6 ms·

> Deconstruction is not a method, and does not follow a formula, and pointing out the (numerous, outrageous) errors in this piece would take more time than I ha

> Deconstruction is not a method, and does not follow a formula, and pointing out the (numerous, outrageous) errors in this piece would take more time than I have. If it doesn't have a method or a formula, could you instead tell us what deconstruction is? How can I tell it from a best-seller or the output of a Markov text generator? Could you simply point out the most outrageous error in the text? Or just an outrageous error? > I sympathize with the author's desire to make fun of that which he doesn't understand, but ultimately, it's a shallow game. I reject your attempt to belittle the author by suggesting they are shallow. Your response is fallacious (telling us there are errors without pointing out what they are, ad hominem against the author) and, in claiming to "sympathise" with the author's supposed "desire to make fun", snobbish. I try to be as civil on the internet as I am in real life. IRL, I'd say "Stop sneering and tell us something useful, or go away."

michael_dorfman 16y ago
I tried in another posting to respond, but I'll take another crack at it here. Here are a few outrageous errors, taken at random: "Deconstruction, in particular, is a fairly formulaic process" "points are awarded on the basis of style and wit rather than substance," "Decide what the text says. This can be whatever you want," I try to be as civil on the internet as I am in real life. IRL, I'd say "Stop sneering and tell us something useful, or go away." The useful something I would tell you is: don't assume that people making fun of something actually understand what that something is. Furthermore, don't assume that just because something can't be easily explained in a blog post, it is nonsense. And finally, don't be surprised when people who take a complex discipline seriously are reluctant to engage with dismissive outsiders with an axe to grind and no real desire to engage. (My brother-in-law is a professor of Shakespeare at Cambridge, and you should see the look on his face when someone at a cocktail party raises the "authorship" issue...)
- mistermann 16y ago
  > don't be surprised when people who take a complex discipline seriously are reluctant to engage with dismissive outsiders with an axe to grind and no real desire to engage. Would you also consider Noam Chomsky (I refer to the link posted within this thread) to be a "dismissive outsiders with an axe to grind and no real desire to engage"? Could it be possible that they are reluctant to engage within anyone who questions their assertions? Many times I've encountered people who seem to use techniques described in the article when trying to discuss social issues, and in my experience at least, when you ask them to explain what they have just said in a prior statement, the usual response is a change of subject, even though I am genuinely interested in understanding their point of view. They are more than happy to continue the conversation as long as it consists of them continually making assertions in obtuse language, and casually deflecting questions by changing the subject, but the moment you insist they explain something they just said, the conversation usually ends. In my experiences, anyways. As interesting as I find the subject, I think Chomsky's got the right idea: "End of Reply, and (to be frank) of my personal interest in the matter, unless the obvious questions are answered."
  - michael_dorfman 16y ago
    I responded to the Chomsky quote above. when you ask them to explain what they have just said in a prior statement, the usual response is a change of subject, even though I am genuinely interested in understanding their point of view This is quite understandable, I'm afraid. Trying to explain Heidegger to someone who hasn't read Kant is a very difficult game indeed. If you're genuinely interested in learning the more elevated parts of a discipline, you need to put in some time on the basics.
- Robin_Message 16y ago
  I guess my disagreement with you is that I don't believe the original author was trying to make fun of deconstruction, only to make an attempt to understand and explain it as an outsider. He certainly wrote in an amusing way, but I felt he was trying to get somewhere. Looking at the errors you illustrated: > "points are awarded on the basis of style and wit rather than substance," This is a cheap shot, and is mostly about style and wit, rather than substance. But is it possible that writing in a more obtuse manner is rewarded within academic circles, which I believe is the argument actually being made? > "Decide what the text says. This can be whatever you want," Again, this is cheap, and I guess is also a shot at post-modernism in general. From the author's and your comments, I guess it should have been "Choose an accepted, face-value interpretation of the text." > "Deconstruction, in particular, is a fairly formulaic process" But here I don't see your argument. From your other posting, Derrida then goes through the entire Platonic corpus, and quotes every time the word "pharmakon" certainly sounds formulaic. You also say I would say that deconstruction consists most often of a micrological reading (that is to say, a very close reading of the actual words of the text, not not just the broad concepts) which takes into account the (usually unconscious) assumptions that the author is working within. Most often, these assumptions, when taken to their logical conclusion lead to either a contradiction or an aporia, and the text often reflects this, unknowingly. So, a deconstructive reading often picks up on latent implications of the text itself. That sounds formulaic, so it what sense is it a bad description of deconstruction? If deconstruction is not a formula for lit crit, what is it? Deconstruction can't be the philosophy of Derrida. Well, it can be, but the obvious question is then, what is the philosophy of Derrida? I think this is the core issue. If the philosophy cannot be explained to an outsider, then to what extent is it a real thing, and to what extent is the collective hallucination of the in-group? > don't assume that people making fun of something actually understand what that something is. I should like to apologise and take back my comment that you were sneering. It was rude, and as it turns out, untrue. You genuinely believe the author is trying to make fun of the philosophy, but I don't think he is. He has read the books and thinks he can explain what deconstruction is. He takes a somewhat dim view of it to be sure, but that doesn't mean he doesn't understand it or that he wants to make fun of it. > don't assume that just because something can't be easily explained in a blog post, it is nonsense. See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1490304 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1490304 for Chomsky's comments on this. (Basically, no-one has explained it to me yet, and I don't get it, and I'm damm smart, so it's either way over my head, and therefore very smart indeed, or bunk.) > don't be surprised when people who take a complex discipline seriously are reluctant to engage with dismissive outsiders with an axe to grind and no real desire to engage. (My brother-in-law is a professor of Shakespeare at Cambridge, and you should see the look on his face when someone at a cocktail party raises the "authorship" issue...) I am in no way dismissive of philosophy and my axe is sharp enough. As I see it, in this case the insiders are dismissive of the outsiders -- "you have to read all these works to even understand what we are talking about, and we might still say you are not in the in-group and you are just trying to make fun of us." Given that, it is hardly surprising when outsiders are dismissive of you.

michael_dorfman 16y ago

I tried in another posting to respond, but I'll take another crack at it here. Here are a few outrageous errors, taken at random: "Deconstruction, in particular, is a fairly formulaic process" "points are awarded on the basis of style and wit rather than substance," "Decide what the text says. This can be whatever you want," I try to be as civil on the internet as I am in real life. IRL, I'd say "Stop sneering and tell us something useful, or go away." The useful something I would tell you is: don't assume that people making fun of something actually understand what that something is. Furthermore, don't assume that just because something can't be easily explained in a blog post, it is nonsense. And finally, don't be surprised when people who take a complex discipline seriously are reluctant to engage with dismissive outsiders with an axe to grind and no real desire to engage. (My brother-in-law is a professor of Shakespeare at Cambridge, and you should see the look on his face when someone at a cocktail party raises the "authorship" issue...)

mistermann 16y ago
> don't be surprised when people who take a complex discipline seriously are reluctant to engage with dismissive outsiders with an axe to grind and no real desire to engage. Would you also consider Noam Chomsky (I refer to the link posted within this thread) to be a "dismissive outsiders with an axe to grind and no real desire to engage"? Could it be possible that they are reluctant to engage within anyone who questions their assertions? Many times I've encountered people who seem to use techniques described in the article when trying to discuss social issues, and in my experience at least, when you ask them to explain what they have just said in a prior statement, the usual response is a change of subject, even though I am genuinely interested in understanding their point of view. They are more than happy to continue the conversation as long as it consists of them continually making assertions in obtuse language, and casually deflecting questions by changing the subject, but the moment you insist they explain something they just said, the conversation usually ends. In my experiences, anyways. As interesting as I find the subject, I think Chomsky's got the right idea: "End of Reply, and (to be frank) of my personal interest in the matter, unless the obvious questions are answered."
- michael_dorfman 16y ago
  I responded to the Chomsky quote above. when you ask them to explain what they have just said in a prior statement, the usual response is a change of subject, even though I am genuinely interested in understanding their point of view This is quite understandable, I'm afraid. Trying to explain Heidegger to someone who hasn't read Kant is a very difficult game indeed. If you're genuinely interested in learning the more elevated parts of a discipline, you need to put in some time on the basics.
Robin_Message 16y ago
I guess my disagreement with you is that I don't believe the original author was trying to make fun of deconstruction, only to make an attempt to understand and explain it as an outsider. He certainly wrote in an amusing way, but I felt he was trying to get somewhere. Looking at the errors you illustrated: > "points are awarded on the basis of style and wit rather than substance," This is a cheap shot, and is mostly about style and wit, rather than substance. But is it possible that writing in a more obtuse manner is rewarded within academic circles, which I believe is the argument actually being made? > "Decide what the text says. This can be whatever you want," Again, this is cheap, and I guess is also a shot at post-modernism in general. From the author's and your comments, I guess it should have been "Choose an accepted, face-value interpretation of the text." > "Deconstruction, in particular, is a fairly formulaic process" But here I don't see your argument. From your other posting, Derrida then goes through the entire Platonic corpus, and quotes every time the word "pharmakon" certainly sounds formulaic. You also say I would say that deconstruction consists most often of a micrological reading (that is to say, a very close reading of the actual words of the text, not not just the broad concepts) which takes into account the (usually unconscious) assumptions that the author is working within. Most often, these assumptions, when taken to their logical conclusion lead to either a contradiction or an aporia, and the text often reflects this, unknowingly. So, a deconstructive reading often picks up on latent implications of the text itself. That sounds formulaic, so it what sense is it a bad description of deconstruction? If deconstruction is not a formula for lit crit, what is it? Deconstruction can't be the philosophy of Derrida. Well, it can be, but the obvious question is then, what is the philosophy of Derrida? I think this is the core issue. If the philosophy cannot be explained to an outsider, then to what extent is it a real thing, and to what extent is the collective hallucination of the in-group? > don't assume that people making fun of something actually understand what that something is. I should like to apologise and take back my comment that you were sneering. It was rude, and as it turns out, untrue. You genuinely believe the author is trying to make fun of the philosophy, but I don't think he is. He has read the books and thinks he can explain what deconstruction is. He takes a somewhat dim view of it to be sure, but that doesn't mean he doesn't understand it or that he wants to make fun of it. > don't assume that just because something can't be easily explained in a blog post, it is nonsense. See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1490304 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1490304 for Chomsky's comments on this. (Basically, no-one has explained it to me yet, and I don't get it, and I'm damm smart, so it's either way over my head, and therefore very smart indeed, or bunk.) > don't be surprised when people who take a complex discipline seriously are reluctant to engage with dismissive outsiders with an axe to grind and no real desire to engage. (My brother-in-law is a professor of Shakespeare at Cambridge, and you should see the look on his face when someone at a cocktail party raises the "authorship" issue...) I am in no way dismissive of philosophy and my axe is sharp enough. As I see it, in this case the insiders are dismissive of the outsiders -- "you have to read all these works to even understand what we are talking about, and we might still say you are not in the in-group and you are just trying to make fun of us." Given that, it is hardly surprising when outsiders are dismissive of you.