4 ms·

> self-armed semioticians and practiced deconstructors of political signification. Rarely is it taken a step further - to question deconstruction itself, and n

by deogeo 7y ago

> self-armed semioticians and practiced deconstructors of political signification. Rarely is it taken a step further - to question deconstruction itself, and not assume it is an unalloyed good, and question what is targeted for deconstruction, and what is left to stand.

PTOB 7y ago
Excellent point. I had a philosophy professor who let us know that it was neither his position nor purpose to indoctrinate us regarding the soundness of ideas. He very consistently stuck to his guns and gave every argument presented to the class the the best treatment he could, and no one ever figured out what position he took personally on any of them. I asked if he did not consider the purely rational method he embodied a form of indoctrination itself. He smiled, and very considerately ceded the point that it might very well be the case and that if so, he was not aware of it. All my other philosophy professors were folks who - for some reason - became angry when asked questions like that.
- downerending 7y ago
  That's what University is supposed to be like. Unfortunately, it's a dying ethos...
pnathan 7y ago
Understanding the purpose of having a construction and the call into the human soul to demand a narratival and binding meaning is something that is simply inadequately done in this long afternoon of Modernity. Trite answers don't suffice, nor do pompous ones.
leoc 7y ago
> Rarely is it taken a step further - to question deconstruction itself That hasn't really been the case for a long time. Deconstruction was officially declared off-message in the aftermath of 9/11: http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/89-CRITICAL-INQUIRY-GB.pdf http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/89-CRITICAL-I... . It's had something of a rehabilitation in the post-financial-crisis world of the new wokeness, though.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  It really disturbed me how many people went through that "this changes everything" transformation at the time. Even if I disagreed more with their former position, it makes me seasick. It's like, there must be something profound missing from people who have such definite views and then a switch flips and they see the world completely differently. I mean, the WTC was attacked before! So how could a thinking person not allow for the possibility of a successful attack? How could it fundamentally be a surprise that upends your worldview? Yet that seemed to be the effect on an awful lot of people.
patcon 7y ago
Maybe we're just supposed (in the sense of evolutionary/mimetic/entropic fitness) to be in conversation with all forms of structure; between order and disorder... like a devil's advocate or a high-confident grey [1] -- maybe we're supposed to stake the middle ground: build when it's rubble and tear it down when it's cathedral :) [1]: https://www.ted.com/talks/mariano_sigman_and_dan_ariely_how_can_groups_make_good_decisions/transcript?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/mariano_sigman_and_dan_ariely_how_...

by deogeo 7y ago

PTOB 7y ago

Excellent point. I had a philosophy professor who let us know that it was neither his position nor purpose to indoctrinate us regarding the soundness of ideas. He very consistently stuck to his guns and gave every argument presented to the class the the best treatment he could, and no one ever figured out what position he took personally on any of them. I asked if he did not consider the purely rational method he embodied a form of indoctrination itself. He smiled, and very considerately ceded the point that it might very well be the case and that if so, he was not aware of it. All my other philosophy professors were folks who - for some reason - became angry when asked questions like that.

downerending 7y ago
That's what University is supposed to be like. Unfortunately, it's a dying ethos...

pnathan 7y ago

Understanding the purpose of having a construction and the call into the human soul to demand a narratival and binding meaning is something that is simply inadequately done in this long afternoon of Modernity. Trite answers don't suffice, nor do pompous ones.

leoc 7y ago

> Rarely is it taken a step further - to question deconstruction itself That hasn't really been the case for a long time. Deconstruction was officially declared off-message in the aftermath of 9/11: http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/89-CRITICAL-INQUIRY-GB.pdf http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/89-CRITICAL-I... . It's had something of a rehabilitation in the post-financial-crisis world of the new wokeness, though.

perl4ever 7y ago
It really disturbed me how many people went through that "this changes everything" transformation at the time. Even if I disagreed more with their former position, it makes me seasick. It's like, there must be something profound missing from people who have such definite views and then a switch flips and they see the world completely differently. I mean, the WTC was attacked before! So how could a thinking person not allow for the possibility of a successful attack? How could it fundamentally be a surprise that upends your worldview? Yet that seemed to be the effect on an awful lot of people.

patcon 7y ago

Maybe we're just supposed (in the sense of evolutionary/mimetic/entropic fitness) to be in conversation with all forms of structure; between order and disorder... like a devil's advocate or a high-confident grey [1] -- maybe we're supposed to stake the middle ground: build when it's rubble and tear it down when it's cathedral :) [1]: https://www.ted.com/talks/mariano_sigman_and_dan_ariely_how_can_groups_make_good_decisions/transcript?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/mariano_sigman_and_dan_ariely_how_...