Question: Do we have to read Derrida as a Paltonist to make sense of his decidedly anti-Platonist agenda? — Agent Smith

Hah! Good point.

See Miller quote.

Also, I'd like to ask for you also to provide citation for your explanation of deconstruction. I'm not picky, just provide some published source. Thanks.

But deconstruction doesn’t need external grounds. — Joshs

Wrong way to put it. Deconstruction demonstrates there is no external source of the truth of our claims, rather

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

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.

According to his profile and my experience Streetlight hasn't been a moderator for some time now. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Good. I didn't notice.

I disagree with Miller’s account of deconstruction. — Joshs

No contest with your disagreement with Miller's explanation.

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

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.

BTW, you yourself cannot even provide an explanation

Again, let Streetlight provide an answer to a reasonable request.

Awww. Stop this nonsense already. I took Derrida for one semester. I used Miller because he provided an authoritative explanation for what I needed. Streetlight is not happy with that. I asked him to explain what deconstruction is. What he wrote was blarbled confused paragraph which did not clarify what deconstruction is.

My wanting him banned as a moderator is because he couldn't provide clear explanation of what he claims to know -- twice! He is a moderator after all.
Jackson's request is reasonable. Streetlight asked for a quote, I provided one that's written by Miller.

When Jackson asked for support of Streetlight's knowledge of deconstruction, this is what Streetlight said. Seriously? A simple request and his answer is this.

What proof can you provide that you are worth one moment of my effort? — Streetlight

Jackson's request is reasonable. Let Streetlight respond please.

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

Down to earth comment! There are better philosophical tools to critique ideas/written texts -- we don't need to use deconstruction.

I did. I provided Miller's explanation. I defer to his writing. Unlike you who provided blarbles on deconstruction. You have no idea what you're talking about. I'm sure you read it, though.

Now, deal with your own self and learn how to read and come up with your own ideas.

Grow up.

You should be banned as a moderator.

↪L'éléphant
It's a quote that has nothing to do with skepticism, and it's not from Derrida. — Streetlight

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.

When I say I'm putting in my critique as skepticism, I don't need Derrida to agree with me. I'm not here to point out that Derrida is a self-proclaimed skeptic. I am here to point out that my conclusion about his ideas led to my criticism that his is a form of skepticism.

That's the quote. From a high quality writer -- Miller. Anymore questions? Oh yeah, you can't digest what you read.

You have proven yourself time and again that you can't...digest what you read.

Worse are those who have read and claim that they understand Derrida then when put to the test, they write blarbles.

Same peanuts and nuts.

I suppose. There's no telling when deconstruction ends, and when his critique on phenomenology begins.

I'm not sure if this is meant as a compliment or a snipe. — Tom Storm

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.

Thank you for your input.

To all,

I have copypasted here a passage from J. Hillis Miller as to what exactly the deconstruction is. Please read and if you have any doubts as to the strength of this explanation by Miller, please look him up. Also look up Julian Wolfreys.

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…

(J. Hillis Miller, Theory Now and Then, 1991, 126.)
Credits to Julian Wolfreys, Deconstruction – Derrida, 1997

The preconditions of skepticism are that there has to be an objective or 'true' world to be skeptical of? — Tom Storm

Skepticism is skepticism towards knowledge. This is actually what we throw doubt at whenever we are skeptical about a claim.

So there is an infinite number of points between any two points? — baker

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.

Which is one more reason why run of the mill people should not get involved with philosophy. — 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.

The nuance of postmodernism, most especially the deconstruction theory, gets lost in the narrative when explained by a professor. Often, it is explained through the lens of humanities, not philosophy, and I don't think the one doing the teaching doesn't know the difference.

When they relegate the questioning of hard-held assumptions by society, they turn to sociology, history, and political science, which is frustrating because the actual harm that results from such haphazard handling of philosophical theories gets lost in the mix.

Just because a postmodern philosopher questioned the status quo, it doesn't mean that philosopher had made his case. The learners just willy-nilly accepted such theory because it is explained as facts, instead of an analysis. For once, let's go against the prominent philosophers and make our case.

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

Can you explain in your own words what deconstruction theory is?

“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

I find your conclusion startling. :yikes:

To put it in formatted form:

Joshs: skepticism insists on the validity of the factually experienced world, and finds in it nothing of reason or its ideas.

You: In that sense Derrida is not a skeptic because I don't think he believes in the validity of the factually experienced world

There's always thanksgiving.

April fool's had passed.

To all, this is your chance to come up with a solid argument argument against critical theory and deconstruction theory by using skepticism as a criticism.

Can anyone quote a passage or some passages of Derrida that substantiate the charge of skepticism? — Streetlight

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.

See this post talking about logocentrism. Ask yourself if deconstruction theory's findings are warranted.

Just a general thought on deconstruction theory -- it is designed to question the truth we attached to what we say (in text) as being externally substantiated. So it is a tool to put doubt in our assumptions.

Critical theory is itself a form of skepticism.

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

This should have been in the introduction post.

You can ease your readers into these new terminologies by prefacing with a statement and definitions. Despite the seemingly undisciplined format that philosophical discussions use, there are always the existing pioneering thoughts/ideas that we use as foundation or starting ideas. Philosophy is a language, after all, that's shared by a community of philosophers and interpreters.

I think this is fair to say.

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

No. I don't subscribe to a dictatorship.

8] The universe is continuous. Between any two points there is at least one other point. — Clarky

For the benefit of the members here, this is the euclidean geometry.

Oh yeah, I am interested already. So, I guess your future thread then? hehe.

Has philosophy helped or changed you in any way? How? — Tom Storm

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.

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

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.

So, I was attracted first to the cynics -- because they're the zero-fucks-given philosophers. I mean this. I thought, wow, okay, those were the ancients who didn't give a fuck! lol. How cool is that?

Then there's Schopenhauer and the hell-is-other-people Sartre. I said no to those. I couldn't subscribe to that kind of thinking when I myself was trying to want to love life.

There is almost a thread in what you have said - under what situation would we abandon philosophy? — Tom Storm

Where is thread? What's the title?

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

Is that right? I've read Michel de Montaigne a long time ago. But couldn't remember that line. But Jackson said Socrates/Plato.

Yes, I am too. Brief and to the point, but brings a lot of punch. And oh yeah, when I read that line the first time, I literally thought of abandoning philosophy because I didn't want a pessimist view of the world.

Socrates/Plato. — Jackson

Thank you!

Did you guys know that to philosophize is to start dying? This was credited to some philosopher. And it's not pessimism like Schopenhauer. I don't know who to credit this to. And I don't think "death" here is literal.

I think what that means is this is the last journey humans do and will perpetually be in the state of non-human related daily activities. You go to another realm where grocery lists and electric bills aren't relevant or existent. I don't know.

I voted yes on both. I have a book that anthologized new ideas on metaphysics. Nah. They're not new ideas, just different emphases on how to look at reality.

Hi Tzeentch, I've maxed my limit on disgreeing post, unfortunately. (As a self-imposed rule on my posting habits, when I disagree with a post, I limit my posts to two and that's it.)

Edit1: This is due to the fact that I've been accused twice of picking a fight when my posts had gotten more aggressive. And I already agree that at that point, my post did sound aggressive, though not intentionally. So, here we are now.

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

It's not cruelty when animals hunt. Humans hunt for entertainment. Farm animals supply the food.