Another evaluation of deconstruction. Thought others might find it worth discussing. I liked reading Derrida, but after a while, it just seemed like skepticism. — Jackson

I think the following sums it up.

“To this day, deconstruction remains a style of thought more complained about than understood.”

The author of the article would like to believe this ignorance is the fault of deconstructive writers like Derrida, but I would suggest it is the difficulty of his ideas that is the source of incomprehension rather than a matter of vacuity , inconsistency or vagueness in his thinking. I would also separate Derrida’s work from the host of authors who called themselves deconstructionists. I never found the work of these followers to have much in common with Derridean deconstruction.

I never found the work of these followers to have much in common with Derridean deconstruction. — Joshs

Yes. I never got much out of Paul de Man.

Another evaluation of deconstruction. Thought others might find it worth discussing. I liked reading Derrida, but after a while, it just seemed like skepticism. — Jackson

I've read part of the article and will read the rest later. Here I'll show my ignorance - I thought deconstruction was a technique of Critical Theory. The article acts as if deconstruction has been widely abandoned, but Critical Theory, as in Critical Race Theory, is clearly going strong.

Here I'll show my ignorance - I thought deconstruction was a technique of Critical Theory. The article acts as if deconstruction has been widely abandoned, but Critical Theory, as in Critical Race Theory, is clearly going strong. — Clarky

Deconstruction was not Critical Theory. It was a way to read and interpret texts.

Deconstruction was not Critical Theory. It was a way to read and interpret texts — Jackson

This is true of the literary theorists who adopted practices of deconstruction, but the idea of deconstruction that Derrida produced was much
pre try a. a way of interpreting written texts. It was a way to understand the basis of all experience.
Text’ for Derrida referred to the way time structures experience.

I thought deconstruction was a technique of Critical Theory. The article acts as if deconstruction has been widely abandoned, but Critical Theory, as in Critical Race Theory, is clearly going strong. — Clarky

Critical theory is a neo-marxist approach in philosophy, a form of structuralism and dialectic. . Derridean deconstruction places into question the dialectical and structuralist basis of marxism and neo-marxism.

Critical theory is a neo-marxist approach in philosophy, a form of structuralism and dialectic. . Derridean deconstruction places into the dialectical and structuralist basis of marxism and neo-marxism. — Joshs

Derrida was a critic of structuralism.

Text’ for Derrida referred to the way time structures experience. — Joshs

Text was also literal, a physical text.

Text was also literal, a physical text. — Jackson

Yes, it included written text, spoken word , thinking to oneself , perception, and any and all forms of what would be called the ‘real’ or the objective. He would, however , question distinctions like literal vs figurative and physical vs mental.

Deconstruction was not Critical Theory. It was a way to read and interpret texts. — Jackson

Critical theory is a neo-marxist approach in philosophy, a form of structuralism and dialectic. . Derridean deconstruction places into the dialectical and structuralist basis of marxism and neo-marxism. — Joshs

Thanks for the education. I guess I always equate deconstruction, critical theory, and post-modernism as philosophical approaches that disparage traditional, conventional ways of seeing things.

philosophical approaches that disparage traditional, conventional ways of seeing things. — Clarky

It is. But a lot of philosophers want to be revolutionaries.

Critical theory is a neo-marxist approach in philosophy, a form of structuralism and dialectic. . Derridean deconstruction places into the dialectical and structuralist basis of marxism and neo-marxism.
— Joshs

Derrida was a critic of structuralism. — Jackson

I meant to write he places into question structuralism
and dialectic.

I meant to write he places into question structuralism
and dialectic. — Joshs

Yes. Why some classify him as post structuralist.

I wonder if the matter of history was the bone of contention in the idea of 'structure.' For instance, one could be skeptical of the progressions Hegel described and not claim the result was a matter of pure chance.

It seems to me, Derrida (ironically?) calls his own texts (with all others) into question first and foremost ... like, for instance, a version of the Liar's Paradox.

The basic idea of deconstructionism seems to be that words derive their meaning in a world of (other) words - the latter serving as a contrasting background against which a word in question stands out and thus is rendered visible.

As is obvious the stronger the contrast, the more visible the word becomes. Hence the emphasis on grasping meaning via negativa. This is because, a kataphatic definition is limited by the problem of infinite regress cum circularity (looking up a word in a dictonary would require you to look up the definition of the words contained therein, so on and so forth ad infinitum).

I was thinking about Deconstruction recently, given the other thread; specifically, I was thinking of our Voice and Phenomenon reading group from a minute ago (and both participants have moved on from these here internet parts it seems, alas). I remember agreeing, however, with a sense of dissatisfaction with it because it was really only through charity that I felt I could grant Derrida's moves. But upon thinking on it it seemed to get along well with what I knew of Derrida? Meaning, Derrida's philosophy isn't the philosophy of Aristotle, where philosophy is a body of true propositions validated by the best scientific methods of the day and then speculated upon. It's playful. Intentionally so! So when I read this part in the article:

As a body of propositions, it was never hard to probe deconstruction’s weaknesses. Texts undid themselves, it claimed, whereas it was really the deconstructive text that did — and intentionally so. Denouncing something so amorphous and pretentious as “Western metaphysics” partook of the same reductions the school wanted to expose in other paradigms. What could be more damning than pointing out that deconstruction, against its own tenets, opposed opposition? This ultimate performative contradiction lay in claiming that semantic plenitude resists interpretation in the very act of writing that stood as proof of an effort to persuade. What its critics overlooked is that deconstruction triumphed in part by giving its readers less to think about. Its weaknesses gave it strength because running and dodging was its professed mode, so that pointing out its contradictions was a little like getting in its groove.

I felt like the guy kinda missed the point.

Now, I didn't have to live with anyone who looked down on me for my lack of knowledge -- I just like to read books. And when I read Derrida, this isn't what I see -- a body of propositions? Deconstruction claims? I gather there's a cadre of obnoxious individuals, from the writer's perspective, surrounding Deconstruction. But I'm not sure I gather why I should "reject" deconstruction... it just seems a bit silly.


What would it mean to reject a method of reading?

That article is remarkable to the extent that anyone who has read it is now objectively stupider for having done so.

It's a gossip piece masquerading as a think piece.

Derrida's philosophy isn't the philosophy of Aristotle, where philosophy is a body of true propositions validated by the best scientific methods of the day and then speculated upon — Moliere

I've read Aristotle and never saw him give such a definition. Can you refer to something in his texts to support that?

What would it mean to reject a method of reading? — Moliere

To use another method that is better.

:up:

It's an interpretation, not a quote -- it makes sense of his politics, which he bases on human capacities which are biological. He was the great categorizer and sort of one of the originals to treat philosophy in a scientific mode, and was deeply interested in the workings of nature, then based his ethics on human biology (which, for him, was teleological), and his politics on his ethics (as this understanding of human nature is why people are in their respective positions within the city)

He is very much concerned with the essence of things, the truth of propositions, argument, and nature. So it makes sense to place him within the tradition of philosophy which is more in the scientific mode -- interested in true propositions, their justification, nature, the nature of nature, and so forth. I refer to him more because analytic philosophy tends to follow this pattern of doing philosophy -- and the article posted is coming from that position.

To use another method that is better. — Jackson

But only deconstruction is good at deconstruction! :D

That is, this is preference dependent.

It's a gossip piece masquerading as a think piece. — Streetlight

Yeah. But alas, it's the state of things. I still like to think about Derrida so I stuck my head in the conversation :D

It's an interpretation, not a quote — Moliere

I did not say you were quoting.

sort of one of the originals to treat philosophy in a scientific mode, — Moliere

This is not true.

based his ethics on human biology (which, for him, was teleological) — Moliere

No. Based on observing others and people who seem to be happy.

Let's take this interpretation you got here. Fine by me, I'm not here to argue interpretation of Aristotle as much as make a contrast case between what the original article seems to believe about the nature of philosophy. My understanding of Aristotle is false, yours is true.

Can you see, from your interpretation of Aristotle, how he might serve as a contrast case to Derrida's philosophy, which is not "based on observing others and people who seem to be happy", nor did he write a physics with a reflection on said physics in some ultimate sense?

Can you see, from your interpretation of Aristotle, how he might serve as a contrast case to Derrida's philosophy, which is not "based on observing others and people who seem to be happy", nor did he write a physics with a reflection on said physics in some ultimate sense? — Moliere

Derrida wrote an article on Aristotle, called "White Mythology." Been a while since I studied it and do not remember what he said about Aristotle.

That's cool. It's been awhile since I've studied many of these guys. I'm just talking shop for fun.

Two "ways" which philosophers do philosophy can be broadly construed as scientific or literary. I think if you read a literary philosophy scientifically -- say Keirkegaard's Fear and Trembling -- you'll miss the point, and if you read Critique of Pure Reason literarily you'll also miss the point.

It's in this manner that I mean the article author missed the point -- he wants to criticize Deconstruction not on its terms but in his own way of doing philosophy: where one sets out a thesis and defends it and interlocutors refute it or stay silent as they think on their refutations. Instead he mostly sticks to stories of the people involved, and a hasty generalization of deconstruction that he quickly refutes -- but it's the sort of paragraph one writes for people who are already convinced, no?

At least, I have a hard time connecting what he says to what I've read.

At least, I have a hard time connecting what he says to what I've read. — Moliere

The author: "Timothy Brennan is a professor in the humanities at the University of Minnesota."

So, he is not a philosopher.

Even more reason to think he misread :P :D

Or, more circumspectly, he could get more out of it if he wanted to.