then, comes to the "conclusion" that a "literary essay" is "evil." Well, obviously, Derrida is absurd. Following Greek philosophy, we know that a literary essay is good, not evil. For example, it is hard to see how King Arthur, or Robin Hood, or the Count of Monte Cristo, are "evil." In fact, the opposite is true. Classical literature reveals reality in a meaningful way. Moreover, it is hard to see how such Walt Disney classics, such as Bambi and The Little Mermaid, are somehow "evil." Next, Derrida, in his essay, The Force of Law, spends most of the essay using a rather stupid literary technique of attributing most of his alledged philosophy to some mythical character, "Benjamin." Then, Derrida comes up with the rather sick, idea, that we should reject Justice which is enforced with reasonable force, and instead, we should become terrorists, "spilling blood on the floor", with violence for the sake of violence. Once again we can see that Derrida is stupid at best.