Deconstructing Deconstructionism

Thanks. This is JUST what I needed right now...

I'm with you, LS. As if there is any hope of ever following a philosophy based on foundations such as :

"What deconstruction is not? Everything of course! What is deconstruction? Nothing of course!"

Here's a prize:"Deconstruction is a system to give humanities and philosophy professors a pompous sounding justification to pop off on politics and other subjects they know nothing about."

...the critique of language has come out of the bankruptcy of rationalism that thought that the language could exhaust the thing: but it can't, and therefore its reference to things is somewhat ambivalent.

I suppose the ambivalence may be at least partly due to the fact that we don't know absolutely everything about anything, that knowledge is never a complete, "final possession" of man. Yet the fact seems to be that a man must often act, even where his knowledge is incomplete, imperfect.... And often, he needs to communicate. So even if the "symbol" cannot possibly penetrate and contain its external referrent, stable meanings -- meanings that do not change willy-nilly over time -- are a practical necessity. Otherwise, communication would be impossible. And if it were impossible, that would make us all "monads" in the Voegelinian sense of the term (as I understand it; i.e., discrete, subjective consciousness radically disengaged from anything external to itself).

Of course, rationalists tend to be loathe to admit this, which may be explained by their main "antirationalistic tendency" -- their refusal to admit any limit to the human mind; or among the extreme cases, to admit that anything exists independently of the mind; or, as corollary, independently of personal will and desire.

These folks just give me a headache. :^) Surely they must appreciate at some level that we do need to "signify" things in order to communicate with others. And that requires more-or-less stable significations that are at least roughly, mutually intelligible to the communicating parties. To "deconstruct" meaning into nothingness is analogous to going into the lobotomy business.... JMHO, FWIW. Thanks so much for writing, cornelis. All my best -- bb.

more-or-less stable significations that are at least roughly, mutually intelligible to the communicating parties

Yes, as for example the U.S. Constitution, or the O.T. Law. There is no irony involved in the fact these "stabilizing significations" are now hotly disputed. I enter the conversation above pointing to the fact that too many do not understand why because they are hanging on the pendulum swing of ignorance, which now claims the word as absolute (or, Constitution is king) and now as ultimate irrelevance, in resignation to the lost center: "the center cannot hold, mere anarchy is loosed upon the world."

This is why the first primer in this matter is to understand the bankruptcy of rational-ism which makes claims beyond measure in the simplicity of its naivete: A is A. But that is merely a relation of identity. One must go beyond that identity to give it meaning. One must go beyond the Constitution to give it meaning. And those who merely accept the requirement of "stabilizing significations" are not strong enough to defend it. "Stabilizing significations" only get their stability in a meaning that transcends it. If that cord is broken, then shattered is the pitcher at the well.

Thanks for your response. As I'm sure you understand, I am quite earnest about the wholescale ignorance that shows in our popular parlance and I am grieved as well to be unable to have others see with new eyes.

In another one or two generations there will be no one alive who has any memory of L.B.D., life before deconstruction.

Well, yes - except for the two kids who call me "Dad". I have made it a point that they learn the real meaning of words from the time they began talking. I also made them defend every wacko liberal/socialist idea or concept they ever brought home from school, until they could see how baseless and illogical that idea was. [You should have been around our house for a few days when our daughter came home from high school saying that communism sounded like a system that might just work - if the "right" people put it into practice! Let's just say she no longer believes that nonsense...]

You'll get absolutely no argument from me that we're facing a post-modern Sisyphusian struggle here, but then if it's not our responsibility to keep pushing that rock up the hill, whose is it?

"Stabilizing significations" only get their stability in a meaning that transcends it. If that cord is broken, then shattered is the pitcher at the well.

Amen to that, cornelis! The positivists/materialists have been holding court for more than two hundred years now; and look at the devastation they have wrought. If the logical outcome of their nonsense -- the evidence of which we see all around us in personal disorder and social breakdown -- isn't proof-positive of the bankruptcy of their fundamental premises about the structure of reality as they play out in the "real world," then I don't know what is. Mankind needs to do a whole lot better than that.

Maybe we should just start with the obvious: Just because you can't see a thing with the "naked eye" doesn't mean it isn't there.... All meaning transcends the (immanent) objects and relations it seeks to explain; and thus, is necessarily intangible, "invisible" in the naked-eye sense.

Hey, it's not much; but it is a start. All my best -- bb.

Well I love you, too PH. Am thinking it over, how best to go about 'splaining it. I have an idea, an example that might help. But it needs a little more thought and time and it's not something I can "fit in" at work anyway. So, it's a project for the weekend (TGIF!!!!). I'll probably post it on Phaedrus' social Darwinism thread; will bump you when the time comes.

Meanwhile, a little hint at what's involved has been suggested by cornelis (above), in his comments on the Constitution. There is a school of thought (i.e., legal positivism) that holds the Constitution's text -- its written language per se -- is all you need to know in order to understand what that document means.

But then there are other people (like me) who say there's no way you can understand the text of the document -- or any other document, for that matter -- without understanding its context (which is, of course, the polar opposite of what the Deconstructionists are saying).

Context would include the Framer's culture, education, historical situation, ethics, values, intentions, etc., etc. Not a one of those "things" is really a "thing" at all -- in the sense of physical, phenomenal, material existence.

Further, although it is true there is a "physical" Constitution of course -- text printed on so many pages -- that's not the "thing" we Americans value and cherish. The "thing" we value "transcends" the physical document itself: It is the organic complex of ideas the document articulates and gives "intangible" form to, which in turn has been "immanentized" as actual transformations of American society and historical existence. Goodness knows, that's "real enough."

See what I mean? I hope to be speaking with you again soon. Meanwhile, dear PH, all my best -- bb.

Please note that in my post 107 I very explicitely distinguished between the believing theist, particulary, one who believes in the Judeo-Christion (should one append -Moslem) God,* and the agnostic or atheist. For the theist the world is a very different place than it is for the non-believerer. I can accept an analysis such as yours as valid (more or less, I didn't read it in detail). But I am interested in the analysis from the point of view of the non-believer, whose case is quite different. Certainly the deconstrutionists are for the most part (if not without exception) non-believers, and therefor, if you want to understand them you have to try to see the world through their eyes as unbelievers. And if you want to refute them you have to refute them in the same light or worldview. If you want to base your refutation on religious ideas, you would have to convert them first. If they where converted, they would see the world as you do and would freely abandon the ir previous views as incompatible with their new religion.

*In this context I cited the same verse that you quoted, John 1;1.

Context would include the Framer's culture, education, historical situation, ethics, values, intentions, etc., etc. Not a one of those "things" is really a "thing" at all -- in the sense of physical, phenomenal, material existence.

I have no disagreement with any of what you said. Every law student learns that in interpreting a statute (or Constitution) the "legislative intent" is of great importance in determining the meaning of the words. That's why the Federalist Papers, for example, are so often quoted by the courts in deciding Constitutional issues. Laws are, of course, intangible, like many other abstract ideas. I wasn't aware that any of this was controversial. The controversy is over the idea that the Constitution is a "living document", the meaning of which can be altered to suit the current whims of presently-seated judges. I don't agree with that interpretation at all.

You address the issue of what "makes something true". What is your criterion for "what makes something true"? You say what doesn't, but not what does. From a philosophical point of view the question is obviously quite deep, as it has been being asked throughout the entire history of philosophy and not gotten a satisfactory answer.

But when Pontius Pilate asked "what is truth" was he asking a philosophical question? He was a Roman afterall, not likely much inclined to abstract philosophy. I suspect, if he wanted an answer at all, he wanted a practical one. You can call it word play, but I think "Truth is what those in power say it is." is about as good a practical answer as one can come up with. And woe to the man who fails to act, consciously or not, in accordance. What is true medicine and what is quackery; the government decides. What is a legitimate religion and what is a "cult". The government decides. Never mind the fate of the Branch Davidians. When the draft was in force, conscientious objector status could be granted, but conscientous objection had to be based on a religious faith accepted as "genuine" by the government. And so it goes, government is the final arbiter of what is "true". Most prominently, by its near monopoly of education, the government determines what is instilled as "truth" in the minds of the young. Consider the evolution versus creationism controversy. Government even decides what is "historical truth" although that has been quite rare in the U.S. if not elsewhere.

If you want to base your refutation on religious ideas, you would have to convert them first. If they where converted, they would see the world as you do and would freely abandon the ir previous views as incompatible with their new religion.

Interesting points, Aurelius. Along this line one can see why others, thinking solely from their own point of view that the post-modern movement as a para-military organization that aims to destroy the world, beginning with academia. This is an unprofitable opinion, but I know how popular it is for jouralists the learn the art of debunking.

I have suggested above that what has given rise to the post-modern position has been the bankruptcy of Rational-ism. It is odd the religious view will defend rationalism against the post-modern movement. This is a confusion based on ignorance.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.