Some of his political takes are good, many are bad. I don't disagree with you there.
I'm not saying we should stop doing philosophy. Not that we should take his word as gospel, but when Marx speaks about philosophers only understanding the world, rather than changing it, he is not saying we should stop doing philosophy to engage in the general projects of understanding and determining out most general theories.
I also agree that we should keep reading philosophy, including non-Marxist philosophy. It arrogant otherwise and it often shows. But unless you're specifically something like a historian of ideas and are studying the history of 'western' philosophy, I'm personally don't see the reason to keep spending time reading these dudes like Derrida which we could spend reading far more grounded works of philosophy and political thought.
On the topic of 'continental' vs 'analytic' philosophy, I think it depends. Most analytic philosophers are equally useless, intellectually masturbating navel-gazers as continental philosophers. But tbh, if what you're interested in is mathematics, or the philosophy of the natural sciences, the 'continental' thinkers who tend to talk about these topics often display profound ignorance of them, imo. So do many analytic thinkers, but I still think the gold standard in the west for reflection on those topics, because analytic philosophy was founded by actual mathematicians who are important in the development of modern mathematics.
For the record, there are analytic philosophers who are/were genuine leftists. Putnam at some point was a Maoist, before becoming a soc-dem. Neurath was a Marxist. Carnap tried to join the communist party. That being said, none of their important philosophical work has anything to do or really to offer to political, social or economic philosophy, imo, and the work in the tradition has become more and more of a performative scholastic arena for academic credentials since the mid-century.
I honestly can't think of any really good analytic political or social philosophy. But I also think most of the 'continential' work is a waste of time. There's a world of Marxist theory outside of this done by people, above all in the Global South, which is of far greater value to political, social or economic thought.
I think part of Derrida's value lies in problematizing notions that seem fundamental to us. For example, one might feel that politics on one hand and the history of (Western) philosophy on the other are disparate fields where one is concrete, useful and practical while the other is minor and abstract. Is that a valid distinction we should make or do we get into trouble if we investigate it too closely? I feel like that's an issue worth thinking about and on which old Hegel may have something useful to say.
In any case, Derrida is mostly a critic of philosophy. His point is not that we need to recapture valuable insights from old wise men, but that we are still operating with their ideas and concepts, whether we like it or not, and if we want to do something about that, we need to investigate them. I think that's another point in which he is close to Marx.
Totally agree that they are not separate issues. There is no such thing as an absolute separation of the abstract-theoretical and the practical-concrete (we can obviously spell out what that last statements means in alot of different, valid directions).
Yh that a good role of his thought. But I don't think you need to read Derrida (which, lets be honest, for most people is hell) to know that.
Some of his political takes are good, many are bad. I don't disagree with you there.
I'm not saying we should stop doing philosophy. Not that we should take his word as gospel, but when Marx speaks about philosophers only understanding the world, rather than changing it, he is not saying we should stop doing philosophy to engage in the general projects of understanding and determining out most general theories. I also agree that we should keep reading philosophy, including non-Marxist philosophy. It arrogant otherwise and it often shows. But unless you're specifically something like a historian of ideas and are studying the history of 'western' philosophy, I'm personally don't see the reason to keep spending time reading these dudes like Derrida which we could spend reading far more grounded works of philosophy and political thought.
On the topic of 'continental' vs 'analytic' philosophy, I think it depends. Most analytic philosophers are equally useless, intellectually masturbating navel-gazers as continental philosophers. But tbh, if what you're interested in is mathematics, or the philosophy of the natural sciences, the 'continental' thinkers who tend to talk about these topics often display profound ignorance of them, imo. So do many analytic thinkers, but I still think the gold standard in the west for reflection on those topics, because analytic philosophy was founded by actual mathematicians who are important in the development of modern mathematics.
For the record, there are analytic philosophers who are/were genuine leftists. Putnam at some point was a Maoist, before becoming a soc-dem. Neurath was a Marxist. Carnap tried to join the communist party. That being said, none of their important philosophical work has anything to do or really to offer to political, social or economic philosophy, imo, and the work in the tradition has become more and more of a performative scholastic arena for academic credentials since the mid-century. I honestly can't think of any really good analytic political or social philosophy. But I also think most of the 'continential' work is a waste of time. There's a world of Marxist theory outside of this done by people, above all in the Global South, which is of far greater value to political, social or economic thought.
I think part of Derrida's value lies in problematizing notions that seem fundamental to us. For example, one might feel that politics on one hand and the history of (Western) philosophy on the other are disparate fields where one is concrete, useful and practical while the other is minor and abstract. Is that a valid distinction we should make or do we get into trouble if we investigate it too closely? I feel like that's an issue worth thinking about and on which old Hegel may have something useful to say.
In any case, Derrida is mostly a critic of philosophy. His point is not that we need to recapture valuable insights from old wise men, but that we are still operating with their ideas and concepts, whether we like it or not, and if we want to do something about that, we need to investigate them. I think that's another point in which he is close to Marx.
Totally agree that they are not separate issues. There is no such thing as an absolute separation of the abstract-theoretical and the practical-concrete (we can obviously spell out what that last statements means in alot of different, valid directions).
Yh that a good role of his thought. But I don't think you need to read Derrida (which, lets be honest, for most people is hell) to know that.