Philosopher Edward Engelmann (Merrimack College) brings it to my attention, and I quote it in full:
Who is Paul De Man? In circumscribing this thought, we must look closely at the text. De Man. What is De Man? Some journalistic philosophy imposters want to imply that De Man is a Nazi. But how can De Man be a Nazi? After all he is De Man. On the one hand, De Man looks like a Nazi. On the other hand, he is De Man. This text is valorized already always. De Man is surely the Man. How can the Man be a Nazi? On the one hand, “the Man” refers to dictatorial oppression. But on the other hand, “the Man” is an object of admiration, as in “he’s da Man.” Dialectically, the latter wins out, as shown by American dialect. In American slang “he’s da Man” means “he’s the Dude.” The Dude. The Dude cannot be a Nazi. De Man is now seen always already to be Da Man. Da Man is The Dude.
I can not, however, vouch for the authenticity of this piece, but it sure sounds real.
Recent Comments