Talk:Deconstruction/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Second sentence (intelligibility)

To give other editors some feedback, I've made some detailed notes about why the second sentence is hard to read. I hope that my analysis can cast some light on why the rest of the article is also hard to read.

Its first task, starting with philosophical texts and afterwards in literary and juridical ones, is to overturn all the binary oppositions of metaphysics (signifier/signified; sensible/intelligible; writing/speech; passivity/activity; etc).[2][3]

1. This sentence is too long. It breaks off into two asides: the "starting with" clause in parenthetical commas and the bit in actual parentheses. These asides should be written as separate sentences or cut entirely if they are not important. The problem at the moment is that the reader reads the subject of the sentence "its first task" and is left hanging for ten more words without the primary verb ("is").
2. The two expressions "starting with" and "afterwards" jar with each other. In English, you would normally follow "starting with" with "ending with" or "finishing with" or "moving on to" --- some kind of "ing" word. If you use "afterwards" you probably want a word like "initially" instead of "starting with". The effect of messing with the reader's expectations is that the word "afterwards" looks weird, and the reader finds themselves stalled, trying to find out if anything special is meant by the unusual sentence construction.
3. The poetry of the language obscures the meaning. This sentence implies that deconstruction is something that can possess tasks, like a person can. But deconstruction is not a human, it's an abstract concept, "a form of semiotic analysis". A form of analysis cannot have tasks. It doesn't make sense, except possibly as a poetic allusion. I'm guessing that purpose would be a better word than task, but I can't be sure that's what the author meant.
4. The word overturn here is also poetic. What does it mean to overturn one of these binary oppositions? Let's take the first example of a binary opposition: signifier/signified. Does overturn mean to replace to signifier with the signified and vice versa? If so, a better word would be invert: "invert the opposition". Or does overturn mean to remove the opposition so that there is no opposition any more. If so, a better word would be eliminate: "eliminate the opposition".
5. The term "binary oppositions of metaphysics" is thrown into the sentence without being properly explained. This would be fine if the binary oppositions ought to be familiar to someone who knows about metaphysics. I don't claim to be an expert on metaphysics, so maybe the binary oppositions are well known outside of the topic of deconstruction. However I don't think this is the case. I Googled "the binary oppositions of metaphysics" and the first page were all references to deconstruction and Jacques Derrida. To fix the sentence, either remove the reference to the binary oppositions of metaphysics or add an extra sentence or two to define the term before using it.
6. The author seems to be trying to explain these binary oppositions of metaphysics by providing a list of contrasting pairs of concepts in parentheses. This list raises as many questions as it answers. It's a bit like saying "I have in mind the infinite series: 1, 3, 11, -1, etc". There's not enough information in the examples for the reader to infer the definition. In any case a definition is always better than an example (although examples often help with understanding the definition).
7. One last (minor) point. The list should be separated with commas, not semicolons. The use of semicolons is jarring.

Here an attempt at making that second sentence made more readable:

Derrida identified certain pairs of concepts in metaphysics which he argued stood in opposition to each other, which he called binary oppositions. Deconstruction is a method for eliminating these oppositions by...

Hope that's helpful.

121.98.83.166 (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

No that's just too lucid and your thinking as demonstrated above is just too clear and reasoned to be incorporated into an article on deconstruction. Your use of logic and appeal to the fundamentals of good technical writing is disruptive to the process of writing a really bad article. Go away you bad person with your highfalutin ideas of thinking about stuff and writing clearly. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

To-Do Section

I deleted the to-do list because it was essentially a How-To guide on how to write a Dogma emanating from the Magisterium of Derrida and his bishops on the basis of Derrida's apparent infallibility; and it was written in a pompous and pretentious manner. It read as if it had been written in a possible world where Derrida (and his disciples) constitute the entirety of the philosophy and literary theory community in the 20th century. It proposed no criticism section and it didn't even hint at describing the impact of deconstruction predominately in aesthetic fields. It was a skelton of a heroic narrative in which the melekh mashiach (מלך המשיח) is born, he vanquishes Western philosophy and its attendant evils (Isaiah 25:8), metaphysics and its binary oppositions could not stand before him (Isaiah 11:4), logic and rationality were destroyed (Ezekiel 39:9), dead acadamic careers in literature departments were resurrected (Isaiah 26:19), stumped fashion designers were given brilliant and enduring new ideas like the inside-out trousers, and the world became a beautiful place (Isaiah 51:3). The to-do list is simple: (a) explain what deconstruction is; (b) provide a history of its rise, peak and decline; (c) document the major philosophical and literary-theoretic criticisms levelled against deconstruction (which goes some way towards explaining its decline and not presenting it as Holy Writ); (d) document its enduring influence in the aesthetic fields (albeit as a caricature). If that can be done in clear language with good quality citations then it will be a historical first for this article. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Abuse of the English Language

Sometimes in my travels and use of public transport I encounter a fellow traveller that carries a foul odour. The hosts' fetidness varies: pungent perspiration, aged urine, freshly produced vomit, faeces that made an explosive exit, fishy genitalia. All potent and not to be trifled with. But sometimes I encounter a stench with such intensity or a composite, emergent stench with such foulness that I am not just disgusted I am impressed. I start to respect the stench and its progenitor. Words will typically fail me and I'll just think "F*ck that's impressive. Kudos for pushing that human envelope". That's how I feel when I read this article. This article's shitness is astounding. It really is a superlative piece of crap. This article is so awful it impresses. I am especially impressed that the excremental writing starts at the earliest opportunity, in the lead:

Its first task, starting with philosophical texts and afterwards in literary and juridical ones, is to overturn all the binary oppositions of metaphysics (signifier/signified; sensible/intelligible; writing/speech; passivity/activity; etc).[2][3] Derrida's theories of Deconstruction first demonstrate that in a classical philosophical opposition readers are not confronted to the peaceful coexistence of a vis-à-vis, but rather with a violent hierarchy.[4]

F*ck that is impressive! So much shitness packed into one tranche of text. Little nuggets of shit -- "overturn"/"violent" (figurative language in an ostensibly encyclopedic article), "confronted to" (bad grammar), "a vis-à-vis" (pretentious), bad generalisation (all metaphysics?) -- working together to produce a grand pile of shit that is greater than its parts. All that is being said is:

Derrida claims that philosophy contains conceptual dichotomies and that each element of a given dichotomy is valued differently such that one is regarded as inferior to the other. One of the tasks of deconstruction is to identify and challenge these implicit hierarchical dichotmies in philosophical and literary texts.

Big f*cking deal! How profound! I'm about to faint in the face of such profundity. Meretricious, like an old and haggard prostitute in the night or an ugly drag queen at a distance. The purpose of an encyclopedic article is to explain bullshit like deconstruction not to reproduce Derrida's turgid, tortured and tortuous prose. This article should be deleted and all of its copies destroyed so that it can't be reverted. To those that wrote this shit I have pity but also a species of respect. The same sort of respect that I have for someone that smells so bad they can clear a railway carriage in peak hour. That notwithstanding, those that penned this monstrosity have no place writing Wikipedia articles, they have no writing ability, no capacity to communicate in writing. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• I do not like your imagery of the situation here, as it lacks a constructive approach, if I can say that in this context... I agree that the text needs to be improved not only grammatically but also comprehensively. However, Derrida's texts on Deconstruction were first written in French, and if he was not abusing the French language, he was not meticulously following its rules neither. He coined the term 'différance' from the French word 'différence'. The word 'deconstruction' in French can also be understood as to unbuild meticulously a machine or a building, I don't think that such meaning can be perceived in English, or can it be? I think that if you are so disturbed by the article, you should start working on it and give it the grammatical, rhetorical and phraseological overhaul that is required. I can support you and correct you if I think that your revisions are not adequate. English is not my mother tongue so it would be inadequate for me to carry out this task. --Christophe Krief (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not like your imagery of the situation here, as it lacks a constructive approach

I beg to differ, the imagery is apt and I provide meaningful criticism. This article exhibits a hatred of the English-language and a contempt for its readers. This article is a misanthropic speech act (as is Derrida's corpus).

However, Derrida's texts on Deconstruction were first written in French, and if he was not abusing the French language, he was not meticulously following its rules neither. He coined the term 'différance' from the French word 'différence'.

I know. Your point is what? Why do you presume to know what I know and don't know about Derrida? The presumption that because I am critical of Derrida I just don't understand him is irresistable isn't it? It is a well-rehearsed retort that even Derrida himself employed.

The word 'deconstruction' in French can also be understood as to unbuild meticulously a machine or a building, I don't think that such meaning can be perceived in English, or can it be?

Disassemble, decompose, disintegrate.

Derrida's writings are akin to a tablespoon of cream that has been aerated to the extent that its volume has increased by several orders of magnitude. Aerated cream if not soon consumed liquifies and you are left with a small, miserable looking puddle of cream. People like you and the other authors of this article serve to keep Derrida's tablespoonful of cream aerated. That is the function of this article. Deconstruction is just a few simple ideas, poorly argued but inflated with so much florid and pretentious prose that the appearance of philosophical depth and sophistication is created. No article that actually communicates the conceptual poverty of deconstruction will survive long on Wikipedia. Those that have devoted their undergraduate (and in some case postgraduate) education to poring over Derrida's obfuscatory nonsense and learning to emulate his horrid writing style will soon arrive to debase a lucid article on the subject because they are embarrassed. The turgid prose will be defended with the refrain that the lucid presentation "just doesn't capture Derrida's meaning". Is it plausible to claim that such great intellects as John Searle and Willard Van Orman Quine are wholly incapable of understanding Derrida? Really? For these reasons I find little motivation to put work into the this article. Also, Derrida put an inordinate effort into being obscurantist, turgid, evasive and opaque. We can only presume that he didn't really want to be read or understood (yes I know there are pseudo-philosophical apologia for this also and they too are penned in a similar style so I make the same presumption for those). Why wrestle with his texts when there should be no wresting at all? Why try and extract meaning where its extraction is so militantly resisted? Why make a deep excavation to uncover a contemporary kitsch item? So that you can brag to fellow excavators that you too made the excavation? Why participate in a puerile and tedious game of hide-and-seek where the prize is promised to be the finest chocolate but turns out to be cheap compound chocolate that is also stale? Why not respect his deepest apparent wishes -- as evinced by an honest account of his writing style -- and just ignore him? A habitual obscurantist would also obscure his own true wishes so we can not expect those to be stated clearly and unambiguously. The ne plus ultra of exclusivity and obscurity is for no one to read your texts. Like Todd Snider's fictive Seattle grunge band that were so "alternative" they were silent, Derrida can fulfill the highest ideals of abstruseness and inaccessibility by being ignored. The philosophy departments of the universities in the English-speaking world have shown Derrida deference by promoting his deepest apparent wishes and assisting him in his process of self-actualization by excluding him from their curricula and remaining uninfluenced by him. Surely that is the highest honour an obscurantist can receive. Derrida's death is the crowning glory of a life dedicatd to obfuscation, his final obfuscatory act. When he was alive it was at least possible -- though invariably unfruitful -- to ask him what he was trying so hard to not communicate. Now that possibility -- as unproductive as it usually was -- has also been erased. Grant him his true wish -- don't read him, don't write about him. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• You are entitled to your opinion... However, I think that the poor quality of this article is caused by users like you, opposed to Derrida's theories, users who deliberately fracture the coherence of the article. Users like me who appreciate Derrida's work are willing to participate in improving the article. The fact that you dislike Derrida's theories is irrelevant here, you are obviously loosing the plot. Maybe I am naive to expect anything else from someone hiding behind another AnotherPseudonym. Maybe you should get busy on something more productive. So long... --Christophe Krief (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"Writing about deconstruction is, apparently, a slippery business; by now, those who have written critically of it have become used to the charge that whatever they have discussed was not really deconstruction at all, and some of its adherents even object to the very notion that it can be described like any other theoretical position, or discussed using the tools of analysis and logic. Worse still, those who write from the outside, so to speak, are commonly thought by insiders to be unable to understand its spirit just because they are outsiders, so that anyone who discusses the nature and value of deconstruction from any position other than one of advocacy and conviction is ipso facto certain to misunderstand and misstate. But, to judge from the writings of insiders, many of them, too, are thought by their fellows to have misunderstood and misstated what it is, for attacks by insiders on the expositions of insiders also abound." (Ellis, John M. What Does Deconstruction Contribute to Theory of Criticism? John M. Ellis, New Literary History, Vol. 19, No. 2, Wittgenstein and Literary Theory. Winter, 1988, pp. 259-279.)

Well done! You are a cliché. It is good to have apologetics in common with cults like Scientology isn't it? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• @AnotherPseudonym On Wikipedia we are trying to provide the public with an encyclopedia. You are supposed to use this talk page to contribute in improving the article. I did not get your claim about Scientology... If you want to accuse me of being a "cliché", let's sort that out somewhere else, it is a coward attitude to criticise other users while hiding behind a pseudo. If you want to criticise Derrida and Deconstruction, you can create a section in the article. The text from J.M. Ellis that you provided is interesting. Deconstruction, like Structuralism, Existentialism, Postmodernism are subject to interpretation. From one philosopher to another divergences will exist. So I believe that the claim from J.M. Ellis as per the paragraph above, does not only apply to Deconstruction, but also to many other subjects within the humanities. --Christophe Krief (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The idea that if you criticise something you necessarily must not understand it is a an old rhetorical trick that remains in use by cult leaders and their devotees (eg. Scientologists) and pretentious Continental Europeans and those that emulate pretentious Continental Europeans. The rest of the world knows pretentious Continental Europeans as "wankers". Wankers say things like "Pre/post/spacialities of counter-architectural hyper-contemporaneity (re)commits us to an ambivalent recurrentiality of antisociality/seductivity, one enunciated in a de/gendered-Baudrillardian discourse of granulated subjectivity". Then when someone tells them "that is a load of bullshit" they respond "ah, but you are ignorant, you just don't understand as I do, you are uneducated and trapped by your logocentrism". The purpose of this response is to silence criticism by attempting to elicit shame. You resorted to this cheap trick when you earlier wrote, "Users like me who appreciate Derrida's work". This is in-group/out-group psychology. You of course are special, you appreciate Derrida's work because you understand it, I am critical of Derrida not because his writings are deeply flawed but because I just don't understand him. Unlike you I don't have the depth to receive the profundity of Derrida's prose. That is exactly the mentality that Ellis is describing. Your response to me is so old, so tired, so unoriginal that it was described in a peer-reviewed journal in 1988. This suggests that at least in relation to the topic of Derrida someone other than you has done your thinking. You just blindly repeat what you you have blindly imbibed. Structuralism, Existentialism, and Postmodernism are just more Continental European garbage, don't confuse them with philosophy. The purview of philosophy is conceptual analysis, critique and clarification. Obfuscation and enigmatic nihilistic musing isn't philosophy. So you want to change my opinion by fighting me? Fighting me will demonstrate the cogency of Derrida's theories? What is wrong with you? You repeat a standard retort and you are surprised that you have been described as a cliché? I have studied the humanities and I know from first-hand that the intellectually bankrupt attitude of "you criticise X because you do not understand X" exists only amongst those that have been stupified by post-modernism. To what end should I add a criticism section to the article? For what purpose? To have you or someone like you to delete it and tell me that the author I cited doesn't understand deconstruction. These are childish games -- just like wanting to fight someone that you disagree with -- and I have no interest in childish games. Deconstruction is itself a childish game so clearly you like childish games. I am happy to leave you with your self-serving delusions. That you are special and have a unique faculty that permits you to understand Derrida in all his brilliance. That I am stupid -- like John Searle, Willard Van Orman Quine, Noam Chomsky and Alan Sokal -- that I criticise Derrida purely out of ignorance and an inability to understand him. You can recite Derrida's gibberish to your like-minded friends over coffee and you can all nod your heads in faux understanding. A silly childish game of imaginary exclusivity. Any Wikipedia article on deconstruction will inevitably be a variant of the current article. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to impart knowledge. The purpose of Derrida is to obscure and obfuscate. The two aims are irrenconcilable. An article on deconstruction is really just for people that already know what deconstruction is. The idea is that they read it and nod in cheap, self-satisfied and smug understanding and feel good about themselves. That is the essence of the childish game. A plain English rendering of deconstruction is an embarassment, it is the ugly old prostitue in broad daylight. The old ugly whore must first apply copious amounts of makeup and wait for the night in order to emerge. So too deconstruction. It must be dressed-up, made-up, powdered, wigged and displayed at night so the people will say "my that is a beautiful woman" and the others will nod in approval. This is the game of all post-modernist and post-structuralist writing amd Wikipedia will not be excepted from this silly charade. Look at the article on Deconstruction. It has no criticism section even though deconstruction has been criticised by many intellectuals. How is this so? It is because the childish game has no room for criticism and you know that. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• @AnotherPseudonym You must be paranoid because no-one here pretended that you do not understand or that your critics relate to misapprehension. Everyone is welcome to Wikipedia. Every one is welcome to read and develop continental philosophy. I find your imagery above disgusting again and your language is insulting once more. If you want to criticize continental philosophy, this is fine, but using the dirty imagery that you use will not help you this way. You should learn to contain your emotions and learn to express yourself politely and coherently. I find it sad that you have nothing better to do than to prevent us improving this article. I will not discuss longer with you on this page as you are out of the subject here and as I have more constructive things to do. So long...--Christophe Krief (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

2 cents worth - this topic is fully worthy of a wiki article, and anyone who disagrees can go make their case to an admin. with a deletion proposal (good luck with that) and otherwise swallow their pride (and hopefully choke on it). Trolling around wikipedia and expressing your hate here is obviously pathetic - and I feel sorry that your life has come to this. People putting time in here are at least trying - however flawed - to shed some light on concepts that at least 'some' people think are of 'some' importance in contemporary philosophy (broadly defined). If you (you know who you are) don't think it is a worthwhile project, you don't have to contribute. Is that too hard to understand? If all you can do is hate this world (this little corner or, as I suspect, the whole) - either change yourself or check-out. I can confirm that - that little gnawing sense you feel, that 'nobody loves the way I am' - is TRUE (in your current mode of being). Change yourself and people will start to love you.

Okay, enough with that. Christophe - thanks for your effort on the page. Personally I agree with some of the other comments that it needs a substantial re-write - in its current form it is really inaccessible to anyone who is coming to the topic with only a basic knowledge of 20th century philosophy. Comprehending an article on wikipedia shouldn't require a PhD in the subject matter - it completely defeats the inherent goal of the encyclopaedia. (I have a PhD in social science/humanities, but I find this article almost completely incomprehensible). No doubt there are many subtle aspects to 'Deconstruction' that each deserve in-depth treatment - however, I would argue that each such aspect should appear in an accessible (to undergrad student) form here, and be expanded upon/deepened in separate articles if necessary. Again, each of those articles should at least introduce its (sub)topic with an accessible account of at least the 'basic form' of that topic (e.g. is it a method, an ontological concept...etc), and get deeper gradually (if necessary). If there is disagreement over even 'basic form' - no problem - that can be incorporated. (Example <<'x' as treated in this article is a term associated with [<Derrida> or <literary criticism>] which is sometimes considered to be a [methodological device] and sometimes considered to be an [ontological concept]. This article will discuss both perspectives.>>)

The main problem with this article as it currently stands is that it jumps straight into an inaccessible account even in the introduction! That's really displaying the topic ('Deconstruction') in a negative light. I concede the possibility that it may have been written this way deliberately - to purposefully 'make a nonsense' of the topic, and to deliberately deter interested readers from taking any further interest in it. If that is the case, we should revert to 'any' earlier version that appears to have been written in a generous spirit (as in generous to the topic and its comprehension). If the article has reached its current state 'without deliberately negative presentation of the topic' - then I would have to judge that it can have only reached its this state via some kind of personalised edit-warring. To the extent that this has been the case - again - if there is 'any' previous version that - whatever its inadequacy - was 'prior to' this possible edit warring, I suggest the article gets reverted to that, and extra (generous spirited) edits get added back in - with consensus - bit by bit (and expanded on in separate articles if necessary). I am not an expert in Derrida, (although I will gladly help with basic editing tasks), but I would sincerely like to learn a bit more about some of these topics. Currently this article does not help me to do that! Which is rather sad. I hope that the community can come together to make some (major) changes to this article so that it can become a worthwhile resource. Many thanks DMSchneider (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC).

[Rolling my eyes] Yeah thanks for that. Did you learn how to read minds in the course of completing your "PhD in social science/humanities"? So it was one PhD in (all?) the social sciences and (all?) the humanities? Was it a PhD in one of each? Was it from a diploma mill and you checked the box labelled "Generic humanities" and the box labelled "Generic social sciences"? Good for you. It takes a buffoon to proffer unsolicited pseudo-psychology/divination as a rebuke—with pretension to having insight—and to also use oneself self-referentially as a benchmark for the comprehensibility of prose by invoking their irrelevant qualification. So are you suggesting that when you were awarded your "PhD in social science/humanities" you gained some special faculty that enabled to you to authoritatively determine textual comprehensibility in general? What specifically is the relevance of your "PhD in social science/humanities" to the matter? If you had a PhD specifically relating to deconstruction and/or phenomenology then your invocation would at least be relevant and to some extent authoritative—but it isn't so why mention it? But even so, what if you received your PhD in any topic from a crap university? Am I supposed to be impressed by your "PhD in social science/humanities"? The "main problem with this article as it currently stands" is as I described it so I will not repeat myself other than to clarify my position. My point isn't that the topic of deconstruction or Derrida is not worthy of a place in Wikipedia, rather my position is that articles such as the current, Jacques Derrida on deconstruction, Deconstruction and Jacques Derrida—as they currently are in all their manifest awfulness—have no place in Wikipedia. People like the other clowns that produced this current monstrosity and its brethren should not even bother because they seem able to only produce obfuscatory garbage. My point is why bother posting obfuscatory garbage in an instrument of information? That is a serious question and if you want to proffer asinine pseudo-psychological analysis then you should opine on that using all the power of your "PhD in social science/humanities". There are no worthwhile versions of this article nor of any other articles on cognate topics. Regarding my intentions, you could have checked my contributions to see that I have made substantive contributions to another topic that was similarly mired in obfuscatory bullshit. It is my prerogative to call a spade a spade and to communicate the fullness of my disgust in relation to what is essentially a narcissistic, antisocial and misanthropic act cloaked in the garb of "contributing to Wikipedia". Again I repeat my question: why post obfuscatory garbage in an encyclopedia? I don't WP:AGF in these cases because even Derrida's expositors and translators concede that his writing is "opaque" (to be generous) so merely cutting and pasting quotations or mimicking Derrida's style is not something one does whilst hosting an honest intention to inform. I can make a substantive contribution to the topic but there are preliminary problems that need to be resolved: (i) a decision needs to be made whether there is to be zero, one or two articles on deconstruction. If I were you I wouldn't make any edits—even with your "PhD in social science/humanities"—until this matter is concluded; (ii) a decision needs to be made regarding the content of the Jacques Derrida article—is it to be purely biographical or is it to also describe deconstruction (in which case this article would become redundant; it currently reproduces material from the two articles on deconstruction)?; (iii) can we agree in advance that any serious article on deconstruction MUST contain critique of deconstruction? Deconstruction has been criticised by many scholars and their opinions and analyses (in synoptic form) need to be included (I am referring to scholars such as Mohanty, Habermas, Daylight, Graff, Ellis, Eagleton, Mulligan, Claude Evans to name a few). Ignoring serious scholarship that is critical of deconstruction is entirely unacceptable and antithetical to education (as it is normally understood so that precludes your "PhD in social science/humanities" which gave you your oracular ability) and to the principles of Wikipedia. If the articles were actually a product of "deliberately negative presentation of the topic" then they would at least include one substantive criticism of deconstruction but they have no substantive criticism so Christophe Krief's conspiracy theory holds no water. That the opposite is the case is evident in that there are foundational criticisms of deconstruction regarding Derrida's understanding/use of Husserl and Saussure (eg. from Mohanty, Claude Evans, Harris) and in relation to the falsity of the idea that Western philosophy is essentially logocentric (e.g. Wittgenstein's and Dewey's critiques of what Derrida terms logocentrism that predated Derrida's works)—amongst others—yet there is no mention of these critiques. How do you and your new-found friend account for this incongruity? Surely if the intent was to denigrate Derrida then the articles (all three of them Jacques Derrida on deconstruction, Deconstruction and Jacques Derrida) would be overflowing with criticism but they are largely—if not entirely—devoid of critical opinion. It is also noteworthy that none of the articles that I have seen actually exhibit an understanding of deconstruction and its essential concern, viz. the metaphysics of presence (yes, go on and Google it using all of your "PhD in social science/humanities"). Deconstruction is essentially a critique of the metaphysics of presence (a phrase coined by Heidegger). Derrida's critique of Saussure, of Strauss, of structralism, of Husserl, of Plato, of Rousseau et al is a critique of the alleged predication of these discourses on the metaphysics of presence. Understanding all of Derrida's corpus requires an appreciation of that Heideggerian idea yet its exposition—and even its mere referencing—is entirely absent. The oft-quoted binary opposites are secondary to the metaphysics of presence, they exist by virtue of the primary binary opposition of presence/absence, i.e. the metaphysics of presence. I don't see any appreciation of this idea in Christophe Krief's broken English pretensions nor in your limp proposals for improving this article even with your "PhD in social science/humanities". So this just augurs more shitness and that isn't even accounting for the hipster douchebags—with their degrees in cinema studies that completed one unit in "theory" in first year that think they are experts in philosophy—that will inevitably turn up to regurgitate their post-structuralist cliches. Dear god. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Example #1 of misunderstanding deconstruction: the text associated with citation number 3 makes no reference to the concept of presence even though that is key idea in the citation:

At the point at which the concept of differance, and the chain attached to it, intervenes, all the conceptual oppositions of metaphysics (signifier/signified; sensible/intelligible; writing/speech; passivity/activity; etc.)-to the extent that they ultimately refer to the presence of something present (for example, in the form of the identity of the subject who is present for all his operations, present beneath every accident or event, self-present in its "living speech," in its enunciations, in the present objects and acts of its language, etc.)-become nonpertinent. [emphasis added]

Those binary oppositions that Derrida lists are merely examples of the way the metaphysics of presence that he is trying to explain manifests itself—they aren't the problem per se they are the consequences of the broader problem of the metaphysics of presence. This is the sort of superficial understanding of deconstruction that I am referring to so the problem is double: obfuscation of a misunderstood idea. Without an explaination of Heidegger's metaphyics of presence you can't communicate what deconstruction is—it is as simple as that. Look at the citation and how many times Derrida mentions "present" and "presence" yet this key point fails to make it into the text that it is supposed to substantiate. This obsession with the binary opposites—as if they are the sine qua non of deconstruction—is a caricature of deconstruction that is common amongst those that have learnt what they have about deconstruction from a course in some aesthetic field rather than from a philosophy course. The idea of subverting binary oppositions is just too seductive for architects, landscape designers and fashion designers so we see things like "the outdoor room" or the "inside-out pants" but the problem is that isn't deconstruction and that aesthetic can just as well come from Dada, surrealism and absurdism. A jacket that is composed entirely of the material that would ordinarily be used to construct its lining does not in any substantive way embody différance just as a conventional jacket doesn't in any substantive way embody the metaphysics of presence—how could a garment perform such function?. What I see from Christophe Krief is a contamination of the topic with this ridiculously simplistic understanding of deconstruction. It is my view that deconstruction is not as complicated a topic as it is portrayed but it is not just about finding implicit binary oppositions and subverting them. Can I ask you Christophe Krief have you ever read any Husserl or Heidegger? Do you understand what Heidegger means by the metaphysics of presence? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 10:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted your attacks. I think that your participation is welcome, but please read the Wikipedia talk page guidelines prior to continue this discussion, thanks.--Christophe Krief (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I have read the guidelines and you have no right to delete the entirety of my commentary. If you find a portion of it offensive then ask me to strike that out but please don't delete it. I have every right to re-instate it and I will do so. AnotherPseudonym (talk) AnotherPseudonym (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

PS:-I have every right to respond to DMSchneider and I make some substantive posts. Again I ask: Have you ever read any Husserl or Heidegger? Do you understand what Heidegger means by the metaphysics of presence? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

AnotherPseudonym You do not know who wrote what in this article, so please stop blaming me for the poor content. I have had very little influence on the article, my only intervention consisted in the inclusion of the footnote number one and in trying to clarify the introduction. Answering your question i have read Heidegger, Hegel, Kant, Habermas, Adorno, Nietzsche, Marx and other German philosophers. Maybe you can give me more details in relation to your query about Heidegger's metaphysics of presence. You must understand that the purpose of this article is to give an understanding of deconstruction to the wider public. If you want to preserve the paragraph that you posted, repost it withou the personal attacks. I do't know why you cannot post without attacking everyone, but this is not permitted on a Wikipedia talk page. Thanks --Christophe Krief (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I know what the purpose of the article is so don't presume to lecture me. I don't have a "query" about Heidegger. I know what Derrida and Heidegger mean by the metaphysics of presence, I'm asking if you understand the idea because it is important to all of Derrida's work and you don't appear to even have an inkling of an idea even though you claim to have read Heidegger. Also have you read any philosophy of language? Have you read any Wittgenstein or Dewey? Have you read Saussure's Cours de linguistique generale or do you just blindly accept everything that Derrida says about Saussure? (I ask this because there are Saussure experts that argue that Derrida does not understand Saussure) and because you do not appear to understand Saussures's scheme of sign/signifier/signified/referent. Have you read any critiques of deconstruction? Have you at least read Habermas' critique of deconstruction (since you claim to have read Habermas)? I ask these questions because I fear that you are ignorant and arrogant and it will become impossible for me to explain anything to you when you inevitably start posting garbage in bad English. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I really don't want to talk about me here, but I want to defend myself from your allegations. I have read Saussure "Cours de linguistique générale" from Saussure, which is not the one that Derrida refers to in "Of Grammatology". I have read Rousseau "essais sur l'origine des langues" which is the one that Derrida refers to. I am not claiming to be an expert in Deconstruction as you do. My reading of Habermas is limited to "Technology and Science as Ideology", English translation. I have no more time today for this subject, but I will reconnect to Deconstruction tomorrow.--Christophe Krief (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't claim to be an "expert" on post-structuralism but I do claim to have a broad education in philosophy and an understanding of Derrida's early writings. So you have read no critiques on deconstruction, not even from Habermas (The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity)? So am I to take it that you read Derrida like a devout Muslim reads the Quran (القرآن)—like a sacred text? Why have you read no critiques of deconstruction yet you feel qualified to contribute to an intelligent article on deconstruction? We are seeking to write a scholarly article and that necessarily contains critique. We don't want a hagiography or a dogma and philosophy presented in complete absence of the criticisms it has elicited is not encyclopedic, is not scholarly, is not educational and I would hazard to say is not genuinely philosophical—there is no philosophy without critique. Philosophy without critical dialogue is essentially dogma and that is what the current article is: badly composed (and incorrect) dogma. That is the inherent problem with doing a unit in "theory" in a degree in fashion or landscaping or architecture, it is essentially an exercise in indoctrination. The lecturers and tutors typically lack the background knowledge or skill with which to critically evaluate the postmodern material they teach and their students are similarly situated. That is why Derrida has had nearly no impact in philosophy departments in the Anglo-American world or in continental Europe but has had some impact on literature departments and heavy impact in the aesthetic disciplines (that trade in a caricature of deconstruction). Lastly, Derrida does use Saussure's Cours de linguistique generale—look at chapter 2 Linguistics and Grammatology':'

On the one hand, true to the Western tradition that controls not only in theory but in practice (in the principle of its practice) the relationships between speech and writing, Saussure does not recognize in the latter more than a narrow and derivative function. Narrow because it is nothing but one modality among others, a modality of the events which can befall a language whose essence, as the facts seem to show, can remain forever uncontaminated by writing. "Language does have an . . . oral tradition that is independent of writing" (Cours de linguistique generale, p.46). [p.30 Spivak English translation published in 1974]

The reference from Saussure:

Thus language does have a definite and stable oral tradition that is independent of writing, but the influence of the written form prevents our seeing this. [p.24, Course in General Linguistics]

D'une part, selon la tradition occidentale qui règle non seulement en théorie mais en pratique (au principe de sa pratique) les rapports entre la parole et l'écriture, Saussure ne reconnaît à celle-ci qu'une fonction étroite et dérivée. Etroite parce qu'elle n'est, parmi d'autres, qu'une modalité des événements qui peuvent survenir à un langage dont l'essence, comme semblent l'enseigner les faits, peut toujours rester pure de tout rapport à l'écriture. « La langue a une tradition orale indépendante de l'écriture » (Cours de linguistique générale, Clg., p. 46). [p.46 original French published in 1967]

The reference from Saussure:

La langue a donc une tradition orale indépendate de l'écriture, et bien autrement fixie; mais le prestige de la forme écrite nous empeche de le voir. [p.46 Cours de linguistique générale]

They look the same to me. Please don't try and bullshit me. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

You may have a certain knowledge of philosophy, but you lack the basics... All philosophies teach the respect of others. Your arrogance makes it difficult for anyone engaging you. You have the bad habit of insulting people's knowledge while cowardly hiding behind a pseudo... What is the point for me or anyone to discuss with you? It is a shame that projects such as Wikipedia are taken hostage by people like you... I don't want to waste my time anymore with another pseudo, I am from the real world... I can only discuss with people who are genuinely willing to exchange ideas in a productive peaceful way... Obviously you cannot do that. Derrida could, this is why I like the man and his theories... So long...--Christophe Krief (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

"All philosophies teach the respect of others"; no they don't, notable counterexamples are ethical egoism and fascism and many have nothing to do with the norms of human action e.g. fictionalism. Furthermore, postmodernism deprives one of reasons for respecting others. I think that is illustrative of the depth of your analytic ability and knowledge of philosophy. Clearly you are not "from the real world". You have a thin skin and are intolerant of any criticism. You seem to think—and some others have indulged you in this apparent delusion—that because you can read French you are an authority on Derrida and deconstruction. That is a prima facie idiotic idea in that it would entail that I am an authority on every topic that was originally inscribed in English. When your understanding of deconstruction is scrutinised it comes up short, you don't actually understand it and just trade cliches like all the other poseurs that have "graced" this article. Your English is terrible and your subject understanding is deficient I think that is sufficient to render you incompetent in relation to this article. You have no answer to my above questions so you "spit the dummy" on the thin pretext of my anonymity. Many (perhaps most) editors are anonymous, what is the significance of my anonymity to the substance of my complaints? "Derrida could, this is why I like the man and his theories"; that is a flawed piece of reasoning. So your acceptance of Derrida's "theories" is not because they are valid and cogent but because you like Derrida. What is the nexus between your disposition towards a person and the validity and cogency of their ideas? This gets to the nub of the problem with Derrida zealots; your advocacy is entirely dissociated from rational discourse, it is based in an emotional affinity, a charismatic seduction. That is is a species of irrationalism and that would explain why you have not read one critique of deconstruction—you don't want your idol to be tarnished. This too is demonstrative of your incompetency in that you are not open to persuasion via rational discourse. Reason, argumentation and evidence cannot displace an opinion that is rooted by emotion and irrationalism. I would suggest that it is you that lacks even the basic ethos of (Western) philosophy and that is unsurprising given that you worship Derrida and that you do so for essentially emotional reasons. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

PS:-Regarding Derrida's allegedly respectful behaviour consider his treatment of Spivak and Gadamaer. Spivak produced the English translation of Of Grammatology and by so doing contributed greatly to Derrida's popularity in the Anglo-American world in the 1970s. In response to Spivak's measured criticism of Derrida's understanding of Marx many years later Derrida wrote that Spivak can't read. I don't think that was respectuful. Consider also Derrida's treatment of Gadamer when Gadamer was trying to engage Derrida in respectful dialogue. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course, if you consider fascism as a philosophy, it is normal that you dislike Derrida and want to delete this article.--Christophe Krief (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok.

Firstly, fascism is a philosophy—specifically a political philosophy—and is generally considered as such . Many compendiums on political philosophy such as Blackwell's A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy include coverage of fascism qua political philosophy. Fascism is also treated as a (political) philosophy in current undergraduate courses in political philosophy, e.g. [1], [2], [3]. But since all you know of philosophy is poststructuralist sophistry this would be news to you.

Secondly, most of philosophy is unrelated to normative human conduct and anyone that has even completed an introductory undergraduate unit on philosophy would know that—but since you have no university-level education in philosophy this is understandable. Your idea that "[a]ll philosophies teach the respect of others" is a testament to your ignorance of philosophy. David Lewis's counterfactual theory of causation is a philosophy—please enlighten us as to how it "teach[es] the respect of others". Maybe you can publish a paper in a philosophy journal on this topic?

Thirdly, your conception of philosophy—"All philosophies teach the respect of others"—is puerile and risible. If you want to establish your reputation as a clown then keep posting idiotic generalisations like that.

Fourthly, Derrida's friend and professional colleague Paul de Man was a Nazi collaborator. De Man wrote sordid antisemitic articles for the pro-Nazi Belgian newspaper Le Soir during the War.

Fifthly, Heidegger—who was very influential on Derrida, the term deconstruction is derived from Heidegger's destruktion—was a Nazi. Derrida was embarassed by this and sought to suppress the publication of an interview he gave about Heidegger's Nazist beliefs.

Sixthly, both fascism and postmodernism (including deconstruction) thoroughly embrace irrationalism. The denigration of reason is a sine qua non of both postmodernism and fascism. It was easy for the quisling Paul de Man to make the transition from Nazi to poststructuralist—half of the work was already completed when he embraced the irrationalism of Nazism. The moral relativism of poststructiralism would have also eliminated any guilt if he felt any in the first place.

Seventhly, Derrida respected only those that fully agreed with him. To anyone that disagreed with him he was typically very disrespectful and he degenerated into hypocrisy, abandoning all of the priciples he claimed to represent. This is well documented in Dasenbrock's paper Taking It Personally: Reading Derrida's Responses. Similarly his handling of the de Man affair pretty much shows him up as a moral bankrupt.

Eighthly, I think the current article deserves deletion because it is garbage; but I support the creation of a new article that is accurate, well-composed and educational rather than doctrinal. I doubt you can help with that.

Ninthly, you have met the terms of Godwin's law. Congratulations!

Tenthly, if I want an ugly house designed then I'll be sure to contact you. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 06:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

OK AnotherPseudonym you make your point... As you are cowardly hiding behind a pseudo, and as I am not, you can attack and discredit the real person that I am, when you are safely in the dark. So I am asking you, what is the point for me to continue talking with you here? Give me a good reason and I will continue this conversation.

Answering to your first point: Just check the wiki article for philosophy, and you will understand that there is philosophy as "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.". The article explains that the term is also used casually: "In more casual speech, by extension, "philosophy" can refer to "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group"".

So in brief you can call a thought the first imagery coming to your mind. You can also call a thought the result of a long and deep reflection on a particular project. You appear unable to dissociate the 2 of them. If you think that fascism is a philosophy, so Hitler was a philosopher. For anyone seriously talking about philosophy, fascism is a doctrine not a philosophy. The problem here, is that you are using the casual definition of the term philosophy, when in fact we have deeply entered a specialized philosophical subject. You cannot use the casual meaning of the term at this stage.

Answering to your second point and third point: The word "philosophy" comes from the Ancient Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom". So can you explain how your insults and your lack of respect can reflect this love of wisdom? Of course philosophy is not only about "the respect of others". Why are you interpreting my words so naively? I meant that in Chinese, European, Arabic and other advanced civilizations, the respect of each others is the key to develop great societies and this is rooted in all philosophies. Otherwise the result is conflict, chaos and war.

Answering to your Fourth point: I am not aware of Paul De Man's relationship with Derrida

Answering to your Fifth point: So what is your point there? Do you think that Derrida and everyone else should disregard Heidegger's work because of his affiliation to Nazism? A part of his life that he called "the biggest stupidity of his life"

Answering to your Sixth point: This is an interesting subject, but as many others that you brought on this page, they are too far out of what we are trying to achieve here.

Answering to your Seventh point: Once again, you are out of the subject here... Talk about this matter on Derrida' s talk page article...

Answering to your Eighth point: As I said, my knowledge of "Deconstruction" is limited to Derrida's work. I like and frequently use the principles of deconstruction, but I do not feel competent to fully re-write this article. I am interested to collaborate for its enhancement, However, I don't see the point to have it fully deleted.

Answering to your ninth point: Seriously? This is Bullcrap... The chances for talking about any other subjects are the same...

Answering to your Tenth point: What the subject here? This house was designed for a couple and their kids, not for you... It was designed to suit their requirements not yours. If at the end you liked it and they did not, then I would have failed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophe Krief (talk • contribs) 14:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Christope, Christophe, Christophe. You are a confused man. You wrote:

So I am asking you, what is the point for me to continue talking with you here? Give me a good reason and I will continue this conversation.

Then you proceeded to post replies to my post. Ask yourself why you decided to continue the "conversation". Why are you asking me to account for your actions? I will respond to each of your responses because I have caught a glimpse into your mind and it looks like a confused and impoverished mess and I am feeling charitable.

(1) No I am employing the formal definition of philosophy and you are playing games with the informal and the formal sense of the word philosophy. You are making idiotic generalisations. You are in effect collapsing all of philosophy into some concept of moral philosophy that you have in your head. It is not even true that all of moral philosophy teaches respect of others, e.g. ethical egoism. Fascism is a political philosophy. You seem to think that only beliefs that have "good" outcomes—good from your point of view—are philosophies. That is a nonsensical idea. Both Mein Kampf and The Doctrine of Fascism contain political philosophical ideas. That they are not good ideas is besides the point of whether Nazism and Italian Fascism are or are not philosophies. Neither Hitler or Mussolini were professional philosophers but they don't need to be to espouse philosophies. Fascism is a doctrine—specifically it is a political philosophocal doctrine. The word "doctrine" just means a set of beliefs or principles held by a group[1]. If a political philosophy is believed by a group of people it becomes their doctrine.

(2) You are committing the etymological fallacy. Etymology is not meaning. But I see what you are trying to say. You are trying to make the point that social cohesion relies on mutual respect. I agree but that is irrelevant. You intention is to use Wikipedia to disseminate pro-Derrida propaganda. My intention is to prevent the use of Wikipedia as an instrument of propaganda. I can't and I won't respect your objective. My aim on Wikipedia is to educate (refer to my other contributions); your aim is to indoctrinate. Your intentions are ignoble and debased.

(3) Goodness isn't built into the defintion of a philosophy. There are such things as bad and destructive philosophies and many regard postmodernism (when applied to moral philosophy and epistemology) as such.

(4) Since you idolise Derrida and use him as a moral exemplar you should educate yourself about the company he kept and how he handled de Man's exposure as a Nazi collaborator.

(5) My point in relation to Heidegger is that he is a counterexample to your naive ideas about philosophy. Heidegger was a Nazi AND a philosopher. Being a philosopher doesn't make one a saint.

(6) The irrationalism of deconstruction is relevant in that any article on the topic that even pretends to be educational should cover this aspect of it.

(7) This is in answer to your claim that:

I can only discuss with people who are genuinely willing to exchange ideas in a productive peaceful way... Obviously you cannot do that. Derrida could, this is why I like the man and his theories...

(8) I don't mean delete it in one single action, I mean delete it incrementally by progressively re-writing each part. I am willing to collaborate but only on the condition that the article MUST contain a criticism section. As far as I am concerned that is not negotiable. My aim is to educate and to encourage people to think critically and also to produce something that is informed of all of the salient scholarship relating to deconstruction—including critical scholarship.

(9) You compared me to a fascist so you conformed to Godwin's law. By convention I win the argument.

(10) It's an ugly house regardless. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Your latest post above is strong in its will to put me down, but it gravely lacks substance to achieve this goal. Are you a coward? Or will you give me the opportunity to continue this conversation man to man? You say that you are not on Wikipedia to develop articles but to prevent propaganda. Why would the subject of deconstruction be propaganda? Are you courageous enough to speak for yourself and assume your statements here? Do you have the guts required to continue this conversation? or as I think it will be, do you lack the balls to assume your superficial opinions? You are intelligent enough (are you?) to understand that I cannot continue this conversation with you unless you use a real name instead of another pseudo. What are you afraid of? You must be afraid about something to hide behind another pseudo? Are you an impostor as I think your are? I will be waiting for you, but my conversation with another pseudo stops here. I don't need to dialogue with a coward whose only goal is to put me down using incoherent concepts while hiding in the dark. I hope that you will give me the opportunity to continue this discussion man to man; but I seriously doubt it.--Christophe Krief (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Relax Christophe, you take things too seriously and out of context. My aim is to produce good articles not just to prevent propaganda. My point is merely that unless you have read critiques of deconstruction you will lack perspective and this will influence your constributions in a negative manner. If you create an article on deconstruction that has no criticism—or includes only trivial criticism—then you have departed from being an educator to becoming an advocate or a propagandist. This is because someone that has no prior knowledge of deconstruction that comes to such an article will gain a false impression of the subject. Perhaps an example will help clarify my meaning and intention. Consider the article on the teleological argument for the existence of a god. If we remove the criticism section then for someone with no prior knowledge in the philosophy of religion we have acted not as educators but rather as advocates of a partisan position. By virtue of the omission we have created an illusion of unassailability and validity of the teleological argument. That is how the teleological argument is presented in a catechism, at Sunday school or on a course on evangelism. We don't want that in an encyclopedia and we especially don't want that on philosophical topics. Philosophy without critciism is—depending on the area—essentially theology, religion or ideology. I find your lack of concern for this matter coupled with your enthusiasm for Derrida worrying in so far as it will thwart the goal of producing a genuinely philosophical article (as opposed to a statement of doctrine). I suspect that your apparent lack of concern for this matter is because you are approaching Derrida's writings as an aesthetician rather than as a philosopher (even an amateur) so my concern may appear unusual. Does this make sense? Regarding my identity that is irrelevant as is yours. I really don't know much more about you than you know about me. All I know of you is what you entered into your account page of your own volition. If you don't want people to make any reference to the details you supply on your Wikipedia page then don't include them. I have no interest in you beyond your capacity as a Wikipedia editor and it is egotistical of you to think otherwise. Also, everyone doesn't live in Ireland. On what grounds you assume I am in any position to meet you face-to-face I have no idea. I am nowehere near Ireland and I have no intention of going to Ireland. You wrote: "I will be waiting for you". Don't hold your breath waiting. For all practical purposes I may as well be on another planet. In any event that is a strange thing to post on a Wikipedia talk page. Are you engaged in a Soprano-esque vendetta with someone (the Kriefs vs. the O'Reilly's)? My view is that you are well-placed to make a contribution to the article in regards to the influence of deconstruction on the aesthetic fields and that you should try and produce good prose with complete citations in that area. A consensus is starting to form that this article should be merged with the other deconstruction article. I support the merge. The proposal is that the Jacques Derrida article become purely biographical and that there be only one deconstruction article that covers both Derridaean deconstruction and its variants. The common core can be described then separate sections can be devoted to the variants. Regarding the Borg house, relax I doubt I'm the first person to comment that it is ugly. It's a box. If I were you I would have just responded to me with "Yep it's a box, it's not much to look at but that is what the client wanted. They wanted a box, they had only the budget for a box so I gave them a box and they were happy with their box". Pretending that it isn't a box, that it isn't ugly doesn't work because it is evident to anyone with functioning eyes that it is is a large two-tone box. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• I would have no problems continuing this conversation with someone anonymous if this person was not vulgar and insulting. I could continue this conversation with you if you were courageous enough to assume your dirty language, unfounded critics, personal attacks against me and your position towards the subject. I cannot find one good reason to continue this conversation with you in the present circumstances. So long... --Christophe Krief (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Preliminaries

I am in the process of reading and creating citations. I have just finished reading a paper by Rorty and the first chapter of Gasché's The Tain Of the Mirror: Derrida and the Philosophy Of Reflection and there is—at least on the basis of those two sources—good reason to describe deconstruction as philosophy—though not in the traditional sense (i.e. not traditional with respect to the continental or Anglo-Americam tradition). There are also many sources that describe deconstruction as a literary theory. So I think a description of deconstruction as a literary theory and philosophy (albeit a peculiar type) can be justified. In relation to praxis, Derrida has described deconstruction as an "experience" but I don't think that is at all helpful (the term is supposed to connote the allegedly passive role of the reader, in that the text that is fraught with the metaphysics of presence will supposedly deconstruct itself). This notion should be communicated in the body of the Deconstruction article (not only because it is Derrida's contention but also because it has attracted criticism) but I don't think it belongs in the lead. Derrida's expositors use "strategy", "methodology" or "criticism". In one interview Derrida describes himself as a historian in another as a philosopher but I can find no source that deems him a historian in any sense. I don't think there is any merit in attempting to source a definition of deconstruction solely from Derrida because he actively resisted providing such a definition. But that isn't a problem because his major expositors have provided definitions. I also don't think there is any merit in reproducing Derrida's lubricious maneuvering in an encyclopedic article (e.g. the long and drawn out negative definiton of deconstruction). Gasché, Culler and Norris didn't feel compelled to do so in their highly-regarded expositions so there is no reason for us to do so either. I want to make a more general point about composing "problematic" articles because I think this issue will bear on the article throughout its construction and maintenance. Besides being poorly composed and expressed the article does not reflect the encyclopedists agenda but rather attempts to make manifest the subjects agenda (in so far as it can be said to have one). I think I need an analogous case to make my point clear. To a biblical literalist operating within a reformed theology her beliefs are not religious beliefs, they represent a comprehensive worldview that is true. I think this view was summarised well by Schaeffer when he stated:

Christianity is not a series of truths in the plural, but rather truth spelled with a capital “T.” Truth about total reality, not just about religious things. Biblical Christianity is Truth concerning total reality — and the intellectual holding of that total Truth and then living in the light of that Truth.

If there be any be any doubt about what this means it is that all claims to knowledge are evaluated against the Bible. All claims: science, philosophy, aesthetics, economics, law. Everything. If there is a conflict then the secular source is necessarily wrong. Wrong because it conflicts with the literal truth of the Bible but also because of the noetic effect of sin. So for example there are no such things as "human rights" as such in that they are a secular conception. Wahhabi Islam is the same on these matters. Wikipedia is not predicated on Biblical literalism and ideas from reform theology thus the subject of biblical literalism is just another article. Similarly in a secular university biblical literalism is taught as just another denomination of Christianity in a course on comparative religion. Librarians catalogue books on biblical literalist Christianity under the broad category of religion—there is no Dewey Decimal Classification of Truth. That is not to say that Wikipedia is not predicated on a set of ideas. It is. For starters, implicit in the Wikipedia project is the notion that humans possess knowledge and that knowledge has some sort of value. Secondly, there is an implicit assumption that language functions as a means of communicating knowledge. Thirdly, Wikipedia is based on a form of evidentialism in the sense that article content is justified with reference to some form of objective evidence (i.e. evidence that others can also observe in the form of texts and other media). Fourthly, Wikipedia privileges scientific consensus and other forms of expert consensus (this in turn presupposes that there are such things as subject matter experts). Thus the article on epistemological skepticism does not uphold the principles of its subject, viz. epistemological skepticism, and present a blank page. Similarly, the article on social constructivism doesn't invite its reader to "negotiate" a definition with other editors every time one visits the article on social constructivism. The principles and agenda of the encyclopedist are embodied in these articles not those of the skeptic or the social constructivist. By the same token the article on deconstruction should present its subject matter with the principles and agenda of the encyclopedist in mind not that of the deconstructionist. This means that we refuse the worldview (or part therof) of the subject here just as we do in all other articles. We describe biblical literalism as religion even though its exponents conceive of it as The Truth. We impart knowledge about epistemological skepticism rather than refuse to do so because we believe there is no such thing as knowledge. Derrida has no privilege in this regard, he has no special dispensation such thet he is excluded from the encyclopedists imperative. Thus it doesn't matter if Derrida claims that deconstruction can only be defined negatively (not-X, not-Y and not-Z); as editors we don't accept that idea any more than we accept the idea that the earth is only 4000 years old because Biblical literalists say so and edit related articles accordngly; neither do we assume the worldview of the bblical literalist in the process of producing the article on the subject. Just because Derrida claims that différance is a non-concept the article doesn't have to be written as if that is actually the case. Yes we report that Derrida claims that différance is a non-concept but we don't actually labour as editors under the assumption of the truth of that claim. The article on nihilism doesn't embody nihilism, its very existence is a contradiction of nihilism as is the existence of Wikipedia. The current article on deconstruction is written not from the perspective and values of the encyclopedist but rather from those of someone that is seeking to demonstrate the claims and ideas of deconstruction (as (s)he understands it). Thus the culpable editor is seeking to demonstrate their understanding of différance in the very composition of the article. Yes, I understand that is what Derrida and other deconstrionists do but we don't do that as encyclopedists. Emphatic, impassioned and aggresive claims regarding the cogency and validity of deconstruction are irrelevant. The devout Christian and Muslim are willing to die for their beliefs but we still compose articles on those subjects just as if they were another two religions; we don't adopt the worldview represented by those subjects and then edit accordingly. We don't qualify every statement in the article Biblical literalism with "due to the noetic effect of sin and this not being sourced from the Bible it is likely wrong". Rather we adopt the worldview of the encyclopedist and compose from the perspective of the encyclopedists' "worldview" (described roughly by the principles above). The article on deconstruction is just another article on a literary theory-cum-philosophy and the exposition of that subject should conform to the usual canons of article form and content—not the idiosyncracies of its subject matter. An example is Derrida's claim that deconstruction is not a method but his description of the deconstructive "experience" meets the terms of a method: "a particular procedure for accomplishing or approaching something" and several commentators make this point. The same applies to the claim that deconstruction is not a critique but Derrida describes a detailed analysis and assessment of certain textual details, i.e. a critique. Also Derrida's claim that deconstruction is not poststructuralist even though almost everyone that matters says otherwise. Insisting that the article on deconstruction conform to all of Derrida's assertions (some of which are contradictory) is no different than a Biblical literalist objecting to:

A literal Biblical interpretation is associated with the fundamentalist and evangelical hermeneutical approach to scripture—the historical-grammatical method—and is used extensively by Fundamentalist Christians...in contrast to the historical-critical method of liberal Christians.

in the Biblical literalism article because it characterises its subject in terms other than those used by biblical literalists. That would be a patently absurd requirement and biblical literalists don't attempt to impose that requirement on the article. But reading through the archives for the article equivalent requirements have been demanded and the article reflects an attempt to conform to those absurd requirements. I hope I have explained myself, it is very late here and I am tired so if anything about this is unclear comment and I will respond tomorrow. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)