Talk:Deconstruction/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Can non-grad students understand this please?

After spending an extensive amounts of time pondering this article, I conclude that this is the most confusing article on all of Wikipedia. The terms "logocentrism", "differance"and "Derridean neologism" are introduced in the second paragraph with absolutely no context or supporting information. In effect, if one is not already familiar with deconstruction, this article provides no meaningful information. In my eyes, this seems to defeat the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be a resource where everyone can learn useful information about a topic without in-depth training. This article, on the other hand seems convinced that the only way to teach people is to bombard them with over-the-top descriptions and overly-complex graduate level terminology. Therefore, I propose that in order to return some semblance of reason and comprehension to this article that we, as responsible members of the Wikipedia editing community, revert to a previous, more comprehensible version of this article until we are able to locate someone with adequate knowledge on the subject matter to rewrite the article from the ground up. This link leads to a previous and more understandable version of the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deconstruction&oldid=584476727

And if all else fails, it appears our friends at Simple Wikipedia have provided a usable substitute for the interim: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction

I thank you for your consideration of my ideas and I am eager to engage in thoughtful, balanced discussion on the proper way to fix this clearly broken article.

Sakomoto (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I strongly agree. As a longtime student of philosophy, this article still only begins to make sense. We, as responsible wikipedians, must endeavor to fix this atrocity. I wholeheartedly echo the sentiments that Sakomoto expressed so eloquently, particularly his desire to revert the page to its earlier version. I would strongly suggest that this be acted upon with all due haste.

Erichremiker (talk)05:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"As I said before (and assumed) my small contributions are a paraphrase of Derrida himself in "Positions", p.41-43.

I will give here a long quotation that, I'm sure, "a longtime student of philosophy" knows.

We can try to say the same thing in an other way. But I think it is quite important to say it (in my opinion, and in the opinion of many scholars, it is crucial to understand Derrida move, specially considering his own "context", where "hegel" and "marx" are considered "important" philosophers, and not what we could call "anglo-saxonic" readings of him. You can find support to this opinion here Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"Derrida has provided many definitions of deconstruction. But three definitions are classical. The first is early, being found in the 1971 interview “Positions” and in the 1972 Preface to Dissemination: deconstruction consists in “two phases” (Positions, pp. 41-42, Dissemination, pp.4-6). "

In BOLD what I think is really important This is my small contribution.

Derrida interview with Jean-Louis Houdebine and Guy Scarpetta

Houdebine: Could you specify, at least under the rubric of an introduction to this interview, the actual state of your research, whose effectiveness immediately showed itself to have considerable bearing on the ideological field of our era, the state of development of the general economy again recently demarcated in three texts that are perhaps the symptoms of a new differentiation of the sheaf: your reading of Sollers's Numbers, in "La dissemination"and then (but these two texts are contemporaries) "La double seance" and finally "La mythologie blanche"?3(...)

Derrida: What interested me then, what I am attempting to pursue along other lines now, was, at the same time as a "general economy," a kind of general strategy of deconstruction. The latter is to avoid both simply neutrallzing the binary oppositions of metaphysics and simply residing within the closed field of these oppositions, thereby confirming it.

Therefore we must proceed using a double gesture, according to a unity that is both systematic and in and of itself divided, a double writing, that is, a writing that is in and of itself multiple, what I called, in "La double seance ," a double science.

On the one hand, we must traverse a phase of overturning. To do justice to this necessity is to recognize that in a classical philosophical opposition we are not dealing with the peaceful coexistence of a vis-a-vis, but rather with a violent hierarchy. One of the two terms governs the other (axiologically, logically, etc.), or has the upper hand. To deconstruct the opposition, first of all, is to overturn the hierarchy at a given moment. To overlook this phase of overturning is to forget the conflictual and subordinating structure of opposition.

Therefore one might proceed too quickly to a neutralization that in practice would leave the previous field untouched, leaving one no hold on the previous opposition, thereby preventing any means of intervening in the field effectively. We know what always have been the practical (particularly political) effects of Immediately jumping beyond oppositions, and of protests in the simple form of neither this nor that. When I say that this phase is necessary, the word phase is perhaps not the most rigorous one. It is not a question of a chronological phase, a given moment, or a page that one day simply will be turned, in order to go on to other things. The necessity of this phase is structural; it is the necessity of an interminable analysis: the hierarchy of dual oppositions always reestablishes itself. Unlike those authors whose death does not await their demise, the time for overturning is never a dead letter.

That being said- and on the other hand- to remain in this phase is still to operate on the terrain of and from within the deconstructed system. By means of this double, and precisely stratified, dislodged and dislodging, writing, we must also mark the interval between inversion, which brings low what was high, and the irruptive emergence of a new "concept", a concept that can no longer be, and never could be, included in the previous regime. If this interval, this biface or biphase, can be inscribed only in a bifurcated writing (and this holds first of all for a new concept of writing, that simultaneously provokes the overturning of the hierarchy speech/writing, and the entire system attached to it, and releases the dissonance of a writing within speech, thereby disorganizing the entire inherited order and invading the entire field), then it can only be marked in what I would call a grouped textual field: in the last analysis it is impossible to point it out, for a unilinear text, or a punctual position, 'I an operation signed by a single author, are all by definition incapable of practicing this interval.

Henceforth, in order better to mark this interval (La dissemination), the text that bears this title, since you have asked me about it, is a systematic and playful exploration of the interval-"ecart," carre, carrure, carte, charte, quatre,lO etc.) it has been necessary to analyze, to set to work, within the text of the history of philosophy, as well as within the so-called literary text (for example, Mallarme), certain marks, shall we say (I mentioned certain ones just now, there are many others), that by analogy (I underline) I have called undecidables, that is, unities of simulacrum, "false" verbal properties (nominal or semantic) that can no longer be included within philosophical (binary) opposition: but which, however, inhabit philosophical opposition, resisting and disorganizing it, without ever constituting a third term, without ever leaving room for a solution in the form of speculative dialectics (the pharmakon is neither remedy nor poison, neither good nor evil, neither the inside nor the outside, neither speech nor writing; the supplement is neither a plus nor a minus, neither an outside nor the complement of an inside, neither accident nor essence, etc.; the hymen is neither confusion nor distinction, neither identity nor difference, neither consummation nor virginity, neither the veil nor unveiling, neither the inside nor the outside, etc.; the gram is neither a signifier nor a signified, neither a sign nor a thing, neither a presence nor an absence, neither a position nor a negation, etc.; spacing is neither space nor time; the incision is neither the incised integrity of a beginning, or of a simple cutting into, nor simple secondary. Neither/nor: that is simultaneously either or; the mark is also the marginal limit, the march, etc.).l1

In fact, I attempt to bring the critical operation to bear against the unceasing re-appropriation of this work of the simulacrum by a dialectics of the Hegelian type (Which even idealizes and "semantizes" the value of work), for Hegelian idealism consists precisely of a releve of the binary oppositions of classical idealism, a resolution of contradiction into a third term that comes in order to aufheben, to deny while raising up, while idealizing, while sublimating into an anamnesic interiority (Errinnerung), while interning difference in a self-presence. 12"

Since it is still a question of elucidating the relationship to Hegel- a difficult labor, which for the most part remains before us, and which in a certain way is interminable, at least if one wishes to execute it rigorously and minutely- I have attempted to distinguish differance (whose a marks, among other things, its productive and conflictual characteristics) from Hegelian difference, and have done so precisely at the point at which Hegel, in the greater Logic, determines difference as contradiction 13 only in order to resolve it, to interiorize it, to lift it up (according to the syllogistic process of speculative dialectics) into the self-presence of an ontotheological or onto-teleological synthesis.

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

New proposal to the lead

My new proposal tries to 1st give its impact and 2nd focus on "deconstruction" phases as explained by Derrida (" we must proceed using a double gesture, according to a unity that is both systematic and in and of itself divided, a double writing, that is, a writing that is in and of itself multiple, what I called, in "La double seance ," a double science."), by Rorty here and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy here. I'm not responsible for all that is here, but I can subscribe it (it includes contribution from AnotherAnonymous and others).

1st PARAGRAPH ("context"):

Deconstruction (French: déconstruction) is a form of philosophical and literary analysis derived principally from Jacques Derrida's 1967 work Of Grammatology.[1] In the 1980s it designated more loosely a range of theoretical enterprises in diverse areas [2] of the humanities and social sciences, including—in addition to philosophy and literature—law,[3][4][5]anthropology,[6] historiography,[7] linguistics,[8] sociolinguistics,[9] psychoanalysis, political theory, feminism, and gay and lesbian studies. Deconstruction still has a major influence in the academe of Continental Europe, South America and everywhere Continental philosophy is predominant, particularly in debates around ontology, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, hermeneutics, and the philosophy of language. It also influenced architecture (in the form of deconstructivism), music,[10] art,[11] and art criticism.[12]

2nd PARAGRAPH ("theoretical constatation and consequent implications"- "We think only in signs")

Deconstruction denies the possibility of a “pure presence”: "the present or presence of sense to a full and primordial intuition". [13] [14] It thus denies the possibility of essential or intrinsic and stable meaning and the unmediated access to "reality”. Derrida points that "from the moment that there is meaning there are nothing but signs. We think only in signs." [15] [16][17] [18][19] [20] [21] [22] Language, considered as a system of signs, as Ferdinand de Saussure says, [23] is nothing but differences. Rorty contends that "words have meaning only because of contrast-effects with other words...no word can acquire meaning in the way in which philosophers from Aristotle to Bertrand Russell have hoped it might—by being the unmediated expression of something non-linguistic (e.g., an emotion, a sense-datum, a physical object, an idea, a Platonic Form)".[24] Any given concept is thus constituted in reciprocal determination, in terms of its oppositions, e.g. perception/reason, speech/writing, mind/body, interior/exterior, marginal/central, sensible/intelligible, intuition/signification, nature/culture, etc.[25] [26] Derrida terms logocentrism the philosophical commitment to pure, unmediated, presence as a source of self-sufficient meaning.[27] [28][29]

3rd PARAGRAPH (1st phase: "pratical constatation and consequent operation"- "on the one hand, we must traverse a phase of overturning")

Further, Derrida contends that "in a classical philosophical opposition we are not dealing with the peaceful coexistence of a vis-a-vis, but rather with a violent hierarchy. One of the two terms governs the other (axiologically, logically, etc.), or has the upper hand": signified over signifier; intelligible over sensible; speech over writing; activity over passivity, etc.[32] The first task of deconstruction, starting with philosophy and afterwards revealing it operating in literary texts, juridical texts, etc, would be to overturn these oppositions. But it is not that the final objective of deconstruction is to surpass all oppositions, because it is assumed they are structurally necessary to produce sense. They simply cannot be suspended once and for all. The hierarchy of dual oppositions always reestablishes itself. But this only points to "the necessity of an interminable analysis" that can make explicit the decisions and arbitrary violence intrinsic to all texts.[33]

4th PARAGRAPH (2nd phase:"pragmatic intervention in the theoretical field" -"on the other hand..the irruptive emergence of a new "concept"")

Finally, Derrida argues that it is not enough to expose and deconstruct the way oppositions work and how meaning and values are produced, and then stop there in a nihilistic or cynical position regarding all meaning, "thereby preventing any means of intervening in the field effectively".[34] To be effective, deconstruction needs to create new terms, not to synthesize the concepts in opposition, but to mark their difference and eternal interplay. This explains why Derrida always proposes new terms in his deconstruction, not as a free play but as a pure necessity of analysis, to better mark the intervals. Derrida called undecidables, that is, unities of simulacrum, "false" verbal properties (nominal or semantic) that can no longer be included within philosophical (binary) opposition: but which, however, inhabit philosophical oppositions, resisting and organizing it, without ever constituting a third term, without ever leaving room for a solution in the form of speculative dialectics (e.g. différance, archi-writing, pharmakon, supplement, hymen, gram, spacing).[35] Hibrido Mutante (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Most problematic paragraph in the lead

I belive that the most problematic paragraph is the second one and we should focus on making it better (and smaller).

2nd PARAGRAPH

A central premise of deconstruction is that all of Western literature and philosophy implicitly relies on a metaphysics of presence,[13][14] where intrinsic meaning is accessible by virtue of pure presence.[15][16] Deconstruction denies the possibility of a pure presence and thus of essential or intrinsic and stable meaning — and thus a relinquishment of the notions of absolute truth, unmediated access to "reality" and consequently of conceptual hierarchy. "From the moment that there is meaning there are nothing but signs. We think only in signs."[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] Language, considered as a system of signs, as Ferdinand de Saussure says,[25] is nothing but differences. Words have meaning only because of contrast-effects with other words. 'Red' means what it does only by contrast with 'blue', 'green', etc. 'Being' also means nothing except by contrast, not only with 'beings' but with 'Nature', 'God', 'Humanity', and indeed every other word in the language. No word can acquire meaning in the way in which philosophers from Aristotle to Bertrand Russell have hoped it might—by being the unmediated expression of something non-linguistic (e.g., an emotion, a sense-datum, a physical object, an idea, a Platonic Form).[26] Derrida terms logocentrism the philosophical commitment to pure, unmediated, presence as a source of self-sufficient meaning.[27][28][29] Due to this impossibility of pure presence and consequently of intrinsic meaning, any given concept is constituted in reciprocal determination, in terms of its oppositions, e.g. perception/reason, speech/writing, mind/body, interior/exterior, marginal/central, sensible/intelligible, intuition/signification, nature/culture.[30][31] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibrido Mutante (talk • contribs) 02:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion:

Deconstruction denies the possibility of a “pure presence”: "the present or presence of sense to a full and primordial intuition". [13] [14] It thus denies the possibility of essential or intrinsic and stable meaning and the unmediated access to "reality”. Derrida points that "from the moment that there is meaning there are nothing but signs. We think only in signs." [15] [16][17] [18][19] [20] [21] [22] Language, considered as a system of signs, as Ferdinand de Saussure says, [23] is nothing but differences. Rorty contends that "words have meaning only because of contrast-effects with other words...no word can acquire meaning in the way in which philosophers from Aristotle to Bertrand Russell have hoped it might—by being the unmediated expression of something non-linguistic (e.g., an emotion, a sense-datum, a physical object, an idea, a Platonic Form)".[24] Any given concept is thus constituted in reciprocal determination, in terms of its oppositions, e.g. perception/reason, speech/writing, mind/body, interior/exterior, marginal/central, sensible/intelligible, intuition/signification, nature/culture, etc.[25] [26] Derrida terms logocentrism the philosophical commitment to pure, unmediated, presence as a source of self-sufficient meaning.[27] [28][29]

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Discuss issues

@ 86.169.42.101

Please explain your reasons (where, what, why) to consider that:

a) This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the Wikipedia editor's particular feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts. (March 2015)

b)This article is written like a research paper or scientific journal that may use overly technical terms or may not be written like an encyclopedic article. (March 2015)

c) The neutrality of this article is disputed. (March 2015)

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe it is possible to dispute the overtechnicality of this article. I could see a case being made for both of the other statements too.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

If this page were rewritten from scratch how would it be structured?

Deconstruction is obviously a complicated subject, but it can be tackled if there is enough people willing to pitch in rather than argue over specifics and cause conflict. At this point, a plainly written, short article could be more useful (aside from for the people who already know it). The question then becomes how to actually structure the article, not necessarily to redo it from the start, but to eventually move the article itself towards.

Thoughts for a start (not comprehensive, but important parts):

- Etymology (as per now)

- Influences (this currently shows up as its own section and within the "On Deconstruction" section)

- Derrida's contributions (Of Grammatology, etc): Philosophical Concerns with Subsections on Philosophy of Language/Differance ("there is no outside text") and Metaphysics of Presence, explaining it more thoroughly, then a (perhaps more concise) version of "Related Works by Derrida"

- Influence/Application: Literary Criticism, Post-Structuralism, Developments after Deconstruction

- Difficulty of Definition (contrast with Hegel Dialectics and other potential confusions, Derrida's negative definitions, etc)

- Criticisms (mostly unchanged)

In the process the article could use some serious simplification (doable, however the start is poorly done, the first paragraph has more lists than relevant content, if it were up to me I'd suggest scrapping it completely) and removal of a lot of the lengthy quotes. If it cannot be explained without resorting to lengthy quotes, perhaps it is just as well it is left out.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I put an idea of what I'm talking about on my own page.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive approach. I will try to help. I read the article in your page but couldn't get the differences. Couldn't you point the differences? As it is it looks ok to me.

But I think it would be usefull to try to solve this: "This article contains too many or too-lengthy quotations for an encyclopedic entry. (February 2014)"

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The primary differences were in structure, with some sections being moved around entirely. Apart from that, I chose certain sections I think it would be helpful to add and removed some sections - primarily the ones that were composed more of quotes than substance. I said it recently on Peter Kreeft's article and it bears repeating here: quotes belong on wikiquotes, explanations on wikipedia. That said, my version still includes many quotes which could be whittled down. If you have a particular section you'd like to remove quotes from a replace with a lucid explanation, feel free to post it on my talk page, this one, or wherever else you feel would be appropriate. I will keep working on it, hopefully we can get more people involved as well.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 03:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Plan of action (Oct. 2014)

Scrap/delete the article and start anew. It's a disaster. Describing it as a patchwork is being too kind. 98.236.50.229 (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

* Support - I agree. This article is incredibly inaccessible and must be rewritten in simpler, intelligible terms, in encyclopedic style. What is the process to scrap the article? Azx2 10:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Whoever wants to do the work should decide how to approach it. I can imagine the article contains a list of the terms and concepts to be explained, and they only need to be put in the right order and liberated from jargon, circular definition, and other bugbears of postmodernist "discourse". Wegesrand (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

* Disagree - What is the point of having the article if it 'simpler'? A 'simpler' version of deconstruction is no deconstruction at all. Why don't we make the page on Planck's Law (go read it) more 'simple'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.238.239 (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Did Alan Sokal write this article? It is laughably bad. --50.153.114.149 (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and culled the article...

This article has been laughably poor for years and a joke in many places on the internet - it was next to useless for anyone who comes across the page. I have gone ahead and culled much of the worst parts of it and believe it to be far superior now - I mainly removed repetition of and interpretation of Derrida's works. The lead actually means something now, and there is a logical structure to the article. I would be interested to hear whether other editors agree.

Here is a link to the "new" article, in case reversions are made: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deconstruction&oldid=654334608 Atshal (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I really like some of the changes, but on the other hand I feel that some of the culling went overboard here. I am going to keep working in parallel on my proposed article on my own talk page. I'd have really preferred if instead of taking unilateral action, you'd made at least some attempt to cooperatively work to improve the article. When I'm done my alternative version I'll see about changing it to perhaps hybridize it with yours (I've already adjusted my own somewhat to reflect yours). Aside from that, I have one practical criticism which I will be especially covering in my own version of the article, namely, Metaphysics of Presence is under-emphasized, it is a core part of Deconstruction and can't be left out of the lede paragraph.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I realise a lot of the changes were dramatic, but people have been talking about doing this for a while and it never seems to get done. Of course it would be great if you could add in useful stuff! Atshal (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Edited the article to include Metaphysics of Presence in the opening paragraph.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. Cannot agree with your changes. Please, propose changes paragraph by paragraph. Give us references. Thanks

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2015

External links

• The dictionary definition of deconstruction/archive 9 at Wiktionary
• "Deconstruction" in Theory in Social and Cultural Anthropology: An Encyclopedia by Dustin Garlitz

Dbg215 (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The second link you put there has an excellent description of deconstruction, and is precisely the kind of thing we should be doing here. It is better than both the previous version on this article and the new one. Obviously we can't use it exactly, but we certainly draw on it. Atshal (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Amortias (T)(C) 16:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Add to existing External Links:

• "Deconstruction" in Theory in Social and Cultural Anthropology: An Encyclopedia by Dustin Garlitz

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2015

Please add the following link to the article's existing External Links section:

• "Deconstruction" in Theory in Social and Cultural Anthropology: An Encyclopedia by Dustin Garlitz

Dbg215 (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Per Wikipedia's guidelines for external links, external links to pages requiring registration are not normally placed in articles. Jamietw (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

New proposal to the lead

My new proposal tries to 1st give its impact and 2nd focus on "deconstruction" phases as explained by Derrida (" we must proceed using a double gesture, according to a unity that is both systematic and in and of itself divided, a double writing, that is, a writing that is in and of itself multiple, what I called, in "La double seance ," a double science."), by Rorty here and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy here. I'm not responsible for all that is here, but I can subscribe it (it includes contribution from AnotherAnonymous and others).

1st PARAGRAPH ("context"):

2nd PARAGRAPH ("theoretical constatation and consequent implications"- "We think only in signs")

3rd PARAGRAPH (1st phase: "pratical constatation and consequent operation"- "on the one hand, we must traverse a phase of overturning")

4th PARAGRAPH (2nd phase:"pragmatic intervention in the theoretical field" -"on the other hand..the irruptive emergence of a new "concept"")

1st PARAGRAPH ("context"):

Deconstruction (French: déconstruction) is a form of philosophical and literary analysis derived principally from Jacques Derrida's 1967 work Of Grammatology.[1] In the 1980s it designated more loosely a range of theoretical enterprises in diverse areas [2] of the humanities and social sciences, including—in addition to philosophy and literature—law,[3][4][5]anthropology,[6] historiography,[7] linguistics,[8] sociolinguistics,[9] psychoanalysis, political theory, feminism, and gay and lesbian studies. Deconstruction still has a major influence in the academe of Continental Europe, South America and everywhere Continental philosophy is predominant, particularly in debates around ontology, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, hermeneutics, and the philosophy of language. It also influenced architecture (in the form of deconstructivism), music,[10] art,[11] and art criticism.[12]

2nd PARAGRAPH ("theoretical constatation and consequent implications"- "We think only in signs")

A central premise of deconstruction is that all of Western literature and philosophy implicitly relies on a metaphysics of presence,[13][14] where intrinsic meaning is accessible by virtue of pure presence.[15][16] Deconstruction denies the possibility of a pure presence and thus of essential or intrinsic and stable meaning — and thus a relinquishment of the notions of absolute truth, unmediated access to "reality" and consequently of conceptual hierarchy. "From the moment that there is meaning there are nothing but signs. We think only in signs."[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] Language, considered as a system of signs, as Ferdinand de Saussure says,[25] is nothing but differences. Words have meaning only because of contrast-effects with other words. 'Red' means what it does only by contrast with 'blue', 'green', etc. 'Being' also means nothing except by contrast, not only with 'beings' but with 'Nature', 'God', 'Humanity', and indeed every other word in the language. No word can acquire meaning in the way in which philosophers from Aristotle to Bertrand Russell have hoped it might—by being the unmediated expression of something non-linguistic (e.g., an emotion, a sense-datum, a physical object, an idea, a Platonic Form).[26] Derrida terms logocentrism the philosophical commitment to pure, unmediated, presence as a source of self-sufficient meaning.[27][28][29] Due to this impossibility of pure presence and consequently of intrinsic meaning, any given concept is constituted in reciprocal determination, in terms of its oppositions, e.g. perception/reason, speech/writing, mind/body, interior/exterior, marginal/central, sensible/intelligible, intuition/signification, nature/culture.[30][31]

3rd PARAGRAPH (1st phase: "pratical constatation and consequent operation"- "on the one hand, we must traverse a phase of overturning")

Further, Derrida contends that "in a classical philosophical opposition we are not dealing with the peaceful coexistence of a vis-a-vis, but rather with a violent hierarchy. One of the two terms governs the other (axiologically, logically, etc.), or has the upper hand": signified over signifier; intelligible over sensible; speech over writing; activity over passivity, etc.[32] The first task of deconstruction, starting with philosophy and afterwards revealing it operating in literary texts, juridical texts, etc, would be to overturn these oppositions. But it is not that the final objective of deconstruction is to surpass all oppositions, because it is assumed they are structurally necessary to produce sense. They simply cannot be suspended once and for all. The hierarchy of dual oppositions always reestablishes itself. But this only points to "the necessity of an interminable analysis" that can make explicit the decisions and arbitrary violence intrinsic to all texts.[33]

4th PARAGRAPH (2nd phase:"pragmatic intervention in the theoretical field" -"on the other hand..the irruptive emergence of a new "concept"")

Finally, Derrida argues that it is not enough to expose and deconstruct the way oppositions work and how meaning and values are produced, and then stop there in a nihilistic or cynical position regarding all meaning, "thereby preventing any means of intervening in the field effectively".[34] To be effective, deconstruction needs to create new terms, not to synthesize the concepts in opposition, but to mark their difference and eternal interplay. This explains why Derrida always proposes new terms in his deconstruction, not as a free play but as a pure necessity of analysis, to better mark the intervals. Derrida called undecidables, that is, unities of simulacrum, "false" verbal properties (nominal or semantic) that can no longer be included within philosophical (binary) opposition: but which, however, inhabit philosophical oppositions, resisting and organizing it, without ever constituting a third term, without ever leaving room for a solution in the form of speculative dialectics (e.g. différance, archi-writing, pharmakon, supplement, hymen, gram, spacing).[35]

I'm open to discuss changes. I would cut a lot from 2nd paragraph.

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The above lead is FAR to technical and not appropriate in the slightest for a Wikipedia article

You just deleted a succinct lead that was of actual use to people reading the article. The lead you propose are far too technical for a wikipedia article, as is the material you just inserted in your edit. It doesn't actual tell a lay person what deconstruction is. For example, next to nobody reading the article will have read "Of Grammatology", so including that in the opening sentence as part of the definition of deconstruction is not useful in the slightest. What you propose is of use to almost nobody - as is most of the material you have reinserted into the article, which is close to unreadable. Here is a clearly vastly more useful lead, that can potentially be expanded in non technical English:

A useful lead:

Deconstruction is a method of critical analysis of philosophical and literary language which emphasizes the internal workings of language and conceptual systems, the relational quality of meaning, and the assumptions implicit in forms of expression.[1] This involves identifying metaphysics of presence which is a set of assumptions that are proposed to be at the base of western philosophy.[citation needed] This form of philosophical and literary analysis derives originally from Jacques Derrida's 1967 work Of Grammatology.[2]

Deconstruction was later put to use in other areas such as law,[3][4][5] anthropology,[6] historiography,[7] linguistics,[8] sociolinguistics,[9] psychoanalysis, political theory, feminism, and gay and lesbian studies. Deconstruction is influential in debates around ontology, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, hermeneutics, and the philosophy of language, as well as influencing architecture (in the form of deconstructivism), music,[10] art,[11] and art criticism.[12] Deconstruction is a form of antifoundationalism[13][14] and a critique of Idealism.[15] Deconstruction is within the Continental—as opposed to analytical—tradition of philosophy.[16]

Atshal (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make a really good lead for this article, I suggest you look at well written leads in other articles. For example, I think the following are all examples of good leads (Metaphysics in particular, seems excellent), that the reader will come away from having actually learned something about the subject, and with some idea of where to look in the article below for more information: Metaphysics Historicism Aesthetics

They are informative, get to the point quickly, and give a nice summary. Where technical words are used, there is explanation. Atshal (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I cannot agree with you. This lead does not say what "deconstruction" procedure is and, in the sentence where you try to do it is, in my opinion, wrong.

What do you mean by "identifying metaphysics of presence which is a set of assumptions that are proposed to be at the base of western philosophy.[citation needed] "?

Do you think this is clear to anyone? (to me it is not). Can you make it clear? (It was not me who asked for a ctiation. But I see I'm not alone).

It was not me who has done this lead (I agree we can delete the reference to "Of Grammatology", etc. and many other things, specially in the 2nd paragraph).

My contribuion is to call your attention to the Stanford approach, and the fact you must highlight the 2 phases (after you understand what "differance" is...

If you are a student of law (for example) what would you do with the new lead? I know what I would do with the old one... I believe that is what we should care about...

In my opinion we "just need to explain":´ 1st PARAGRAPH ("context"):

2nd PARAGRAPH ("theoretical constatation and consequent implications"- "We think only in signs")

3rd PARAGRAPH (1st phase: "pratical constatation and consequent operation"- "on the one hand, we must traverse a phase of overturning")

4th PARAGRAPH (2nd phase:"pragmatic intervention in the theoretical field" -"on the other hand..the irruptive emergence of a new "concept"")

Please, before editing, make your suggestions here. Lets do it paragraph by paragraph. To be bold in this cases will inevitablly start an editing war.

Thanks

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It is all well and good that you do not approve of the lead as it was, I even agree it could have used some work, however now you're altering useful parts of the opening. The first sentence that Atshal made was more informative than a lead that just says it comes from "Of Grammatology", that's useless. I'm open to the deletion of the bit about Metaphysics of Presence but still, the article as it stands with alterations has lost some of its quality. --Ollyoxenfree (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I will suggest some changes to the lead tomorrow (making it smaller and not trying to explain everything at once). I will propose it here first.

I don't understand what do you mean with "article as it stands with alterations has lost some of its quality". The only thing that I've done was to copy/paste the old lead so we can work on it together. The changes were "to bold". I haven't changed anything else (even if I can't agree with a lot of it. But I understand that trying to change everything at onde will only create more disputes. Lets work the lead and then work the rest of the article, section by section, pasragraph by paragraph.

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hibridio - simply make the changes to the article you think improve it and we can work from there. Do not just revert all other edits aimed at improving the article. Edit the article with improvements to the lead, and if they are too complex other editors can tone it down. Multiple editors over long periods of time agree that the article is poor and need much work - go ahead and make changes that help address the issues highlighted in talk and in the tags to the article. The article needs so much change that discussing every single edit in talk is not productive. Just make sure you make make the article less confusing, more readable and less technical. Atshal (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, please try to avoid reverting large numbers of edits made by other editors, without justification. If you have issues with individual edits, work to improve them. Don't simply mass revert - not every single edit needs to be discussed in talk. There is already a mandate to make major changes to the article to reduce complexity and the unreadable nature of much of the prose - see the several discussions above (some editors believe it needs to be scrapped and started from scratch!). Atshal (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Why are you saying that? As I told you, I just reverted the lead because, in my opinion the new one was much worst that the one that was there before. It was not me who has done the old one and I agree there is a lot to be done, specially in the second paragraph. But I don't think you have done a good job. Far from it.

What do you mean by "identifying metaphysics of presence which is a set of assumptions that are proposed to be at the base of western philosophy.[citation needed] "?

Do you think this is clear to anyone? (to me it is not). Can you make it clear? (It was not me who asked for a ctiation. But I see I'm not alone).

Also it is quite compicate when you are so vague in your critics. Could you just point the senternces you refer to? Sometimes you talk about "the article", other you talk about "the lead".

As I told you, I just want to focus on the lead for now: 4 paragraphs.

I will not make comments abouyt everything else that, in my opinion, is plain wrong, vague, etc. I will only make comments about the lead for now.

TO be honnest, in my opinion you simply destroyed the article done by several editors during many years. Today I read it and I just can't understand what deconstruction is about. But, I haven't revert it and I will not do it.

I'm trying to be constructive and I'm here to improve what is there (the lead, and only the lead for now). It was not done by me, but at least I can agree with 80% of it. Please, propose your editing first. As I told before, I again and again, we should try to explain what Deconstruction is all about.

It is better not to "simply make the changes to the article" because, if it means "deleting" it is natural that the other editor will want to revert it. And we will start an editing war.

Thaks

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

My alternative and less-heavily culled article is on my User page for Peer Review

The main issue with my own version of the article is a few extra "Citation Needed" which I added in, if anyone looking at my version has some citations for those parts that would be great. I may also have issues with logical progression of ideas as I haven't exactly checked to make sure every single cut I made allowed for a fluid transition (I'll read the article over a few more times of course before doing too much with it). I'm simply not prepared to wade through a ridiculous amount of extraordinarily complex writing to find the one sentence that would support the points in question. Aside from that, please tell me if you see anything beyond that which needs changing. I'm going to start co-opting my version of the article into the actual article where I think I can manage it without completely disrupting the original article.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I've started making changes to the article itself, some fairly comprehensive. If they bother anybody please speak up.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 04:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I like the changes so far. Atshal (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I have one major part left on my page, taken from the original article, it hadn't occurred to me until the official article was cut down that perhaps the pieces not yet added are a bit extraneous. If you could look it over or someone else, I'd appreciate the extra pair of eyes. I could also outline my own reasons for and against the inclusion of those details if you're interested. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not a particular expert on the subject. As long as it reads well and is not overly technical I say just jump in and add it. If editors have an issue, they can raise it here - based on your other edits I am sure it will be fine. Atshal (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, I might try to dumb it down a little more (it isn't my writing, I just tried to edit it down a little bit) but I added it. It has been a pleasure servicing this article with you, I think it is a lot better than when we started.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Olly. I made a few changes near the start of the section you added. Overall I thought it read really well, but could use clarification at the start. Obviously feel free to disagree - but I felt in particular the quotes near the start did not really add much and tried to paraphrase the meaning instead. Atshal (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. Cannot agree with your changes. Please, propose changes paragraph by paragraph. Give us references. Thanks

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Hibrido, but I don't think this is how Wikiepdia works. Not every edit needs to be discussed in talk. The article has been tagged for a long time as being too technical, confusing and possibly needing to be rewritten entirely. Multiple editors agree with this on this talk page. The recent edits go a long way to rectifying this long standing problems, and all have justifications made for them. This is not unilateral editing, but addressing long discussed issues. If you wish to reinsert material then I have no objection, provided it is not overly technical and confusing - which the material you reinserted clearly is. Perhaps you could rewrite them in nontechnical language before reinserting them? Atshal (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have some difficulties understanding "what is at stake" in deconstruction. The fact that you just deleted everything that was connected with

a) "differance",

b) with "overturning" and

c) with the creation of the new term, not be confused with a synthesis (as explained by Derrida himself)

can be considered a symptom.

In the end, we don't know what "deconstruction" is all about (and how and why it is used in other fields).

a)The fact that you talk about "synchronic" and "diachronic" and not about "paradigmatic" (difference) and "syntagmatic" (differed) can also be seen as a symptom that you have some difficulties understanding what “differAnce” means (it looks to me you are not familiar with Saussure and structuralism in general). It looks that there is no "real issue" with “philosophical dichotomies". I'm aware that some less informed authors consider that Deconstruction could engage in the "Etymological fallacy". It is quite funny. That would mean that a word could mean something "outside context", it would have some "essential meaning" that would be preserved along its use. It would not be difficult to show that one of the main conclusions of Deconstruction is that this is impossible!! Deconstruction is in fact used to criticize "Etymological fallacy" by "continental philosophers". Derrida shows in many different ways how the same term has different meanings not only in different texts but even within the same text.

b) It also seems you are not aware of the “practical” implications of deconstruction. For you the problem of “a term having the upper hand” is not an issue. I suggest you get familiar with the "Critical Legal Studies Movement", etc.

C) For you there is no “double science” in deconstruction (I would say that, because there are no “practical” issues, both "scenes" simply disappear). I believe you are not familiar with post-Kantianism in general, and with Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche in specific (and its role in philosophical, political and legal debates in Continental Europe, etc). So, it is natural that for you there is no problem that “deconstruction” could be seen as only another mode of dialectics. Maybe because you talk about “post-structuralism”, a term that the authors, and people in continental Europe don’t use, you are not aware of what is called “Philosophy of difference” (Derrida, Deleuze, etc) and how important they considered to scape speculative dialectics (as much as historical materialism)... also not be capture in the "dialetics" between "structure" vs"genesis" ... creating a new term to mark "difference" without solving it, is important.

I believe this 3 issues (differance, overturning, creation of a new term) are important and I would like you to respect those "phases". Please, don’t simply delete it. If you want to explain it better, feel free.

I believe the section here: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a goods start. If you say the same with different words it will be ok for me (personally we should also mention that difference is "undecidable"...).

"Derrida has provided many definitions of deconstruction. But three definitions are classical. The first is early, being found in the 1971 interview “Positions” and in the 1972 Preface to Dissemination: deconstruction consists in “two phases” :(...)

he first phase of deconstruction attacks this belief by reversing the Platonistic hierarchies: the hierarchies between the invisible or intelligible and the visible or sensible; between essence and appearance; between the soul and body; between living memory and rote memory; between mnēmē and hypomnēsis; between voice and writing; between finally good and evil.

After the redefinition of the previously inferior term, Derrida usually changes the term's orthography, for example, writing “différence” with an “a” as “différance” in order to indicate the change in its status. Différance (which is found in appearances when we recognize their temporal nature) then refers to the undecidable resource into which “metaphysics” “cut” in order to makes its decision. In “Positions,” Derrida calls names like “différance” “old names” or “paleonyms,” and there he also provides a list of these “old terms”: “pharmakon”; “supplement”; “hymen”; “gram”; “spacing”; and “incision” (Positions, p. 43). These names are old because, like the word “appearance” or the word “difference,” they have been used for centuries in the history of Western philosophy to refer to the inferior position in hierarchies. But now, they are being used to refer to the resource that has never had a name in “metaphysics”; they are being used to refer to the resource that is indeed “older” than the metaphysical decision."

Thanks

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that the material is grossly too technical and can not be reasonably understood by a lay person - also much of it constitutes opinion and original research. It is clearly not appropriate for a wiki article - this is a long standing issue with this article and has been discussed multiple times. If you wish to include the material, it needs to be rewritten in a way that can be understood and is of use to a non expert. Atshal (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, much of the material I deleted is from topics that have their own entire articles - the material is more appropriate there, and a summary here, with a link to the main articles. Including it here is repetitive, and unnecessary when you can simply link to the main articles on the topics. Atshal (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Why do you say it is

a) "too technical"? We are quoting Derrida, Rorty, Stanford Encyclopedia, Brittanica. Why do you think "deconstruction" is not a "technical" subject. Why "philosophy" ("even if "continental philosophy" as some would say) would be less technical than "mathematics", for example? Try to read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfunction / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iterated_function or this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems without some technical background (these are not random examples...)

I agree this is not an easy subject to explain to the "lay man". I'm only suggesting that, to explain it, we should focus in

i) Explaining what "differAnce" is

ii) what is "overturning" (and why we should do it)

iii) why to create/revaluate a term

b) I don't know which material you considered "opinion and original research". I agree that most of it was. And IO consider that most that is there now is (even more than before). On my side I just suggest to follow the section here: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Most of the material you deleted were from the interviews they suggest (in Positions).

Can we agree this is a good start? I don't feel the need of most of the material is there now. Deconstruction is not (only) about Derrida. It is used in many other fields and people should be able to come here and get an idea of how it works (not so much from where it came and the particular conclusions you can get from it (e.g. the critic of the "metaphysics of presence" seems to me that appears as a conclusion and not as a premise... Derrida takes a lot of time to conclude that. It is not an argument he doesn't feel the need to argue about... It results from using “deconstruction” it is not something you need to deconstruct a “legal text” for example)

I will try to give my critical contribution, suggesting references, structure, etc. But I don't feel confortable rewriting it myself

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hibrido - I am simply following the consensus of dozens of other editors on this talk page. You (and I think one other?) appear to be the only editor who does not believe this article is overly technical and complex. And if you agree that much of the article is ", and therefore not appropriate, why do you persist in restoring this content? My suggestion to you would be to jump in and start reducing the technicality and unreadable nature of the article yourself, rather than tying to preserve it against the consensus of almost all editors on this page. Atshal (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

: You are talking about "the article" or about "the lead"? It was not me who has done the lead. Most of the lead is the result of a consunsus by two other editors. One wanted to impose his paragraph about "Metaphisics of presence" in a very agressive way (but getting a lot of suppport). The other wanted to talk about "Gramatology".

Once again you talk about "the article" and "original research": As far as I can read, you have just deleted most of it. I don't know what you are talking about. I agreee there is a lot of "personal opinions in it. And I think you just added some of your own now. Welcome. In my opinion you have done a terrible job. But I haven't reverted it.

All editors, including me, think this article need editing. My suggestion was and is only one: lets read together what Stanford has done, lets read the 2 pages from Derrida they suggest, and lets try to do a lead that is able to explain how you can read a legal text (for example) and deconstruct it.

Honestly: "identifying metaphysics of presence which is a set of assumptions that are proposed to be at the base of western philosophy.[citation needed] "?

Do you think this is clear to anyone? (to me it is not). Can you make it clear? (It was not me who asked for a ctiation. But I see I'm not alone).

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear god

This article is one of the few that when you read it, you end up more confused than before you read it. Just wanted to say that on record. I agree this article should be nuked from space and rewritten from scratch. 109.186.67.185 (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

* Support - As stated above, I agree. This article is incredibly inaccessible and must be rewritten in simpler, intelligible terms, in encyclopedic style. What is the process to "nuke" the fcker? Azx2 10:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

* Support - As stated above, I agree. The lead/lede I composed was clear, technically accurate (corroborated by both references to primary and secondary sources) and omitted quoting Derrida's deliberately obfuscated prose (Derrida creates evidence for his thesis in his corpus). My lead was degraded by a series of incompetent editors (e.g. that French architect who presents himself as a Derrida expert simply because he can read French) and the clown 'HibridMutante' (who doesn't actually understand Derrida and resorts to quoting him at copious length because he is unable to paraphrase him). These incompetent and destructive editors (amongst others) are encouraged and abetted by the serial buffoon 'Warshy' who also knows nothing of the topic but feels compelled to provide an opinion on the matter. So long as this band of clowns hover around this article--like flies around a turd--any attempt to improve it will be in vain. Warshy, if you want a better article then just STFU; unless you actually understand deconstruction you are not in a position to have an opinion on whether this lead is better than that lead. HibridMutante, you are a vandal. From watching your edits for over a year it appears that it is your objective to create an abstruse article that communicates literally nothing, an article that means nothing to you or to anyone else--a mélange of Derrida's most obscure and most recondite quotes that you are incapable of paraphrasing because you yourself do not understand them. The article in its current form is a pile of shit, it should be scrapped completely. The Talk page archives contain a short essay which I wrote over a year ago on what it means to write an encyclopedic article on deconstruction: see here. I still stand by that and it remains relevant. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a version we can revert to? Bhny (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I've lost track of the best prior version of the lead but this is far superior to what is in place at the moment (but that wouldn't be hard to achieve given that the present lead communicates barely anything). The referenced version of the lead is incomplete but it is a good foundation: it is as lucid as I could render it at the time, it is technically accurate and it is is encyclopedic in style. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the lead to that version Bhny (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

* Support As a random passer-by with no particular interest or expertise in the subject matter, I'd regardless like to voice my strong agreement with this. This article actually makes me angry by being, as far as I can tell, completely incoherent and almost entirely free of anything resembling useful information. Of course, that seems to be my reaction to Derrida quotes in general, and most of the text seems to be either those or slightly rearranged versions thereof. 87.92.107.210 (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

*Support* It just reads like gibberish to me. However I suggest trying to get a draft up to a very basic overview before nuking this. HalfHat 01:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Edit: This is the better version, this will need a lot of work by experienced Wikipedians and people who know the field to get it up to scratch, though I suppose xkcd may have givn me a bias 02:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

AnotherPseudonym, Please:

Be polite

Assume good faith

Avoid personal attacks

For disputes, seek dispute resolution

On my side I try to respect article policies:

No original research

Neutral point of view

Verifiability

My contributions to the final lead were small. My first contribution to this article was made many years ago. It included references to the "metaphisical of presence" that someone deleted/changed. After that many editors made their contributions (including you). I agree: the final result is a terrible "compromise".

It is true, as I told again and again here, my contributions basically follow Stanford approach.:"Derrida has provided many definitions of deconstruction. But three definitions are classical. The first is early, being found in the 1971 interview “Positions” and in the 1972 Preface to Dissemination: deconstruction consists in “two phases (Positions, pp. 41-42, Dissemination, pp.4-6)").

It looks a good starting point... why don't you try it? (do you understand it?)

Thanks

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

* Support Someone please re-write this article, especially the lede. The more complex concepts belong in the main body of the article. I shouldn't have to deconstruct the lede just to figure out what deconstruct means! Rip-Saw (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I found a nice, general definition of deconstruction "To deconstruct is to take a text apart along the structural “fault lines” created by the ambiguities inherent in one or more of its key concepts or themes in order to reveal the equivocations or contradictions that make the text possible." Found on http://www.iep.utm.edu/deconst/ Rip-Saw (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

* Support The entire article is so obtuse it's unreadable.Fatlenin (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

*Support* When I saw the heading "Dear god," I hoped this would be what I'd find underneath. I needed a clear definition of deconstruction for something I was researching and this (dare I say pretentiously opaque or opaquely pretentious) lede made me feel like I was starting to lose my faculties. Fine, get into the meat of it later in the article, but for the love of all that's sane, someone write an intro that says what the bloody thing is!PacificBoy 22:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

We are working on it, see further down on the talk page. I have proposed a new lede already.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

New proposal to the lead II

Deconstruction is a form of philosophical and literary analysis derived principally from Jacques Derrida.[1] In the 1980s it designated more loosely a range of theoretical enterprises in diverse areas [2] of the humanities and social sciences, including—in addition to philosophy and literature—law,[3][4][5]anthropology,[6] historiography,[7] linguistics,[8] sociolinguistics,[9] psychoanalysis, political theory, feminism, and gay and lesbian studies. Deconstruction still has a major influence in the academe of Continental Europe, South America and everywhere Continental philosophy is predominant, particularly in debates around ontology, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, hermeneutics, and the philosophy of language. It also influenced architecture (in the form of deconstructivism), music,[10] art,[11] and art criticism.[12]

Derrida started by constating that "from the moment that there is meaning there are nothing but signs. We think only in signs."[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] Also, following Ferdinand de Saussure, he considered language, as a system of signs where words have meaning only because of contrast-effects with other words. 'Red' means what it does only by contrast with 'blue', 'green', etc. 'Being' also means nothing except by contrast, not only with 'beings' but with 'Nature', 'God', 'Humanity', and indeed every other word in the language. No word can acquire meaning in the way in which philosophers from Aristotle to Bertrand Russell have hoped it might—by being the unmediated expression of something non-linguistic (e.g., an emotion, a sense-datum, a physical object, an idea, a Platonic Form).[26] If this is so, Derrida contends, it means that any given concept is constituted in reciprocal determination, in terms of its oppositions, e.g. being/nothing, one/multiple, truth/false, fair/unfair, beauty/ugly, essence/existence, receptivity/spontaneity, autonomous/heteronomous, transcendental/empirical, transcendent/immanent, mind/body, interior/exterior, normal/abnormal, sovereign/beast, marginal/central, speech/writing, nature/culture, bachelor/married, etc..[30][31]

Further, Derrida contends that "in a classical philosophical opposition we are not dealing with the peaceful coexistence of a vis-a-vis, but rather with a violent hierarchy. One of the two terms governs the other (axiologically, logically, etc.), or has the upper hand": signified over signifier; intelligible over sensible; speech over writing; activity over passivity, etc.[32] The first task of deconstruction would be to find and overturn these oppositions inside a text or a corpus of texts. But the final objective of deconstruction is not to surpass all oppositions, because it is assumed they are structurally necessary to produce sense. They simply cannot be suspended once and for all. The hierarchy of dual oppositions always reestablishes itself. Deconstrction only points to "the necessity of an interminable analysis" that can make explicit the decisions and arbitrary violence intrinsic to all texts.[33]

Finally, Derrida argues that it is not enough to expose and deconstruct the way oppositions work and then stop there in a nihilistic or cynical position, "thereby preventing any means of intervening in the field effectively".[34] To be effective, deconstruction needs to create new terms, not to synthesize the concepts in opposition, but to mark their difference and eternal interplay. This explains why Derrida always proposes new terms in his deconstruction, not as a free play but as a pure necessity of analysis, to better mark the intervals. Derrida called undecidables, that is, unities of simulacrum, "false" verbal properties (nominal or semantic) that can no longer be included within philosophical (binary) opposition: but which, however, inhabit philosophical oppositions, resisting and organizing it, without ever constituting a third term, without ever leaving room for a solution in the form of speculative dialectics (e.g. différance, archi-writing, pharmakon, supplement, hymen, gram, spacing).[35]

Is it better now? I try to focus in the process and not the conclusions Derrida or others produced with it (including the critic of "metaphisics of presence". I believe we can do it later in the article (it doesn't mean I don't think it is important).

I will come here tomorrow. If until the end of the week I have no feedback, I will publish this version.

Thanks

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I like the first paragraph a lot, I'm going to suggest we add that to the current article ASAP. Going past there I have some issues, first I think we can simplify some words lest we fall into the trap of the original article. Constating (second paragraph, first line) can be stating or another word, perhaps the interminable in the quote (third paragraph, final line) could become [unending], there are a few more words we could cut I'm sure for those with a smaller vocabulary. Signs could be explained more in the second paragraph as we have no background going into the article as to the meaning of it, and we don't need quite as long lists. I'd suggest removing also from the second paragraph "in the way in which philosophers from Aristotle to Bertrand Russell have hoped it might", and "in reciprocal determination", they're mostly a flourish. Those are the things that stood out in my first look over I would be okay if some of my changes were acknowledged transferring this alternative version of the lead to the main article.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Like this?

Derrida started by stating that "from the moment that there is meaning there are nothing but signs. We think only in signs."[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] Also, following Ferdinand de Saussure, he considered language, as a system of signs where words have meaning only because of contrast-effects with other words. 'Red' means what it does only by contrast with 'blue', 'green', etc. 'Being' also means nothing except by contrast, not only with 'beings' but with 'Nature', 'God', 'Humanity', and indeed every other word in the language. No word can acquire meaning being the unmediated expression of something non-linguistic (e.g., an emotion, a sense-datum, a physical object, an idea, a Platonic Form).[26] If this is so, Derrida contends, it means that any given concept is constituted in terms of its oppositions, e.g. being/nothing, one/multiple, truth/false, fair/unfair, beauty/ugly, essence/existence, receptivity/spontaneity, autonomous/heteronomous, transcendental/empirical, transcendent/immanent, mind/body, normal/abnormal, sovereign/beast, speech/writing, nature/culture, bachelor/married, etc..[30][31]

Further, Derrida contends that "in a classical philosophical opposition we are not dealing with the peaceful coexistence of a vis-a-vis, but rather with a violent hierarchy. One of the two terms governs the other (axiologically, logically, etc.), or has the upper hand": signified over signifier; intelligible over sensible; speech over writing; activity over passivity, etc.[32] The first task of deconstruction would be to find and overturn these oppositions inside a text or a corpus of texts. But the final objective of deconstruction is not to surpass all oppositions, because it is assumed they are structurally necessary to produce sense. They simply cannot be suspended once and for all. The hierarchy of dual oppositions always reestablishes itself. Deconstrction only points to the necessity of an unending analysis that can make explicit the decisions and arbitrary violence intrinsic to all texts.[33]

I understand we should make it smaller and we need to cut somewhere (reciprocal determination is not "flourish" ;) is a technical term, from structuralism. But I understand. Also, deliting the reference to Aristotle and Russell was a (good) option from Rorty, but ok :)

I assume I'm not the best person to pick the "words we could cut for those with a smaller vocabulary". If you have any other suggestion, feel free.

What would you suggest regarding the word "signs"? I believe peopel understand what a "sign" is... a link is not enought? (or we could use the traditionl "A values as B in C"... or... "a means b in c"...).. I would prefer not to add jargon like "meddiated" or "absense"... do you have any suggestions?

Well. If this is ok for you, we can publish it after tomorrow, if no one else gives there contribute (i will try to add links to to some words)

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

That will do for now as I'm eager to see some improvements made to the article. For the word "sign", unless you have read up on your structuralism (in which case you probably aren't using wikipedia as your main source on Deconstruction), you do not know what that means. I find signifier vs signified can be helpful for getting the point across relatively simply - a sign is that which signifies, structuralism suggest the it signifies a thing that transcends it while deconstruction suggests a signifier is only understood by the difference between the meaning of one sign and another. This is also an opportunity to explicitly introduce the idea of differance earlier in the article. Reciprocal determination is meaningful to those who already understand binary oppositions and confusing to those who have no idea what you're talking about, the sentence works with or without those particular words which is why I suggest removing it and why I refer to it as a flourish. To take from Orwell: "don't use two words where one will do". I have no specific suggestions on vocab right now, what I might do is run it through a lovely little app for writers called "Hemingway" - meant to simplify writing by highlighting complex or extraneous words or sentences. At the very least once I do that I should have an eye for some of the words we should consider simplifying.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't have the time this weekend, has planned. I wil ltry to do it asap.

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I am sorry I haven't jumped in and made my own version in the meantime but I've also been busy.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I think one of the issues is that the lead would just read as Derrida's opinion on Deconstruction, rather than about Deconstruction. Clearly he is a significant figure in the field, but the article is not about Derrida. Atshal (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

My suggestions implemented on the first paragraph (sorry about taking out the citations, they can be re-added it just helped me edit), still wouldn't mind cutting down the lists some more because most people are really just going to skim over the lists:

Deconstruction is a method of critical analysis of philosophical and literary language which emphasizes the internal workings of language and conceptual systems, the relational quality of meaning, and the assumptions implicit in forms of expression. This form of critical analysis is based on Jacques Derrida's 1967 work Of Grammatology. In the 1980s it designated a range of theoretical enterprises in the humanities and social sciences, including law, anthropology, historiography, linguistics, sociolinguistics, psychoanalysis, political theory, feminism, and gay and lesbian studies. Deconstruction still has a major influence in the academe belonging to the continental philosophy tradition, particularly in debates around ontology, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, hermeneutics, and the philosophy of language. It also influenced architecture (in the form of deconstructivism), music, art, and art criticism.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of further discussion, I have replaced the opening paragraph, will do the next paragraph ASAP.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ollyoxenfree, I think it was a good change.

Finally, I made the rest of the changes. I tried to keep the reference to "presence" in one sentence (considering that some other editors thought it was so important, I decided not to ignore it to avoid "hard feelings"). I kept the reference to Aristotle and Russell because I'm quoting Rorty. I think it is important to quote him because his work can help establishing bridge between different philosophical traditions. But feel free to review that. I also decided not to delete quotes. They are contributes from so many editors in the past that I didn’t feel comfortable to decide which ones to keep (generally they are good ones...). Also... it was not easy to brose in the text with so many quotes... Well, it is done.

I hope to have time in the near future to give some contributes to the rest of the article (including perhaps an example.)

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 6 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved, treating this as a technical request, because the original mover now believes his action does not accord with the usual naming rules. EdJohnston (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Deconstruction (philosophical theory) → Deconstruction – I messed up. I'm sorry. The philosophical theory is not the first thing I would think of when I hear "deconstruction", but only after a move failed did I start reading the faq on moves, "not what first comes to mind", primary topics, etc and page views clearly indicate the theory is by far what most people are looking for. I'm just trying to undo what I messed up. W3ird N3rd (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Quick Lesson in Clarity of Writing for all Editors

Always write with as few words as necessary, unless it would produce absolute gibberish. For example, this:

There has been discourse on the problems surrounding the difficulties in defining deconstruction. For example, Derrida himself claimed that all of his essays were attempts to define what deconstruction is, and that deconstruction is necessarily complicated and difficult to explain since it actively criticises the very language needed to explain it.

Could be better written as:

There have been problems defining deconstruction. Derrida claimed that all of his essays were attempts to define what deconstruction is, and that deconstruction is necessarily difficult to explain since it criticises the very language needed to explain it.

And the only difference is that one takes half the time to read.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Examples?

Maybe it simply can't be done, but the article confuses me as well. What I was looking/hoping for was an example or two of a deconstruction. I could explain in extreme detail what a car is, but without an example it will be virtually impossible to understand what a car actually is. If "deconstruction" as a concept is so poorly defined it's not possible to give a proper example, it means that "deconstruction" is nothing more than an opinion. In that case, the article should reflect that.

Put it this way: if the article is about a city (or any physical object), you show it's place on the map and a photograph/drawing of the entire city or a part of it. It it's about cars, you show a picture of a car. If it's about "arguments", you give some examples of arguments. If it's about quantum physics, you give an example of something they influence. If it's about a political view you explain what the view is, who holds it and what influence it has. If you can't show it and you can't provide an example of something it influences, it's an opinion. And opinions with little influence are, afaik, not encyclopedic. If I hate dogs and as a result kick a dog, my opinion doesn't have enough influence to be encyclopedic. If I kick every dog in the world to death, my opinion does have enough influence to be encyclopedic. (no, I don't kick dogs. generally don't fancy them either. please don't write an article about me) In short: this article needs some clear examples of not only who and what has been influenced, but also how deconstruction influenced that. W3ird N3rd (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, that is not an easy task, because, there are things that you can only "show", but not "explain". And the deconstruction process, is a "process of showing" what, perhaps, cannot be explained... But I will try to do it in the near future, giving an example around "normality" (It was here befdore, but it was deleted in recent editing) and perhaps another, from "law", perhaps trying to resume some seminal paper from the Critical legal studies movement. I believe others could add some examples from history, cultural studies, literal studies, content analysis, etc.

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. It's probably a good idea in this case to first go over them here on the talk page to make sure they are sufficiently clear. W3ird N3rd (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Derrida basically made it as hard as possible to describe or define or demonstrate Deconstruction, typical deconstructions are long and not always unfairly so. It is not entirely by chance there isn't any examples in the text.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I did suspect so. Since I still don't understand it myself, would it be possible to deconstruct a single sentence? Or would it be possible to provide an example of some text before and after it was influenced by deconstruction? I honestly still don't understand what deconstruction is so I simply don't know. Maybe it would be possible to explain what deconstruction is capable of? For example: "Deconstruction allowed feminists to understand gay and lesbian are essentially the same thing". This is not true, if this statement is correct it is by accident. But something like that, saying what difference deconstruction made in anything. I'm just wondering: with deconstruction being so hard to describe, define and demonstrate, are we actually sure it's not an opinion? W3ird N3rd (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is intended to be funny rather than serious, but I suggest that if you personally want to better understand deconstruction it may be helpful. However it is so completely apocryphal that is cannot be allowed in the main article outside the External Links section.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

What is it that you are not able to understand? I cannot understand what you cannot understand... I was paraphrasing Wittgenstein... a"logical picture" can only be showed, not "explained". Personnaly I read the explanation from Derrida, ort from Rorty here, or from the Stanford Enciclopeia here.. and I can understand it...

I gave an example around the term "normalitty" (vs parasitic, fictional, etc.) "in the analytical tradition from which Austin and Searle were only paradigmatic examples.

In the description of the structure called "normal," "normative," "central," "ideal,"the possibility of transgression must be integrated as an essential possibility. The possibility cannot be treated as though it were a simple accident-marginal or parasitic. It cannot be, and hence ought not to be, and this passage from can to ought reflects the entire difficulty. In the analysis of so-called normal cases, one neither can nor ought, in all theoretical rigor, to exclude the possibility of transgression. Not even provisionally, or out of allegedly methodological considerations. It would be a poor method, since this possibility of transgression tells us immediately and indispensably about the structure of the act said to be normal as well as about the structure of law in general.

He continued arguing how problematic was establishing the relation between "nonfiction or standard discourse" and "fiction," defined as its "parasite, “for part of the most originary essence of the latter is to allow fiction, the simulacrum, parasitism, to take place-and in so doing to "de-essentialize" itself as it were”.

He would finally argue that the indispensable question would then become:

what is "nonfiction standard discourse," what must it be and what does this name evoke, once its fictionality or its fictionalization, its transgressive "parasitism," is always possible (and moreover by virtue of the very same words, the same phrases, the same grammar, etc.)? This question is all the more indispensable since the rules, and even the statements of the rules governing the relations of "nonfiction standard discourse" and its fictional"parasites," are not things found in nature, but laws, symbolic inventions, or conventions, institutions that, in their very normality as well as in their normativity, entail something of the fictional.

What is it so hard to understand?

You get a term used by an author or many authors (normality), you show how its meaning there depends on contrast-effects with other words ("parasite", "fictionality"). You show that "one of the two terms governs the other (axiologically, logically, etc.), or has the upper hand" (normality over fictionality). In this case, you show that talking about "speech acts in general" and particularly about "law, symbolic inventions, conventions, institutions, in their very normality as well as in their normativity" entails "something of the fictional." And in the way you show everybody why you get a blind spot if you do this. In the end your reader, prehaps, can better grasp the limits of analitical philosophy in geneneral because "In the analysis of so-called normal cases, one neither can nor ought, in all theoretical rigor, to exclude the possibility of transgression. Not even provisionally, or out of allegedly methodological considerations. It would be a poor method, since this possibility of transgression tells us immediately and indispensably about the structure of the act said to be normal as well as about the structure of law in general

I really don't see what is so difficult to understand here... You can argue that it is a good method to "exclude the possibility of transgression" when talking about "law in general". But... I don't see why you don't understand his argument...

The explanation we have there is based on the Standford version.... you don't understand it either? Please, try to read it and come here and explain what you are not able to grasp. I will do my best to explain it to you.

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hibrido Mutante, thanks for taking the time, but we're obviously not on the same wavelength. I'm lost pretty much instantly. Ollyoxenfree, thanks! I took a look at that article and it makes more sense to me. I now also wonder how far TV Tropes is really off. This is what I came up with, I don't know to what degree this would be considered accurate:

In buildings, deconstruction means taking a building apart in a controlled manner to allow materials to be re-used or recycled. How exactly the materials are re-used or recycled is not specified. In the philosophical theory regarding textual criticism, one attempts to do the same with text and occasionally other works. Words and parts of sentences are looked at individually. Alternate meanings and opposite meanings for those words are considered, interpreting the text in various ways to understand it's meaning.

Deconstruction is not a formula. Different people could look at small aspects of a painting and explain what those aspects mean to them and how it changes their view of the painting as a whole. This is a form of deconstruction, but different people will not arrive at the same conclusion since any work will have a different meaning to each individual. Put simply, deconstruction could be considered a highly concious and verbose way of forming an opinion about a work. W3ird N3rd (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

W3ird, what you say doesn't make much sense. NO, "deconstruction" doesn't mean "taking a building apart in a controlled manner to allow materials to be re-used or recycledis not". You are thinking/looking for something else. If you still have dificulty here, try the link I gave from Stanford Standford and see if it helps (I suspect it will.. but if so, you should start considering the problem is on your side...)

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I follow the link you gave to TV Tropes ... well... no this is not what we are dealing with here. Please, create a new article and refer it in the disambiguation page

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)