4 ms·
Your comment intruiges me but I don't quite understand it. Can you rephrase it please? What are past and new structures you are talking of?
by gtsop 5y ago
Your comment intruiges me but I don't quite understand it. Can you rephrase it please? What are past and new structures you are talking of?
- Mezzie 5y agoI don't completely agree with him, but I interpreted him as saying: Deconstruction is often employed in intellectually dishonest (or lazy) ways to discredit concepts by creating/employing tenuous links between a concept and its socio-cultural associations and refusing to actually elaborate on why they matter. This is often done in order to attack a concept for political reasons (as opposed to strictly intellectual ones), and people who do this are committing a tactical error. Giving legitimacy to these intellectually vacuous attacks as a tactic ensures that they'll be used against currently popular ideas in the future when they fall out of vogue.
- prometheus76 5y agoI think Mezzie did a good job of elaborating in an eloquent way what I was saying in a hurry as I was walking out the door. I would only add to their comments that deconstruction is an ouroboros and will continue to devour itself as the morality spiral towards utopian ideological purity continues. You might be the most moral leader of the movement today, but future leaders will cast what you are doing now as "not enough" and "misguided" and especially "problematic" and you will be cast out and replaced. The history of the early years of the Soviet Revolution are the best historical example of what I'm talking about with the Trotskyites, the Leninists, and the Stalinists all accusing each other of not being the "real" or "true" form of communism using the same deconstruction techniques.