Talk:Deconstruction

Recent edits by Byelf2007

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

Merger proposal of Jacques Derrida on deconstruction

Rationale The two articles are nearly identical, with the exception of the lead (mind that the lead of Deconstruction is about Derrida on deconstruction), and the comparably tiny "Alternative definitions" section in Deconstruction. 㓟 (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest not merging them. Just my 2cents...This one was originally created as a standalone article because so much of it was redundant in the original Deconstruction article. There was a bit of edit-warring at Deconstruction because it was so Derrida-heavy. Thought I'd provide some background. But I really don't have a horse in this race. Happy editing... OttawaAC (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Since Heidegger created the concept and it has been advanced theoretically outside of Derrida both before and after him, no it should not be merged 75.161.86.55 (talk) 06:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• A selective merge of relevant, non-redundant material is probably called for. If there is concern that Deconstruction is too heavily weighted toward Derrida, maybe some material could go to Jacques Derrida, but from the current condition of Jacques Derrida on deconstruction, I don't see a big potential loss if the page is just redirected to Deconstruction. Cnilep (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Am I correct in concluding that this proposed merger has consensus? MergerDude (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
• I suggest not merging them. I agree to lighten up the "Deconstruction" Article from Derrida's influence and to expend more on other authors while keeping the other article about Derrida on Deconstruction. However, I do not really have the expertise to carry out this task. All I know about Deconstruction is extracted from Derrida's theories. --Christophe Krief (talk) 08:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

No reason was given against the merge (other than a suggestion not to) so I'll go ahead and do it. Bhny (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No arguments were presented against the merger so I think there is a consensus. You gave ample opportunity for the presentation of arguments and Christope Krief's "I suggest not merging them" and OttawaAC's "I'd suggest not merging them" aren't arguments, i.e. they are devoid of reasons, and Wikipedia doesn't operate on the basis of ballot. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Abuse of the English Language

Sometimes in my travels and use of public transport I encounter a fellow traveller that carries a foul odour. The hosts' fetidness varies: pungent perspiration, aged urine, freshly produced vomit, faeces that made an explosive exit, fishy genitalia. All potent and not to be trifled with. But sometimes I encounter a stench with such intensity or a composite, emergent stench with such foulness that I am not just disgusted I am impressed. I start to respect the stench and its progenitor. Words will typically fail me and I'll just think "F*ck that's impressive. Kudos for pushing that human envelope". That's how I feel when I read this article. This article's shitness is astounding. It really is a superlative piece of crap. This article is so awful it impresses. I am especially impressed that the excremental writing starts at the earliest opportunity, in the lead:

Its first task, starting with philosophical texts and afterwards in literary and juridical ones, is to overturn all the binary oppositions of metaphysics (signifier/signified; sensible/intelligible; writing/speech; passivity/activity; etc).[2][3] Derrida's theories of Deconstruction first demonstrate that in a classical philosophical opposition readers are not confronted to the peaceful coexistence of a vis-à-vis, but rather with a violent hierarchy.[4]

F*ck that is impressive! So much shitness packed into one tranche of text. Little nuggets of shit -- "overturn"/"violent" (figurative language in an ostensibly encyclopedic article), "confronted to" (bad grammar), "a vis-à-vis" (pretentious), bad generalisation (all metaphysics?) -- working together to produce a grand pile of shit that is greater than its parts. All that is being said is:

Derrida claims that philosophy contains conceptual dichotomies and that each element of a given dichotomy is valued differently such that one is regarded as inferior to the other. One of the tasks of deconstruction is to identify and challenge these implicit hierarchical dichotmies in philosophical and literary texts.

Big f*cking deal! How profound! I'm about to faint in the face of such profundity. Meretricious, like an old and haggard prostitute in the night or an ugly drag queen at a distance. The purpose of an encyclopedic article is to explain bullshit like deconstruction not to reproduce Derrida's turgid, tortured and tortuous prose. This article should be deleted and all of its copies destroyed so that it can't be reverted. To those that wrote this shit I have pity but also a species of respect. The same sort of respect that I have for someone that smells so bad they can clear a railway carriage in peak hour. That notwithstanding, those that penned this monstrosity have no place writing Wikipedia articles, they have no writing ability, no capacity to communicate in writing. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• I do not like your imagery of the situation here, as it lacks a constructive approach, if I can say that in this context... I agree that the text needs to be improved not only grammatically but also comprehensively. However, Derrida's texts on Deconstruction were first written in French, and if he was not abusing the French language, he was not meticulously following its rules neither. He coined the term 'différance' from the French word 'différence'. The word 'deconstruction' in French can also be understood as to unbuild meticulously a machine or a building, I don't think that such meaning can be perceived in English, or can it be? I think that if you are so disturbed by the article, you should start working on it and give it the grammatical, rhetorical and phraseological overhaul that is required. I can support you and correct you if I think that your revisions are not adequate. English is not my mother tongue so it would be inadequate for me to carry out this task. --Christophe Krief (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not like your imagery of the situation here, as it lacks a constructive approach

I beg to differ, the imagery is apt and I provide meaningful criticism. This article exhibits a hatred of the English-language and a contempt for its readers. This article is a misanthropic speech act (as is Derrida's corpus).

However, Derrida's texts on Deconstruction were first written in French, and if he was not abusing the French language, he was not meticulously following its rules neither. He coined the term 'différance' from the French word 'différence'.

I know. Your point is what? Why do you presume to know what I know and don't know about Derrida? The presumption that because I am critical of Derrida I just don't understand him is irresistable isn't it? It is a well-rehearsed retort that even Derrida himself employed.

The word 'deconstruction' in French can also be understood as to unbuild meticulously a machine or a building, I don't think that such meaning can be perceived in English, or can it be?

Disassemble, decompose, disintegrate.

Derrida's writings are akin to a tablespoon of cream that has been aerated to the extent that its volume has increased by several orders of magnitude. Aerated cream if not soon consumed liquifies and you are left with a small, miserable looking puddle of cream. People like you and the other authors of this article serve to keep Derrida's tablespoonful of cream aerated. That is the function of this article. Deconstruction is just a few simple ideas, poorly argued but inflated with so much florid and pretentious prose that the appearance of philosophical depth and sophistication is created. No article that actually communicates the conceptual poverty of deconstruction will survive long on Wikipedia. Those that have devoted their undergraduate (and in some case postgraduate) education to poring over Derrida's obfuscatory nonsense and learning to emulate his horrid writing style will soon arrive to debase a lucid article on the subject because they are embarrassed. The turgid prose will be defended with the refrain that the lucid presentation "just doesn't capture Derrida's meaning". Is it plausible to claim that such great intellects as John Searle and Willard Van Orman Quine are wholly incapable of understanding Derrida? Really? For these reasons I find little motivation to put work into the this article. Also, Derrida put an inordinate effort into being obscurantist, turgid, evasive and opaque. We can only presume that he didn't really want to be read or understood (yes I know there are pseudo-philosophical apologia for this also and they too are penned in a similar style so I make the same presumption for those). Why wrestle with his texts when there should be no wresting at all? Why try and extract meaning where its extraction is so militantly resisted? Why make a deep excavation to uncover a contemporary kitsch item? So that you can brag to fellow excavators that you too made the excavation? Why participate in a puerile and tedious game of hide-and-seek where the prize is promised to be the finest chocolate but turns out to be cheap compound chocolate that is also stale? Why not respect his deepest apparent wishes -- as evinced by an honest account of his writing style -- and just ignore him? A habitual obscurantist would also obscure his own true wishes so we can not expect those to be stated clearly and unambiguously. The ne plus ultra of exclusivity and obscurity is for no one to read your texts. Like Todd Snider's fictive Seattle grunge band that were so "alternative" they were silent, Derrida can fulfill the highest ideals of abstruseness and inaccessibility by being ignored. The philosophy departments of the universities in the English-speaking world have shown Derrida deference by promoting his deepest apparent wishes and assisting him in his process of self-actualization by excluding him from their curricula and remaining uninfluenced by him. Surely that is the highest honour an obscurantist can receive. Derrida's death is the crowning glory of a life dedicatd to obfuscation, his final obfuscatory act. When he was alive it was at least possible -- though invariably unfruitful -- to ask him what he was trying so hard to not communicate. Now that possibility -- as unproductive as it usually was -- has also been erased. Grant him his true wish -- don't read him, don't write about him. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• You are entitled to your opinion... However, I think that the poor quality of this article is caused by users like you, opposed to Derrida's theories, users who deliberately fracture the coherence of the article. Users like me who appreciate Derrida's work are willing to participate in improving the article. The fact that you dislike Derrida's theories is irrelevant here, you are obviously loosing the plot. Maybe I am naive to expect anything else from someone hiding behind another AnotherPseudonym. Maybe you should get busy on something more productive. So long... --Christophe Krief (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"Writing about deconstruction is, apparently, a slippery business; by now, those who have written critically of it have become used to the charge that whatever they have discussed was not really deconstruction at all, and some of its adherents even object to the very notion that it can be described like any other theoretical position, or discussed using the tools of analysis and logic. Worse still, those who write from the outside, so to speak, are commonly thought by insiders to be unable to understand its spirit just because they are outsiders, so that anyone who discusses the nature and value of deconstruction from any position other than one of advocacy and conviction is ipso facto certain to misunderstand and misstate. But, to judge from the writings of insiders, many of them, too, are thought by their fellows to have misunderstood and misstated what it is, for attacks by insiders on the expositions of insiders also abound." (Ellis, John M. What Does Deconstruction Contribute to Theory of Criticism? John M. Ellis, New Literary History, Vol. 19, No. 2, Wittgenstein and Literary Theory. Winter, 1988, pp. 259-279.)

Well done! You are a cliché. It is good to have apologetics in common with cults like Scientology isn't it? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• @AnotherPseudonym On Wikipedia we are trying to provide the public with an encyclopedia. You are supposed to use this talk page to contribute in improving the article. I did not get your claim about Scientology... If you want to accuse me of being a "cliché", let's sort that out somewhere else, it is a coward attitude to criticise other users while hiding behind a pseudo. If you want to criticise Derrida and Deconstruction, you can create a section in the article. The text from J.M. Ellis that you provided is interesting. Deconstruction, like Structuralism, Existentialism, Postmodernism are subject to interpretation. From one philosopher to another divergences will exist. So I believe that the claim from J.M. Ellis as per the paragraph above, does not only apply to Deconstruction, but also to many other subjects within the humanities. --Christophe Krief (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The idea that if you criticise something you necessarily must not understand it is a an old rhetorical trick that remains in use by cult leaders and their devotees (eg. Scientologists) and pretentious Continental Europeans and those that emulate pretentious Continental Europeans. The rest of the world knows pretentious Continental Europeans as "wankers". Wankers say things like "Pre/post/spacialities of counter-architectural hyper-contemporaneity (re)commits us to an ambivalent recurrentiality of antisociality/seductivity, one enunciated in a de/gendered-Baudrillardian discourse of granulated subjectivity". Then when someone tells them "that is a load of bullshit" they respond "ah, but you are ignorant, you just don't understand as I do, you are uneducated and trapped by your logocentrism". The purpose of this response is to silence criticism by attempting to elicit shame. You resorted to this cheap trick when you earlier wrote, "Users like me who appreciate Derrida's work". This is in-group/out-group psychology. You of course are special, you appreciate Derrida's work because you understand it, I am critical of Derrida not because his writings are deeply flawed but because I just don't understand him. Unlike you I don't have the depth to receive the profundity of Derrida's prose. That is exactly the mentality that Ellis is describing. Your response to me is so old, so tired, so unoriginal that it was described in a peer-reviewed journal in 1988. This suggests that at least in relation to the topic of Derrida someone other than you has done your thinking. You just blindly repeat what you you have blindly imbibed. Structuralism, Existentialism, and Postmodernism are just more Continental European garbage, don't confuse them with philosophy. The purview of philosophy is conceptual analysis, critique and clarification. Obfuscation and enigmatic nihilistic musing isn't philosophy. So you want to change my opinion by fighting me? Fighting me will demonstrate the cogency of Derrida's theories? What is wrong with you? You repeat a standard retort and you are surprised that you have been described as a cliché? I have studied the humanities and I know from first-hand that the intellectually bankrupt attitude of "you criticise X because you do not understand X" exists only amongst those that have been stupified by post-modernism. To what end should I add a criticism section to the article? For what purpose? To have you or someone like you to delete it and tell me that the author I cited doesn't understand deconstruction. These are childish games -- just like wanting to fight someone that you disagree with -- and I have no interest in childish games. Deconstruction is itself a childish game so clearly you like childish games. I am happy to leave you with your self-serving delusions. That you are special and have a unique faculty that permits you to understand Derrida in all his brilliance. That I am stupid -- like John Searle, Willard Van Orman Quine, Noam Chomsky and Alan Sokal -- that I criticise Derrida purely out of ignorance and an inability to understand him. You can recite Derrida's gibberish to your like-minded friends over coffee and you can all nod your heads in faux understanding. A silly childish game of imaginary exclusivity. Any Wikipedia article on deconstruction will inevitably be a variant of the current article. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to impart knowledge. The purpose of Derrida is to obscure and obfuscate. The two aims are irrenconcilable. An article on deconstruction is really just for people that already know what deconstruction is. The idea is that they read it and nod in cheap, self-satisfied and smug understanding and feel good about themselves. That is the essence of the childish game. A plain English rendering of deconstruction is an embarassment, it is the ugly old prostitue in broad daylight. The old ugly whore must first apply copious amounts of makeup and wait for the night in order to emerge. So too deconstruction. It must be dressed-up, made-up, powdered, wigged and displayed at night so the people will say "my that is a beautiful woman" and the others will nod in approval. This is the game of all post-modernist and post-structuralist writing amd Wikipedia will not be excepted from this silly charade. Look at the article on Deconstruction. It has no criticism section even though deconstruction has been criticised by many intellectuals. How is this so? It is because the childish game has no room for criticism and you know that. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• @AnotherPseudonym You must be paranoid because no-one here pretended that you do not understand or that your critics relate to misapprehension. Everyone is welcome to Wikipedia. Every one is welcome to read and develop continental philosophy. I find your imagery above disgusting again and your language is insulting once more. If you want to criticize continental philosophy, this is fine, but using the dirty imagery that you use will not help you this way. You should learn to contain your emotions and learn to express yourself politely and coherently. I find it sad that you have nothing better to do than to prevent us improving this article. I will not discuss longer with you on this page as you are out of the subject here and as I have more constructive things to do. So long...--Christophe Krief (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

2 cents worth - this topic is fully worthy of a wiki article, and anyone who disagrees can go make their case to an admin. with a deletion proposal (good luck with that) and otherwise swallow their pride (and hopefully choke on it). Trolling around wikipedia and expressing your hate here is obviously pathetic - and I feel sorry that your life has come to this. People putting time in here are at least trying - however flawed - to shed some light on concepts that at least 'some' people think are of 'some' importance in contemporary philosophy (broadly defined). If you (you know who you are) don't think it is a worthwhile project, you don't have to contribute. Is that too hard to understand? If all you can do is hate this world (this little corner or, as I suspect, the whole) - either change yourself or check-out. I can confirm that - that little gnawing sense you feel, that 'nobody loves the way I am' - is TRUE (in your current mode of being). Change yourself and people will start to love you.

Okay, enough with that. Christophe - thanks for your effort on the page. Personally I agree with some of the other comments that it needs a substantial re-write - in its current form it is really inaccessible to anyone who is coming to the topic with only a basic knowledge of 20th century philosophy. Comprehending an article on wikipedia shouldn't require a PhD in the subject matter - it completely defeats the inherent goal of the encyclopaedia. (I have a PhD in social science/humanities, but I find this article almost completely incomprehensible). No doubt there are many subtle aspects to 'Deconstruction' that each deserve in-depth treatment - however, I would argue that each such aspect should appear in an accessible (to undergrad student) form here, and be expanded upon/deepened in separate articles if necessary. Again, each of those articles should at least introduce its (sub)topic with an accessible account of at least the 'basic form' of that topic (e.g. is it a method, an ontological concept...etc), and get deeper gradually (if necessary). If there is disagreement over even 'basic form' - no problem - that can be incorporated. (Example <<'x' as treated in this article is a term associated with [<Derrida> or <literary criticism>] which is sometimes considered to be a [methodological device] and sometimes considered to be an [ontological concept]. This article will discuss both perspectives.>>)

The main problem with this article as it currently stands is that it jumps straight into an inaccessible account even in the introduction! That's really displaying the topic ('Deconstruction') in a negative light. I concede the possibility that it may have been written this way deliberately - to purposefully 'make a nonsense' of the topic, and to deliberately deter interested readers from taking any further interest in it. If that is the case, we should revert to 'any' earlier version that appears to have been written in a generous spirit (as in generous to the topic and its comprehension). If the article has reached its current state 'without deliberately negative presentation of the topic' - then I would have to judge that it can have only reached its this state via some kind of personalised edit-warring. To the extent that this has been the case - again - if there is 'any' previous version that - whatever its inadequacy - was 'prior to' this possible edit warring, I suggest the article gets reverted to that, and extra (generous spirited) edits get added back in - with consensus - bit by bit (and expanded on in separate articles if necessary). I am not an expert in Derrida, (although I will gladly help with basic editing tasks), but I would sincerely like to learn a bit more about some of these topics. Currently this article does not help me to do that! Which is rather sad. I hope that the community can come together to make some (major) changes to this article so that it can become a worthwhile resource. Many thanks DMSchneider (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC).

[Rolling my eyes] Yeah thanks for that. Did you learn how to read minds in the course of completing your "PhD in social science/humanities"? So it was one PhD in (all?) the social sciences and (all?) the humanities? Was it a PhD in one of each? Was it from a diploma mill and you checked the box labelled "Generic humanities" and the box labelled "Generic social sciences"? Good for you. It takes a buffoon to proffer unsolicited pseudo-psychology/divination as a rebuke—with pretension to having insight—and to also use oneself self-referentially as a benchmark for the comprehensibility of prose by invoking their irrelevant qualification. So are you suggesting that when you were awarded your "PhD in social science/humanities" you gained some special faculty that enabled to you to authoritatively determine textual comprehensibility in general? What specifically is the relevance of your "PhD in social science/humanities" to the matter? If you had a PhD specifically relating to deconstruction and/or phenomenology then your invocation would at least be relevant and to some extent authoritative—but it isn't so why mention it? But even so, what if you received your PhD in any topic from a crap university? Am I supposed to be impressed by your "PhD in social science/humanities"? The "main problem with this article as it currently stands" is as I described it so I will not repeat myself other than to clarify my position. My point isn't that the topic of deconstruction or Derrida is not worthy of a place in Wikipedia, rather my position is that articles such as the current, Jacques Derrida on deconstruction, Deconstruction and Jacques Derrida—as they currently are in all their manifest awfulness—have no place in Wikipedia. People like the other clowns that produced this current monstrosity and its brethren should not even bother because they seem able to only produce obfuscatory garbage. My point is why bother posting obfuscatory garbage in an instrument of information? That is a serious question and if you want to proffer asinine pseudo-psychological analysis then you should opine on that using all the power of your "PhD in social science/humanities". There are no worthwhile versions of this article nor of any other articles on cognate topics. Regarding my intentions, you could have checked my contributions to see that I have made substantive contributions to another topic that was similarly mired in obfuscatory bullshit. It is my prerogative to call a spade a spade and to communicate the fullness of my disgust in relation to what is essentially a narcissistic, antisocial and misanthropic act cloaked in the garb of "contributing to Wikipedia". Again I repeat my question: why post obfuscatory garbage in an encyclopedia? I don't WP:AGF in these cases because even Derrida's expositors and translators concede that his writing is "opaque" (to be generous) so merely cutting and pasting quotations or mimicking Derrida's style is not something one does whilst hosting an honest intention to inform. I can make a substantive contribution to the topic but there are preliminary problems that need to be resolved: (i) a decision needs to be made whether there is to be zero, one or two articles on deconstruction. If I were you I wouldn't make any edits—even with your "PhD in social science/humanities"—until this matter is concluded; (ii) a decision needs to be made regarding the content of the Jacques Derrida article—is it to be purely biographical or is it to also describe deconstruction (in which case this article would become redundant; it currently reproduces material from the two articles on deconstruction)?; (iii) can we agree in advance that any serious article on deconstruction MUST contain critique of deconstruction? Deconstruction has been criticised by many scholars and their opinions and analyses (in synoptic form) need to be included (I am referring to scholars such as Mohanty, Habermas, Daylight, Graff, Ellis, Eagleton, Mulligan, Claude Evans to name a few). Ignoring serious scholarship that is critical of deconstruction is entirely unacceptable and antithetical to education (as it is normally understood so that precludes your "PhD in social science/humanities" which gave you your oracular ability) and to the principles of Wikipedia. If the articles were actually a product of "deliberately negative presentation of the topic" then they would at least include one substantive criticism of deconstruction but they have no substantive criticism so Christophe Krief's conspiracy theory holds no water. That the opposite is the case is evident in that there are foundational criticisms of deconstruction regarding Derrida's understanding/use of Husserl and Saussure (eg. from Mohanty, Claude Evans, Harris) and in relation to the falsity of the idea that Western philosophy is essentially logocentric (e.g. Wittgenstein's and Dewey's critiques of what Derrida terms logocentrism that predated Derrida's works)—amongst others—yet there is no mention of these critiques. How do you and your new-found friend account for this incongruity? Surely if the intent was to denigrate Derrida then the articles (all three of them Jacques Derrida on deconstruction, Deconstruction and Jacques Derrida) would be overflowing with criticism but they are largely—if not entirely—devoid of critical opinion. It is also noteworthy that none of the articles that I have seen actually exhibit an understanding of deconstruction and its essential concern, viz. the metaphysics of presence (yes, go on and Google it using all of your "PhD in social science/humanities"). Deconstruction is essentially a critique of the metaphysics of presence (a phrase coined by Heidegger). Derrida's critique of Saussure, of Strauss, of structralism, of Husserl, of Plato, of Rousseau et al is a critique of the alleged predication of these discourses on the metaphysics of presence. Understanding all of Derrida's corpus requires an appreciation of that Heideggerian idea yet its exposition—and even its mere referencing—is entirely absent. The oft-quoted binary opposites are secondary to the metaphysics of presence, they exist by virtue of the primary binary opposition of presence/absence, i.e. the metaphysics of presence. I don't see any appreciation of this idea in Christophe Krief's broken English pretensions nor in your limp proposals for improving this article even with your "PhD in social science/humanities". So this just augurs more shitness and that isn't even accounting for the hipster douchebags—with their degrees in cinema studies that completed one unit in "theory" in first year that think they are experts in philosophy—that will inevitably turn up to regurgitate their post-structuralist cliches. Dear god. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Example #1 of misunderstanding deconstruction: the text associated with citation number 3 makes no reference to the concept of presence even though that is key idea in the citation:

At the point at which the concept of differance, and the chain attached to it, intervenes, all the conceptual oppositions of metaphysics (signifier/signified; sensible/intelligible; writing/speech; passivity/activity; etc.)-to the extent that they ultimately refer to the presence of something present (for example, in the form of the identity of the subject who is present for all his operations, present beneath every accident or event, self-present in its "living speech," in its enunciations, in the present objects and acts of its language, etc.)-become nonpertinent. [emphasis added]

Those binary oppositions that Derrida lists are merely examples of the way the metaphysics of presence that he is trying to explain manifests itself—they aren't the problem per se they are the consequences of the broader problem of the metaphysics of presence. This is the sort of superficial understanding of deconstruction that I am referring to so the problem is double: obfuscation of a misunderstood idea. Without an explaination of Heidegger's metaphyics of presence you can't communicate what deconstruction is—it is as simple as that. Look at the citation and how many times Derrida mentions "present" and "presence" yet this key point fails to make it into the text that it is supposed to substantiate. This obsession with the binary opposites—as if they are the sine qua non of deconstruction—is a caricature of deconstruction that is common amongst those that have learnt what they have about deconstruction from a course in some aesthetic field rather than from a philosophy course. The idea of subverting binary oppositions is just too seductive for architects, landscape designers and fashion designers so we see things like "the outdoor room" or the "inside-out pants" but the problem is that isn't deconstruction and that aesthetic can just as well come from Dada, surrealism and absurdism. A jacket that is composed entirely of the material that would ordinarily be used to construct its lining does not in any substantive way embody différance just as a conventional jacket doesn't in any substantive way embody the metaphysics of presence—how could a garment perform such function?. What I see from Christophe Krief is a contamination of the topic with this ridiculously simplistic understanding of deconstruction. It is my view that deconstruction is not as complicated a topic as it is portrayed but it is not just about finding implicit binary oppositions and subverting them. Can I ask you Christophe Krief have you ever read any Husserl or Heidegger? Do you understand what Heidegger means by the metaphysics of presence? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 10:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted your attacks. I think that your participation is welcome, but please read the Wikipedia talk page guidelines prior to continue this discussion, thanks.--Christophe Krief (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I have read the guidelines and you have no right to delete the entirety of my commentary. If you find a portion of it offensive then ask me to strike that out but please don't delete it. I have every right to re-instate it and I will do so. AnotherPseudonym (talk) AnotherPseudonym (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

PS:-I have every right to respond to DMSchneider and I make some substantive posts. Again I ask: Have you ever read any Husserl or Heidegger? Do you understand what Heidegger means by the metaphysics of presence? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

AnotherPseudonym You do not know who wrote what in this article, so please stop blaming me for the poor content. I have had very little influence on the article, my only intervention consisted in the inclusion of the footnote number one and in trying to clarify the introduction. Answering your question i have read Heidegger, Hegel, Kant, Habermas, Adorno, Nietzsche, Marx and other German philosophers. Maybe you can give me more details in relation to your query about Heidegger's metaphysics of presence. You must understand that the purpose of this article is to give an understanding of deconstruction to the wider public. If you want to preserve the paragraph that you posted, repost it withou the personal attacks. I do't know why you cannot post without attacking everyone, but this is not permitted on a Wikipedia talk page. Thanks --Christophe Krief (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I know what the purpose of the article is so don't presume to lecture me. I don't have a "query" about Heidegger. I know what Derrida and Heidegger mean by the metaphysics of presence, I'm asking if you understand the idea because it is important to all of Derrida's work and you don't appear to even have an inkling of an idea even though you claim to have read Heidegger. Also have you read any philosophy of language? Have you read any Wittgenstein or Dewey? Have you read Saussure's Cours de linguistique generale or do you just blindly accept everything that Derrida says about Saussure? (I ask this because there are Saussure experts that argue that Derrida does not understand Saussure) and because you do not appear to understand Saussures's scheme of sign/signifier/signified/referent. Have you read any critiques of deconstruction? Have you at least read Habermas' critique of deconstruction (since you claim to have read Habermas)? I ask these questions because I fear that you are ignorant and arrogant and it will become impossible for me to explain anything to you when you inevitably start posting garbage in bad English. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I really don't want to talk about me here, but I want to defend myself from your allegations. I have read Saussure "Cours de linguistique générale" from Saussure, which is not the one that Derrida refers to in "Of Grammatology". I have read Rousseau "essais sur l'origine des langues" which is the one that Derrida refers to. I am not claiming to be an expert in Deconstruction as you do. My reading of Habermas is limited to "Technology and Science as Ideology", English translation. I have no more time today for this subject, but I will reconnect to Deconstruction tomorrow.--Christophe Krief (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't claim to be an "expert" on post-structuralism but I do claim to have a broad education in philosophy and an understanding of Derrida's early writings. So you have read no critiques on deconstruction, not even from Habermas (The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity)? So am I to take it that you read Derrida like a devout Muslim reads the Quran (القرآن)—like a sacred text? Why have you read no critiques of deconstruction yet you feel qualified to contribute to an intelligent article on deconstruction? We are seeking to write a scholarly article and that necessarily contains critique. We don't want a hagiography or a dogma and philosophy presented in complete absence of the criticisms it has elicited is not encyclopedic, is not scholarly, is not educational and I would hazard to say is not genuinely philosophical—there is no philosophy without critique. Philosophy without critical dialogue is essentially dogma and that is what the current article is: badly composed (and incorrect) dogma. That is the inherent problem with doing a unit in "theory" in a degree in fashion or landscaping or architecture, it is essentially an exercise in indoctrination. The lecturers and tutors typically lack the background knowledge or skill with which to critically evaluate the postmodern material they teach and their students are similarly situated. That is why Derrida has had nearly no impact in philosophy departments in the Anglo-American world or in continental Europe but has had some impact on literature departments and heavy impact in the aesthetic disciplines (that trade in a caricature of deconstruction). Lastly, Derrida does use Saussure's Cours de linguistique generale—look at chapter 2 Linguistics and Grammatology':'

On the one hand, true to the Western tradition that controls not only in theory but in practice (in the principle of its practice) the relationships between speech and writing, Saussure does not recognize in the latter more than a narrow and derivative function. Narrow because it is nothing but one modality among others, a modality of the events which can befall a language whose essence, as the facts seem to show, can remain forever uncontaminated by writing. "Language does have an . . . oral tradition that is independent of writing" (Cours de linguistique generale, p.46). [p.30 Spivak English translation published in 1974]

The reference from Saussure:

Thus language does have a definite and stable oral tradition that is independent of writing, but the influence of the written form prevents our seeing this. [p.24, Course in General Linguistics]

D'une part, selon la tradition occidentale qui règle non seulement en théorie mais en pratique (au principe de sa pratique) les rapports entre la parole et l'écriture, Saussure ne reconnaît à celle-ci qu'une fonction étroite et dérivée. Etroite parce qu'elle n'est, parmi d'autres, qu'une modalité des événements qui peuvent survenir à un langage dont l'essence, comme semblent l'enseigner les faits, peut toujours rester pure de tout rapport à l'écriture. « La langue a une tradition orale indépendante de l'écriture » (Cours de linguistique générale, Clg., p. 46). [p.46 original French published in 1967]

The reference from Saussure:

La langue a donc une tradition orale indépendate de l'écriture, et bien autrement fixie; mais le prestige de la forme écrite nous empeche de le voir. [p.46 Cours de linguistique générale]

They look the same to me. Please don't try and bullshit me. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

You may have a certain knowledge of philosophy, but you lack the basics... All philosophies teach the respect of others. Your arrogance makes it difficult for anyone engaging you. You have the bad habit of insulting people's knowledge while cowardly hiding behind a pseudo... What is the point for me or anyone to discuss with you? It is a shame that projects such as Wikipedia are taken hostage by people like you... I don't want to waste my time anymore with another pseudo, I am from the real world... I can only discuss with people who are genuinely willing to exchange ideas in a productive peaceful way... Obviously you cannot do that. Derrida could, this is why I like the man and his theories... So long...--Christophe Krief (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

"All philosophies teach the respect of others"; no they don't, notable counterexamples are ethical egoism and fascism and many have nothing to do with the norms of human action e.g. fictionalism. Furthermore, postmodernism deprives one of reasons for respecting others. I think that is illustrative of the depth of your analytic ability and knowledge of philosophy. Clearly you are not "from the real world". You have a thin skin and are intolerant of any criticism. You seem to think—and some others have indulged you in this apparent delusion—that because you can read French you are an authority on Derrida and deconstruction. That is a prima facie idiotic idea in that it would entail that I am an authority on every topic that was originally inscribed in English. When your understanding of deconstruction is scrutinised it comes up short, you don't actually understand it and just trade cliches like all the other poseurs that have "graced" this article. Your English is terrible and your subject understanding is deficient I think that is sufficient to render you incompetent in relation to this article. You have no answer to my above questions so you "spit the dummy" on the thin pretext of my anonymity. Many (perhaps most) editors are anonymous, what is the significance of my anonymity to the substance of my complaints? "Derrida could, this is why I like the man and his theories"; that is a flawed piece of reasoning. So your acceptance of Derrida's "theories" is not because they are valid and cogent but because you like Derrida. What is the nexus between your disposition towards a person and the validity and cogency of their ideas? This gets to the nub of the problem with Derrida zealots; your advocacy is entirely dissociated from rational discourse, it is based in an emotional affinity, a charismatic seduction. That is is a species of irrationalism and that would explain why you have not read one critique of deconstruction—you don't want your idol to be tarnished. This too is demonstrative of your incompetency in that you are not open to persuasion via rational discourse. Reason, argumentation and evidence cannot displace an opinion that is rooted by emotion and irrationalism. I would suggest that it is you that lacks even the basic ethos of (Western) philosophy and that is unsurprising given that you worship Derrida and that you do so for essentially emotional reasons. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

PS:-Regarding Derrida's allegedly respectful behaviour consider his treatment of Spivak and Gadamaer. Spivak produced the English translation of Of Grammatology and by so doing contributed greatly to Derrida's popularity in the Anglo-American world in the 1970s. In response to Spivak's measured criticism of Derrida's understanding of Marx many years later Derrida wrote that Spivak can't read. I don't think that was respectuful. Consider also Derrida's treatment of Gadamer when Gadamer was trying to engage Derrida in respectful dialogue. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course, if you consider fascism as a philosophy, it is normal that you dislike Derrida and want to delete this article.--Christophe Krief (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok.

Firstly, fascism is a philosophy—specifically a political philosophy—and is generally considered as such . Many compendiums on political philosophy such as Blackwell's A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy include coverage of fascism qua political philosophy. Fascism is also treated as a (political) philosophy in current undergraduate courses in political philosophy, e.g. [1], [2], [3]. But since all you know of philosophy is poststructuralist sophistry this would be news to you.

Secondly, most of philosophy is unrelated to normative human conduct and anyone that has even completed an introductory undergraduate unit on philosophy would know that—but since you have no university-level education in philosophy this is understandable. Your idea that "[a]ll philosophies teach the respect of others" is a testament to your ignorance of philosophy. David Lewis's counterfactual theory of causation is a philosophy—please enlighten us as to how it "teach[es] the respect of others". Maybe you can publish a paper in a philosophy journal on this topic?

Thirdly, your conception of philosophy—"All philosophies teach the respect of others"—is puerile and risible. If you want to establish your reputation as a clown then keep posting idiotic generalisations like that.

Fourthly, Derrida's friend and professional colleague Paul de Man was a Nazi collaborator. De Man wrote sordid antisemitic articles for the pro-Nazi Belgian newspaper Le Soir during the War.

Fifthly, Heidegger—who was very influential on Derrida, the term deconstruction is derived from Heidegger's destruktion—was a Nazi. Derrida was embarassed by this and sought to suppress the publication of an interview he gave about Heidegger's Nazist beliefs.

Sixthly, both fascism and postmodernism (including deconstruction) thoroughly embrace irrationalism. The denigration of reason is a sine qua non of both postmodernism and fascism. It was easy for the quisling Paul de Man to make the transition from Nazi to poststructuralist—half of the work was already completed when he embraced the irrationalism of Nazism. The moral relativism of poststructiralism would have also eliminated any guilt if he felt any in the first place.

Seventhly, Derrida respected only those that fully agreed with him. To anyone that disagreed with him he was typically very disrespectful and he degenerated into hypocrisy, abandoning all of the priciples he claimed to represent. This is well documented in Dasenbrock's paper Taking It Personally: Reading Derrida's Responses. Similarly his handling of the de Man affair pretty much shows him up as a moral bankrupt.

Eighthly, I think the current article deserves deletion because it is garbage; but I support the creation of a new article that is accurate, well-composed and educational rather than doctrinal. I doubt you can help with that.

Ninthly, you have met the terms of Godwin's law. Congratulations!

Tenthly, if I want an ugly house designed then I'll be sure to contact you. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 06:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

OK AnotherPseudonym you make your point... As you are cowardly hiding behind a pseudo, and as I am not, you can attack and discredit the real person that I am, when you are safely in the dark. So I am asking you, what is the point for me to continue talking with you here? Give me a good reason and I will continue this conversation.

Answering to your first point: Just check the wiki article for philosophy, and you will understand that there is philosophy as "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.". The article explains that the term is also used casually: "In more casual speech, by extension, "philosophy" can refer to "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group"".

So in brief you can call a thought the first imagery coming to your mind. You can also call a thought the result of a long and deep reflection on a particular project. You appear unable to dissociate the 2 of them. If you think that fascism is a philosophy, so Hitler was a philosopher. For anyone seriously talking about philosophy, fascism is a doctrine not a philosophy. The problem here, is that you are using the casual definition of the term philosophy, when in fact we have deeply entered a specialized philosophical subject. You cannot use the casual meaning of the term at this stage.

Answering to your second point and third point: The word "philosophy" comes from the Ancient Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom". So can you explain how your insults and your lack of respect can reflect this love of wisdom? Of course philosophy is not only about "the respect of others". Why are you interpreting my words so naively? I meant that in Chinese, European, Arabic and other advanced civilizations, the respect of each others is the key to develop great societies and this is rooted in all philosophies. Otherwise the result is conflict, chaos and war.

Answering to your Fourth point: I am not aware of Paul De Man's relationship with Derrida

Answering to your Fifth point: So what is your point there? Do you think that Derrida and everyone else should disregard Heidegger's work because of his affiliation to Nazism? A part of his life that he called "the biggest stupidity of his life"

Answering to your Sixth point: This is an interesting subject, but as many others that you brought on this page, they are too far out of what we are trying to achieve here.

Answering to your Seventh point: Once again, you are out of the subject here... Talk about this matter on Derrida' s talk page article...

Answering to your Eighth point: As I said, my knowledge of "Deconstruction" is limited to Derrida's work. I like and frequently use the principles of deconstruction, but I do not feel competent to fully re-write this article. I am interested to collaborate for its enhancement, However, I don't see the point to have it fully deleted.

Answering to your ninth point: Seriously? This is Bullcrap... The chances for talking about any other subjects are the same...

Answering to your Tenth point: What the subject here? This house was designed for a couple and their kids, not for you... It was designed to suit their requirements not yours. If at the end you liked it and they did not, then I would have failed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophe Krief (talk • contribs) 14:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Christope, Christophe, Christophe. You are a confused man. You wrote:

So I am asking you, what is the point for me to continue talking with you here? Give me a good reason and I will continue this conversation.

Then you proceeded to post replies to my post. Ask yourself why you decided to continue the "conversation". Why are you asking me to account for your actions? I will respond to each of your responses because I have caught a glimpse into your mind and it looks like a confused and impoverished mess and I am feeling charitable.

(1) No I am employing the formal definition of philosophy and you are playing games with the informal and the formal sense of the word philosophy. You are making idiotic generalisations. You are in effect collapsing all of philosophy into some concept of moral philosophy that you have in your head. It is not even true that all of moral philosophy teaches respect of others, e.g. ethical egoism. Fascism is a political philosophy. You seem to think that only beliefs that have "good" outcomes—good from your point of view—are philosophies. That is a nonsensical idea. Both Mein Kampf and The Doctrine of Fascism contain political philosophical ideas. That they are not good ideas is besides the point of whether Nazism and Italian Fascism are or are not philosophies. Neither Hitler or Mussolini were professional philosophers but they don't need to be to espouse philosophies. Fascism is a doctrine—specifically it is a political philosophocal doctrine. The word "doctrine" just means a set of beliefs or principles held by a group[1]. If a political philosophy is believed by a group of people it becomes their doctrine.

(2) You are committing the etymological fallacy. Etymology is not meaning. But I see what you are trying to say. You are trying to make the point that social cohesion relies on mutual respect. I agree but that is irrelevant. You intention is to use Wikipedia to disseminate pro-Derrida propaganda. My intention is to prevent the use of Wikipedia as an instrument of propaganda. I can't and I won't respect your objective. My aim on Wikipedia is to educate (refer to my other contributions); your aim is to indoctrinate. Your intentions are ignoble and debased.

(3) Goodness isn't built into the defintion of a philosophy. There are such things as bad and destructive philosophies and many regard postmodernism (when applied to moral philosophy and epistemology) as such.

(4) Since you idolise Derrida and use him as a moral exemplar you should educate yourself about the company he kept and how he handled de Man's exposure as a Nazi collaborator.

(5) My point in relation to Heidegger is that he is a counterexample to your naive ideas about philosophy. Heidegger was a Nazi AND a philosopher. Being a philosopher doesn't make one a saint.

(6) The irrationalism of deconstruction is relevant in that any article on the topic that even pretends to be educational should cover this aspect of it.

(7) This is in answer to your claim that:

I can only discuss with people who are genuinely willing to exchange ideas in a productive peaceful way... Obviously you cannot do that. Derrida could, this is why I like the man and his theories...

(8) I don't mean delete it in one single action, I mean delete it incrementally by progressively re-writing each part. I am willing to collaborate but only on the condition that the article MUST contain a criticism section. As far as I am concerned that is not negotiable. My aim is to educate and to encourage people to think critically and also to produce something that is informed of all of the salient scholarship relating to deconstruction—including critical scholarship.

(9) You compared me to a fascist so you conformed to Godwin's law. By convention I win the argument.

(10) It's an ugly house regardless. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Your latest post above is strong in its will to put me down, but it gravely lacks substance to achieve this goal. Are you a coward? Or will you give me the opportunity to continue this conversation man to man? You say that you are not on Wikipedia to develop articles but to prevent propaganda. Why would the subject of deconstruction be propaganda? Are you courageous enough to speak for yourself and assume your statements here? Do you have the guts required to continue this conversation? or as I think it will be, do you lack the balls to assume your superficial opinions? You are intelligent enough (are you?) to understand that I cannot continue this conversation with you unless you use a real name instead of another pseudo. What are you afraid of? You must be afraid about something to hide behind another pseudo? Are you an impostor as I think your are? I will be waiting for you, but my conversation with another pseudo stops here. I don't need to dialogue with a coward whose only goal is to put me down using incoherent concepts while hiding in the dark. I hope that you will give me the opportunity to continue this discussion man to man; but I seriously doubt it.--Christophe Krief (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Relax Christophe, you take things too seriously and out of context. My aim is to produce good articles not just to prevent propaganda. My point is merely that unless you have read critiques of deconstruction you will lack perspective and this will influence your constributions in a negative manner. If you create an article on deconstruction that has no criticism—or includes only trivial criticism—then you have departed from being an educator to becoming an advocate or a propagandist. This is because someone that has no prior knowledge of deconstruction that comes to such an article will gain a false impression of the subject. Perhaps an example will help clarify my meaning and intention. Consider the article on the teleological argument for the existence of a god. If we remove the criticism section then for someone with no prior knowledge in the philosophy of religion we have acted not as educators but rather as advocates of a partisan position. By virtue of the omission we have created an illusion of unassailability and validity of the teleological argument. That is how the teleological argument is presented in a catechism, at Sunday school or on a course on evangelism. We don't want that in an encyclopedia and we especially don't want that on philosophical topics. Philosophy without critciism is—depending on the area—essentially theology, religion or ideology. I find your lack of concern for this matter coupled with your enthusiasm for Derrida worrying in so far as it will thwart the goal of producing a genuinely philosophical article (as opposed to a statement of doctrine). I suspect that your apparent lack of concern for this matter is because you are approaching Derrida's writings as an aesthetician rather than as a philosopher (even an amateur) so my concern may appear unusual. Does this make sense? Regarding my identity that is irrelevant as is yours. I really don't know much more about you than you know about me. All I know of you is what you entered into your account page of your own volition. If you don't want people to make any reference to the details you supply on your Wikipedia page then don't include them. I have no interest in you beyond your capacity as a Wikipedia editor and it is egotistical of you to think otherwise. Also, everyone doesn't live in Ireland. On what grounds you assume I am in any position to meet you face-to-face I have no idea. I am nowehere near Ireland and I have no intention of going to Ireland. You wrote: "I will be waiting for you". Don't hold your breath waiting. For all practical purposes I may as well be on another planet. In any event that is a strange thing to post on a Wikipedia talk page. Are you engaged in a Soprano-esque vendetta with someone (the Kriefs vs. the O'Reilly's)? My view is that you are well-placed to make a contribution to the article in regards to the influence of deconstruction on the aesthetic fields and that you should try and produce good prose with complete citations in that area. A consensus is starting to form that this article should be merged with the other deconstruction article. I support the merge. The proposal is that the Jacques Derrida article become purely biographical and that there be only one deconstruction article that covers both Derridaean deconstruction and its variants. The common core can be described then separate sections can be devoted to the variants. Regarding the Borg house, relax I doubt I'm the first person to comment that it is ugly. It's a box. If I were you I would have just responded to me with "Yep it's a box, it's not much to look at but that is what the client wanted. They wanted a box, they had only the budget for a box so I gave them a box and they were happy with their box". Pretending that it isn't a box, that it isn't ugly doesn't work because it is evident to anyone with functioning eyes that it is is a large two-tone box. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• I would have no problems continuing this conversation with someone anonymous if this person was not vulgar and insulting. I could continue this conversation with you if you were courageous enough to assume your dirty language, unfounded critics, personal attacks against me and your position towards the subject. I cannot find one good reason to continue this conversation with you in the present circumstances. So long... --Christophe Krief (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

To-Do Section

I deleted the to-do list because it was essentially a How-To guide on how to write a Dogma emanating from the Magisterium of Derrida and his bishops on the basis of Derrida's apparent infallibility; and it was written in a pompous and pretentious manner. It read as if it had been written in a possible world where Derrida (and his disciples) constitute the entirety of the philosophy and literary theory community in the 20th century. It proposed no criticism section and it didn't even hint at describing the impact of deconstruction predominately in aesthetic fields. It was a skelton of a heroic narrative in which the melekh mashiach (מלך המשיח) is born, he vanquishes Western philosophy and its attendant evils (Isaiah 25:8), metaphysics and its binary oppositions could not stand before him (Isaiah 11:4), logic and rationality were destroyed (Ezekiel 39:9), dead acadamic careers in literature departments were resurrected (Isaiah 26:19), stumped fashion designers were given brilliant and enduring new ideas like the inside-out trousers, and the world became a beautiful place (Isaiah 51:3). The to-do list is simple: (a) explain what deconstruction is; (b) provide a history of its rise, peak and decline; (c) document the major philosophical and literary-theoretic criticisms levelled against deconstruction (which goes some way towards explaining its decline and not presenting it as Holy Writ); (d) document its enduring influence in the aesthetic fields (albeit as a caricature). If that can be done in clear language with good quality citations then it will be a historical first for this article. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Preliminaries

I am in the process of reading and creating citations. I have just finished reading a paper by Rorty and the first chapter of Gasché's The Tain Of the Mirror: Derrida and the Philosophy Of Reflection and there is—at least on the basis of those two sources—good reason to describe deconstruction as philosophy—though not in the traditional sense (i.e. not traditional with respect to the continental or Anglo-Americam tradition). There are also many sources that describe deconstruction as a literary theory. So I think a description of deconstruction as a literary theory and philosophy (albeit a peculiar type) can be justified. In relation to praxis, Derrida has described deconstruction as an "experience" but I don't think that is at all helpful (the term is supposed to connote the allegedly passive role of the reader, in that the text that is fraught with the metaphysics of presence will supposedly deconstruct itself). This notion should be communicated in the body of the Deconstruction article (not only because it is Derrida's contention but also because it has attracted criticism) but I don't think it belongs in the lead. Derrida's expositors use "strategy", "methodology" or "criticism". In one interview Derrida describes himself as a historian in another as a philosopher but I can find no source that deems him a historian in any sense. I don't think there is any merit in attempting to source a definition of deconstruction solely from Derrida because he actively resisted providing such a definition. But that isn't a problem because his major expositors have provided definitions. I also don't think there is any merit in reproducing Derrida's lubricious maneuvering in an encyclopedic article (e.g. the long and drawn out negative definiton of deconstruction). Gasché, Culler and Norris didn't feel compelled to do so in their highly-regarded expositions so there is no reason for us to do so either. I want to make a more general point about composing "problematic" articles because I think this issue will bear on the article throughout its construction and maintenance. Besides being poorly composed and expressed the article does not reflect the encyclopedists agenda but rather attempts to make manifest the subjects agenda (in so far as it can be said to have one). I think I need an analogous case to make my point clear. To a biblical literalist operating within a reformed theology her beliefs are not religious beliefs, they represent a comprehensive worldview that is true. I think this view was summarised well by Schaeffer when he stated:

Christianity is not a series of truths in the plural, but rather truth spelled with a capital “T.” Truth about total reality, not just about religious things. Biblical Christianity is Truth concerning total reality — and the intellectual holding of that total Truth and then living in the light of that Truth.

If there be any be any doubt about what this means it is that all claims to knowledge are evaluated against the Bible. All claims: science, philosophy, aesthetics, economics, law. Everything. If there is a conflict then the secular source is necessarily wrong. Wrong because it conflicts with the literal truth of the Bible but also because of the noetic effect of sin. So for example there are no such things as "human rights" as such in that they are a secular conception. Wahhabi Islam is the same on these matters. Wikipedia is not predicated on Biblical literalism and ideas from reform theology thus the subject of biblical literalism is just another article. Similarly in a secular university biblical literalism is taught as just another denomination of Christianity in a course on comparative religion. Librarians catalogue books on biblical literalist Christianity under the broad category of religion—there is no Dewey Decimal Classification of Truth. That is not to say that Wikipedia is not predicated on a set of ideas. It is. For starters, implicit in the Wikipedia project is the notion that humans possess knowledge and that knowledge has some sort of value. Secondly, there is an implicit assumption that language functions as a means of communicating knowledge. Thirdly, Wikipedia is based on a form of evidentialism in the sense that article content is justified with reference to some form of objective evidence (i.e. evidence that others can also observe in the form of texts and other media). Fourthly, Wikipedia privileges scientific consensus and other forms of expert consensus (this in turn presupposes that there are such things as subject matter experts). Thus the article on epistemological skepticism does not uphold the principles of its subject, viz. epistemological skepticism, and present a blank page. Similarly, the article on social constructivism doesn't invite its reader to "negotiate" a definition with other editors every time one visits the article on social constructivism. The principles and agenda of the encyclopedist are embodied in these articles not those of the skeptic or the social constructivist. By the same token the article on deconstruction should present its subject matter with the principles and agenda of the encyclopedist in mind not that of the deconstructionist. This means that we refuse the worldview (or part therof) of the subject here just as we do in all other articles. We describe biblical literalism as religion even though its exponents conceive of it as The Truth. We impart knowledge about epistemological skepticism rather than refuse to do so because we believe there is no such thing as knowledge. Derrida has no privilege in this regard, he has no special dispensation such thet he is excluded from the encyclopedists imperative. Thus it doesn't matter if Derrida claims that deconstruction can only be defined negatively (not-X, not-Y and not-Z); as editors we don't accept that idea any more than we accept the idea that the earth is only 4000 years old because Biblical literalists say so and edit related articles accordngly; neither do we assume the worldview of the bblical literalist in the process of producing the article on the subject. Just because Derrida claims that différance is a non-concept the article doesn't have to be written as if that is actually the case. Yes we report that Derrida claims that différance is a non-concept but we don't actually labour as editors under the assumption of the truth of that claim. The article on nihilism doesn't embody nihilism, its very existence is a contradiction of nihilism as is the existence of Wikipedia. The current article on deconstruction is written not from the perspective and values of the encyclopedist but rather from those of someone that is seeking to demonstrate the claims and ideas of deconstruction (as (s)he understands it). Thus the culpable editor is seeking to demonstrate their understanding of différance in the very composition of the article. Yes, I understand that is what Derrida and other deconstrionists do but we don't do that as encyclopedists. Emphatic, impassioned and aggresive claims regarding the cogency and validity of deconstruction are irrelevant. The devout Christian and Muslim are willing to die for their beliefs but we still compose articles on those subjects just as if they were another two religions; we don't adopt the worldview represented by those subjects and then edit accordingly. We don't qualify every statement in the article Biblical literalism with "due to the noetic effect of sin and this not being sourced from the Bible it is likely wrong". Rather we adopt the worldview of the encyclopedist and compose from the perspective of the encyclopedists' "worldview" (described roughly by the principles above). The article on deconstruction is just another article on a literary theory-cum-philosophy and the exposition of that subject should conform to the usual canons of article form and content—not the idiosyncracies of its subject matter. An example is Derrida's claim that deconstruction is not a method but his description of the deconstructive "experience" meets the terms of a method: "a particular procedure for accomplishing or approaching something" and several commentators make this point. The same applies to the claim that deconstruction is not a critique but Derrida describes a detailed analysis and assessment of certain textual details, i.e. a critique. Also Derrida's claim that deconstruction is not poststructuralist even though almost everyone that matters says otherwise. Insisting that the article on deconstruction conform to all of Derrida's assertions (some of which are contradictory) is no different than a Biblical literalist objecting to:

A literal Biblical interpretation is associated with the fundamentalist and evangelical hermeneutical approach to scripture—the historical-grammatical method—and is used extensively by Fundamentalist Christians...in contrast to the historical-critical method of liberal Christians.

in the Biblical literalism article because it characterises its subject in terms other than those used by biblical literalists. That would be a patently absurd requirement and biblical literalists don't attempt to impose that requirement on the article. But reading through the archives for the article equivalent requirements have been demanded and the article reflects an attempt to conform to those absurd requirements. I hope I have explained myself, it is very late here and I am tired so if anything about this is unclear comment and I will respond tomorrow. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Lead

Am I the first to recognise that the lead is largely a plagiarism of Positions? Large portions of text have been taken from Bass' translation of Positions and pasted in without quotation marks. This is from page 41 of Positions:

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 overturmng is to forget the conflictual and subordinating structure of opposition.

This is the lead as it currently stands:

Derrida's theories of Deconstruction first demonstrate that in a classical philosophical opposition, readers are not confronted to the peaceful coexistence of a vis-à-vis, but rather with a violent hierarchy.[4] One of the two terms governs the other (axiologically, logically, etc.), or one of the two terms is dominant (signified over signifier; intelligible over sensible; speech over writing; activity over passivity; male over female; man over animal, etc). The deconstruction of the opposition, is to reverse the hierarchy at a given moment. To overlook this phase of overturning is to forget the conflictual and subordinating structure of opposition.[5]

I hazard a guess that the remainder of the lead is plagiarised from elsewhere. Note that even with the plagiarism that is an inadequate definition of deconstruction, so the folly is double.

I am about half-way through creating a new lead (which is accurate and substantiated). I am taking the task seriously so it will take me some time to complete. It will also serve as a template for the remainder of the article so it deserves to be done well for this reason also. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I have marked the article as "Under Construction" and I have replaced the lead with a new—albeit—incomplete lead. The existing lead was a piece of poor plagiarism, it contained factual errors, it demonstrated a lack of understanding of deconstruction, it was grammatically bad—it was, to be blunt, a piece of shit (which was ironically posted by a self-confessed fan of Derrida. To-do for the lead:

• Provide synopsis of non-Derridaean deconstruction, especially Yale critics
• Provide synopsis of influence of deconstruction and its historical pattern
• Provide synopsis of most salient criticisms of deconstruction

I have deliberately avoided introducing more jargon than is absolutely necessary to communicate the substance of deconstruction and to provide a context for what will follow. I would be pleased if literate editors that actually understand deconstruction were to provide feedback and contribute. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

As a complete newcomer to the field of Phenomenology in Philosophy, my first reaction in comparing the two leads, is that the old one, for an encyclopedia entry, is actually far superior and much better. That is because it tries to explain what Deconstruction is from within the main definitions and explanations provided by Derrida. The new lead should be probably the introduction to a philosophical paper on deconstruction to be published in a Philosophy peer-reviewed journal. It departs from a starting point that is inherently critical of deconstruction and of Jacques Derrida, and tries to "explain" it by first pointing out what would be the philosophy's weak points or inconsistencies, in the view of the writer, of course. To start explaining deconstruction in a basic encyclopedia entry by mentioning the metaphysics of presence right in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the lead shows the critical intention of the writer, rather than the explanatory intention.

From a first cursory reading of the new lead I can see I am already completely confused by the assertion, on the one hand, that "intrinsic meaning exists," which is then completely negated in the next sentence by the assertion that "Deconstruction denies the possibility ... of essential or intrinsic meaning." Looks to me, on a rather cursory reading of the only the first paragraph so far, pretty much like a non-sequitur right of the bat?...

From all the walls of text that the editor has previously published on this page and on the Derrida page, it looks to me that he should be using his time and his knowledge and views of the subject to write professional papers to be published in Philosophy peer-reviewed journals, not on writing basic encyclopedic entries for people non-knowledgeable or non-specialized in Phylosophy in general, for which an encyclpedia is generally written. warshy^¥¥ 14:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

So a lead which is factually incorrect and plagiarised poorly is superior?! There is absolutely no criticism in the current lead so your premise is still-born. The metaphysics of presence is central to the entire deconstructive project, deconstruction is incomprehensible without it. Your "first cursory reading" is flawed. The metaphysics of presence--which is the object of deconstructive criticism--is the alleged source of notions of inttrinsic meaning. Deconstruction qua critique of the metaphysics of presence posits that there is no such thing as intrinsic meaning. That distinction is clearly stated. The claim that you obtained anything of value from the previous lead is patent garbage. You are in effect claiming that cut-and-pastes of Derrida's writing are more suited to the novice than paraphrasing? That is just bullshit. On the one hand you state that "a complete newcomer to the field of Phenomenology in Philosophy" (random capitalisation in original) then you proceed to offer an analysis of the metaphysics of presence where you conclude that the author (me) "and tries to "explain" it by first pointing out what would be the philosophy's weak points or inconsistencies". Given that you don't understand that central notion which recurs in all of Derrida's writings how can you determine its significance? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Wether the old lead is plagiarism or not, on which I am not offering an opinion, to call my readind and understanding of it "patent garbabe" and "bullshit" borders on a personal attack. But trying to offend and diminish your interlocutor is your normal style as can be seen above. It really doesn't faze me. However, you cannot determine that my reading and understanding of the previous lead, which did provide me with more insight into the subject matter than your confused explanation by means of critique, is "patent garbabe." I am allowed to express here freely my own jugdgment of your unclear attemp at explanation without my own reading and judgment being not only dismissed, but actually diminished and made insignificant. The apparent contradiction between the two consecutive statements, you certainly did not explain. Because, as I said, you seem to prefer to just offend your interlocutor personally, rather than even entertain a different opinion. But, again, it is clear from everything you write that you have, for some unknowm reason, just chosen Wikipedia as a means to publish your own critique of decontruction, and I, as a newcomer to the field, am not going to be able to dissuade you of accomplishing it. If your understanding of the subject matter is indeed so good and so right, why not publish it where it can be properly analyzed instead? warshy^¥¥ 16:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

@ AnotherPseudonymWill you insult everyone again when we disagree with you?

- Derrida is the creator of Deconstruction, however he insisted on not being a post-structuralist, your reference is weak on this issue... I think that the post-structuralism subject should not be in the introduction, at least not first line. This issue should be developed after in explaining that while some journalists and others non-deconstructivists have assimilated Deconstruction as a post-structuralism philosophy, Derrida refused this appellation.

- Do we really need your ref. to "the Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory."? 3 references at this stage of the intro!! Man this is heavy!!

- "as understood by Derrida—refers to the notion that consciousness can be completely oriented towards the present such that concepts—unmediated by prior knowledge, future expectations or language, i.e. self-sufficient concepts—become available as knowledge to the conscious subject.[11]" This is not necessary in the intro. Stay focus on Deconstruction. The metaphysics of presence as understood by Derrida can be explained outside the intro.

- You used Derrida's name at least 4 times. This is too many. There are other philosophers related to Deconstruction.

- Why have you removed my reference to the first use of the term "Deconstruction"? Isn't it important to know when the term was first used? The reference to "Meconaissance" and Jacques Lacan is also important.

- At least in the intro, you need to use a language that non-philosophers and non-scientists will understand. The subject should be placed in a context familiar to a normal reader.

- I agree with warshy, your intro is different but not essentially better. It is still confused. You have removed some good materials from the previous intro while some of the paragraphs that you included aren't good enough.

--Christophe Krief (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I have removed about 30% to 40% of AnotherPseudonym proposed intro which was too long. I think that the sections that I removed were not relevant for the Intro. I have added a reference to the first use of the term "Deconstruction" which was in the previous intro.

For me the intro is clear as it is now.

I have removed references to some contemporary authors who I think may be relevant for some sections of the article but not of significant importance to Deconstruction as to be in the intro. --Christophe Krief (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Christophe, you can't remove citations, WP:VERIFY is one of Wikipedia's most important principles. Substantiation is important, especially on a topic such as this. When the term "deconstruction" was first used is just trivia. Why is it important? Also I stated clearly that I'm not finished with it and other deconstructionists will soon be mentioned. And no "Meconaissance" and Jacques Lacan and not central to deconstruction. Heidegger and the metaphysics of presence are central to deconstruction. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, most post-structuralists say they aren't post-structuralists. I can give you perhaps twenty sources that categorise deconstruction as post-structuralist. I can accept some of your changes but some of them are unacceptable. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Chritophe, also what you wrote is historically incorrect it was Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences that presented the fundamentals of deconstruction (even though it didn't mention the term deconstruction) and that was before Of Grammatology. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Christophe, I have reversed your edits because they are unjustified. I have justified all of my statement with reference to multiple sources. I am prepared to push on this matter until it goes to arbitration. Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences presents all of the core ideas of deconstruction and that was presented in 1966, OG was published one year later. The most important influence oon Derrida's work is Heidegger and I have provided cistations for that and can provide more if needed. Lacan's influence on deconstruction is minor. The term "deconstruction" is derived from Heidegger's destruktion. Again, I can substantiate all of my claims with sources, you have none. You can't use your interpretation of a text as a source. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

AnotherPseudonym I did not reverse any of your work so far. You have been very arrogant on this talk page and you still are now. I am just trying to help you improving the article. Note that 90% of the intro as I left it, was written by you... As it was indicated by another user, your intro as you published it prior to my intervention, is not clearer than the previous one, maybe the contrary.

Don't you think that I had a good reasons for reverting your lead? Instead I decided to participate and to improve your work, as I thought that there was space for this... You should try that sometimes...

You have too many quotations which are not helping for a good understanding of the article. An intro should not be overloaded, specially when many authors that you quoted are not important enough to be there, it sounds like if you were promoting their works... I would be ok to use their works for other parts of the article, but not the lead.

Plus there is a lack of clarity in your lead as you published it. You need to understand that you do not own this page and that you need to accept other users' opinions --Christophe Krief (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Christophe, I am trying to accomodate you but you can't put unsourced and false information into an article. It is perfectly acceptable to have quotes in citations, the oroginal complaint related to quotation in the article itself. Every part of the article--including the lead--needs to be substantiated. You must conform to Wikipedia:Core content policies. Let's review the problems:

• Your history is wrong, Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences came out before OG
• Deconstruction is post-structuralist regardless of what Derrida said; almost all post-structuralists say they aren't post-structuralists
• Heidegger is the single largest influence on deconstruction
• Lacan is not a major influence on the development of deconstruction
• Metaphysics of presence is the most important to deconstruction, without the metaphysics of presence there is nothing to deconstruct

Furuther, I cam substamntiate all of my edits. You on the other hand are unable to do so. So let's start again from the beginning of the lead. Raise your complaint and present your propoal and give me a chance to reply. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Christophe, I don't want an revert war. Discuss and then edit, that is Wikipedia procesure. I told you that Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences came out a year before OG and that paper explained the fundamentals of deconstruction so that edit is inaccurate. AnotherPseudonym (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Many of your quotations are not appropriate, they do not provide the reader with a clear understanding but bring confusion instead.
• If I am wrong stating that Derrida first used the term Deconstruction in "Of Grammatology" then prove it... Your link to Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences does not say that Derrida used the term in this work but that this work is part of his theories on Deconstruction. So I can be wrong, but give me the page number, if Derrida used the term Deconstruction in this publication.
• I have nothing against a ref to Heidegger being in the intro. I had included a reference to him in the intro that I drafted few months ago and which was reverted by an ignorant.
• I agree that Lacan has not officially a major influence on Derrida's work. But I think that he had a large influence without Derrida acknowledging it. Lacan 's "Meconaissance", which is a term used by Derrida in Of Grammatology, is completely in the subject. But I agree this is an opinion which will be difficult to defend on Wikipedia.
• Metaphysics of presence is important but just state it in the intro, don't enter into details at this stage.
• I WILL NOT START AGAIN - I GIVE UP IT IS ALL YOURS - SUCH A PITY FOR DECONSTRUCTION REALLY...

And by the way stop posting on my User Talk Page...--Christophe Krief (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that Derrida used the term "deconstruction" first in Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences, I said he first described what came to be called "deconstruction" first in that paper. You wrote that deconstruction was first described in OG and that is wrong. The word "deconstruction" was first used in OG but the key ideas of deconstruction are in "Structure, Sign, and Play". That is my point. If you can't provide a source for Lacan 's "Meconaissance" then it can't be in the article, those are the rules (WP:VERIFY). I think you are being unreasonable. The usual procedure is to propose a change on the talk page, discuss it, modify it if necessary and then make the edit. Why do you refuse to abide by that procedure? I am willing to work with you but in that way. I took the initiative to try and fix the article, the least you can do is acknowledge that. You didn't do anything to fix the lead and now that I changed it you became interested. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• "You wrote that deconstruction was first described in OG" NO I DID NOT!
• "The usual procedure is to propose a change on the talk page, discuss it, modify it if necessary and then make the edit." Well you have not done that...
• "I took the initiative to try and fix the article, the least you can do is acknowledge that." I have...
• "You didn't do anything to fix the lead and now that I changed it you became interested." WRONG! I have proposed a nice intro in replacement ot hte one that you deleted, but some anonymous pseudo decided that my lead was not adequate. After an edit war I just gave up. Note that I did not revert your work, but that I lighten up your lead which was much to heavy and to confusing.

--Christophe Krief (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok Christophe. My first complaint is that deconstruction should be described as poststructuralist because there are many sources that describe it as such even though Derrida resisted the term. Another reason is that Wikipedia articles need to be consistent with each other. Refer to the article on Post-structuralism. I can provide you as many sources as you need that describe deconstruction as post-sructuralist.

My second complaint is that in the absence of the concept of the metaphysics of presence deconstruction is incomprehensible. A text can only be deconstructed to the extent that it relies on the metaphysics of presence. Maybe you are right that this idea is too "heavy" but is it legitimate to "lighten up" so much that we fail to describe what deconstruction is all about? Now the article references "presence" and "absence" and "pure presence" without any prior explanation in the lead itself and the metaphysics of presence article is just a stub. Do you think those terms are self-explanatory? I don't. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

My third complaint is your removal of references to secondary sources on Derrida exposes us to allegations that we have misinterpreted Derrida (I know that is ironic). The purpose of the references to his expositors is to indicate that the reading of Derrida is not merely my/our own but a recognised reading. That is consistent with the prohibition of WP:OR. If you refer only to Derrida then some "ignorant" (as you put it) can come along and say "No, that's not what Derrida means". Then what? How do you resolve such a complaint without referring to secondary sources? By removing the references to those secondary sources I included you have effectively removed our defense against the "ignorant". AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Fourthly, I don't understand what the purpose of citation [1] is and it contains what looks to me to be your personal opinion which is a breach of WP:NOR. I don't think that citation adds anything useful to the lead. I don't understand why you think page 25 of the French edition is of such special significance that it warrants special mention. Is it that important to mention the page in which the word "deconstruction" is first used and does the rest of the page gain some special status because it is the page in which the term is first used? Unless you can provide a good justification I will remove reference [1]. I am giving you a chance to defend it, a courtesy you do not extend to me. (PS:- According to Spivak "It is interesting to note that, in the first published version of De la grammatologie, Derrida uses the word "destruction" in place of "deconstruction." Just some trivia.) AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

OK Anotherpseudo...

• What about being clear?... I propose " often characterised as post-structuralist " As per the wiki article on post-structuralism defining Derrida's work.
• On your second point you are mistaken, the concept of the metaphysics of presence is included in the lead now published. In the first paragraph, second phrase, it is already stated that: "The premise of deconstruction is that all of Western literature and philosophy implicitly relies on a metaphysics of presence." With 2 long references that you inserted and a development following on the deeply related concept of "presence". My point is that sometimes less is more. It will not be possible to clearly and completely describe the concept in this intro. Let the reader click on the internal link to find more about it. Develop the concept in the article if you wish, but outside the intro.
• On your third point... You had inserted 6 ref. to defend 2 obvious statements which are that Deconstruction is "literary theory[2][3][4] and philosophy of language[5][6][7]". These 6 references were not helping for the comprehension of the article, which is about Deconstruction, let's not forget it... I understand that is important to reference the statements, but not by compromising clarity. You must not discourage any novice reader but in the contrary interest him or her... If necessary (I personally don't think that it is), one reference after "literary theory" and another one for "philosophy of language" will be greatly enough if they are carefully chosen and well relevant to the article.
• On your fourth point... You need to keep in mind that this article is informative. We are not attempting a Deconstructive work, but an encyclopedic description of Deconstruction which may imply the same. Why isn't it relevant to state when the term was first used? This is an important information for anyone interested to learn more about Deconstruction. Especially when the information points to "Of Grammatology", which is one of the pillars for Deconstruction. Do you pretend that your long references to "Gasché, Rodolphe" or "Haddad, Samir" which you had inserted in the first line of the intro were more informative and related to the subject? With Reference No.1 directed to "Of Grammatology" and the first use of the term in a published document, a novice reader starting his study will be taken straight to the source of the subject... Honestly, the argument here, becomes an issue of "Obscurantism" or clarity. --Christophe Krief (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Christophe, I developed a habit of over-citation from working on contested articles where someone presents to object to literally every sentence. The purpose of the citations of Gasché et al is in effect to say "this is not my personal interpretation of deconstruction, it is the generally accepted reading amongst subject experts". If we remove all references to respected expositors of deconstruction such as Gasché, Norris, Royle etc. I/we will be naked, so to speak. Look at the history of the article. Do you understand my perspective? What will you do if some "ignorant" does appear and says that this or that is wrong? If the "ignorant" is also using the same book as you are using and arriving at a different reading (yes I know this is ironic) you will have to refer to secondary sources. I am merely pre-empting that response. I am answering the "ignorant's" complaint before (s)he even makes it. Regarding [1], you can refer to the first use of the term without the WP:OR about Lacan. Overall I am happy with your concessions.

I think the lead needs some mention of non-Derridaen deconstruction and its its main protagonists. Then should follow some detail about the influence of deconstruction on various disciplines and finally criticism in brief. This must come from reputable sources and contain citations. I have some books and journal papers on some of these topics but not all that I need. If we get the lead right that will serve as a map for the rest of the article. Lastly, before I posted the new lead you admitted that the existing lead was awful and you distanced yourself from it. Then after I posted the new lead the older lead which you repudiated became as good as my own (and that other person claimed my lead was worse). Now with some relatively small edits the lead is now good. Really? This to me seems like pride and cheap point scoring. You saw an opportunity to score a point and you took it. Half of the old lead was out-of-context cut-and-paste of Positions with bad English between the plagiarised text. My lead was no better than that? Really? Can you not at the least try and maintain an objectivity in relation to the article? My work stands or falls on its own merits and that is how I expect other editors to receive it. That other person, wishy-washy, or whatever his name is, was apparently hallucinating criticism in the lead I posted and he was also hallucinating a great contradiction, he was rambling about peer-reviewed "Philosophy" and "Phylosophy" (with a capital P) journals (he couldn't decide how to spell "philosophy" or whether I was under or over-qualified to edit the article). These were both figments of his apparently overactive imagination and you knew that. You knew that there was no criticism or contradiction in the lead but you put point scoring before the interest of the article, "Better to score a cheap point against Anotherpseudo than to pursue a better article". Tsk, tsk, tsk. Not good for the article. When I wrote my commentary where I questioned the value of contrbuting to an article on deconstruction or Derrida it was written with people like wishy-washy in mind. You need to ask yourself whether you want me or wishy-washy (and his kind) helping you compose the article and which collaboration would produce the better article. Wishy-washy or AnotherPsuedonym. Yes wishy-washy is amusing with his misunderstaning of proper nouns, his chronic misspellings and his strained efforts at reading comprehension but how far will those qualities get you in producing a good (or even satisfactory) article? The novelty of wishy-washy will wear off quickly. Wishy-washy and his kind will agree with you on everything. Is that what you want? Do you think that someone like wish-washy will produce the dialectical exchange that will benefit the production of the article? If you want this activity to devolve into herd or gang behaviour then the article will suffer. What is more important to you: producing a good article or scoring cheap points? If you are unable to unwilling to approach my edits objectively then I will not waste my time and energy here on this article. Let me know. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Anotherpseudo, you are the only one trying to score points here...

I am very objective, and I am sure that any one following this talk page will agree. My only interest here is to provide the reader with a good article and I am not even paid for that. What is your interest here anotherpseudo? Please answer as this is an important question?

Referencing is a good thing, I have contributed to many articles just by adding references. However, if references are adding confusion rather than clarity, so it becomes a problem. The previous lead was awful, this is why I have worked on your replacement which represents an opportunity to improve this article... Thanks for this anotherpseudo... But please do not waste this opportunity. Don't take it personally. I am not playing football or any other sport or game where points are to be scored... For me points have to be made... I will be off Wiki for today. Talk to you tomorrow maybe. --Christophe Krief (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Christophe, don't be evasive. You allied yourself on the side of ignorance, stupidity (and semi-literacy) because it was expedient for someone seeking to score a point. Wishy-washy made all sorts of bizarre and unsubstantiated allegations that are quite distinct from your subsequent concerns and you gave him your tacit support. This suggests that you value cheap point scoring over and above the quality and integrity of the article. Moreover it shows that your are also willing to sacrifice your self-respect—by siding with ineptitude—in order to score a cheap point. You effectively contradicted yourself by then endorsing my lead with a few peripheral edits. Regarding your specific question, I am here to educate and inform and to encourage people to think and I have amply demonstrated that in my work on other articles before this. You've dug yourself deeper under wishy-washy's miscounted two points (see below). AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem with anotherpseudo is that it does not accept opinions which are not in line with its own...

I am removing from the intro materials which are repetitive.--Christophe Krief (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't me that re-introduced the text on the metaphysics of presence it was User:Bhny: diff. I agree with User:Bhny's re-introduction. You have no regard for Wikipedia:Consensus. Citation [1] is a breach of WP:NOR so my removal of it was justified. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments

2 comments on the side of the railroading of one particular view/critique of decontstruction that has just begun:

• One possible answer to my own central question above, as to why you have chosen WP as the vehicle for publishing your own critique of deconstruction, is that in the real academic world, one cannot hide behind "another" pseudonym. Actually, in there one cannot hide behind pseudonyms at all. To publish in the real academic world, one has to stand squarely behind one's name. (Again the metaphysics of presence?)
• Interesting how it seems to be a pretty common tactic of philosophers to simply argue that the opponent is not even "intelligent" enough to understand the concept as it is being used by the philosopher. You have argued that Derrida used this tactics against his opponents, and here you are, just using it again against me... This is just another case of 'the pot calling the kettle black..."
• If and/or when this clear case of POV pushing and of name calling goes to some kind of arbitration on WP be sure that I will be here to bear witness. warshy^¥¥ 18:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Where have I published my "own critique of deconstruction"? So you are criticising me for something that you claim I will do in the future? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Also nowhere did I use the word intelligent in my discussion with you so don't quote that word as if to suggest I used it. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just re-read your inept ramblings with fresh eyes. What the f**k are you on about? You have THREE comments, count them. "On the side of the railroading"? So a metaphor for an action has a "side"? Where is my critique of deconstruction? Show it to me. The "real academic world" as opposed to what, "the fake academic world"? Why is "another" in quotes? Why are you answering your own (misguided) questions? If you know the answer then why ask a question? You made your intelligence—and again why is "intelligent" in quotes—an issue and then you posted a bunch of garbage that would cause someone to question your intelligence. So you've arrived at the conclusion that you are infallible and omniscient? You are implying that you are always entirely correct in your comprehension of everything. You've ruled out the possibility of error on your part a priori. So are you saying that I am a philosopher but at the same time saying that you know more about (all branches of) philosophy than a philosopher? If it's a "pretty common tactic of philosophers" and it is "interesting" then give me a list of all the philosophers that do what you allege. To form the conclusion that it is a "pretty common tactic" you must have performed some sort of survey. "[U]sing it again against me"? So where and when have I used this alleged tactic on you before? Why are there ellipsis here: 'the pot calling the kettle black..."? That phrase is complete so you aren't elliding anything so it doesn't need ellipsis within the (asymmetrical) quotation marks. "If and/or when" means: "If and when" (i.e. if it happens and when it does happen) and "If or when" (i.e. If it happens or when it happens) and that is a redundancy, the "and/or" serves no purpose in that context. Show me where the "clear case of POV pushing" is in my edits to any article. You are harassing me on the basis of an unfounded allegation. If you continue this behaviour of unfounded allegations I will report your behaviour. "I will be here to bear witness", no you won't be here on the talk page you will be there wherever the arbitration occurs. Your behaviour constitutes WP:Harassment and WP:AOBF; you are threatening me on the basis of what I have not done and what you predict I will do. If you persist in threatening me and making accusations against me on that basis of your alleged ability to see into the future then I will be making a complaint against you. You have been warned. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

At least we know his name... I fully agree with warshy's point on the "metaphysics of presence". For someone insisting on this issue you are somewhat aside the subject rather than within Mr anotherpseudo.--Christophe Krief (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Christophe, you should read closely before signing your name. What did wish-washy post? This deserves to framed:

Philosophiæ Wishy-Washicus

As a complete newcomer to the field of Phenomenology in Philosophy, my first reaction in comparing the two leads, is that the old one, for an encyclopedia entry, is actually far superior and much better. That is because it tries to explain what Deconstruction is from within the main definitions and explanations provided by Derrida. The new lead should be probably the introduction to a philosophical paper on deconstruction to be published in a Philosophy peer-reviewed journal. It departs from a starting point that is inherently critical of deconstruction and of Jacques Derrida, and tries to “explain” it by first pointing out what would be the philosophy's weak points or inconsistencies, in the view of the writer, of course. To start explaining deconstruction in a basic encyclopedia entry by mentioning the metaphysics of presence right in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the lead shows the critical intention of the writer, rather than the explanatory intention.

From a first cursory reading of the new lead I can see I am already completely confused by the assertion, on the one hand, that “intrinsic meaning exists,” which is then completely negated in the next sentence by the assertion that “Deconstruction denies the possibility ... of essential or intrinsic meaning.” Looks to me, on a rather cursory reading of the only the first paragraph so far, pretty much like a non-sequitur right of the bat?...

From all the walls of text that the editor has previously published on this page and on the Derrida page, it looks to me that he should be using his time and his knowledge and views of the subject to write professional papers to be published in Philosophy peer-reviewed journals, not on writing basic encyclopedic entries for people non-knowledgeable or non-specialized in Phylosophy in general, for which an encyclpedia is generally written.

Signatory Wishy-Washy Signatory ____________________ <-- Christophe please sign here

Christophe, read closely. Is he saying what you are saying? Your concern—if I have understood you—is that the concept of the metaphysics of presence is too complicated and too esoteric to mention in the lead. Wishy-washy on the other hand thinks that the metaphysics of presence is something I/Derrida (who knows from that semi-literate nonsense) invented. He doesn't understand that deconstruction is a critique of the metaphysics of presence; he thinks it is a component of deconstruction and (for some unstated reason) that it represents a weakness of deconstruction and that the mere mention of it undermines deconstruction. Look at the second paragraph of Philosophiæ Wishy-Washicus for a confirmation of this. Clearly wishy-washy is incompetent. Wishy-washy's charge is utterly bizarre and incompetent. If you wish to endorse it then be my guest but by doing so you will be at the expense of your credibility. Above you wrote:

"The previous lead was awful, this is why I have worked on your replacement which represents an opportunity to improve this article... Thanks for this anotherpseudo... But please do not waste this opportunity. Don't take it personally."

Then you write:

"I fully agree with warshy's point on the "metaphysics of presence"."

So you agree with wishy-washy that by mentioning the metaphysics of presence in the lead—which is the object of deconstructive critique, the antithesis of différance—represents a surreptitious attempt to undermine deconstruction from the outset? That is like saying mentioning capitalism in the lead of the article on Marxism "shows the critical intention of the writer, rather than the explanatory intention". Is this what you are endorsing? I think you need to clarify yourself.

To you wishy-washy you are ignorant and entirely incompetent to comment on this article or any article on philosophy. For the sake of your education: The metaphysics of presence is not a component of deconstruction it is what deconstruction is critiquing. Deconstruction attempts to demonstrate the error of the metaphysics of presence, it is not an error of deconstruction and no part of my lead stated or implied otherwise. The contradiction that you think you identified is a product of your ignorance. The metaphysics of presence suggests that intrinsic meaning is possible; deconstruction qua critique of the metaphysics of presence suggests that intrinsic meaning is not possible. It looks like you have made a hobby of making a fool of yourself on Wikipedia and this is just but one other episode. You are a member of the epistemology task force. Well f**k me gently with a chainsaw. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Anotherpseudo, I agree on the fact that your are not present on Wikipedia as a human being, so that it is Ironic for you to insist on elaborating on "pure presence". You have insulted Western philosophy on Wikipedia with direct unprovoked attacks towards me and others. You should either come clean to speak man to man (as per Heidegger understanding of man to man) or you should be more respectful. I don't know and I don't care about your previous discussions with Washy, but during discussions with you, your lack of respect and your personal attacks were obviously linked to the hiding of your identity. So it is your absence on Wikipedia which lead to your attitude, and this is very ironic in relation to your insistence on the metaphysics of presence. I think it is what washy said, and it is why I agree with him on this subject.--Christophe Krief (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Post-modernism and post-structuralism aren't the entirety of Western philosophy, they are actually a relatively small part of Western philosophy that is more fad than serious work. My username is not a breach of WP:UN and I am not going to use Heidegger the Nazi as a moral exemplar. Yes "man to man", but that does not include Jews, homosexuals etc.. I'm happy to not meet Heidegger's standards of moral excellence. I'm not going to do all of the heavy lifting and just have you tacking on silly citations that breach WP:NOR and arbitrarily deleting my work without any attempt at establishing a consensus. I'll leave the article to you and wishy-washy. In any event I have proved my points: I have a better understanding of deconstruction than the charlatans that inhabit this sorry part of Wikipedia; I am able to provide a lucid exposition of deconstruction; and I can write more fluently than the charlatans that lurk here. In summation: this. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I tried to post on this page a little contrary opinion on the new lead being pushed here by this certain pseudonymous user. My little attempt at a critical reading of the first pargraph of the new lead was met with abuse, scorn, derision, mockery, offense, and threats. My attacker to begin with, refuses to address me as an equal user of WP, worthy of basic human respect, by simply referring to me through an invented mock user-name, which is conceived to begin with to convey disrespect, disregard, to diminish and to make a mockery of the person posting a different opinion. Simple offending vulgarities where thrown at me twice. I was called "hallucinating," "bizarre," "ignorant," "semi-literate, "inept," and even "a fool." (No, the rhetoric is actually much worse than that: "It looks like you have made a hobby of making a fool of yourself on Wikipedia and this is just but one other episode.") I was also called a charlatan, no less, me "and my kind." ("You allied yourself on the side of ignorance, stupidity (and semi-literacy), ... siding with ineptitude...")

I was categorically determined, multiple times, as an "incompetent" editor. Nay, more than that, it was actually already determined by this certain pseudonymous user, based on two or three little interactions we've had during the past month or so, that I am "entirely incompetent to comment on this article or any article on philosophy."

In addition to all this, I have also been warned and threatened by this pseudonymous, rather anonymous user.

Look above and see the heap of offense and scorn the same pseusonymous user has thrown at a different opponent. What would any normal person call all this? This type of aggresive, diminishing, actually abusing and demeaning behavior toward people that dare to hold or express here in writing a different or contrary opinion? Since I believe I have at least now faithfully described here what has gone on above, and all the names, adjectives, and qualifiers that were thrown at me for daring to post a contrary opinion, I will for the time being just leave it at that. After all, occasional interactions with this type of interlocutor must be just another facet of trying to edit/contribute to Wikipedia. warshy^¥¥ 19:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

lead paragraph again

I've reverted to my last edit as this at least has a short 1st paragraph that is almost encyclopedic and understandable. Obfuscation doesn't help anyone. Please keep it simple and correct errors and improve the references. (We need more secondary references and less Derrida quotes) Bhny (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I modified the second phrase in preserving the intended meaning. In the same phrase you had: "is that - or that - ond that". With regard to non Derridean reference, you sound as if they should be added whatever their relevance as to provide a wider range of references... I disagree on this point... - It appears to me that it is only a reference to Heidegger's Destruktion of Western philosophy which is missing in the lead. This aspect of Heidegger's work exerted a profound influence on Jacques Derrida, although there are also important differences between Heidegger's Destruktion and Derrida's deconstruction. I will be adding a reference to or from Heidegger's Destruktion. Any other references will need to be carefully chosen for their importance and relevance. --Christophe Krief (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit, that is an improvement. I'm currently only interested in the first paragraph and the references 1 through 6 are primary texts by Derrida with overly long quotes, ref 7 seems a good reference, but the rest make it seem like wp:OR. Also, I could not see the words "metaphysics of presence" in any of the references.Bhny (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I was looking at including a reference to Heidegger's Destruktion but it appears that all references to Martin Heidegger were removed from the article. Is there a reason for this?

Reference 1 is from me... There is no personal research except from the reference to Lacan which I am sure about but cannot prove it. I am not willing to write a book about it, but I am sure that Derrida never quoted Lacan because of his strong political involvement. However the use of the term "meconaissance" in the French version "Of Grammatology" cannot have another source than Lacan's researches. The rest of ref.1 is only stating information on the first use of the term Deconstruction in a published work. It points the reader of this article towards a pillar of Decosntruction, so i believe that it should be preserved as the first reference.. What would you consider more relevant? With regards to ref.7 I think that it could be replaced with something which has more history and more background. It is a joke that Heidegger is missing from this article when unknown authors are quoted in the lead.--Christophe Krief (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Unjustified tagging

Various editors have added vague tags to the article with no talk followup in the past (see WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING). An anonymous editor added yesterday the following tags: Lead too long, Over-quotation, Confusing.

According to WP:LEAD the lead "should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate"; obviously, the introduction is not too long for the overall article length.

The confusing tag is unjustified as well. There were some weasel-worded and vague phrases in previous versions but I recently removed them. One should note that the subject of this article is technical since anyone to understand the details of the theory would have to be familiar with several related debates over literary criticism, epistemology, and ontology within Continental philosophy. However, the article is fairly readable for readers who are not familiar with the material and the lead is written quite well: I deem that non-experts can understand and verify its content.

We could only keep Over-quotation since this is an issue that has been raised several times before in the talk-page. --Omnipaedista (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the strict reading of WP:LEAD, and irrespective of the overall length of the article, which is of questionable relevance, the question of whether the lead is too long is 'obviously' a matter of opinion. In particular, the fourth paragraph could easily be moved into its own section below, but this would not help the readability of the lead at all. It is the second paragraph which could do most with thinning out and simplifying, without being dumbed-down. This might bring the benefit that more readers would read the whole lead before giving up.

This leads on to the next argument, over whether the article is confusing or not. Familiarity with the context of the debates within Continental philosophy no doubt helps understand the subject, but why would someone with such a familiarity ever refer to Wikipedia to help them understand deconstruction? They would be unlikely to need Wikipedia for this purpose. Instead, they would probably just start by reading some Derrida. To say that anyone unfamiliar with those debates cannot understand deconstruction is tantamount to saying anyone referring to this article in order to understand deconstruction at its most basic level is wasting their time. Maybe so, but I find that attitude rather undermines the point of having this Wikipedia article. Much better to risking dumbing down the article than take that approach.

Jonathan G. G. Lewis 04:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonazo (talk • contribs)

The lead remains 90% my original work and is the clearest synoptic account of the topic that the article has ever had. Any further simplification of the 2nd paragraph risks making it inaccurate. My orginal lead had at least one citation from a well-regarded secondary source for every citation of Derrida as a demonstration of the technical accuracy and WP:NOR of my version of the lead. The motive for this was the oversupply of ignorant idiots that circled this article and made it the technically inaccurate and obscurantist pile of shit that it was (and largely remains). I agree that the article remains awful, and I hasten to add that I am responsible only for (most of) the lead. It is plainly obvious that as soon as you leave the lead you are landed into a qualitatively different territory. The article—less the lead—is technically inaccurate, badly composed using broken English and uninformative. Part of the problem is due to Derrida's writing being awful and easily misunderstood—as the article itself readily demonstrates. Part of the problem is the seemingly inexhaustible supply of amateur (pseudo-)philosophers that are attracted to this article. But certainly part of the problem is the phenomenological framework of deconstruction (and much of Continental philosophy) and this can't be magically dispensed with. I detest obfuscation as much as I detest Derrida but I do not think that the idea central to deconstruction—the metaphysics of presence—being steeped in phenomenology as it is will yield to a simpler exposition, that retains technical accuracy, as I have produced in the lead. My original lead was more elucidatory than the current version in regard to the central obscure idea behind deconstruction; the current lead is essentially an edited version of my original lead with the secondary sources (which served to demonstrate WP:NOR) removed. In creating the lead I read through about 20 secondary sources to see if a simpler elucidation—that was also accurate—existed and I found none. My participation in the article ended because I was the only editor doing any real work. I had three ignorant idiots hounding me and when I left the article they didn't contribute anything more to it. The idea which troubled these idiots was akin to the idea that an atheist couldn't have substantive knowledge of Christianity. Essentially that because I openly believe Derrida is a con-artist and that deconstruction is bullshit I must not understand it and will necessarily give it partial account. My lead—which I repeat is 90% preserved in the current lead—was heavily supported with references to Derrida's texts and respected commentaries yet this idiotic and unsubstantiated accusation of biased editing persisted. The first, i.e. [1], citation should be removed. It is not one of my own and is based on a translation by an editor, hence it breaches WP:NOR. The text of the citation is also poor English that adds nothing but confusion. The over-quotation in the article proper is a product of the ignorant idiots I have already mentioned. They don't understand deconstruction so they just cut-and-paste slabs of Derrida's badly written, French-to-English translated text in a bizarre ritual of faux scholarship. The "glue text" between the quotes is even more cryptic and badly composed than the Derrida quotes, e.g. "This confirms the subject as not present to itself and constituted on becoming space, in temporizing and also, as Saussure said, that "language [which consists only of differences] is not a function of the speaking subject."[41] Sub-sections such as this are just more obfusactory bullshit as is the entire negative definition of deconstruction which the article is built around. I've commented at length on this unencyclopedic style and the inappropriateness of embracing Derrida's claims and agenda in the act of composing an ostensibly encyclopedic article about deconstruction but this fundamental point is yet to be acknowledged by anyone. With other articles this point is so obvious it is not worth making but here it is not only not even questioned its violation is championed by some as a virtue. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The lead is awful and the tagging is entirely justified. It's full of technical jargon and completely incomprehensible to anyone who isn't already an expert in the field. WP:LEAD: "the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style". But clearly I must be an "ignorant idiot". Poujeaux (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

If you believe that merely because you are unable to understand a text—with the exclusion of all other salient considerations—that text is deficient then you too may be yet another ignorant idiot that is drawn to this article. Deconstruction is a contribution to long-running conversation in Continetal philosophy, it represents a response to an established position. You can't understand deconstruction unless you understand to what it is that Derrida is responding. Further, you can't understand deconstruction unless you understand the conceptual framework within which Derrida's contribution is presented. If you contend that the lead is awful then I challenge you to try and read one of Derrida's books, e.g. Of Grammatology, and provide an alternative lead—that is more lucid but also technically accurate—here in the discussion section. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

As AnotherPseudonym wrote above, the central idea of deconstruction is the metaphysics of presence. Of Grammatology is an attempt at deconstructing the metaphysics of presence. A simpler exposition (that is, an exposition which would omit the starting point of Derrida's critique to Western philosophy) would be downright misleading. I have encountered several books by literary theorists (see Donald E. Hall, Literary and Cultural Theory: From Basic Principles to Advanced Applications, Houghton Mifflin, 2001, p. 161ff.) and art historians (see Rosalind Krauss's introduction in: Hal Foster, Rosalind Krauss, Yve-Alain Bois, Benjamin H. D. Buchloh, Art Since 1900: Modernism, Antimodernism, Postmodernism, London: Thames and Hudson, 2004, Introduction, 4: "Poststructuralism and Deconstruction", p. 48) who attempt to gently initiate readers to the applications of deconstruction to literary criticism and art historical interpretation. However, such books are not authoritative sources about deconstruction as a philosophical enterprise, and one could argue that often they actually obfuscate even further the concept of deconstruction behind unrelated concepts drawn from post-Derridean discourse. --Omnipaedista (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Derrida's entire project is meaningless without the metaphysics of presence; a text can only be deconstructed to the extent that it relies on the metaphysics of presence. The binary oppositions—that people that have received one lecture on Derrida in the context of a semester unit on "theory" in a fashion or art course are invariably obsessed with—are merely products of that metaphysics of presence. The binary opposites in and of themselves have no special significance. Deconstruction is—at bottom—an anti–foundationalist critique and it is incomprehensible unless you understand the foundation that is being critiqued. Expecting a lead to somewhow supply all of the necessary conceptual background material and to also be concise is a fool's errand. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)