Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
. . . what Deconstruction is. Jacques Derrida's Of Grammatology was impenetrable, so I'm looking at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Internet Encyclopedia; . . .
Ok, that's all fine and good, but how does this help us, philosophers and society in general?
If you want to understand Deconstruction in philosophy, perhaps you should look at deconstruction in the other arts, particularly literature. . .
A consequence of this is that words themselves cannot have meaning, since everyone understands a word differently. And since language is the foundation for our knowledge, knowledge becomes relative.
Ok, that's all fine and good, but how does this help us, philosophers and society in general? Can we say, rationality is a form of irrationality that is ordered? Or love is a special kind of hate? Or guilty is an abnormal form of innocent? Or understanding life is dependent on death?
What can we learn from this?
I have a question. If the very existence of such an act as deconstructing a text exists, then how could it be possible to deconstruct objective truths?
How could there be moral absolutes?
1) Deconstruction questions the thesis, theme, the positionality of everything. . .
2) ... but to show its necessary incompleteness.
To perceive an object is to know immediately that there is always more to be said. All experience is experience of more, of possibility.
Falconer-
Deconstructive criticism is not intended to suggest a way to make the book finally complete, but to show its necessary incompleteness. Deconstruction is used to show that a work does not adequately address something, not that it should have.
richrf - I think one has to embrace that there is likely no center, no truth, but rather a continuous exploration of what is.
i think deconstruction can lead to that point of view, but not necessarily. "everything"? Surely "every person" is more accurate.
Falconer clearly states that we perceive objects themselves. e.g....
From that perspective deconstruction applies to 'in here' and not necessarily 'out there'. The language and narrative being 'in here' also by the internal narrative of inference.
Where it becomes interesting is when what is internal becomes externalised, through media, language and culture. eg a pyramid, a movie, a bill of rights. ie.
Man made objects. These are open to deconstruction,
The point i am trying to make is that the objective world narrative does not necessarily disintegrate under deconstruction. It is challenged..... and effectively so from my own personal point of view.
Incompleteness of a narrative through language and media may be accepted as a fact of life AND that the narrative is worth developing and living by, above all other narratives, despite its necessary incompleteness.
That is an emminently respectful point of view, but i don't believe it necessarily follows from deconstruction. In particular i interpret you as meaning there is no 'the truth'...... by which i would agree with you if you mean that the truth does not exist because it is a language narrative and form and through deconstruction i agree all such forms are necessarily incomplete. Which is a contradiction to the rational common meaning of the truth. ie how can 'the truth' be incomplete?
But there are other interpretations of 'the truth' such as i mentioned earlier, ie in the respect of 'the best grand narrative of all', despite incompleteness.
nevertheless i recognise that the adherence to a grand narrative like christianity or materialistic atheism is still a sensible choice faced with incompleteness of narrative language forms.
In fact the rejection of deconstruction itself and reverting back to 'i see the world as it is not as it is interpreted' is hardly completely daft, since we all (like falconer) slip naturally back into believing we see objects themselves. (whether we express it in a text or otherwise).
If you want to understand Deconstruction in philosophy, perhaps you should look at deconstruction in the other arts, particularly literature.
From the little I've studied on the topic, it seems that it is heavily focused on the meaning of words and things. One saying from deconstrucitonists is that a sentence means something different to every person who reads it, thus no one will ever truly understand what is written. For example, if I write the sentence: "I love my wife", there is no possible way you can know what I mean when I use the word "love". You can have an idea, but it will never be the same meaning and you will never fully understand what I am trying to say.
However, spoken word is closer to the true meaning because of the little nuances in language. For example, if I can say the phrase "That bastard, I'm going to kill him" in a either a sarcastic way or a vengeful way and from the little intonations in my voice, you will be able to better able to understand what I mean. Now, I know that context in writing does fill in for the lack of intonation, but it still is not the same.
A consequence of this is that words themselves cannot have meaning, since everyone understands a word differently. And since language is the foundation for our knowledge, knowledge becomes relative.
Just some thoughts.