Talk:Deconstruction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Literature (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Deconstruction:

This is a brief review of issues behind the rewrite tag and a list of tasks necessary to the rewrite.

The article in its current form is a patchwork of occasionally contradictory points which does not attempt general coherence and therefore poorly represents the subject matter and utterly fails to provide a general overview for the benefit of the vast majority of readers.


Recent edits by Byelf2007[edit]

1. The article ought to explain what the X is as soon as possible. Currently in the second sentence it says "Although he avoided defining the term directly, he sought to apply..." This is background info on *how* the concept came about by the creator but not *what it is*. Having "Derrida proposed the deconstruction of all texts where..." as the second sentence works much better in this respect.

2. The lede is currently very unprofessional: "On the one hand..." and starting a paragraph with "but" are particularly bad. I think I've cleaned them up pretty well.

3. A bunch of separate sections on what deconstruction is is very weird. I think it's much better to put them under "On deconstruction".

4. "Definitions by other authors" seems unprofessional to me. I prefer "Alternative definitions".

5. "Developments after Derrida" also seems unprofessional to me. I prefer "Post-Derrida development".

6. I believe etymology sections are encouraged. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 June 2012


Plan of action (Oct. 2014)[edit]

Scrap/delete the article and start anew. It's a disaster. Describing it as a patchwork is being too kind. 98.236.50.229 (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

* Support - I agree. This article is incredibly inaccessible and must be rewritten in simpler, intelligible terms, in encyclopedic style. What is the process to scrap the article? Azx2 10:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Whoever wants to do the work should decide how to approach it. I can imagine the article contains a list of the terms and concepts to be explained, and they only need to be put in the right order and liberated from jargon, circular definition, and other bugbears of postmodernist "discourse". Wegesrand (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
* Disagree - What is the point of having the article if it 'simpler'? A 'simpler' version of deconstruction is no deconstruction at all. Why don't we make the page on Planck's Law (go read it) more 'simple'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.238.239 (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Did Alan Sokal write this article? It is laughably bad. --50.153.114.149 (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear god[edit]

This article is one of the few that when you read it, you end up more confused than before you read it. Just wanted to say that on record. I agree this article should be nuked from space and rewritten from scratch. 109.186.67.185 (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

* Support - As stated above, I agree. This article is incredibly inaccessible and must be rewritten in simpler, intelligible terms, in encyclopedic style. What is the process to "nuke" the fcker? Azx2 10:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
* Support - As stated above, I agree. The lead/lede I composed was clear, technically accurate (corroborated by both references to primary and secondary sources) and omitted quoting Derrida's deliberately obfuscated prose (Derrida creates evidence for his thesis in his corpus). My lead was degraded by a series of incompetent editors (e.g. that French architect who presents himself as a Derrida expert simply because he can read French) and the clown 'HibridMutante' (who doesn't actually understand Derrida and resorts to quoting him at copious length because he is unable to paraphrase him). These incompetent and destructive editors (amongst others) are encouraged and abetted by the serial buffoon 'Warshy' who also knows nothing of the topic but feels compelled to provide an opinion on the matter. So long as this band of clowns hover around this article--like flies around a turd--any attempt to improve it will be in vain. Warshy, if you want a better article then just STFU; unless you actually understand deconstruction you are not in a position to have an opinion on whether this lead is better than that lead. HibridMutante, you are a vandal. From watching your edits for over a year it appears that it is your objective to create an abstruse article that communicates literally nothing, an article that means nothing to you or to anyone else--a mélange of Derrida's most obscure and most recondite quotes that you are incapable of paraphrasing because you yourself do not understand them. The article in its current form is a pile of shit, it should be scrapped completely. The Talk page archives contain a short essay which I wrote over a year ago on what it means to write an encyclopedic article on deconstruction: see here. I still stand by that and it remains relevant. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Is there a version we can revert to? Bhny (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I've lost track of the best prior version of the lead but this is far superior to what is in place at the moment (but that wouldn't be hard to achieve given that the present lead communicates barely anything). The referenced version of the lead is incomplete but it is a good foundation: it is as lucid as I could render it at the time, it is technically accurate and it is is encyclopedic in style. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I reverted the lead to that version Bhny (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
* Support As a random passer-by with no particular interest or expertise in the subject matter, I'd regardless like to voice my strong agreement with this. This article actually makes me angry by being, as far as I can tell, completely incoherent and almost entirely free of anything resembling useful information. Of course, that seems to be my reaction to Derrida quotes in general, and most of the text seems to be either those or slightly rearranged versions thereof. 87.92.107.210 (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
*Support* It just reads like gibberish to me. However I suggest trying to get a draft up to a very basic overview before nuking this. HalfHat 01:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Edit: This is the better version, this will need a lot of work by experienced Wikipedians and people who know the field to get it up to scratch, though I suppose xkcd may have givn me a bias 02:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
AnotherPseudonym, Please:
Be polite
Assume good faith
Avoid personal attacks
For disputes, seek dispute resolution

On my side I try to respect article policies:

No original research
Neutral point of view
Verifiability
My contributions to the final lead were small. My first contribution to this article was made many years ago. It included references to the "metaphisical of presence" that someone deleted/changed. After that many editors made their contributions (including you). I agree: the final result is a terrible "compromise".
It is true, as I told again and again here, my contributions basically follow Stanford approach.:"Derrida has provided many definitions of deconstruction. But three definitions are classical. The first is early, being found in the 1971 interview “Positions” and in the 1972 Preface to Dissemination: deconstruction consists in “two phases (Positions, pp. 41-42, Dissemination, pp.4-6)").
It looks a good starting point... why don't you try it? (do you understand it?)
Thanks

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

* Support Someone please re-write this article, especially the lede. The more complex concepts belong in the main body of the article. I shouldn't have to deconstruct the lede just to figure out what deconstruct means! Rip-Saw (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I found a nice, general definition of deconstruction "To deconstruct is to take a text apart along the structural “fault lines” created by the ambiguities inherent in one or more of its key concepts or themes in order to reveal the equivocations or contradictions that make the text possible." Found on http://www.iep.utm.edu/deconst/ Rip-Saw (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

* Support The entire article is so obtuse it's unreadable.Fatlenin (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hibrido Mutante and Plagiarism[edit]

It is plain from the Talk page that Hibrido Mutante is not a competent reader/writer of English, many of the sentences (s)he posts here are grammatically flawed and incapable of being parsed. So where does the prose that (s)he is inserting into the article come from? Answer: it is being stolen. The text from the lead was lifted from the following source:

In the 1980s it designated more loosely a range of radical theoretical enterprises in diverse areas of the humanities and social sciences, including—in addition to philosophy and literature—law, psychoanalysis, architecture, anthropology, theology, feminism, gay and lesbian studies, political theory, historiography, and film theory. (Source: Encyclopaedia Brittanica)

Compare with:

In the 1980s it designated more loosely a range of theoretical enterprises in diverse areas of the humanities and social sciences, including—in addition to philosophy and literature—law,[2][3][4] anthropology,[5] historiography,[6] linguistics,[7] sociolinguistics,[8] psychoanalysis, political theory, feminism, and gay and lesbian studies.

Which was inserted into the lead. This is a clear case of plagiarism. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, Hibrido Mutante has no real understanding of Derrida, the version of the lead (s)he created prior to my own had no reference to the metaphysics of presence--an idea central to deconstruction. This omission evinces an absence of understanding of deconstruction. From this absence of real understanding coupled with an incomptency in English flows the excessive quoting and the plagiarism.

AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

a) I gave the source Encyclopaedia Brittanica and added more material to it (links to authors, etc). You just deleted what you don't fell confortable with. Tghe fact that deconstruction is important to "law,[2][3][4] anthropology,[5] historiography,[6] linguistics,[7] sociolinguistics,[8] psychoanalysis".
Can you explain why? I will revert this.
You know this. You can find me here in "talk page" saying: "First paragraph is based ONLY in secondary or tertiary sources to correct limited framing about deconstruction(including, but not limited to Encyclopedia Britannica about the subject): "deconstruction, form of philosophical and literary analysis, derived mainly from work begun in the 1960s by the French philosopher Jacques Derrida,(...) In the 1980s it designated more loosely a range of theoretical enterprises in diverse areas of the humanities and social sciences, including—in addition to philosophy and literature—law, psychoanalysis, architecture, anthropology, theology, feminism, gay and lesbian studies, political theory, historiography, and film theory."
I believe we are doing a proper use of paraphrase here ( "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with or without quotation marks), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text – for example, by adding "John Smith wrote ...," together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph".)
b) It was not me who "created the version prior to your own".
c) Concerning "presence", you can find me above trying to explain "presence" to Paul Mrray: "I hope it will also help you to understand what is "present consciousness". In philosophy (at least as it is learned in continental europe, etc.) it refers to what is "immediate" (in contrast with what is "mediated"). It is connected with "intention". Normally the "paradigmatic example" that is used (and Derrida does it many many times) it is the "internal dialogue" where it seems we have an immediate contact with meaning (it is "present to ourselfs", "meaning is present to us", "not mediated"), independent of the "phonetic signs" we use to "think".
Please:
Be polite
Assume good faith
Avoid personal attacks
For disputes, seek dispute resolution

On my side I try to respect article policies:

No original research
Neutral point of view
Verifiability

Thanks Hibrido Mutante (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

AP thoughts[edit]

Oh, this self-nominated "expert" on Derrida and on Deconstruction is back with his crap, his thesis (actually, here on WP this is called Original Research), that the central core of it (Derrida's thought on Deconstruction) is this rather obscure notion of the 'metaphysics of presence,' which is now of course also back in the very first sentence of the article.

As I've told him before, true experts on their fields write books and publish articles on the subject (mostly under their own names, as openly identifiable individuals), which after due process of academic review and debate can also be reflected here on WP through reliable sources. Other, self-nominated "experts" such as this one, just hide behind other pseudonyms here on WP and try to own certain subjects and pages, and try to push their own agendas, their own biased points of view on these matters here.

Also, true expertise on a certain subject can come from positive motivations, such as the love of it and the pure admiration for knowledge. Or, in fewer cases such as this one (and fortunately I do believe these cases are indeed fewer), this "expertise" can come just out of hate, spite, and revenge for the subject and for knowledge and for the process of developing it in general.

Now, some positive WP editors also choose to edit from a starting position of collaboration and collegiality and respect towards other editors. Some, on the other hand (negative, unfortunately), choose to edit from a starting position of self-promotion and agrandizement, of open defiance and challenge towards other editors, actually of intellectual contempt towards any different views. This particular coward, furthermore, can only use foul language (which for me is just funny), and chooses to just call names and to heap as much scorn and ridicule as possible upon anyone else who dares to disagree with him. warshy (¥¥) 15:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You are a buffoon and you are thoroughly devoid of any integrity. You have nothing to say when Hibrido Mutante commits plagiarism—that's apparently fine. But you gird up your loins towards the task of retarding the improvement of the article. The metaphysics of presence is central to deconstruction. Yes it is an obscure concept, as is deconstruction. But it is essential to deconstruction. As I have told you before, deconstruction is incomprehensible without the notion of the metaphysics of presence. Rather than provide general criticism for rhetorical effect why don't you actually indicate what I have put in the lead/lede that represents OR, bias and peronal agenda. Please do. Educate us all. So tell us Mr Wishy-Washy, can a Jew not be an expert on Nazism? Can a Jew not be a Hiler expert? Are all Jewish WWII scholars "try[ing] to push their own agendas, their own biased points of view on these matters" when they write on WWII? Do you police the WWII Germany articles on Wikipedia to make sure Jews aren't ediiting them? You are a hypocrite as well as an ignoramus. For the sake of this article please just go away. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 10:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You both seem like interesting characters, but we are here to talk about the article. The previous first paragraph, (that I replaced) was a tedious laundry list of disciplines. It really seemed liked WP:puffery rather than anything informative. The first paragraph should define the topic, not ramble on about how influential it is. As far as I can tell deconstruction's "metaphysics of presence" and "logocentrism" are central features in many references on this topic. Bhny (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bhny
Thank you. I trust your judgment both in regards to article content, as well as in regards to dealing with the personal attacks by this other character here. Best regards, warshy (¥¥) 15:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I am the source of the "article content" that Bhny used to replace the prior lead so eat shit wishy-washy. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
It is demonstrative of the parlous state of this article that we are even arguing about the centrality of the metaphysics of presence to deconstruction. Below I provide 9 citations on this matter and I can provide many more from Derrida's most respected expositors. I would like to see a citation-by-citation rebuttal from you wishy-washy as well as a contrary exegesis supported by primary and secondary citations. You have accused me of WP:OR and I would like that accusation to be substantiated with evidence and argumentation. If you are unable to provide any substantiaton then please just f*ck off. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Wishy-Washy: regarding your claim that the idea that the metaphysics of presence is central to deconstruction is WP:OR on my part, refer to citations 8-16 in the first draft of the lead. These citations from primary and secondary sources show that (a) there is no WP:OR on my part; and (b) deconstruction is nothing more than a critique of the metaphysics of presence. Read the quotes referenced by the citations from Derrida as well as his expositors. When you have done that please provide counter-citations that demonstrate that I am the origin of the idea. Until you have done that I kindly suggest that you STFU and go and educate yourself. You literally don't know the first thing about deconstruction and it is not incumbent on me to educate you even though I have tried more than once. Your ignorance should not be an impediment to other editors. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

My background in Deconstructionism is limited, but every attempt I've seen to explain deconstructionism has placed 'metaphysics of presence' in a place of importance. I can't imagine Deconstructionism being explained and not including one of the more central ideas to the entire field. --Ollyoxenfree (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible to treat other editors like AnotherPseudonym does and no one tells him he have to "be polite"?
I'm really suprised that he has any support... but I see that, in the end, he will impose his view.. and even get support :O ... superb!!!
"eat shit wishy-washy"?????!!!
"please just f*ck off" ?????????????????????????????????!!!!
"You are a buffoon" ??!!!
"you are thoroughly devoid of any integrity"
"You are a hypocrite as well as an ignoramus"'
I remember wikipedia policy:
Be polite
Assume good faith
Avoid personal attacks

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Can non-grad students understand this please?[edit]

After spending an extensive amounts of time pondering this article, I conclude that this is the most confusing article on all of Wikipedia. The terms "logocentrism", "differance"and "Derridean neologism" are introduced in the second paragraph with absolutely no context or supporting information. In effect, if one is not already familiar with deconstruction, this article provides no meaningful information. In my eyes, this seems to defeat the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be a resource where everyone can learn useful information about a topic without in-depth training. This article, on the other hand seems convinced that the only way to teach people is to bombard them with over-the-top descriptions and overly-complex graduate level terminology. Therefore, I propose that in order to return some semblance of reason and comprehension to this article that we, as responsible members of the Wikipedia editing community, revert to a previous, more comprehensible version of this article until we are able to locate someone with adequate knowledge on the subject matter to rewrite the article from the ground up. This link leads to a previous and more understandable version of the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deconstruction&oldid=584476727

And if all else fails, it appears our friends at Simple Wikipedia have provided a usable substitute for the interim: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction

I thank you for your consideration of my ideas and I am eager to engage in thoughtful, balanced discussion on the proper way to fix this clearly broken article.

Sakomoto (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I strongly agree. As a longtime student of philosophy, this article still only begins to make sense. We, as responsible wikipedians, must endeavor to fix this atrocity. I wholeheartedly echo the sentiments that Sakomoto expressed so eloquently, particularly his desire to revert the page to its earlier version. I would strongly suggest that this be acted upon with all due haste.

Erichremiker (talk)05:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"As I said before (and assumed) my small contributions are a paraphrase of Derrida himself in "Positions", p.41-43.
I will give here a long quotation that, I'm sure, "a longtime student of philosophy" knows.
We can try to say the same thing in an other way. But I think it is quite important to say it (in my opinion, and in the opinion of many scholars, it is crucial to understand Derrida move, specially considering his own "context", where "hegel" and "marx" are considered "important" philosophers, and not what we could call "anglo-saxonic" readings of him. You can find support to this opinion here Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
"Derrida has provided many definitions of deconstruction. But three definitions are classical. The first is early, being found in the 1971 interview “Positions” and in the 1972 Preface to Dissemination: deconstruction consists in “two phases” (Positions, pp. 41-42, Dissemination, pp.4-6). "
In BOLD what I think is really important This is my small contribution.
Derrida interview with Jean-Louis Houdebine and Guy Scarpetta

Houdebine: Could you specify, at least under the rubric of an introduction to this interview, the actual state of your research, whose effectiveness immediately showed itself to have considerable bearing on the ideological field of our era, the state of development of the general economy again recently demarcated in three texts that are perhaps the symptoms of a new differentiation of the sheaf: your reading of Sollers's Numbers, in "La dissemination"and then (but these two texts are contemporaries) "La double seance" and finally "La mythologie blanche"?3(...)

Derrida: What interested me then, what I am attempting to pursue along other lines now, was, at the same time as a "general economy," a kind of general strategy of deconstruction. The latter is to avoid both simply neutrallzing the binary oppositions of metaphysics and simply residing within the closed field of these oppositions, thereby confirming it.

Therefore we must proceed using a double gesture, according to a unity that is both systematic and in and of itself divided, a double writing, that is, a writing that is in and of itself multiple, what I called, in "La double seance ," a double science.

On the one hand, we must traverse a phase of overturning. To do justice to this necessity is to recognize that in a classical philosophical opposition we are not dealing with the peaceful coexistence of a vis-a-vis, but rather with a violent hierarchy. One of the two terms governs the other (axiologically, logically, etc.), or has the upper hand. To deconstruct the opposition, first of all, is to overturn the hierarchy at a given moment. To overlook this phase of overturning is to forget the conflictual and subordinating structure of opposition.

Therefore one might proceed too quickly to a neutralization that in practice would leave the previous field untouched, leaving one no hold on the previous opposition, thereby preventing any means of intervening in the field effectively. We know what always have been the practical (particularly political) effects of Immediately jumping beyond oppositions, and of protests in the simple form of neither this nor that. When I say that this phase is necessary, the word phase is perhaps not the most rigorous one. It is not a question of a chronological phase, a given moment, or a page that one day simply will be turned, in order to go on to other things. The necessity of this phase is structural; it is the necessity of an interminable analysis: the hierarchy of dual oppositions always reestablishes itself. Unlike those authors whose death does not await their demise, the time for overturning is never a dead letter.

That being said- and on the other hand- to remain in this phase is still to operate on the terrain of and from within the deconstructed system. By means of this double, and precisely stratified, dislodged and dislodging, writing, we must also mark the interval between inversion, which brings low what was high, and the irruptive emergence of a new "concept", a concept that can no longer be, and never could be, included in the previous regime. If this interval, this biface or biphase, can be inscribed only in a bifurcated writing (and this holds first of all for a new concept of writing, that simultaneously provokes the overturning of the hierarchy speech/writing, and the entire system attached to it, and releases the dissonance of a writing within speech, thereby disorganizing the entire inherited order and invading the entire field), then it can only be marked in what I would call a grouped textual field: in the last analysis it is impossible to point it out, for a unilinear text, or a punctual position, 'I an operation signed by a single author, are all by definition incapable of practicing this interval.

Henceforth, in order better to mark this interval (La dissemination), the text that bears this title, since you have asked me about it, is a systematic and playful exploration of the interval-"ecart," carre, carrure, carte, charte, quatre,lO etc.) it has been necessary to analyze, to set to work, within the text of the history of philosophy, as well as within the so-called literary text (for example, Mallarme), certain marks, shall we say (I mentioned certain ones just now, there are many others), that by analogy (I underline) I have called undecidables, that is, unities of simulacrum, "false" verbal properties (nominal or semantic) that can no longer be included within philosophical (binary) opposition: but which, however, inhabit philosophical opposition, resisting and disorganizing it, without ever constituting a third term, without ever leaving room for a solution in the form of speculative dialectics (the pharmakon is neither remedy nor poison, neither good nor evil, neither the inside nor the outside, neither speech nor writing; the supplement is neither a plus nor a minus, neither an outside nor the complement of an inside, neither accident nor essence, etc.; the hymen is neither confusion nor distinction, neither identity nor difference, neither consummation nor virginity, neither the veil nor unveiling, neither the inside nor the outside, etc.; the gram is neither a signifier nor a signified, neither a sign nor a thing, neither a presence nor an absence, neither a position nor a negation, etc.; spacing is neither space nor time; the incision is neither the incised integrity of a beginning, or of a simple cutting into, nor simple secondary. Neither/nor: that is simultaneously either or; the mark is also the marginal limit, the march, etc.).l1

In fact, I attempt to bring the critical operation to bear against the unceasing re-appropriation of this work of the simulacrum by a dialectics of the Hegelian type (Which even idealizes and "semantizes" the value of work), for Hegelian idealism consists precisely of a releve of the binary oppositions of classical idealism, a resolution of contradiction into a third term that comes in order to aufheben, to deny while raising up, while idealizing, while sublimating into an anamnesic interiority (Errinnerung), while interning difference in a self-presence. 12"

Since it is still a question of elucidating the relationship to Hegel- a difficult labor, which for the most part remains before us, and which in a certain way is interminable, at least if one wishes to execute it rigorously and minutely- I have attempted to distinguish differance (whose a marks, among other things, its productive and conflictual characteristics) from Hegelian difference, and have done so precisely at the point at which Hegel, in the greater Logic, determines difference as contradiction 13 only in order to resolve it, to interiorize it, to lift it up (according to the syllogistic process of speculative dialectics) into the self-presence of an ontotheological or onto-teleological synthesis.

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

New proposal to the lead[edit]

My new proposal tries to 1st give its impact and 2nd focus on "deconstruction" phases as explained by Derrida (" we must proceed using a double gesture, according to a unity that is both systematic and in and of itself divided, a double writing, that is, a writing that is in and of itself multiple, what I called, in "La double seance ," a double science."), by Rorty here and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy here. I'm not responsible for all that is here, but I can subscribe it (it includes contribution from AnotherAnonymous and others).

1st PARAGRAPH ("context"):

Deconstruction (French: déconstruction) is a form of philosophical and literary analysis derived principally from Jacques Derrida's 1967 work Of Grammatology.[1] In the 1980s it designated more loosely a range of theoretical enterprises in diverse areas [2] of the humanities and social sciences, including—in addition to philosophy and literature—law,[3][4][5]anthropology,[6] historiography,[7] linguistics,[8] sociolinguistics,[9] psychoanalysis, political theory, feminism, and gay and lesbian studies. Deconstruction still has a major influence in the academe of Continental Europe, South America and everywhere Continental philosophy is predominant, particularly in debates around ontology, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, hermeneutics, and the philosophy of language. It also influenced architecture (in the form of deconstructivism), music,[10] art,[11] and art criticism.[12]

2nd PARAGRAPH ("theoretical constatation and consequent implications"- "We think only in signs")

Deconstruction denies the possibility of a “pure presence”: "the present or presence of sense to a full and primordial intuition". [13] [14] It thus denies the possibility of essential or intrinsic and stable meaning and the unmediated access to "reality”. Derrida points that "from the moment that there is meaning there are nothing but signs. We think only in signs." [15] [16][17] [18][19] [20] [21] [22] Language, considered as a system of signs, as Ferdinand de Saussure says, [23] is nothing but differences. Rorty contends that "words have meaning only because of contrast-effects with other words...no word can acquire meaning in the way in which philosophers from Aristotle to Bertrand Russell have hoped it might—by being the unmediated expression of something non-linguistic (e.g., an emotion, a sense-datum, a physical object, an idea, a Platonic Form)".[24] Any given concept is thus constituted in reciprocal determination, in terms of its oppositions, e.g. perception/reason, speech/writing, mind/body, interior/exterior, marginal/central, sensible/intelligible, intuition/signification, nature/culture, etc.[25] [26] Derrida terms logocentrism the philosophical commitment to pure, unmediated, presence as a source of self-sufficient meaning.[27] [28][29]

3rd PARAGRAPH (1st phase: "pratical constatation and consequent operation"- "on the one hand, we must traverse a phase of overturning")

Further, Derrida contends that "in a classical philosophical opposition we are not dealing with the peaceful coexistence of a vis-a-vis, but rather with a violent hierarchy. One of the two terms governs the other (axiologically, logically, etc.), or has the upper hand": signified over signifier; intelligible over sensible; speech over writing; activity over passivity, etc.[32] The first task of deconstruction, starting with philosophy and afterwards revealing it operating in literary texts, juridical texts, etc, would be to overturn these oppositions. But it is not that the final objective of deconstruction is to surpass all oppositions, because it is assumed they are structurally necessary to produce sense. They simply cannot be suspended once and for all. The hierarchy of dual oppositions always reestablishes itself. But this only points to "the necessity of an interminable analysis" that can make explicit the decisions and arbitrary violence intrinsic to all texts.[33]

4th PARAGRAPH (2nd phase:"pragmatic intervention in the theoretical field" -"on the other hand..the irruptive emergence of a new "concept"")

Finally, Derrida argues that it is not enough to expose and deconstruct the way oppositions work and how meaning and values are produced, and then stop there in a nihilistic or cynical position regarding all meaning, "thereby preventing any means of intervening in the field effectively".[34] To be effective, deconstruction needs to create new terms, not to synthesize the concepts in opposition, but to mark their difference and eternal interplay. This explains why Derrida always proposes new terms in his deconstruction, not as a free play but as a pure necessity of analysis, to better mark the intervals. Derrida called undecidables, that is, unities of simulacrum, "false" verbal properties (nominal or semantic) that can no longer be included within philosophical (binary) opposition: but which, however, inhabit philosophical oppositions, resisting and organizing it, without ever constituting a third term, without ever leaving room for a solution in the form of speculative dialectics (e.g. différance, archi-writing, pharmakon, supplement, hymen, gram, spacing).[35] Hibrido Mutante (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Most problematic paragraph in the lead[edit]

I belive that the most problematic paragraph is the second one and we should focus on making it better (and smaller).

2nd PARAGRAPH

A central premise of deconstruction is that all of Western literature and philosophy implicitly relies on a metaphysics of presence,[13][14] where intrinsic meaning is accessible by virtue of pure presence.[15][16] Deconstruction denies the possibility of a pure presence and thus of essential or intrinsic and stable meaning — and thus a relinquishment of the notions of absolute truth, unmediated access to "reality" and consequently of conceptual hierarchy. "From the moment that there is meaning there are nothing but signs. We think only in signs."[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] Language, considered as a system of signs, as Ferdinand de Saussure says,[25] is nothing but differences. Words have meaning only because of contrast-effects with other words. 'Red' means what it does only by contrast with 'blue', 'green', etc. 'Being' also means nothing except by contrast, not only with 'beings' but with 'Nature', 'God', 'Humanity', and indeed every other word in the language. No word can acquire meaning in the way in which philosophers from Aristotle to Bertrand Russell have hoped it might—by being the unmediated expression of something non-linguistic (e.g., an emotion, a sense-datum, a physical object, an idea, a Platonic Form).[26] Derrida terms logocentrism the philosophical commitment to pure, unmediated, presence as a source of self-sufficient meaning.[27][28][29] Due to this impossibility of pure presence and consequently of intrinsic meaning, any given concept is constituted in reciprocal determination, in terms of its oppositions, e.g. perception/reason, speech/writing, mind/body, interior/exterior, marginal/central, sensible/intelligible, intuition/signification, nature/culture.[30][31] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibrido Mutante (talkcontribs) 02:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion:


Deconstruction denies the possibility of a “pure presence”: "the present or presence of sense to a full and primordial intuition". [13] [14] It thus denies the possibility of essential or intrinsic and stable meaning and the unmediated access to "reality”. Derrida points that "from the moment that there is meaning there are nothing but signs. We think only in signs." [15] [16][17] [18][19] [20] [21] [22] Language, considered as a system of signs, as Ferdinand de Saussure says, [23] is nothing but differences. Rorty contends that "words have meaning only because of contrast-effects with other words...no word can acquire meaning in the way in which philosophers from Aristotle to Bertrand Russell have hoped it might—by being the unmediated expression of something non-linguistic (e.g., an emotion, a sense-datum, a physical object, an idea, a Platonic Form)".[24] Any given concept is thus constituted in reciprocal determination, in terms of its oppositions, e.g. perception/reason, speech/writing, mind/body, interior/exterior, marginal/central, sensible/intelligible, intuition/signification, nature/culture, etc.[25] [26] Derrida terms logocentrism the philosophical commitment to pure, unmediated, presence as a source of self-sufficient meaning.[27] [28][29]

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Discuss issues[edit]

@ 86.169.42.101

Please explain your reasons (where, what, why) to consider that:

a) This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the Wikipedia editor's particular feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts. (March 2015)

b)This article is written like a research paper or scientific journal that may use overly technical terms or may not be written like an encyclopedic article. (March 2015)

c) The neutrality of this article is disputed. (March 2015)

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe it is possible to dispute the overtechnicality of this article. I could see a case being made for both of the other statements too.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

If this page were rewritten from scratch how would it be structured?[edit]

Deconstruction is obviously a complicated subject, but it can be tackled if there is enough people willing to pitch in rather than argue over specifics and cause conflict. At this point, a plainly written, short article could be more useful (aside from for the people who already know it). The question then becomes how to actually structure the article, not necessarily to redo it from the start, but to eventually move the article itself towards.

Thoughts for a start (not comprehensive, but important parts):

- Etymology (as per now)

- Influences (this currently shows up as its own section and within the "On Deconstruction" section)

- Derrida's contributions (Of Grammatology, etc): Philosophical Concerns with Subsections on Philosophy of Language/Differance ("there is no outside text") and Metaphysics of Presence, explaining it more thoroughly, then a (perhaps more concise) version of "Related Works by Derrida"

- Influence/Application: Literary Criticism, Post-Structuralism, Developments after Deconstruction

- Difficulty of Definition (contrast with Hegel Dialectics and other potential confusions, Derrida's negative definitions, etc)

- Criticisms (mostly unchanged)

In the process the article could use some serious simplification (doable, however the start is poorly done, the first paragraph has more lists than relevant content, if it were up to me I'd suggest scrapping it completely) and removal of a lot of the lengthy quotes. If it cannot be explained without resorting to lengthy quotes, perhaps it is just as well it is left out.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I put an idea of what I'm talking about on my own page.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your constructive approach. I will try to help. I read the article in your page but couldn't get the differences. Couldn't you point the differences? As it is it looks ok to me.
But I think it would be usefull to try to solve this: "This article contains too many or too-lengthy quotations for an encyclopedic entry. (February 2014)"

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The primary differences were in structure, with some sections being moved around entirely. Apart from that, I chose certain sections I think it would be helpful to add and removed some sections - primarily the ones that were composed more of quotes than substance. I said it recently on Peter Kreeft's article and it bears repeating here: quotes belong on wikiquotes, explanations on wikipedia. That said, my version still includes many quotes which could be whittled down. If you have a particular section you'd like to remove quotes from a replace with a lucid explanation, feel free to post it on my talk page, this one, or wherever else you feel would be appropriate. I will keep working on it, hopefully we can get more people involved as well.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 03:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)