Talk:Deconstruction

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

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

The article requires continued efforts to ensure it is kept readily understandable to a lay audience. Given the reconstruction of the article recently, there may be some issues in pacing or logical continuity. Citations are badly needed in some areas.

The lead shall continue to need work.

Recent edits by Byelf2007[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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


Examples?[edit]

Maybe it simply can't be done, but the article confuses me as well. What I was looking/hoping for was an example or two of a deconstruction. I could explain in extreme detail what a car is, but without an example it will be virtually impossible to understand what a car actually is. If "deconstruction" as a concept is so poorly defined it's not possible to give a proper example, it means that "deconstruction" is nothing more than an opinion. In that case, the article should reflect that.

Put it this way: if the article is about a city (or any physical object), you show it's place on the map and a photograph/drawing of the entire city or a part of it. It it's about cars, you show a picture of a car. If it's about "arguments", you give some examples of arguments. If it's about quantum physics, you give an example of something they influence. If it's about a political view you explain what the view is, who holds it and what influence it has. If you can't show it and you can't provide an example of something it influences, it's an opinion. And opinions with little influence are, afaik, not encyclopedic. If I hate dogs and as a result kick a dog, my opinion doesn't have enough influence to be encyclopedic. If I kick every dog in the world to death, my opinion does have enough influence to be encyclopedic. (no, I don't kick dogs. generally don't fancy them either. please don't write an article about me) In short: this article needs some clear examples of not only who and what has been influenced, but also how deconstruction influenced that. W3ird N3rd (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, that is not an easy task, because, there are things that you can only "show", but not "explain". And the deconstruction process, is a "process of showing" what, perhaps, cannot be explained... But I will try to do it in the near future, giving an example around "normality" (It was here befdore, but it was deleted in recent editing) and perhaps another, from "law", perhaps trying to resume some seminal paper from the Critical legal studies movement. I believe others could add some examples from history, cultural studies, literal studies, content analysis, etc.
Hibrido Mutante (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. It's probably a good idea in this case to first go over them here on the talk page to make sure they are sufficiently clear. W3ird N3rd (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Derrida basically made it as hard as possible to describe or define or demonstrate Deconstruction, typical deconstructions are long and not always unfairly so. It is not entirely by chance there isn't any examples in the text.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I did suspect so. Since I still don't understand it myself, would it be possible to deconstruct a single sentence? Or would it be possible to provide an example of some text before and after it was influenced by deconstruction? I honestly still don't understand what deconstruction is so I simply don't know. Maybe it would be possible to explain what deconstruction is capable of? For example: "Deconstruction allowed feminists to understand gay and lesbian are essentially the same thing". This is not true, if this statement is correct it is by accident. But something like that, saying what difference deconstruction made in anything. I'm just wondering: with deconstruction being so hard to describe, define and demonstrate, are we actually sure it's not an opinion? W3ird N3rd (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
This article is intended to be funny rather than serious, but I suggest that if you personally want to better understand deconstruction it may be helpful. However it is so completely apocryphal that is cannot be allowed in the main article outside the External Links section.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
What is it that you are not able to understand? I cannot understand what you cannot understand... I was paraphrasing Wittgenstein... a"logical picture" can only be showed, not "explained". Personnaly I read the explanation from Derrida, ort from Rorty here, or from the Stanford Enciclopeia here.. and I can understand it...
I gave an example around the term "normalitty" (vs parasitic, fictional, etc.) "in the analytical tradition from which Austin and Searle were only paradigmatic examples.[1]

In the description of the structure called "normal," "normative," "central," "ideal,"the possibility of transgression must be integrated as an essential possibility. The possibility cannot be treated as though it were a simple accident-marginal or parasitic. It cannot be, and hence ought not to be, and this passage from can to ought reflects the entire difficulty. In the analysis of so-called normal cases, one neither can nor ought, in all theoretical rigor, to exclude the possibility of transgression. Not even provisionally, or out of allegedly methodological considerations. It would be a poor method, since this possibility of transgression tells us immediately and indispensably about the structure of the act said to be normal as well as about the structure of law in general.

He continued arguing how problematic was establishing the relation between "nonfiction or standard discourse" and "fiction," defined as its "parasite, “for part of the most originary essence of the latter is to allow fiction, the simulacrum, parasitism, to take place-and in so doing to "de-essentialize" itself as it were”.[1]
He would finally argue that the indispensable question would then become:[1]

what is "nonfiction standard discourse," what must it be and what does this name evoke, once its fictionality or its fictionalization, its transgressive "parasitism," is always possible (and moreover by virtue of the very same words, the same phrases, the same grammar, etc.)? This question is all the more indispensable since the rules, and even the statements of the rules governing the relations of "nonfiction standard discourse" and its fictional"parasites," are not things found in nature, but laws, symbolic inventions, or conventions, institutions that, in their very normality as well as in their normativity, entail something of the fictional.

What is it so hard to understand?
You get a term used by an author or many authors (normality), you show how its meaning there depends on contrast-effects with other words ("parasite", "fictionality"). You show that "one of the two terms governs the other (axiologically, logically, etc.), or has the upper hand" (normality over fictionality). In this case, you show that talking about "speech acts in general" and particularly about "law, symbolic inventions, conventions, institutions, in their very normality as well as in their normativity" entails "something of the fictional." And in the way you show everybody why you get a blind spot if you do this. In the end your reader, prehaps, can better grasp the limits of analitical philosophy in geneneral because "In the analysis of so-called normal cases, one neither can nor ought, in all theoretical rigor, to exclude the possibility of transgression. Not even provisionally, or out of allegedly methodological considerations. It would be a poor method, since this possibility of transgression tells us immediately and indispensably about the structure of the act said to be normal as well as about the structure of law in general
I really don't see what is so difficult to understand here... You can argue that it is a good method to "exclude the possibility of transgression" when talking about "law in general". But... I don't see why you don't understand his argument...
The explanation we have there is based on the Standford version.... you don't understand it either? Please, try to read it and come here and explain what you are not able to grasp. I will do my best to explain it to you.
Hibrido Mutante (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Hibrido Mutante, thanks for taking the time, but we're obviously not on the same wavelength. I'm lost pretty much instantly. Ollyoxenfree, thanks! I took a look at that article and it makes more sense to me. I now also wonder how far TV Tropes is really off. This is what I came up with, I don't know to what degree this would be considered accurate:
In buildings, deconstruction means taking a building apart in a controlled manner to allow materials to be re-used or recycled. How exactly the materials are re-used or recycled is not specified. In the philosophical theory regarding textual criticism, one attempts to do the same with text and occasionally other works. Words and parts of sentences are looked at individually. Alternate meanings and opposite meanings for those words are considered, interpreting the text in various ways to understand it's meaning.
Deconstruction is not a formula. Different people could look at small aspects of a painting and explain what those aspects mean to them and how it changes their view of the painting as a whole. This is a form of deconstruction, but different people will not arrive at the same conclusion since any work will have a different meaning to each individual. Put simply, deconstruction could be considered a highly concious and verbose way of forming an opinion about a work. W3ird N3rd (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
W3ird, what you say doesn't make much sense. NO, "deconstruction" doesn't mean "taking a building apart in a controlled manner to allow materials to be re-used or recycledis not". You are thinking/looking for something else. If you still have dificulty here, try the link I gave from Stanford Standford and see if it helps (I suspect it will.. but if so, you should start considering the problem is on your side...)

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I follow the link you gave to TV Tropes ... well... no this is not what we are dealing with here. Please, create a new article and refer it in the disambiguation page

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b c Jacques Derrida, "Afterwords" in Limited, Inc. (Northwestern University Press, 1988), p. 133

Article reads like complete gibberish[edit]

This article may make sense to someone familiar with the topic, but to the lay-person it might as well be greek. I am not exaggerating here. I literally cannot comprehend anything that is being said here and I strongly suspect the same would apply to any lay-person.

W3ird N3rd, thank you for posting the link to the TV tropes article. I was at least able to obtain a basic understanding of the concept. I hope it's not massively misleading. JiFish0 (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The TV Tropes article is not incredibly accurate, and it isn't covering exactly the same type of deconstruction as the philosophical construct of Derrida's. Trust me, this article is a vast improvement over a year ago, and I'd ask that instead of outright condemning the article you provide constructive criticism so that we may together work towards making it more readable for the layman.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd _love_ to provide some constructive criticism, but I literally cannot understand enough of the article to do so. It's a case of understanding the words but the sentences making no sense. Is there an article the other 'type' of deconstruction? Is that information burried in this article? JiFish0 (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
JiFish0, does my explanation (starting with "In buildings, deconstruction means..") make sense to you? And Ollyoxenfree, is my explanation even remotely accurate? If not, could it be modified so it becomes accurate enough to use in the article? W3ird N3rd (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The easiest way to understand "deconstruction" is that it is intellectual charlatanism that arose as part of a nutty movement in art and literature criticism, that thankfully is in decline, called "postmodernism". For example, post modernists will "deconstruct" Newton's Laws and through this "deconstruction" claim that they are invalid because they are jut a manifestation of "male domination and capitalism" (becasue, for example gravitation resembles the "attraction a man penis for a vagina, or the capitalist's attraction for resources and assets" - I'm not making this up!). It has become associated with the political/economic left even though actual leftists (for example Noam Chomsky or almost certainly Marx weer he alive today) reject it as total nonsense. The best understanding of "deconstruction" can be had by looking up the "Sokal Affair" article.

I'm sorry W3ird N3rd your explanation isn't particularly accurate. How about this, before I go changing the article more and run up against more obscurantist editors I'll try and explain deconstruction to the two of you. The anonymous comment left above this is of course inaccurate and unfair. The Sokal Affair has nothing to do with deconstruction, and the example interpretation is senseless from anybody's perspective. Here goes: deconstruction cares primarily about the relationship between text and the meaning (or lack of) in it. A central belief is in differance, basically stating that meaning comes from the relationship between words and to their etymologies (synchronic and diachronic sources of meaning) rather than the word itself just having a meaning independent of context. From this view, since words are always understood in contrast with what is and what is not present, meaning is never totally there. The view that meaning is totally there is considered a bias that pervades philosophy called metaphysics of presence. Instead meaning is deferred to other elements of the text and to what is left unstated. Now to add another element in, there are also these things called binary oppositions, these are two elements that are opposites of each other and they can be anything. For example, existence and non-existence, traditionally certain philosophers such as Hegel believed that such an opposition cancels out in what could be put over-simplified as a synthesis of the thesis and antithesis. He believed for instance that the synthesis of existence and non-existence (being and non-being) was becoming. In Derrida's view, the synthesis cannot occur and not only that but the opposition is hierarchical, in other words the metaphysics of presence, the bias we all use, favours one side over the other. Existence is better than non-existence, straight is better than gay, action is better than words, etc. One can go on to show that often when a text tries to express a certain point of view, it may assume the opposite viewpoint. For example a support of gay rights might be written in the language of heteronormativity, etc. Does that make sense at all? --Ollyoxenfree (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay I had a moment of idleness so I just decided, hey, why not remake the lede from that explanation and reuse some of the stuff already there. So as of now, I have updated the lede so that hopefully it has greater clarity. I'll make a new section about that but comments are appreciated.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
No, it is not because W3ird comes here saying what ever he wants that it gives you the authority to do what you want. What is there is result from consensus from many editors and you have to respect it.
Hibrido Mutante (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Ollyoxenfree! It makes.. some sense. The article now as well, I feel like I'm beginning to understand it. But there's a problem. Various animals make sounds and some apes (read it in a newspaper so no source sorry) produce various grunts that have some meaning. They had 4 grunts or so with meanings like "food" and "danger". And language doesn't seem to be 100% culture, some of it is hardwired in our brain. Some words or combinations are just really likeable. (or the opposite) I'm pretty sure (not sure if it was ever tried, it's kinda not humane) that if you put a few human babies together and let them develop their own language, it won't be 100% random. I saw a test on TV where participants were shown images of a spikey cartoon character and a bubbly cartoon character. They asked: who is Kiki and who is Bubba? Everybody knew. Kiki was the spikey character. So words/sounds do appear to have meaning all by themselves.
Simply put, looks to me like Derrida was wrong. ;-) His method could still provide interesting insights or inspiration, just like mushrooms can, but that doesn't mean any of it is true.
Also (but that may just be me) I flat out disagree with "Existence is better than non-existence, straight is better than gay, action is better than words". This completely depends on the context. Is action better than words? Not when you're talking about a rapist. I'd rather a rapist would speak and try to explain to us what is going on in their mind rather than taking action. Or a politician, or some investment bankers? I'd rather they would talk and try to reach consensus instead of jumping to some silly action that's not completely thought through. Straight better than gay? If you want to reproduce, I guess. But otherwise it's like saying red is better than blue. Existence better than non-existence, you'd think there would be no argument.. Yet I'm grateful for many things because they do not exist. (anymore) And there are various things where I'm thinking almost every day how much better the world would be if they didn't exist. Existing and not existing are two sides of the same coin. Many great artists are not great because of what they show, because of what they bring into existence, but because of what they do not bring into existence. (in that case: the things they do not publish and put straight into the bin) And often, something first needs to not exist before somebody can make it exist. Many words would cross my mind as I write this. If I wrote every single one, this would be even more of a mess than it already is. The text becomes (more or less ;-)) something coherent because of everything my mind had to create and didn't get written down. But if all that had never existed, this text couldn't exist either.
Long story short: in order to make lemonade, you need lemons. The lemons no longer existing afterwards is crucial to the creation of lemonade. Existence and non-existence are two sides of the same coin. I don't prefer one over the other. I might try later to write yet another short description of deconstruction, but I'm not sure there's a point to it. W3ird N3rd (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Derrida is committed, like most post-modernists, to anti-humanism. The belief that there is no fixed human nature, refer to Foucault's argument with Chomsky on some of the evidence that you point to in your reply, suffice to say the argument is more two-sided than you imagine. That said, I'm not an anti-humanist, I believe there is a fixed human nature, however I'm telling you what Derrida believes not what I believe. To your next point: "Also (but that may just be me) I flat out disagree with 'Existence is better than non-existence, straight is better than gay, action is better than words'." Derrida doesn't believe that, however he believes that there is a general bias in those directions underlying western philosophy which he was attempting to rectify. His philosophy attempted to deconstruct those hierarchies if you will. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

xkcd.com/451 174.21.117.240 (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

That's why I came here to try and improve it. It is better than it was before, it still needs work, but its made progress at least. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Changed the lede to be more succinct[edit]

If anyone has any suggestions please bring them here before reverting the lede paragraphs, it was a mess before and now it is relatively simple. If there are any persisting difficulties understanding it, please bring them up or make edits to improve clarity.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 06:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You are asking to others do what you were not able to do. What is there it the result of a long process of consensus. Please, sugest before editing it.
I'm not saying I don't agree with your suggestion (in general is a good proposal) but, please, lets go step by step.
I will copy paste your lead here. I will read it and give my suggestions during the weekend. Thanks

Deconstruction (French: déconstruction) is a method of critical analysis concerned with the relationship between text and meaning. Jacques Derrida’s 1967 work Of Grammatology introduced the majority of ideas influential within deconstruction.[1] According to Derrida and taking inspiration from the work of Ferdinand de Saussure,[2] language is a system of signs and words only have meaning because of the contrast between these signs.[3][4][5] As Rorty contends "words have meaning only because of contrast-effects with other words...no word can acquire meaning in the way in which philosophers from Aristotle to Bertrand Russell have hoped it might—by being the unmediated expression of something non-linguistic (e.g., an emotion, a sense-datum, a physical object, an idea, a Platonic Form)".[6] As a consequence meaning is never present, but rather is deferred to other signs. Derrida refers to the, in this view, mistaken belief that there is a self-sufficient, non-deferred meaning as logocentrism or metaphysics of presence. A concept then must be understood in the context of its opposite, such as being/nothingness, normal/abnormal, speech/writing, etc.[7][8] One of the two terms however is favoured by the tendency of logocentrism such as being over nothing, speech over writing, or male over female.[9] Deconstruction sets forth to overturn these biases and to demonstrate the interplay of the concepts in opposition, as they may not be synthesized as in Hegelian dialectics one may only observe.[10]

In the 1980s, deconstruction was being put to use in a range of theoretical enterprises in the humanities and social sciences,[11] including law[12][13][14] anthropology,[15] historiography,[16] linguistics,[17] sociolinguistics,[18] psychoanalysis, feminism, and LGBT studies. In the continental philosophy tradition, debates surrounding ontology, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, hermeneutics, and philosophy of language still refer to it today. Within architecture it has inspired deconstructivism, and it remains important in general within art,[19] music,[20] and literary criticism.[21]

ThanksHibrido Mutante (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I point out that the long process of consensus has concluded repeatedly that the current article is unusable. If you have any problems with the proposed edit please say so that we may get on to actually improving the terrible lede paragraphs. If you have no problems, and if nobody else has any issues, forever hold your peace and let's finally see some improvements. I'll give it a week, if nothing comes out in a week against the edit, I'll change it back again. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

To quote you when you made the current lede, I may point out against the consensus of other editors who told you repeatedly to stop: "If you want to correct something I have done, please feel free. BUT explain me properly why. And avoid ad hominem fallacies.... DO NOT REVERT everything. It is not polite!!(" reverting good-faith actions of other editors may also be disruptive and can even lead to the reverter being temporarily blocked from editing. Read the three-revert rule (part of the Edit warring policy") Could you please explain what you do not agree with in my contributions before editing what I have done. If you want reach "consensus" you have to explain what you do not agree." If you are going to take such a hypocritical stance by making massive changes to the article and then defending all attempts to inject clarity into them, at least explain why you think the edits being made are unreasonable. I say again you are the one acting against editorial consensus by refusing to allow any changes to your unilaterally produced lede paragraphs.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


Sorry, I don't know what you are talking about. Most of the present edit it wasn't done by me. What I said was that you should come here first and propose your changes to all. You deleted a lot of material (references, etc) that were made by other editors (as I said, most of it, wasn't done by me). In general I think yoru proposal is ok, even if it is clear (to me) you don't quite understand the subject. But you tried to use the material that was there and that is ok.
My suggestions is:
Deconstruction (French: déconstruction) is a method of critical analysis concerned with the relationship between signifiers and signified. Jacques Derrida’s 1967 work Of Grammatology introduced the majority of ideas influential within deconstruction.[1] According to Derrida and taking inspiration from the work of Ferdinand de Saussure,[2] language is a system of signs (the couple material signifier/intelligible signified) and signs (like words or wc signs) only have meaning because of the contrast between them.[3][4][5] As Rorty contends "words have meaning only because of contrast-effects with other words...no word can acquire meaning in the way in which philosophers from Aristotle to Bertrand Russell have hoped it might—by being the unmediated expression of something non-linguistic (e.g., an emotion, a sense-datum, a physical object, an idea, a Platonic Form)".[6] As a consequence meaning is never present, but rather is deferred to other signs. Derrida refers to the, in this view, mistaken belief that there is a self-sufficient, non-deferred meaning as metaphysics of presence. A concept then must be understood in contrast with its opposite, such as being/nothingness, normal/abnormal, speech/writing, etc.[7][8]
In the 1980s, deconstruction was being put to use in a range of theoretical enterprises in the humanities and social sciences,[11] including law[12][13][14] anthropology,[15] historiography,[16] linguistics,[17] sociolinguistics,[18] psychoanalysis, feminism, and LGBT studies. In the continental philosophy tradition, debates surrounding ontology, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, hermeneutics, and philosophy of language still refer to it today. Within architecture it has inspired deconstructivism, and it remains important in general within art,[19] music,[20] and literary criticism.[21]
Notes:
Differance is both "paradigmatic difference" in "topological space" (eg. essence - existence) and "syntagmatic deferred" in "time" (e.g a word only gets its meaning inside a sentence...).
Could you please give me a quote where Derrida "refers to the belief that there is a self-sufficient, non-deferred meaning as logocentrism"?
I cannot agree with your wording here:
One of the two terms however favoured as being over nothing, speech over writing, male over female, or normal over abnormal.[9] Deconstruction sets forth to overturn these biases and to demonstrate the interplay of the concepts in opposition, as they may not be synthesized as in Hegelian dialectics one may only observe.[10]
Could you propose another? You can find an author that favours essence over existence, and another that does the opposite. You can find authors that favours matter over ideas and others that do the opposite. Etc. It looks to me you read Derrida (and deconstruction) as saying that everybody do the same... it simply doesn't make sense... It looks you never really read Derrida... normally he will show how different authors make the contrast in different ways but, each other, in the end, in their own texts depend on the opposite view... I believe you are reducing the all deconstruction method to the case of immediate and mediated sense ("presence") where, in fact the all-western philosophical tradition seems to agree...
Also, please consider that Derrida creates a new term to refer to the difference between the two terms ("before") as being different from a synthesis ("after")
Thanks

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I will propose another in a few days, but may have more difficulty working with you in the next few weeks or month. Hopefully by Monday I'll have something to show.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. If you agree with my review of the first paragraphs, you can chage it (there a lot of references that other editors proposed and that are quite interesting... It is a shame that we just delet it all... but... it is ok for me...). Regrading the final paragraph, a suggest we mantaine the correspndent one that is there until we both feel confortable with a final version.Hibrido Mutante (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

"Could you please give me a quote where Derrida "refers to the belief that there is a self-sufficient, non-deferred meaning as logocentrism"?" - Derrida and other deconstructionists use metaphysics of presence, logocentrism, and phallogocentrism interchangeably. This has been repeated to me so many times I've never heard anyone have an issue with it before.

"It looks to me you read Derrida (and deconstruction) as saying that everybody do the same... it simply doesn't make sense... It looks you never really read Derrida... normally he will show how different authors make the contrast in different ways but, each other, in the end, in their own texts depend on the opposite view... I believe you are reducing the all deconstruction method to the case of immediate and mediated sense ("presence") where, in fact the all-western philosophical tradition seems to agree..." - I believe you're misinterpreting Derrida and myself here. Derrida did argue that there was a privileging of some things over others in most of western philosophy, he may see some small exceptions, but for the most part he did see a great deal of uniformity in the cases of concepts tied to logocentrism. Presence being the obvious example, but also speech (as in logocentrism) and masculinity (as in phallocentrism). Remember that one of the essential elements of the critique of structuralism that Derrida produced was that structuralism could not unbiasedly view signs due to logocentrism's emphasis of signified over signifier. This doesn't mean the western philosophical tradition was in agreement, but that their basis was more-or-less the same and that basis was shaky. Disagreements such as say, western philosophy of ethics, would in Derrida's view come back to a search for the Good in the Platonic sense and attempting to define that, the assumption of a present-at-hand Good is the logocentrism at work, and it was just a matter of how you defined it (Aristotle's flourishing/accomplishment of one's ergon, Utilitarianism's wellbeing, Kant's categorical imperatives, etc). From Derrida's perspective it made much more sense to start from a phenomenological perspective, hence his favouring of the Levinasian Other as the basis for morality, a non-deconstructable aporia. But anyways, here is the ground I'm willing to give ground to allow for your version, with the final paragraph intact for now. I will be continuing to argue for my version as it is fine how it is. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Discrepancy regarding the use of "method"[edit]

The lede opens with identifying deconstruction as a "method" despite the fact that Derrida very clearly took exception to that term being applied to what might more accurately be described as a practice or something else. The wiki has an entire section dedicated to this disavowal of deconstruction as method which directly contradicts the opening sentence of the lede. i feel this should be rectified. Any thoughts on alternative terms we might use to replace "method" and "analysis" for that matter, since Derrida rejected both of those terms outright? Cheers! TheArcane03 (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)TheArcane03

Good catch the problem is that if we want to reduce Deconstruction to something outside Deconstruction and stay true to the spirit of Derrida we'll have to talk about it in terms of an aporia that Derrida considered undeconstructable (the basis of his support for a pseudo-Levinasian morality). "Deconstruction is a body of theory concerned with...", "Deconstruction is a philosophy concerned with...", or "Deconstruction is a critical outlook..." (given his occasionally phenomenological methods he doesn't appear to have something against point of view)?--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2015[edit]

Jacques Derrida's name is spelled incorrectly in the FIRST LINE of the article! It should be "Jacques", not "Jacque." Salibanr (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)