With the passing of Jacques Derrida, and tribues like this in The New York Times, I wondered, what would I rather have a child of mine embrace, religious fundamentalism or some flavor of Derridaism?¹ Upon a few minutes reflection, for the sake of society I might lean toard Derridaism, since examinations of Texts generally result only in cognitive suicide, while religious fundamentalisms tend to channel passions into outward action when they immolate their bodies. Nevertheless, for my personal sanity I suspect that a religious fundamentalist child would be less maddening.

Let me elaborate. In 1984's The NeverEnding Story "Fantasia" is being overwhelmed by a "Nothing." The peoples of Fantasia are diverse, with differences of culture and opinion, but before the Nothing they all stand as one in terror, it swallows all in its maw of nihilism. If you watch the movie to completion you find out that Fantasia depends on the imaginations of human children to sustain itself, and the modern world is sapping the wonder from their minds, and the Nothing is the consequence.

When it comes to Derridaism I feel that it is something like the Nothing. When my friends influenced by that mode of thought began to prattle about "not believing in logic," swimming for meaning in a passing comment or intent on examining their intellectual fecal matter in public as if they were drawing insights from the most putrid of thoughts, I simply wanted to scream!. It was like the world was becoming unmoored, every attempt at cognition dissolves before the self-contradicting nihilism as the ludicrousness of people judging you for judging, refuting the validity of refutation, is followed by a swarm of words who act as the outriders of the great vast cognitive Nothing that brooks no engagement...because there really is nothing there.

1-In all of its "Post Modern" and "Deconstructionist" flavors that define distinctions with no difference.