[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 10 KB, 250x236, derridas-structure-research.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2496238 No.2496238 [Reply] [Original]

Was Derridas just a hack? Is deconstruction bullshit?

>> No.2496245

Derrida was trying to make language transparent, an admirable task for a world that runs on words and concepts. In some ways, he succeeded. In others, he failed. Either way, I still apply many of the so-called 'deconstructivist' methods to my reading, and it can often help with parsing an author's ideological frame.

>> No.2496244

>>2496238

does a bear shit in the woods?

>> No.2496246

>>2496238

Both of those questions are irrelevant.

capchta:Boethius

>> No.2496250

Was the modern theory and criticism I read for class just bullshit? Who actually cares about this?

>> No.2496276

ITT: people derridas hated

>> No.2496284

>s

>> No.2496302

I hear he uses words to showcase ideas.

>> No.2496372

its trite b.s., yes. He had some good points, but they were so self-evident they could have been made in a couple of academic papers...well if the acadame didn't consider him a hack.

>> No.2496374

>>2496244
not if he lives in a zoo

>> No.2498325

Most people don't understand Derrida, academics included. They think Deconstruction is an act performed on a text after the fact, but conflicting forces exist in the all texts from the moment they're written. (I would argue even before this, in a pre-eminent fashion, signs are in conflict before the writer commits them to the page...) The heart of the Deconstruction never lays at the center of a text, it resides in an "eccentric center" that is ever shifting, its location dependent on the state of signs and there relations at the moment in an intextual sense.

>> No.2498339

>>2498325

well-put anon.

>> No.2498379

>>2498325
>most people don't understand derrida
>including academics

but, of course, you understand him, anon. how can i be more like you?

>> No.2499376

>>2498379

I should have said including many academics, not all academics. Hostile academics think Derrida and his Deconstruction is more or less ripping things apart or being some sort of very harsh critic. Derrida, explicitly and on many occasions, claims Deconstruction is something at work in texts but this is treated by his interlocutors as if Deconstruction is an excuse or "license" to be critical of the works he examines.

Deconstruction as theory isn't bullshit, but I think it's more of a method, like Descartes' hyperbolic doubt, that can be abused. Descartes didn't advise not trusting sense data while you walked down a busy street, he advised extreme doubt while doing philosophy. Let's abuse Deconstruction. Someone, your roommate, writes you a note that says: "Can you go to the store and buy a gallon of milk? We're out." Now if Deconstructive forces always rendered meaning unknown in all cases, you would read this note and not know what it meant and would be not be able to decide on an action. "Hmmm, I'll go get some milk or I won't" would be beyond comprehension.

>but, of course, you understand him, anon. how can i be more like you?

Read more speculative fiction.

>> No.2499394
File: 49 KB, 333x690, winter-044_big.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2499394

Someone explain what deconstruction theory is.

>> No.2499423

Dissect and parse the parts of a whole.

>> No.2500080

>Dissect and parse the parts of a whole.

You're right, but Derrida goes as far as saying the Deconstruction takes place in an artifact before it's even regarded; it is Deconstructing itself. (I'm not trying to be critical of Derrida, but I find it bothersome ontologically that the idea of Deconstruction taking place in a text as a mind-independent process. I believe he means it figuratively not literally but this is never stated as far as I know.) Anyway, the Derridaian idea of the DC is more like you are regarding a text and you witness that it's DCed itself.

>> No.2500092

Deconstruction in theory is a good idea, but ultimately it was developed to support the political beliefs of its practitioners and it has always been used as such.

From Dawkins:
"Suppose you are an intellectual impostor with nothing to say, but with strong ambitions to succeed in academic life, collect a coterie of reverent disciples and have students around the world anoint your pages with respectful yellow highlighter. What kind of literary style would you cultivate? Not a lucid one, surely, for clarity would expose your lack of content. The chances are that you would produce something like the following:"
> We can clearly see that there is no bi-univocal correspondence between linear signifying links or archi-writing, depending on the author, and this multireferential, multi-dimensional machinic catalysis. The symmetry of scale, the transversality, the pathic non-discursive character of their expansion: all these dimensions remove us from the logic of the excluded middle and reinforce us in our dismissal of the ontological binarism we criticised previously.

>> No.2500139

you know what. maybe the simple answer is just that people who do continental philosophy are such bad philosophers that they actually take it seriously

>> No.2500204

> Was Derridas just a hack? Is deconstruction bullshit?

Nonsense more like.

>> No.2500208

Deconstruction is just a misunderstanding or rather an intentional misrepresentation of psychology.

>> No.2500222

I often think he was unfairly dismissed by many who never really read any of his work.

>> No.2500267

>>2500222

Definitely. The myth of Derrida is much more pervasive than the actual Derrida.