Anybody find fascination with Derrida

[Archaea]

and deconstructionist thought?

I find his attacks on binary opposites and the Enlightenment fascinating.

I'm trying to review the contributors to deconstructionist thought again, remembering how difficult it is.

[Archaea]

For those who've forgotten what deconstructionism is or is not, I have included a link to, bowing in shame, to Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction

There are better summaries elsewhere but I am too lazy to find them now.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Archaea

and deconstructionist thought?

I find his attacks on binary opposites and the Enlightenment fascinating.

I'm trying to review the contributors to deconstructionist thought again, remembering how difficult it is.

Derrida is great.

[creekster]

I don't think I understand it. And since I am not sure if I do, I probabyl don't, right?

[danimal]

Originally Posted by Archaea

and deconstructionist thought?

I find his attacks on binary opposites and the Enlightenment fascinating.

I'm trying to review the contributors to deconstructionist thought again, remembering how difficult it is.

Deconstructionism is pretty interesting. The problem with Derrida is that, without an expert helping you, you just can't figure out what he's really saying. Derrida and deconstructionism have become pretty trendy and non-philosophers -- especially humanities types -- throw his name around like candy. But when push comes to shove, they don't know what the hell he's talking about.

[Archaea]

Although the deconstructionist deny it, I like looking, if possible, through a deconstructionist vision of things to see flaws in expression and understanding.

[ute4ever]

Have you read his Différance? First I read Saussure's Course in General Linguistics, then Derrida's response. My main focus was his suggestion that through deconstruction, language is not absolute: verbs can have different meanings, identity can change, and a word is a mere metaphysical name, a function instead of a being.

What I gathered from his rhetoric was how after deconstruction, there is no absolute truth: only perspective, which Derrida felt was a false concept in itself.

[Archaea]

Remember though, he is not a relativist, nor a nihilist.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by danimal

Deconstructionism is pretty interesting. The problem with Derrida is that, without an expert helping you, you just can't figure out what he's really saying. Derrida and deconstructionism have become pretty trendy and non-philosophers -- especially humanities types -- throw his name around like candy. But when push comes to shove, they don't know what the hell he's talking about.

I'll confess. My real plunge into Derrida was in architecture school. Profs and students were discussing him like the 'got it,' but I had no clue. I took a trip to the bookstore and found a little book called Derrida For Beginners, by Jim Powell. It is an illustrated comic book of sorts. It doesn't pull punches, and tries to cover the big picture at the level of an advanced undergrad philosophy course. If folks really wanted to have a sense of being on top of Derrida, this is a friendly place to start. I found that I could keep up with even the most erudite architectural theory prof (which isn't saying much, since most of the theory types are just pulling crap out of their asses and serving it for dinner).

[Archaea]

Derrida is fascinating, a struggle but helpful in opeing up limitations and possibilities.

I imagine Derrida would be offended by "Derrida is great" as that is not what he would want to be remembered for. He made arguments, challenged the Greek concepts of metaphysics and completed and incompleted communication. It's a very powerful, but weakening experience.