Talk:Deconstruction

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

He or She?

Only men write books? Rodney 19:53, 17 February 2008 (EST)

No, the word "he" is generic and general, as it has been used for hundreds of years before liberals tried to redefine things for their ideological purposes. Be politically correct somewhere else.--Aschlafly 19:54, 17 February 2008 (EST)
I normally try to be understanding when unwitting-yet-genuine insult occurs in our speech and mannerisms. But I'd have to agree that people who get in a tizzy over using "he" are just pushing political correctness too far. Alexander 17:59, 19 February 2008 (EST)

Postmodernism vs. Postmodernity

Something which may be helpful in writing this page is making the distinction between these two terms. According to Dr. Douglas Groothius, a Christian philosopher, we can describe postmodernism as the technical philosophical school of thought promoted by thinkers such as Derrida, Lyotard, etc... We can rely on such authors to describe what we mean by Literary Deconstruction. On the other hand, Postmodernity describes something more of a cultural mood or posturing; on this view, postmodernity deals with the cultural consequences and attitudes about truth and meaning which really aren't based on any rigorous analysis of Western philosophical tradition, so much as it is based on a feeling or attitude of cynicism against traditional ideas and methods.Alexander 22:47, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Go ahead and explain that in a new section in the entry, if possible!--Aschlafly 22:51, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Travesty

This page bears almost no resemblance to the actual literary approach of deconstruction. What is described seems to be some form of reader response theory, as explored by such postmodernists as Stanley Fish. While they are both arguably postmodernist, deconstruction is absolutely not what is described here. Apparently the problem is the primary source, which I see is not available online and so I can't check that out. The other sources appear to be much on target - the Britannica Online and Bartleby articles describe Derrida's approach fairly well.

Deconstruction is an approach which emphasizes a great deal of language analysis... examining "what is not said" (much like a Pinter play) as well as the dichotomy created by so many language "pairs" whose connotative comparison implies strength in one. The end implication is that there is not one meaning, but this is different from reader response, wherein meaning is derived through personal interpretation or Fish's reader communities, in that the meaning is ultimately said to be "undecidable", but rather a subtle elimination of the underlying assumptions behind the meaning. Derrida himself resisted defining the approach his entire life, and it is exceedingly hard to summarize in English the process, but that is certainly much closer than the nonsense on this page.--Gigg 20:08, 21 February 2008 (EST)

No, this article is true for me. :-)
Just kidding. Actually, you are describing an alternate approach. It would be good to include other currents in deconstruction beside what the article presents as the mainstream.
So we have two writing tasks before us:
  1. Describe all the significant currents of deconstructionism
  2. Determine which ones have been prevalent in history (when and where)
Fair enough? --Ed Poor Talk 06:52, 25 February 2008 (EST)
What the article describes is the alternative... and in fact, not recognizable as deconstruction at all. Consider Bressler's Literary Criticism, one of the better introductions to the field:
"...Disavowing the existence of a transcendental signified, deconstruction questioned Western humanity's proclivity toward logocentrism." This article mentions none of the key concepts involved in the topic, such as supplementation or differance (not a misspelling).
I have removed the "personal remark" left by my other account above, in accordance with your apparent wishes (since you already edited it out of my words, something I find very presumptuous), but I assure you that even a little investigation will reveal that the current article has very little to do with Derrida's deconstruction. Any article on the topic that does not even tangentially mention the foundations of the approach (the privileged binaries of language, the historical prejudice towards speech over writing, the centristic analyses) is nothing but misinformation. A stub would be better, or a direct copy from an open-source encyclopedia.
I dislike this echo chamber very much, but please fix this nonsense. It is almost painful to see it and think that some home-schooled child might think that deconstruction is the "the postmodern or liberal belief that each person interprets a text in light of their own experiences, biases, and prejudices."--TomMoore 17:17, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Unable to stand it anymore, I have made a serious beginning on making this page more resemble that which is the literary community's actual understanding of deconstruction.--TomMoore 18:57, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Deconstruction and Christianity

The phrase that deconstruction is "hostile to Christianity" seems too opinionated for an objective article, rather than a debate page. You have apparently shown that these two ideas are seemingly incompatible, but I doubt that deconstruction was created with the expressed purpose of "attacking" Christianity. --IlTrovatore 15:54, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I will once again reiterate that the section on deconstruction and Christianity is completely uncited and is nothing more than a statement of opinion. I suppose the best I can ask for is that it be a cited statement of opinion. --IlTrovatore 23:37, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Personal tools