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


Dear god[edit]

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

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

On my side I try to respect article policies:

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

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

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

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

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

*Support* When I saw the heading "Dear god," I hoped this would be what I'd find underneath. I needed a clear definition of deconstruction for something I was researching and this (dare I say pretentiously opaque or opaquely pretentious) lede made me feel like I was starting to lose my faculties. Fine, get into the meat of it later in the article, but for the love of all that's sane, someone write an intro that says what the bloody thing is!PacificBoy 22:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

We are working on it, see further down on the talk page. I have proposed a new lede already.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

New proposal to the lead II[edit]

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

Derrida started by constating that "from the moment that there is meaning there are nothing but signs. We think only in signs."[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] Also, following Ferdinand de Saussure, he considered language, as a system of signs where words have meaning only because of contrast-effects with other words. 'Red' means what it does only by contrast with 'blue', 'green', etc. 'Being' also means nothing except by contrast, not only with 'beings' but with 'Nature', 'God', 'Humanity', and indeed every other word in the language. No word can acquire meaning in the way in which philosophers from Aristotle to Bertrand Russell have hoped it might—by being the unmediated expression of something non-linguistic (e.g., an emotion, a sense-datum, a physical object, an idea, a Platonic Form).[26] If this is so, Derrida contends, it means that any given concept is constituted in reciprocal determination, in terms of its oppositions, e.g. being/nothing, one/multiple, truth/false, fair/unfair, beauty/ugly, essence/existence, receptivity/spontaneity, autonomous/heteronomous, transcendental/empirical, transcendent/immanent, mind/body, interior/exterior, normal/abnormal, sovereign/beast, marginal/central, speech/writing, nature/culture, bachelor/married, etc..[30][31]

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

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

Is it better now? I try to focus in the process and not the conclusions Derrida or others produced with it (including the critic of "metaphisics of presence". I believe we can do it later in the article (it doesn't mean I don't think it is important).
I will come here tomorrow. If until the end of the week I have no feedback, I will publish this version.
Thanks

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I like the first paragraph a lot, I'm going to suggest we add that to the current article ASAP. Going past there I have some issues, first I think we can simplify some words lest we fall into the trap of the original article. Constating (second paragraph, first line) can be stating or another word, perhaps the interminable in the quote (third paragraph, final line) could become [unending], there are a few more words we could cut I'm sure for those with a smaller vocabulary. Signs could be explained more in the second paragraph as we have no background going into the article as to the meaning of it, and we don't need quite as long lists. I'd suggest removing also from the second paragraph "in the way in which philosophers from Aristotle to Bertrand Russell have hoped it might", and "in reciprocal determination", they're mostly a flourish. Those are the things that stood out in my first look over I would be okay if some of my changes were acknowledged transferring this alternative version of the lead to the main article.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Like this?
Derrida started by stating that "from the moment that there is meaning there are nothing but signs. We think only in signs."[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] Also, following Ferdinand de Saussure, he considered language, as a system of signs where words have meaning only because of contrast-effects with other words. 'Red' means what it does only by contrast with 'blue', 'green', etc. 'Being' also means nothing except by contrast, not only with 'beings' but with 'Nature', 'God', 'Humanity', and indeed every other word in the language. No word can acquire meaning being the unmediated expression of something non-linguistic (e.g., an emotion, a sense-datum, a physical object, an idea, a Platonic Form).[26] If this is so, Derrida contends, it means that any given concept is constituted in terms of its oppositions, e.g. being/nothing, one/multiple, truth/false, fair/unfair, beauty/ugly, essence/existence, receptivity/spontaneity, autonomous/heteronomous, transcendental/empirical, transcendent/immanent, mind/body, normal/abnormal, sovereign/beast, speech/writing, nature/culture, bachelor/married, etc..[30][31]
Further, Derrida contends that "in a classical philosophical opposition we are not dealing with the peaceful coexistence of a vis-a-vis, but rather with a violent hierarchy. One of the two terms governs the other (axiologically, logically, etc.), or has the upper hand": signified over signifier; intelligible over sensible; speech over writing; activity over passivity, etc.[32] The first task of deconstruction would be to find and overturn these oppositions inside a text or a corpus of texts. But the final objective of deconstruction is not to surpass all oppositions, because it is assumed they are structurally necessary to produce sense. They simply cannot be suspended once and for all. The hierarchy of dual oppositions always reestablishes itself. Deconstrction only points to the necessity of an unending analysis that can make explicit the decisions and arbitrary violence intrinsic to all texts.[33]
I understand we should make it smaller and we need to cut somewhere (reciprocal determination is not "flourish" ;) is a technical term, from structuralism. But I understand. Also, deliting the reference to Aristotle and Russell was a (good) option from Rorty, but ok :)
I assume I'm not the best person to pick the "words we could cut for those with a smaller vocabulary". If you have any other suggestion, feel free.
What would you suggest regarding the word "signs"? I believe peopel understand what a "sign" is... a link is not enought? (or we could use the traditionl "A values as B in C"... or... "a means b in c"...).. I would prefer not to add jargon like "meddiated" or "absense"... do you have any suggestions?
Well. If this is ok for you, we can publish it after tomorrow, if no one else gives there contribute (i will try to add links to to some words)
Hibrido Mutante (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
That will do for now as I'm eager to see some improvements made to the article. For the word "sign", unless you have read up on your structuralism (in which case you probably aren't using wikipedia as your main source on Deconstruction), you do not know what that means. I find signifier vs signified can be helpful for getting the point across relatively simply - a sign is that which signifies, structuralism suggest the it signifies a thing that transcends it while deconstruction suggests a signifier is only understood by the difference between the meaning of one sign and another. This is also an opportunity to explicitly introduce the idea of differance earlier in the article. Reciprocal determination is meaningful to those who already understand binary oppositions and confusing to those who have no idea what you're talking about, the sentence works with or without those particular words which is why I suggest removing it and why I refer to it as a flourish. To take from Orwell: "don't use two words where one will do". I have no specific suggestions on vocab right now, what I might do is run it through a lovely little app for writers called "Hemingway" - meant to simplify writing by highlighting complex or extraneous words or sentences. At the very least once I do that I should have an eye for some of the words we should consider simplifying.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I didn't have the time this weekend, has planned. I wil ltry to do it asap.
Hibrido Mutante (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
No problem, I am sorry I haven't jumped in and made my own version in the meantime but I've also been busy.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I think one of the issues is that the lead would just read as Derrida's opinion on Deconstruction, rather than about Deconstruction. Clearly he is a significant figure in the field, but the article is not about Derrida. Atshal (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

My suggestions implemented on the first paragraph (sorry about taking out the citations, they can be re-added it just helped me edit), still wouldn't mind cutting down the lists some more because most people are really just going to skim over the lists:

Deconstruction is a method of critical analysis of philosophical and literary language which emphasizes the internal workings of language and conceptual systems, the relational quality of meaning, and the assumptions implicit in forms of expression. This form of critical analysis is based on Jacques Derrida's 1967 work Of Grammatology. In the 1980s it designated a range of theoretical enterprises in the humanities and social sciences, including law, anthropology, historiography, linguistics, sociolinguistics, psychoanalysis, political theory, feminism, and gay and lesbian studies. Deconstruction still has a major influence in the academe belonging to the continental philosophy tradition, particularly in debates around ontology, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, hermeneutics, and the philosophy of language. It also influenced architecture (in the form of deconstructivism), music, art, and art criticism.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of further discussion, I have replaced the opening paragraph, will do the next paragraph ASAP.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ollyoxenfree, I think it was a good change.
Finally, I made the rest of the changes. I tried to keep the reference to "presence" in one sentence (considering that some other editors thought it was so important, I decided not to ignore it to avoid "hard feelings"). I kept the reference to Aristotle and Russell because I'm quoting Rorty. I think it is important to quote him because his work can help establishing bridge between different philosophical traditions. But feel free to review that. I also decided not to delete quotes. They are contributes from so many editors in the past that I didn’t feel comfortable to decide which ones to keep (generally they are good ones...). Also... it was not easy to brose in the text with so many quotes... Well, it is done.
I hope to have time in the near future to give some contributes to the rest of the article (including perhaps an example.)
Hibrido Mutante (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

Requested move 6 July 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved, treating this as a technical request, because the original mover now believes his action does not accord with the usual naming rules. EdJohnston (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)



Deconstruction (philosophical theory)Deconstruction – I messed up. I'm sorry. The philosophical theory is not the first thing I would think of when I hear "deconstruction", but only after a move failed did I start reading the faq on moves, "not what first comes to mind", primary topics, etc and page views clearly indicate the theory is by far what most people are looking for. I'm just trying to undo what I messed up. W3ird N3rd (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

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