Deconstructing Deconstructionism

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | 28 November 2001 | By Robert Locke

[betty boop]

So why then is Marxism considered part of the rational movement?

Got me there, sonofliberty2. Maybe this is just standard doctrine of the so-called Popular Front? And is therefore to be considered false on its face by rational human beings?

But I feel pretty sure you're not falling for that paltry trick. best, bb.

[Dumb_Ox]

Are you planning to read Empire? I almost feel forced into reading it since it's getting so much press.

My reading schedule is overrun right now. With any (bad?)luck, I may have to read it for class. I did wander across a small collection of essays by Phillip Augustine Lawler called Postmodernism Rightly Understood, which could be very relevant. I'll browse my notes before bedtime and see if anything merits posting.

[Aurelius]

Wonderful quotes.

I have already indicated my respect for the writing of M. Foucault. Regarding professor Derrida (renowned for producing passages such as the above), he is quoted as saying: "He is the kind of philosopher who gives bullshit a bad name." If anyone can give the quote in the original French, I would appreciate it very much.

[Aurelius]

Wonderful quote for this thread - I hope it evokes some thought. It certainly should.

[Aurelius]

I love those old movies with the vampires, werewolves, etc., where some character says, about some really spooky phenomenon which has just occured. "But there must be a scientific explanation." Well of course there is a scientific explanation. Give us an occurence, and name your ideology, and we can provide an "explanation" in terms of your ideology. That is the purpose of ideologies, to explain everything in their terms. That is what an explanation is, an interpretation of what has occured in terms of the ideology of the explainer.

[Aurelius]

I am too tired to think about your post as carefully as it might deserve. But I see a point which doesn't seem to be generally recognized. That is the profound difference in the perceived world of the believer in traditional Christianity and that of the atheist or agnostic. Just one, but by no means the only difference, regards language. Biblically, language is a commonality between God and man (John 1,1) thus,for the believer, truth which is expressible only in words, has sense. For the nonbeliever, language is a human creation, with no a priori special facility for accurately representing reality. Consequently, for that nonbeliever, it is not so easy to say what "truth" means, or it is simply meaningless.

[logos]

Now they, the deconstructionists, have come to point where they themselves have to re-evaluate their values and goals. It's an opportune time to attack and take back the lost ground. Unfortunately, there there is nobody organized or strong enough to resist them even in their weak state.

Good point, about deconstructionism being about more than language, but since this thread was restricting itself to language, I played along. :)

I'm not so sure about your thought that there's no one organized or strong enough to resist, however. Organized, probably so. But I learned from the personal experience of sitting in the classrooms of various different deconstructionists less than ten years ago that if one is persistent enough, and logical enough, and stands up to every "point" they try to make, they will panic and scatter in disaray (sp?). Or at least, those on the front lines trying to rope in new converts will panic.

Of course, at the age of 50+ and having lived a "real life" before arriving, I wasn't what you might consider an "average" college student. Being more stubborn than Balaam's ass didn't hurt, either. :^)

[philman_36]

(not to mention my love of America, guns and fine whiskey.)
These are high indicators that you are "A Bad American". Do not vocalize such sentiments around "non-bad" Americans. It'll attract unwanted criticism and strange glances, the strange glances being the most scathing they are able to muster.

[cornelis]

truth which is expressible only in words, has sense. For the nonbeliever, language is a human creation

Here we go again. Did you know that the doctrine of the trinity was hammered out and solidified (i.e. the truth of it was got) by the slick work of a saint called Gregory of Nyssa who, because of his efforts at the council of Nicea, ended up writing 5 books against Eunomius as a heretic? Gregory of Nyssa was the believer that held language is a human creation and derivative.

I know that truth is not dependent on language. We use language to communicate, and it carries a lot of freight, but it has been overloaded (not quite like overused). The overload is to demand that it alone is what it is (that connection). Okay, so God gave us the ability to use language, but why slip in "expressible only"? Why this dramatic action of the incarnation?

[cornelis]

English Literature in American colleges is dead due to this garbage

Perhaps they contributed to its mortification, but this is hard to imagine since they came on the scene and pronounced it dead to begin with.

[cornelis]

Perhaps here the meaning of "beating on a dead horse" makes sense.

[Aurelius]

To what can you apply the predicate "is true" other than something that has been said or written - in words.

[cornelis]

What does it mean to be a "living word?"

[Aurelius]

"What does it mean to be a "living word"?"

I haven't a clue. Is that your answer to my question?

[cornelis]

Is that your answer to my question?

It certainly is a response, and a start. Do questions determine their own answer?

[logos]

Here ya go. Sorry it took so long - I forgot all about the 'u'...

[Landru]

"See logos# 50."

Thanks, sol2; think I'll take a pass.

Besides, I don't smoke.