Hah! Good point.Question: Do we have to read Derrida as a Paltonist to make sense of his decidedly anti-Platonist agenda? — Agent Smith
Wrong way to put it. Deconstruction demonstrates there is no external source of the truth of our claims, ratherBut deconstruction doesn’t need external grounds. — Joshs
Do you see why I charge skepticism? Our traditional belief is that what we write as history, for example, is based on some objective measure of truth. But deconstruction critic says that there is no objective, external support.what grounds any element of meaning is memory , history , a formal basis from which I intend to mean something. But the catch here is that in intending to mean what I mean , I alter that history , memory , form. So each element of meaning rests on a ground that it alters , and both of these features take place at the same time( form and content , memory and change. — Joshs
Good. I didn't notice.According to his profile and my experience Streetlight hasn't been a moderator for some time now. — ZzzoneiroCosm
No contest with your disagreement with Miller's explanation.I disagree with Miller’s account of deconstruction. — Joshs
Yes, and this requires more explanation, of course. When deconstruction claims that we really do not have grounds upon which the truth of our literary writings rest, this is the stuff that skepticism is made of. There's more, but I've been overposting here already. :joke: :I have been describing skepticism in terms of the impossibility of transcending the rift between our representations of truth and meaning , and the world itself. Is that your notion of skepticism? — Joshs
What proof can you provide that you are worth one moment of my effort? — Streetlight
Down to earth comment! There are better philosophical tools to critique ideas/written texts -- we don't need to use deconstruction.I wonder what it was like for Derrida to inhabit the quotidian world with the potential burden of all those complex ideas. I feel thankful to be shallow, poorly read but generally phlegmatic, if uninspired. — Tom Storm
Are you really a robot? Can't think for yourself. I say that's skepticism based on my thoughts of what skepticism is. I don't care whether he claims he's a skeptic. His criticism is a form of skepticism.↪L'éléphant
It's a quote that has nothing to do with skepticism, and it's not from Derrida. — Streetlight
Derrida, too, must acknowledge that the ground upon which his criticism is organized is on non-existent ground. Miller is pointing out the irony, or the parallel, if you will.I'm not sure if this is meant as a compliment or a snipe. — Tom Storm
(J. Hillis Miller, Theory Now and Then, 1991, 126.)Deconstruction as a mode of interpretation works by a careful and circumspect entering of each textual labyrinth. The [deconstruction] critic feels his way from figure to figure, from concept to concept, from mythical motif to mythical motif, in a repetition which is in no sense a parody. It employs nevertheless, the subversive power present in even the most exact and ironical doubling. The deconstructive critic seeks to find, by this process of retracing, the element in the system studied which is alogical, the thread in the text in question which will unravel it all, or the loose stone which will pull down the whole building.
The deconstruction, rather, annihilates the ground on which the building stands by showing that the text has already annihilated that ground, knowingly and unknowingly. Deconstruction is not a dismantling of the structure of the text but a demonstration that it has already dismantled itself. Its apparently solid ground is no rock but thin air.
The uncanny moment in Derrida’s criticism, the vacant place around which all his work is organized, is the formulation of this non-existence of the ground out of which the whole textual structure seems to rise…
Skepticism is skepticism towards knowledge. This is actually what we throw doubt at whenever we are skeptical about a claim.The preconditions of skepticism are that there has to be an objective or 'true' world to be skeptical of? — Tom Storm
It depends if you're talking about a line segment or a line that has both ends expanding. And I don't know why you asked this question.So there is an infinite number of points between any two points? — baker
So far, the only criticisms I've encountered when it comes to postmodernism is that --they're hard to understand! lol. Then spend more time with it until one understands what the fuck they're talking about.Which is one more reason why run of the mill people should not get involved with philosophy. — baker
Can you explain in your own words what deconstruction theory is?I don't need anyone to explain it to me because I know it very well. I just find it interesting that many who like to talk about deconstruction can't substantiate much of what they say. Very often it seems to me they simply make things up. Pretty cynical if you ask me. Skeptical, even. — Streetlight
I find your conclusion startling. :yikes:“Unremittingly, skepticism insists on the validity of the factually experienced world, that of actual experience,
and finds in it nothing of reason or its ideas. — Joshs
In that sense Derrida is not a skeptic because I don't think he believes in the validity of the factually experienced world -- Or, at least, that it's not a Humean construct of the mind where one can separate the experienced world from the concepts. If Derrida's philosophy is to apply to all text, and everything is text, then it follows that the experienced world is not so easily separable from concept -- hence, not a skeptic in this sense. — Moliere
His deconstruction theory alone is a poster child for this. So don't ask for a passage -- ask someone to explain the deconstruction theory and you get your answers. Skepticism should be the conclusion. I don't think Derrida himself would claim himself as a skeptic (if anyone knows, post it here). But you or Moliere or Joshs should certainly arrive at that conclusion. Or declare it is not skepticism.Can anyone quote a passage or some passages of Derrida that substantiate the charge of skepticism? — Streetlight
This should have been in the introduction post.Philosophy is an ultra-retrograde and sub ordinate reactive-process.
Ultra-retrograde: where a subject is thought about from multiple different depths using the active-brain.
Sub-ordinate: where a subject is filtered through self-psychoanalysis (psychology is a rank higher than philosophy.
I use philosophical thought based on not understanding, understanding data partially or misunderstanding- otherwise it becomes a psychology discussion.
Data becoming knowledge is a mental switch from philosophy to psychology.). — Varde
No. I don't subscribe to a dictatorship.Say a circumstance were to come bestowing upon you the final choice, the decision that ends us all, the choice to let humankind as a whole perish (painlessly and instantaneously), should you choose to let it happen? — TheSoundConspirator
For the benefit of the members here, this is the euclidean geometry.8] The universe is continuous. Between any two points there is at least one other point. — Clarky
Yes. In my dealings with people and (ethics and epistemology). For example, I now know that people would cling to their belief in the face of evidence and proof to the contrary. Also, the way I view life in general. If we stop caring about material things, we could relax and be more accepting.Has philosophy helped or changed you in any way? How? — Tom Storm
Yes, I believe we could be. I sought philosophers for their take on almost anything -- how to live your life, reality, the world, cosmic, etc.Interesting. In relation to pessimism, I'm not sure we can 'choose' such an outlook. Can we become pessimists by reading books? I did read some Dan Brown a few years ago and it did almost have that effect, it was so astoundingly awful. — Tom Storm
Where is thread? What's the title?There is almost a thread in what you have said - under what situation would we abandon philosophy? — Tom Storm
Is that right? I've read Michel de Montaigne a long time ago. But couldn't remember that line. But Jackson said Socrates/Plato.As I understand it, it's Michel de Montaigne: "To philosophize is to learn how to die."
I've always been struck by the quote although I am not sure I what it means. It sounds romantic. — Tom Storm
Socrates/Plato. — Jackson
It's not cruelty when animals hunt. Humans hunt for entertainment. Farm animals supply the food.why is it when an animal is cruel we excuse it as practice or instinct, but when a human does it we label it as malignant aggression? — Tzeentch