Ask a question

What The Heck Does Derrida Mean In His Deconstruction Idea. Make Simple As You Can I

One of the dominant features of deconstruction is that it inhabits the margins of a text, i.e., it shows how texts deconstruct themselves. It does this by demonstrating how texts can be interpreted to be overturning and displacing the central theses and/or assumptions of the text itself, rendering the text manifold in meaning at least on two counts.First, a text is founded on binary oppositions that have unequal value assigned to them, and deconstruction shows how these polar opposites carry within them their other or their counterpart in the traditional polarity.Second, and more generally, any text that uses (written or spoken) language - in short, all of them - already implies a constant slippage of meaning. Derrida’s deconstruction speaks of a criticism of Western metaphysics which is grounded on binary oppositions; specifically it posits meaning as self-present and stable structure at the center of any discourse, which he in turn displaces and claims to be always deferred and differed from presence or being, as he claims the West has always treated as synonymous to it. Language is thus differed and deferred from meaning, and this is what deconstruction makes explicit in any text by disciplined reading and critical analysis of its main theses. Deconstruction can therefore also be understood as a theory, that is, a theory of texts.There are other definitions of deconstruction from Derrida himself, although I believe the above is from his earliest works. From his later career, though, in a letter to a Japanese friend, he says, “Deconstruction is nothing.”[Edit: Post script: I plagiarized this from myself, i.e., my Master’s thesis.]

Can anybody explain in simple terms what "decostruction" mean?

it was ownage like I own you but my nephew says that it caught on as pwnage because so many people miss type while playing online games Source teenage vidoe gammer. Feather LOL

Can someone tell me how to use strcturalism or deconstruction in literature ?

This is a choice question -- my congratulations. I understand your meaning; but I think what makes great literature great is that it maintains a philosophical outlook. The difference between literature (True Literature) as opposed to mere melodrama is that the latter simply tells a story, while the former has a point to make. It gives thematic unity to the story, characters and events which transcend the mere plot, and forces us to recognize that these people and things have a greater importance, and thus, are symbolic representations of fundamental human strivings. Consider the novels of Dostoevsky, the plays of Shakespeare, the works of Camus, etc. These are all people who went beyond story-telling to give us a glimpse of the human condition. They were, to coin a phrase, "Literary Philosophers;" and that is precisely why their works have endured. The fundamentals of the human condition do not change -- and thus, those who give us a philosophical understanding of human motives and motivations are guaranteed immortality. Hope this helps. Cheers.

Deconstruction, which derives from the French translation of Heidegger’s Destruktion, means “taking apart that which has been put together”; it is, above all, a question of understanding our present horizons of thinking and action as historical, rather than merely given. Only if we see how the present horizons have been “constructed” can it be possible to see beyond these “constructs,” to encounter other possibilities. It is not, however, simply a question of social constructivism or historical relativism, since the social and the historical are themselves constructs. And, indeed, between Heidegger’s Being and Time and post-war Continental Philosophy, the autophagic (self-consuming) tendency of deconstruction intensifies; by the 80s Giorgio Agamben is even trying to deconstruct deconstruction. Indeed: Agamben, Badio, and Zizek are all “post-deconstructive” and, as it were, “post-post-structural.”Yet however it is understood, deconstruction is not simply destructive. The “deconstruction of the administrative state,” properly understood, would mean the radical critique of the historical genesis and conceptual foundations of the administrative state. This is what Foucault does in his late lectures at the College de France; this is what Agamben does in his The Kingdom and the Glory and other volumes of Homo Sacer.It is, most emphatically, not what Bannon is proposing. What Bannon wants is the simple elimination of the administrative state. This belongs to the realm of political utopianism… If he calls it a “deconstruction,” it has nothing to do with the French, and nothing to do with Heidegger. It’s just because, since the 90s, the word “deconstruction” has become ubiquitous, and has lost all its philosophical nuances. And perhaps he’s a bit of a pseudointellectual phony… Reading Lenin does not a philosopher make.

French Philosopher, Jacques Derrida, What does is quote mean?

With all due respect for his intellect, Monsieur Derrida's reach tended to exceed his grasp--William of Ockham he was not.

Some academic circles, particularly in the United States, found his thinking quite fashionable in the 1970s. (Foucault is another example.)

These following quotes do yeoman work: first, from his teacher preparing him for college: "In this essay you seem to be constantly on the verge of something interesting, but, somewhat, you always fail to explain it clearly. A few paragraphs are indeed totally incomprehensible. Probably this essay would have been good with just a little more work in it."

During his uni entrance exams, a juror evaluated: "Look, this text is quite simple....You've simply made it more complicated and laden with meaning by adding ideas of your own [this foreshadows the mode of so-called 'deconstructionism,' which is simply positing alternate realities to the textual intent of the author]."

And, from his "licensing" for philosophy exam (which he initially failed), a juror gave this evaluation: "An exercise in virtuosity, with undeniable intelligence, but with no particular relation to the history of philosophy....Can come back when he is prepared to accept the rules and not *invent* where he needs to be better *informed.*"

If M. Derrida's work were to be analogized to classical ballet, he was attempting to perform plie, efface, and entrechat without mastery of the five basic positions; generally, even, or perhaps especially, philosophers need to learn to crawl before they move on to more advanced "lessons." ("Philosophy for Dummies" is an example of providing the basics.) Problems with multiplying entities (e.g. re words as ideas, and in alternative matrices of meaning) include jargon and fashion. Inasmuch as academicism is corrupted by such inauthenticities, reaching beyond one's grasp is a current consideration.

p.s. Regarding such "That Hideous Strength"-type authoritarianism, it may be germane to quote: "I thank you, Father...because you have hid these things from the wise and prudent, and have revealed them unto children." (Matthew 11:25); related: "The Slightest Philosophy," Quee Nelson.