Deconstruction

[Vetiver]

Are there any published thoughts (from ARI or elsewhere) regarding Derrida's work on "deconstruction"? What are its main problems?

Sorry if this is the wrong sub-forum... move it elsewhere if necessary.

[DavidOdden]

Are there any published thoughts (from ARI or elsewhere) regarding Derrida's work on "deconstruction"? What are its main problems?

Nobody understands it, at any level of the text.

[gags]

Nobody understands it, at any level of the text.

Yes, I'm not sure how any of what he wrote could ever be fully or even partially understood. When concepts are fluid and have different meanings depending on one's interpretation of the text, that isn't exactly conducive to clarity.

During the 20th Century, the French helped to advance philosophical thought about as much as they helped to develop the art of warfare.

[DavidOdden]

Actually, it turns out that Gary Hull has a lecture entitled "Your Professors' War Against the Mind: The Black Hole of Post-Modernism and Multiculturalism". It's not in print, but I think you can borrow a copy to listen to.

[LaszloWalrus]

I think Robert Garmong has a similar lecture:

http://www.aynrandbookstore.com/prodinfo.asp?number=CG68M

but I don't remember if it addresses Derrida specifically.

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

I am trying to understand deconstruction for one of my classes. None of my classmates can explain to me straightfordwardly what it is (even though they all say they know, but I know they're pretending) The complication of language and the use of foggy ambiguous rhetoric really makes it impossible for me to grasp it, and I don’t know if all this obscurantism is due to the high complexity of his thought, or just a pretentious manner to dress up the absurdity of a meaningless subject. Is anyone familiar with it? I found a video where he is asked about it, I don't think he answers, he just babbles around:

On this other video he loosely defines it at the beginning:

So, apparently deconstruction means to incorporate historical facts when understanding concepts (???) It’s early for me to say, but I think this guy is a charlatan, and deconstruction is plain rubbish. Oh God…at least postmodernists make me laugh at times.

Edited December 28, 2009 by 0096 2251 2110 8105

[Lucio]

I am trying to understand deconstruction for one of my classes. None of my classmates can explain to me straightfordwardly what it is (even though they all say they know, but I know they're pretending) The complication of language and the use of foggy ambiguous rhetoric really makes it impossible for me to grasp it, and I don’t know if all this obscurantism is due to the high complexity of his thought, or just a pretentious manner to dress up the absurdity of a meaningless subject. Is anyone familiar with it? I found a video where he is asked about it, I don't think he answers, he just babbles around:

On this other video he loosely defines it at the beginning:

So, apparently deconstruction means to incorporate historical facts when understanding concepts (???) It’s early for me to say, but I think this guy is a charlatan, and deconstruction is plain rubbish. Oh God…at least postmodernists make me laugh at times.

"Deconstruction was highly controversial both in academia, where it was accused of being nihilistic, parasitic, and just plain silly, and in the popular press, where it was often seized upon as a sign that academia had become completely out of touch with reality"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction

[Lucio]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wfm_stata_center.jpg

Roark's delight.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstructivism

[kainscalia]

I am trying to understand deconstruction for one of my classes.

I'm very sorry you have to go through that. Derrida's big con lies in the fact that nobody who is sane could possibly *understand* deconstruction. It is the antithesis of meaning. Even Derrida himself couldn't actually explain what his out-of-the-arse 'philosophy' was all about... as I wrote in an article, all he could do was describe it in negatives, that is by explaining what Deconstruction was not. This is as efficacious as trying to describe an automobile as "It is neither the moon, your big toe nor a pregnant German milkmaid."

But, of course, it is Rand whose philosophy is 'naive' and incomplete, as far as academia is concerned.

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

I'm very sorry you have to go through that. Derrida's big con lies in the fact that nobody who is sane could possibly *understand* deconstruction.

I hope so. I told one of my classmates, who is a big fan of Heidegger and Postmodernism, as most of them, that not even Chomsky was able to understand it, and I completely agree with his statements about Derrida:

Noam Chomsky has expressed the view that Derrida uses "pretentious rhetoric" to obscure the simplicity of his ideas. He groups Derrida within a broader category of the Parisian intellectual community which he criticized for, in his view, acting as an élite power structure for the well-educated through "difficult writing" and obscurantism. Chomsky has indicated that he may simply be incapable of understanding Derrida, but he is dubious of this possibility

Then I showed him his article about it, which I think it's great. He said: "Oh well, maybe he should grab a copy of Derrida for Dummies then. Lacan understood it." (I also happen to think Lacan is a complete fraud, so this was not very comforting, and I wasn't very convinced by that argument anyway) However, I somehow wasn't capable of replying anything to him, probably because I don't really know how to dismantle that kind of argument from intimidation (?) (now that I consider it, the last part might be an argument from authority, I don't know) This just gives me a feeling that (as the quote says) only a small exclusive prestigious "divine" elite has access to that power of understanding Postmodernist's writings, while the rest of us are just idiots who simply can't "get it". This obviously gives them an advantage, as one can't never attack their ideas because they're so obscure and ambiguous that one will always "misunderstand" them. Or maybe they actually do understand them, and I simply can't, but how can I know? This just drives me crazy. Edited December 30, 2009 by 0096 2251 2110 8105

[kainscalia]

I'll tell you right now that nobody understands Deconstruction, not even Derrida, because there is nothing to understand. They may hide behind fallacious and vague arguments, but I suggest you give them a ruthless grilling: Give them the Socratic method, don't stop asking questions and choose those questions carefully so each time they will strike at the root of their evasion. Eventually they will be backed into the corner of Deconstruction, which is the lack of all meaning and the lack of any one 'set' meaning for anything. It is at this point that you should attack with utter ruthlessness and expose the utter lunacy of supporting a position that has no meaning-- because, if all meaning is 'relative' and can be deconstructed, then Deconstruction itself has no meaning, since it can be easily deconstructed. At this point you may suggest to them that they never leave their house (by whatever meaning they hold for 'leaving' and 'house' and 'never') since if meaning is meaningless, the human mind cannot function and cannot establish concept formation, relational meanings or even distinguish 'red' from 'green' and thus they might end up getting run over at a stoplight.

On the other hand...

.... Or maybe they actually do understand them, and I simply can't, but how can I know? This just drives me crazy.