You can now enrol on my course on Being and Time! Seminars start 22nd January 2023. Follow this link to enrol halkyonacademy... And please spread the word. Thank you!
He is totally wrong here. Deconstruction is an internal attack "within" Ontology using the semiotic field as it's battleground. Sophistry is irrelevant to its logos.
“Deconstruction cuts us off from the real world and from reality, and it brings us into the field of signs. Then it strikes at the validity of rational thinking or reasoning. Human thought is supposed to be inconclusive, or incapable of essential performing reasoning processes, because conclusiveness is the ability to draw true conclusions from true premises. According to Derrida, the purpose of the analysis of a philosophical text is not a coherent interpretation or an attempt at verification, but it is decomposition, that is, to split apart the text from within. In this way, a philosophical text neither helps us to understand the truth, nor is it to be understood. We find ourselves at the antipodes from theoria, or to be more precise, at the center, the purpose of which is the complex destruction of theoría. This is not polemics, but an attempt to release a virus into language, so that language will paralyze thought. In this case it is a philosophical language, but similar mechanisms can be found in the language of other fields, especially such sensitive fields as the language of ethics, politics, art, or religion. Language has become so infected by the virus that words contain meanings that annul themselves. A new technology has appeared for the destruction of the humanities. This process occurs from within, in the semantic sphere, and metaphysics is the most important domain slated for destruction. In the example of Derrida, we can see how that was supposed to be done, but at the same time we can see that metaphysics is a difficult field because it possesses its own antibodies or defensive mechanisms. Derrida may deconstruct metaphysical constructs, but the deconstruction always opens the question: which version or philosophical movement is he deconstructing? What knowledge does he possess in that area? Has he mastered the rudiments of the methodology of the sciences? This is all the more so, because it is impossible to raise metaphysical concepts without the foundation that is called theoria. Derrida is a militant intellectual, not a thinker who contemplates reality or a text.” - Piotr Jaroszyński, Metaphysics or Ontology
@@Modus07 the irony is, that the endless misreadings of deconstruction have done more to dispense with truth propositions than the procedures of Derrida. Deconstruction is Justice. The failure of modernity and its imperialist justifications need a scapegoat and Derrida seems to be the chosen one. So much for a return to truth. If you want Truth, then why don't the anti-post-modern brigade look to Badiou? Because Truth has never been their concern it is about the Status Quo, ie maintaining power.
Perhaps because Heidegger recognized thesubstantial overlap between his Destruktion of metaphysics and Derrida’s trope of deconstruction. Johannes can’t see this because he reads Heidegger through Baudrillard , missing the more radical elements of Heidegger’s thinking.
@@joshsofferi would say he can't see it because hes the type still making philosophically illiterate, Jordan Peterson style diatribes on thinkers he knows nothing about, based off of a naive logocentrism
I'm just getting further into the connecting literature here, but would this explain the strange albeit disavowed affinity between Deconstruction and Pragmatism? I've been curious to know what came of that brief interaction between Derrida and Rorty.
"the decontructionists have deconstructed themselves out of relevancy" my favorite quote from one of your other shorts that I carry with me to other mediums 😂, thank you for elevating the discourse / Logos, looking forward to enrolling soon 🙏
My theory of Derrida’s project is that he read the opening paragraph of Beyond Good and Evil, and followed Nietzsche’s line of critique to a fanatical end; as though Derrida was always attempting to draw-out the underlying assumptions that an author/philosopher had ‘unknowingly’ inserted in the text; or, that they had failed to confess what their true intentions were. Namely, that the personal tastes and prejudices of the philosopher are always disguised as something else. I don’t buy into this dogma.
My 2 cents: Deconstruction seems a necessary part of the individual’s philosophical exploration… to be applied on one’s self as exercise. But once you’ve meddled with it enough, you know it’s fatal limit: Deconstruction can erode everything BUT an idea. This makes it useless in a good-faith debate. No matter how imperfect the construction of an idea being communicated to you, you wrestle with the idea and not it’s construction. I might have a crude understanding of deconstruction though.
Agreed. To realize that the shadows on the walls of Plato's cave aren't real, it is necessary to deconstruct them. I don't quite understand his argument either, but typically, with people who want to attack post modernism, deconstruction is one of its foundational pillars so I'm going to assume he's trying to dissuade the idea that everything must be deconstructed for the sake of deconstructing. Doing so only leads to a cesspool of presuppositional constructs, but I honestly still find that relevant to know and understand so yeah, I guess I'm still just as lost here.
Will somebody please b-slap philosophers back into reality. I have been deconstructing my faith for the last few months out of a need to understand better what I believe. Guess what - it changed my ideas. And I don't need to debate anything with anybody.
@@user-pd5qz2vt2cI believe they are referring to a different type of deconstruction This is the one more like what you are referring to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_deconstruction?wprov=sfti1 Here is what they are referring to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction?wprov=sfti1 They are definitely related but I think the criticism is less directed at the type you are talking about and more the broad philosophical method of deconstruction
Indeed, deconstruction itself ist sophistry. And in my view, it is the primary tool we have for analysis. For how can we analyse anything unless we deconstruction it into simpler elements of which it is made? However, sophistry does use deconstruction, and this might be what he was reffering to. Because other than that, if he was actually reffering to deconstruction in of itself as sophistry, then he would be engaging in sophistry, by attaching an inharent negative characteristic on the act of deconstruction, by reffering to it as something which " twists the word". No, twisting the word would be " arbitrarily asigning a negative connotation to an otherwise useful word and phenomenon". That's my 2 sence on it, having watched this video in order to further clarify what sophistry means. I have an intuitive understanding of it, but not quite a definite concrete understanding. However , I do have one about " deconstruction", so the video gave me an idea of how to bridge the gap somewhat. Anywho, have a good day. I'll continue looking for a definition, analogy and example of what "sophistry" is, since I find myself struggling to explain it as easly and as concisely as I would like to.
Alright I do want to coment on your context of deconstruction here. Whille I do aguree that it has an erosive quality, I will say that it has that quality in so far as what it's deconstructing wasn't strong enough on its own, or its user is misusing it knowingly or unknowingly. I'll deconstruct now what I just said in order to make my point: 1.we can say that one of its "jobs" is to cut one big thing, into many small bits. -By doing this it becomes far easier to see the "big things" inner *contradictions and inner *consonance. Ex. Let's say that I believed that "elephants are human" Now why is this a wrong statement? If we cut it down to smaller peaces it would maybe go something like this: If Humans are mammals. And Elephants are mammals Therefore Elephants are Humans . So now we know what the cause of the contradiction is. I have conflated the classification of "species" with "class" and thus am using them interchangeably. Of course, now if I knew more about biology. I would probably be able to offer more a distinctive deconstruction, or if I was a linguist, a different type. - In this case, the example I gave of a belief, was not strong enough on its own, and hence when deconstructed was eroded as falce. But here , that's a good thing, since one wouldn't benifit much if they were to study biology, if they used this kind of a logic in order to cluster categories together into one incoherent blob of Elephants beeing humans, and reptiles beeing elephant,because their skin looked simular or something etc. I can go on, but I'm sure you get my point, ( and in case you'd like more elaboration, you can tell me, and I can even offer you a interesting book for this kind of thing) I would like to give you another positive example of deconstruction before I leave. In this example is, we have a person called Ivy ,,whose having a really bad day, and she is feeling depressed because of it. Let's say, she came home that day, and saw that she forgot to buy food, and she hadn't eaten all day, and she thinks to herself " what a life" , then calls her friend Melinda, and receives no reply, then thinks to herself " I'm not surprised, who would want to talk to a mess like me". And etc. So if we left the situation as such, of course Ivy would just feel like crap, and without the capacity to deconstruct her bad day, she may even carry on with this feeling in the next day, and the day after that, especially if she convinced herself of the conclusions she reached when realising she didn't get food, nor did her friend answer. And If she then deconstructed the situation in a wrong way, it would go something like this: ¹. Why didn't I get any food? -Maybe because I'm an idiot. ². Why am I an idiot? -Aren't I? I couldn't even do the basic human function of feeding myself. And even my friend probably hates me, and probably doesent want to do anything with me. ³. Why am I like this? -I'm probably just defective in some way, no wonder people bullied me when in high-school..I must have been really wierd to them..... And etc... However, if she applied deconstruction in the right way, she might have a result that looks something like this: ¹.Why didn't I get any food? - well, since I haven't eaten all day, my mind and body aren't really preforming at a very high level, and I had a lot of work today, just running around all day in the hardware store, stacking a 100 different things, so no wonder I forgot . [*notice how now she is not lead on to questioning if she is an idiot] ². Alright, what can I do to make tomorow better? - Well, I suppose if I went out to get food now, or earlier tomorow, I'll get on a roll from then on. Maybe I can make an alarm for food as well, so I'm reminded to get food and eat whenever there is a frantic day. [*now even if she still asked the next question, it still wont be as bad] ³. Hmm, still tho, "why am I like this?" - it's just been a long day, probably hasn't got much with me as a person, since they overwork us every day for 10 hours, so I cant be surprised. And Melinda probably didn't answer because she is probably asleep, since her job is also pretty tiering. Or who knows, maybe something came up and she didnt see the phone. End of example. So, whille they were not 1 to 1 examples, i hope that the point is apparent. One type of deconstruction focused on more generalisations about her entire personalitie, just because she had a bad day, and the other example focused on deconstructing the specific things of her day and was also looking for possible solutions. There can be made a more rigorous analysis of course, and that all depends on one crucial thing. The ultimate, ig, way to direct your deconstruction is by asking yourself " what do I want to accomplished with it, and what am I accomplishing with it right now " If you want to accomplish a solution for a complex problem, and if you see that you are dealing with the specifics and generalities of the issue itself directly, then you are on the right path; but if you are trying to find a solution, but are unbenounced to yourself looking to find proof for how horrible you are at finding solutions, then you are using deconstruction in a corrosive way. So a habit of noticing what the deconstruction is accomplishing, and what you want it to accomplish is the key for whether or not it benefits you or deteriorates you. ( I do want to mention something about sophistry here. The point of sophistry is to "win" the argument. That's why it is corrosive. If you want to win the argument, more than you want to actually understand something, or be understood by someone , than you are engaging in sophistry. It's a normal thing to do, but can become a problem if unchecked, and especially if you don't know you do it. But along as you are aware, it can even be used in order to understand and to be understood. But that's a topic for another time) Tell me what you think. Were my examples sufficient? Have a good day.
How would you differenciate between critic, that of Kant for example, and derrida's deconstruction, because it seems as a logical extantion. I would suggest that one of the differences is that former is teleological, whereas the latter is purely critical and unstable, that is why derrida refuses the word construction. For it recuires a firm decision, who's ground would be qualified as superior. While Kant has made a lot of judgments and moral assertions.
Been thinking this for some time, especially since 2016, Covid and the Summer of George Floyd. There are the events and the thinking behind the events. Both are pernicious...Sophist!
We're talking about texts that have been translated over and over again to meet the needs of different powerful people. Even my grandfather who is long gone taught me how much of the hypocrisy in the church comes from false translations. Digging back to the root of the text is important to see how to live by Christ is a loving and positive thing to be done as an example. Not to force others to live the way you want and dominate them through money.
O motivo para a desconstrução não seria porque o construído é o real que aí está e, como se diz, não está com nada? Além disso, o sentimento de que ela não tem nada a propor ou construir para por no lugar, preguiçosa em pensar... o sentido que a coisa toda não tem mais salvação, por um erro de origem? Heidegger, desconsolado, deixou numa entrevista a ser publicada após sua morte o sentimento de que somente um novo Deus pode nos salvar...
What was Derrida actually trying to achieve, I often wonder? It would seem to me that any decent philosopher eventually comes to the realization that dialectics are an inescapable part of the realm of thought. To make this impossibility of escape the theme of thinking itself is either a (potentially cruel) joke or something which bears witness to the thinker's grotesque ignorance. I doubt Derrida was actually that stupid, however, because he wrote insightful and valuable things every now and then. So he must have been joking? The point where the joke stops being funny is when so called ""intellectuals"" start using his "method" (of course one can't say it is a method, because this would be to irresponsibly surrender to the metaphysics of presence; but it also ISN'T a method, because this would... etc.) to write books in the humanities, using their authority as university professors to smugly undermine the authority of university professors... The tragicomedy of Enlightenment "rationality" coming full circle, lol. Personally it reminds me of Goethe's "Der Zauberlehrling".
There’s a video of him where he honestly admits that he has nightmares sometimes where he is confronted by the destruction he causes. “What am I doing? Why man doing this?” He asks. I think he knew full well what he was up to
![Eminem - Fuel (Shady Edition) feat. Westside Boogie & GRIP [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/k1OquBida9s/mqdefault.jpg)
It’s only sophistry if you haven’t deconstructed the “I” belief
Fascinating and exciting
The religions are scared, and I'm here for it. The shoe is on the other foot now.
He is totally wrong here. Deconstruction is an internal attack "within" Ontology using the semiotic field as it's battleground.
Sophistry is irrelevant to its logos.
“Deconstruction cuts us off from the real world and from reality, and it brings us into the field of signs. Then it strikes at the validity of rational thinking or reasoning. Human thought is supposed to be inconclusive, or incapable of essential performing reasoning processes, because conclusiveness is the ability to draw true conclusions from true premises.
According to Derrida, the purpose of the analysis of a philosophical text is not a coherent interpretation or an attempt at verification, but it is decomposition, that is, to split apart the text from within. In this way, a philosophical text neither helps us to understand the truth, nor is it to be understood. We find ourselves at the antipodes from theoria, or to be more precise, at the center, the purpose of which is the complex destruction of theoría.
This is not polemics, but an attempt to release a virus into language, so that language will paralyze thought. In this case it is a philosophical language, but similar mechanisms can be found in the language of other fields, especially such sensitive fields as the language of ethics, politics, art, or religion. Language has become so infected by the virus that words contain meanings that annul themselves. A new technology has appeared for the destruction of the humanities. This process occurs from within, in the semantic sphere, and metaphysics is the most important domain slated for destruction.
In the example of Derrida, we can see how that was supposed to be done, but at the same time we can see that metaphysics is a difficult field because it possesses its own antibodies or defensive mechanisms. Derrida may deconstruct metaphysical constructs, but the deconstruction always opens the question: which version or philosophical movement is he deconstructing? What knowledge does he possess in that area? Has he mastered the rudiments of the methodology of the sciences?
This is all the more so, because it is impossible to raise metaphysical concepts without the foundation that is called theoria. Derrida is a militant intellectual, not a thinker who contemplates reality or a text.” - Piotr Jaroszyński, Metaphysics or Ontology
@@Modus07 the irony is, that the endless misreadings of deconstruction have done more to dispense with truth propositions than the procedures of Derrida. Deconstruction is Justice. The failure of modernity and its imperialist justifications need a scapegoat and Derrida seems to be the chosen one. So much for a return to truth. If you want Truth, then why don't the anti-post-modern brigade look to Badiou? Because Truth has never been their concern it is about the Status Quo, ie maintaining power.
I’ve heard Heidegger was apparently very interested in Derrida’s work and I’ve always wondered for what reason?
Perhaps because Heidegger recognized thesubstantial overlap between his Destruktion of metaphysics and Derrida’s trope of deconstruction. Johannes can’t see this because he reads Heidegger through Baudrillard , missing the more radical
elements of Heidegger’s
thinking.
Fascinating
@@joshsofferi would say he can't see it because hes the type still making philosophically illiterate, Jordan Peterson style diatribes on thinkers he knows nothing about, based off of a naive logocentrism
I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the relationship between deconstruction and Heidegger’s destruction of the history of ontology.
Sign up to my Heidegger course and find out
I'm just getting further into the connecting literature here, but would this explain the strange albeit disavowed affinity between Deconstruction and Pragmatism? I've been curious to know what came of that brief interaction between Derrida and Rorty.
That’s an interesting question man!
That sounds interesting, I suspect Rorty's ideas won out particularly in the Anglosphere
Have some good sleep brother..
am an admirer of Derrida
My condolences.
"the decontructionists have deconstructed themselves out of relevancy" my favorite quote from one of your other shorts that I carry with me to other mediums 😂, thank you for elevating the discourse / Logos, looking forward to enrolling soon 🙏
I look forward to meeting you at the seminars
My theory of Derrida’s project is that he read the opening paragraph of Beyond Good and Evil, and followed Nietzsche’s line of critique to a fanatical end; as though Derrida was always attempting to draw-out the underlying assumptions that an author/philosopher had ‘unknowingly’ inserted in the text; or, that they had failed to confess what their true intentions were. Namely, that the personal tastes and prejudices of the philosopher are always disguised as something else. I don’t buy into this dogma.
My 2 cents:
Deconstruction seems a necessary part of the individual’s philosophical exploration… to be applied on one’s self as exercise. But once you’ve meddled with it enough, you know it’s fatal limit: Deconstruction can erode everything BUT an idea. This makes it useless in a good-faith debate. No matter how imperfect the construction of an idea being communicated to you, you wrestle with the idea and not it’s construction.
I might have a crude understanding of deconstruction though.
Agreed. To realize that the shadows on the walls of Plato's cave aren't real, it is necessary to deconstruct them. I don't quite understand his argument either, but typically, with people who want to attack post modernism, deconstruction is one of its foundational pillars so I'm going to assume he's trying to dissuade the idea that everything must be deconstructed for the sake of deconstructing. Doing so only leads to a cesspool of presuppositional constructs, but I honestly still find that relevant to know and understand so yeah, I guess I'm still just as lost here.
Will somebody please b-slap philosophers back into reality. I have been deconstructing my faith for the last few months out of a need to understand better what I believe. Guess what - it changed my ideas. And I don't need to debate anything with anybody.
@@user-pd5qz2vt2cI believe they are referring to a different type of deconstruction
This is the one more like what you are referring to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_deconstruction?wprov=sfti1
Here is what they are referring to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction?wprov=sfti1
They are definitely related but I think the criticism is less directed at the type you are talking about and more the broad philosophical method of deconstruction
Indeed, deconstruction itself ist sophistry. And in my view, it is the primary tool we have for analysis. For how can we analyse anything unless we deconstruction it into simpler elements of which it is made?
However, sophistry does use deconstruction, and this might be what he was reffering to. Because other than that, if he was actually reffering to deconstruction in of itself as sophistry, then he would be engaging in sophistry, by attaching an inharent negative characteristic on the act of deconstruction, by reffering to it as something which " twists the word". No, twisting the word would be " arbitrarily asigning a negative connotation to an otherwise useful word and phenomenon".
That's my 2 sence on it, having watched this video in order to further clarify what sophistry means. I have an intuitive understanding of it, but not quite a definite concrete understanding. However , I do have one about " deconstruction", so the video gave me an idea of how to bridge the gap somewhat.
Anywho, have a good day.
I'll continue looking for a definition, analogy and example of what "sophistry" is, since I find myself struggling to explain it as easly and as concisely as I would like to.
Alright I do want to coment on your context of deconstruction here.
Whille I do aguree that it has an erosive quality, I will say that it has that quality in so far as what it's deconstructing wasn't strong enough on its own, or its user is misusing it knowingly or unknowingly.
I'll deconstruct now what I just said in order to make my point:
1.we can say that one of its "jobs" is to cut one big thing, into many small bits.
-By doing this it becomes far easier to see the "big things" inner *contradictions and inner *consonance.
Ex. Let's say that I believed that "elephants are human"
Now why is this a wrong statement?
If we cut it down to smaller peaces it would maybe go something like this:
If Humans are mammals.
And Elephants are mammals
Therefore Elephants are Humans .
So now we know what the cause of the contradiction is. I have conflated the classification of "species" with "class" and thus am using them interchangeably.
Of course, now if I knew more about biology. I would probably be able to offer more a distinctive deconstruction, or if I was a linguist, a different type.
- In this case, the example I gave of a belief, was not strong enough on its own, and hence when deconstructed was eroded as falce. But here , that's a good thing, since one wouldn't benifit much if they were to study biology, if they used this kind of a logic in order to cluster categories together into one incoherent blob of Elephants beeing humans, and reptiles beeing elephant,because their skin looked simular or something etc.
I can go on, but I'm sure you get my point, ( and in case you'd like more elaboration, you can tell me, and I can even offer you a interesting book for this kind of thing)
I would like to give you another positive example of deconstruction before I leave. In this example is, we have a person called Ivy ,,whose having a really bad day, and she is feeling depressed because of it.
Let's say, she came home that day, and saw that she forgot to buy food, and she hadn't eaten all day, and she thinks to herself " what a life" , then calls her friend Melinda, and receives no reply, then thinks to herself " I'm not surprised, who would want to talk to a mess like me". And etc.
So if we left the situation as such, of course Ivy would just feel like crap, and without the capacity to deconstruct her bad day, she may even carry on with this feeling in the next day, and the day after that, especially if she convinced herself of the conclusions she reached when realising she didn't get food, nor did her friend answer.
And If she then deconstructed the situation in a wrong way, it would go something like this:
¹. Why didn't I get any food?
-Maybe because I'm an idiot.
². Why am I an idiot?
-Aren't I? I couldn't even do the basic human function of feeding myself.
And even my friend probably hates me, and probably doesent want to do anything with me.
³. Why am I like this?
-I'm probably just defective in some way, no wonder people bullied me when in high-school..I must have been really wierd to them.....
And etc...
However, if she applied deconstruction in the right way, she might have a result that looks something like this:
¹.Why didn't I get any food?
- well, since I haven't eaten all day, my mind and body aren't really preforming at a very high level, and I had a lot of work today, just running around all day in the hardware store, stacking a 100 different things, so no wonder I forgot .
[*notice how now she is not lead on to questioning if she is an idiot]
². Alright, what can I do to make tomorow better?
- Well, I suppose if I went out to get food now, or earlier tomorow, I'll get on a roll from then on. Maybe I can make an alarm for food as well, so I'm reminded to get food and eat whenever there is a frantic day.
[*now even if she still asked the next question, it still wont be as bad]
³. Hmm, still tho, "why am I like this?"
- it's just been a long day, probably hasn't got much with me as a person, since they overwork us every day for 10 hours, so I cant be surprised. And Melinda probably didn't answer because she is probably asleep, since her job is also pretty tiering. Or who knows, maybe something came up and she didnt see the phone.
End of example.
So, whille they were not 1 to 1 examples, i hope that the point is apparent.
One type of deconstruction focused on more generalisations about her entire personalitie, just because she had a bad day, and the other example focused on deconstructing the specific things of her day and was also looking for possible solutions.
There can be made a more rigorous analysis of course, and that all depends on one crucial thing.
The ultimate, ig, way to direct your deconstruction is by asking yourself " what do I want to accomplished with it, and what am I accomplishing with it right now "
If you want to accomplish a solution for a complex problem, and if you see that you are dealing with the specifics and generalities of the issue itself directly, then you are on the right path; but if you are trying to find a solution, but are unbenounced to yourself looking to find proof for how horrible you are at finding solutions, then you are using deconstruction in a corrosive way.
So a habit of noticing what the deconstruction is accomplishing, and what you want it to accomplish is the key for whether or not it benefits you or deteriorates you.
( I do want to mention something about sophistry here.
The point of sophistry is to "win" the argument. That's why it is corrosive. If you want to win the argument, more than you want to actually understand something, or be understood by someone , than you are engaging in sophistry.
It's a normal thing to do, but can become a problem if unchecked, and especially if you don't know you do it. But along as you are aware, it can even be used in order to understand and to be understood. But that's a topic for another time)
Tell me what you think. Were my examples sufficient?
Have a good day.
Nice fit!
How would you differenciate between critic, that of Kant for example, and derrida's deconstruction, because it seems as a logical extantion. I would suggest that one of the differences is that former is teleological, whereas the latter is purely critical and unstable, that is why derrida refuses the word construction. For it recuires a firm decision, who's ground would be qualified as superior. While Kant has made a lot of judgments and moral assertions.
This seems to be how Hegel would approach a criticism of Heidegger. And I thought you were our heroic expositor of Heidegger🤷🏻♂️
Been thinking this for some time, especially since 2016, Covid and the Summer of George Floyd. There are the events and the thinking behind the events. Both are pernicious...Sophist!
Deconstruction is just giving up on thinking at all. It's lazy resignation
Its literally the opposite
We're talking about texts that have been translated over and over again to meet the needs of different powerful people. Even my grandfather who is long gone taught me how much of the hypocrisy in the church comes from false translations. Digging back to the root of the text is important to see how to live by Christ is a loving and positive thing to be done as an example. Not to force others to live the way you want and dominate them through money.
But why is deconstruction a surogate of Logos?
which world are you speaking of?
Are you sure?
Seems like deconstruction is just thinking critically without an actual motive such as you describe here
There very much is a motive: destroying
O motivo para a desconstrução não seria porque o construído é o real que aí está e, como se diz, não está com nada?
Além disso, o sentimento de que ela não tem nada a propor ou construir para por no lugar, preguiçosa em pensar... o sentido que a coisa toda não tem mais salvação, por um erro de origem?
Heidegger, desconsolado, deixou numa entrevista a ser publicada após sua morte o sentimento de que somente um novo Deus pode nos salvar...
This is an excellent video.
Man hasn't read one page of derrida with an open mind and it shows
It’s certainly possible for two people to read one work-both with open minds-and come down in completely different places.
Have you not noticed that?
@@user-py9lb6uf2h masquerading lack of understanding to difference in opinion is actual sophistry :)
"im gonna disprove logic by using logic" - deconstructist in a nutshell
What was Derrida actually trying to achieve, I often wonder? It would seem to me that any decent philosopher eventually comes to the realization that dialectics are an inescapable part of the realm of thought. To make this impossibility of escape the theme of thinking itself is either a (potentially cruel) joke or something which bears witness to the thinker's grotesque ignorance. I doubt Derrida was actually that stupid, however, because he wrote insightful and valuable things every now and then. So he must have been joking? The point where the joke stops being funny is when so called ""intellectuals"" start using his "method" (of course one can't say it is a method, because this would be to irresponsibly surrender to the metaphysics of presence; but it also ISN'T a method, because this would... etc.) to write books in the humanities, using their authority as university professors to smugly undermine the authority of university professors... The tragicomedy of Enlightenment "rationality" coming full circle, lol. Personally it reminds me of Goethe's "Der Zauberlehrling".
There’s a video of him where he honestly admits that he has nightmares sometimes where he is confronted by the destruction he causes. “What am I doing? Why man doing this?” He asks. I think he knew full well what he was up to