4 ms·

But has he answered them? Or has he merely written down some syntactical symbols in order? It's a tough one.

by Marazan 10y ago

coldtea 10y ago
Well, you'll have to make your own interpretation of them. But this also holds for anything you write as well. It's not like laughing at it makes it any less true.
- mannykannot 10y ago
  I, for one, find your position here to be inarguable, but Marazan's comment is nevertheless trenchantly amusing.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  I'm not really laughing at it. I'm pointing out that it's self-contradictory. Or if you prefer, applied to itself, it destroys itself. I prefer that things I think are true not refute themselves. [Edit: coldtea (or anyone else), if you think I'm wrong, feel free to try to state Derrida's position in a way that does not destroy itself, and we can argue about it.]
  - camdenlock 10y ago
    Thank you. When going to the source (Derrida, et al), one gets the sense that deconstructionists have absolutely no desire to enlighten, educate, edify, or indeed provide any value at all to the reader/student. Quite the opposite, in fact. The disdain and desire to confound oozes right off the page.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      >one gets the sense that deconstructionists have absolutely no desire to enlighten, educate, edify, or indeed provide any value at all to the reader/student. That's because they are not supposed to be mentors and they don't deal with students (except nominally, in their academic capacity). They deal with adults.
      - camdenlock 10y ago
        I haven't yet used this Unicode codepoint, standardized in Unicode 9, but I don't think a better opportunity will present itself for a premiere, so: EDIT: oh my god, HN filters out emoji codepoints, how utterly barbaric. Anyway, it was going to be this dude: http://emojipedia.org/rolling-on-the-floor-laughing/ http://emojipedia.org/rolling-on-the-floor-laughing/
  - mannykannot 10y ago
    Based on past experience, we are not likely to see any enlightenment from that source, merely more insinuations that we are too dumb to appreciate the Emperor's wardrobe, with, perhaps, some vacuous tautologies. Actually, there is an idea that has been floating around other threads here, that Derrida sought to destroy structuralism by turning its own methods on it, thereby exposing its self-contradictions. If so, then he only speaks to those who are already engaged with structuralism - hence my comment elsewhere about closed self-referentiality. I have no idea whether this was his intent, but the thing is, it works anyway.

But has he answered them? Or has he merely written down some syntactical symbols in order? It's a tough one.

by Marazan 10y ago

But has he answered them? Or has he merely written down some syntactical symbols in order? It's a tough one.

Well, you'll have to make your own interpretation of them. But this also holds for anything you write as well. It's not like laughing at it makes it any less true.

mannykannot 10y ago
I, for one, find your position here to be inarguable, but Marazan's comment is nevertheless trenchantly amusing.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
I'm not really laughing at it. I'm pointing out that it's self-contradictory. Or if you prefer, applied to itself, it destroys itself. I prefer that things I think are true not refute themselves. [Edit: coldtea (or anyone else), if you think I'm wrong, feel free to try to state Derrida's position in a way that does not destroy itself, and we can argue about it.]
- camdenlock 10y ago
  Thank you. When going to the source (Derrida, et al), one gets the sense that deconstructionists have absolutely no desire to enlighten, educate, edify, or indeed provide any value at all to the reader/student. Quite the opposite, in fact. The disdain and desire to confound oozes right off the page.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >one gets the sense that deconstructionists have absolutely no desire to enlighten, educate, edify, or indeed provide any value at all to the reader/student. That's because they are not supposed to be mentors and they don't deal with students (except nominally, in their academic capacity). They deal with adults.
    - camdenlock 10y ago
      I haven't yet used this Unicode codepoint, standardized in Unicode 9, but I don't think a better opportunity will present itself for a premiere, so: EDIT: oh my god, HN filters out emoji codepoints, how utterly barbaric. Anyway, it was going to be this dude: http://emojipedia.org/rolling-on-the-floor-laughing/ http://emojipedia.org/rolling-on-the-floor-laughing/
- mannykannot 10y ago
  Based on past experience, we are not likely to see any enlightenment from that source, merely more insinuations that we are too dumb to appreciate the Emperor's wardrobe, with, perhaps, some vacuous tautologies. Actually, there is an idea that has been floating around other threads here, that Derrida sought to destroy structuralism by turning its own methods on it, thereby exposing its self-contradictions. If so, then he only speaks to those who are already engaged with structuralism - hence my comment elsewhere about closed self-referentiality. I have no idea whether this was his intent, but the thing is, it works anyway.