Talk:Deconstruction

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ed Poor (talk | contribs) at 11:46, February 25, 2008. It may differ significantly from current revision.
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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)

Alternate approaches

This page bears almost no resemblance to the actual literary approach of deconstruction, and I suggest that whoever wrote it has been strongly misled. 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. :-) --Ed Poor Talk 20:05, 23 February 2008 (EST)