What proof can you provide that you are worth one moment of my effort? — Streetlight
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
I took Derrida for one semester. — L'éléphant
I used Miller because he provided an authoritative explanation for what I needed. — L'éléphant
My wanting him banned as a moderator — L'éléphant
My wanting him banned as a moderator — L'éléphant
BTW, you yourself cannot even provide an explanation — L'éléphant
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
Here’s my collection of Derrida quotes about Sartre. They’re all nasty. — Joshs
Good. I didn't notice.According to his profile and my experience Streetlight hasn't been a moderator for some time now. — ZzzoneiroCosm
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: :
Note: grounds here means external foundation upon which truth is based on — L'éléphant
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
the bells ring for no reason and we too
we will rejoice in the clank of chains
that we will sound within us with the bells — ZzzoneiroCosm
Excellent quote. — igjugarjuk
The one object of fifty years of abstract art is to present art-as-art and as nothing else, to make it into the one thing it is only, separating and defining it more and more, making it purer....more absolute and more exclusive - non-objective, non-representational... — igjugarjuk
Deconstruction demonstrates there is no external source of the truth of our claims, rather — L'éléphant
deconstruction critic says that there is no objective, external support. — L'éléphant
non-imagist, non-expressionist, non-subjective. — igjugarjuk
Hah! Good point.Question: Do we have to read Derrida as a Paltonist to make sense of his decidedly anti-Platonist agenda? — Agent Smith
See Miller quote. — L'éléphant
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… — Miller
[Derrida] sketches/develops the concept of this ur-language (or deep structure) and gives it, for complicated rhetorical reasons, the confusing name 'writing' (and lots of other names.) — igjugarjuk
:up:There are better philosophical tools to critique ideas/written texts -- we don't need to use deconstruction. — L'éléphant
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.