Talk:Deconstruction/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Changed the lede to be more succinct

If anyone has any suggestions please bring them here before reverting the lede paragraphs, it was a mess before and now it is relatively simple. If there are any persisting difficulties understanding it, please bring them up or make edits to improve clarity.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 06:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You are asking to others do what you were not able to do. What is there it the result of a long process of consensus. Please, sugest before editing it.

I'm not saying I don't agree with your suggestion (in general is a good proposal) but, please, lets go step by step.

I will copy paste your lead here. I will read it and give my suggestions during the weekend. Thanks

Deconstruction (French: déconstruction) is a method of critical analysis concerned with the relationship between text and meaning. Jacques Derrida’s 1967 work Of Grammatology introduced the majority of ideas influential within deconstruction.[1] According to Derrida and taking inspiration from the work of Ferdinand de Saussure,[2] language is a system of signs and words only have meaning because of the contrast between these signs.[3][4][5] As Rorty contends "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)".[6] As a consequence meaning is never present, but rather is deferred to other signs. Derrida refers to the, in this view, mistaken belief that there is a self-sufficient, non-deferred meaning as logocentrism or metaphysics of presence. A concept then must be understood in the context of its opposite, such as being/nothingness, normal/abnormal, speech/writing, etc.[7][8] One of the two terms however is favoured by the tendency of logocentrism such as being over nothing, speech over writing, or male over female.[9] Deconstruction sets forth to overturn these biases and to demonstrate the interplay of the concepts in opposition, as they may not be synthesized as in Hegelian dialectics one may only observe.[10]

In the 1980s, deconstruction was being put to use in a range of theoretical enterprises in the humanities and social sciences,[11] including law[12][13][14] anthropology,[15] historiography,[16] linguistics,[17] sociolinguistics,[18] psychoanalysis, feminism, and LGBT studies. In the continental philosophy tradition, debates surrounding ontology, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, hermeneutics, and philosophy of language still refer to it today. Within architecture it has inspired deconstructivism, and it remains important in general within art,[19] music,[20] and literary criticism.[21]

ThanksHibrido Mutante (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I point out that the long process of consensus has concluded repeatedly that the current article is unusable. If you have any problems with the proposed edit please say so that we may get on to actually improving the terrible lede paragraphs. If you have no problems, and if nobody else has any issues, forever hold your peace and let's finally see some improvements. I'll give it a week, if nothing comes out in a week against the edit, I'll change it back again. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

To quote you when you made the current lede, I may point out against the consensus of other editors who told you repeatedly to stop: "If you want to correct something I have done, please feel free. BUT explain me properly why. And avoid ad hominem fallacies.... DO NOT REVERT everything. It is not polite!!(" reverting good-faith actions of other editors may also be disruptive and can even lead to the reverter being temporarily blocked from editing. Read the three-revert rule (part of the Edit warring policy") Could you please explain what you do not agree with in my contributions before editing what I have done. If you want reach "consensus" you have to explain what you do not agree." If you are going to take such a hypocritical stance by making massive changes to the article and then defending all attempts to inject clarity into them, at least explain why you think the edits being made are unreasonable. I say again you are the one acting against editorial consensus by refusing to allow any changes to your unilaterally produced lede paragraphs.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what you are talking about. Most of the present edit it wasn't done by me. What I said was that you should come here first and propose your changes to all. You deleted a lot of material (references, etc) that were made by other editors (as I said, most of it, wasn't done by me). In general I think yoru proposal is ok, even if it is clear (to me) you don't quite understand the subject. But you tried to use the material that was there and that is ok.

My suggestions is:

Deconstruction (French: déconstruction) is a method of critical analysis concerned with the relationship between signifiers and signified. Jacques Derrida’s 1967 work Of Grammatology introduced the majority of ideas influential within deconstruction.[1] According to Derrida and taking inspiration from the work of Ferdinand de Saussure,[2] language is a system of signs (the couple material signifier/intelligible signified) and signs (like words or wc signs) only have meaning because of the contrast between them.[3][4][5] As Rorty contends "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)".[6] As a consequence meaning is never present, but rather is deferred to other signs. Derrida refers to the, in this view, mistaken belief that there is a self-sufficient, non-deferred meaning as metaphysics of presence. A concept then must be understood in contrast with its opposite, such as being/nothingness, normal/abnormal, speech/writing, etc.[7][8]

In the 1980s, deconstruction was being put to use in a range of theoretical enterprises in the humanities and social sciences,[11] including law[12][13][14] anthropology,[15] historiography,[16] linguistics,[17] sociolinguistics,[18] psychoanalysis, feminism, and LGBT studies. In the continental philosophy tradition, debates surrounding ontology, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, hermeneutics, and philosophy of language still refer to it today. Within architecture it has inspired deconstructivism, and it remains important in general within art,[19] music,[20] and literary criticism.[21]

Notes:

Differance is both "paradigmatic difference" in "topological space" (eg. essence - existence) and "syntagmatic deferred" in "time" (e.g a word only gets its meaning inside a sentence...).

Could you please give me a quote where Derrida "refers to the belief that there is a self-sufficient, non-deferred meaning as logocentrism"?

I cannot agree with your wording here:

One of the two terms however favoured as being over nothing, speech over writing, male over female, or normal over abnormal.[9] Deconstruction sets forth to overturn these biases and to demonstrate the interplay of the concepts in opposition, as they may not be synthesized as in Hegelian dialectics one may only observe.[10]

Could you propose another? You can find an author that favours essence over existence, and another that does the opposite. You can find authors that favours matter over ideas and others that do the opposite. Etc. It looks to me you read Derrida (and deconstruction) as saying that everybody do the same... it simply doesn't make sense... It looks you never really read Derrida... normally he will show how different authors make the contrast in different ways but, each other, in the end, in their own texts depend on the opposite view... I believe you are reducing the all deconstruction method to the case of immediate and mediated sense ("presence") where, in fact the all-western philosophical tradition seems to agree...

Also, please consider that Derrida creates a new term to refer to the difference between the two terms ("before") as being different from a synthesis ("after")

Thanks

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I will propose another in a few days, but may have more difficulty working with you in the next few weeks or month. Hopefully by Monday I'll have something to show.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. If you agree with my review of the first paragraphs, you can chage it (there a lot of references that other editors proposed and that are quite interesting... It is a shame that we just delet it all... but... it is ok for me...). Regrading the final paragraph, a suggest we mantaine the correspndent one that is there until we both feel confortable with a final version.Hibrido Mutante (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

"Could you please give me a quote where Derrida "refers to the belief that there is a self-sufficient, non-deferred meaning as logocentrism"?" - Derrida and other deconstructionists use metaphysics of presence, logocentrism, and phallogocentrism interchangeably. This has been repeated to me so many times I've never heard anyone have an issue with it before.

"It looks to me you read Derrida (and deconstruction) as saying that everybody do the same... it simply doesn't make sense... It looks you never really read Derrida... normally he will show how different authors make the contrast in different ways but, each other, in the end, in their own texts depend on the opposite view... I believe you are reducing the all deconstruction method to the case of immediate and mediated sense ("presence") where, in fact the all-western philosophical tradition seems to agree..." - I believe you're misinterpreting Derrida and myself here. Derrida did argue that there was a privileging of some things over others in most of western philosophy, he may see some small exceptions, but for the most part he did see a great deal of uniformity in the cases of concepts tied to logocentrism. Presence being the obvious example, but also speech (as in logocentrism) and masculinity (as in phallocentrism). Remember that one of the essential elements of the critique of structuralism that Derrida produced was that structuralism could not unbiasedly view signs due to logocentrism's emphasis of signified over signifier. This doesn't mean the western philosophical tradition was in agreement, but that their basis was more-or-less the same and that basis was shaky. Disagreements such as say, western philosophy of ethics, would in Derrida's view come back to a search for the Good in the Platonic sense and attempting to define that, the assumption of a present-at-hand Good is the logocentrism at work, and it was just a matter of how you defined it (Aristotle's flourishing/accomplishment of one's ergon, Utilitarianism's wellbeing, Kant's categorical imperatives, etc). From Derrida's perspective it made much more sense to start from a phenomenological perspective, hence his favouring of the Levinasian Other as the basis for morality, a non-deconstructable aporia. But anyways, here is the ground I'm willing to give ground to allow for your version, with the final paragraph intact for now. I will be continuing to argue for my version as it is fine how it is. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Discrepancy regarding the use of "method"

The lede opens with identifying deconstruction as a "method" despite the fact that Derrida very clearly took exception to that term being applied to what might more accurately be described as a practice or something else. The wiki has an entire section dedicated to this disavowal of deconstruction as method which directly contradicts the opening sentence of the lede. i feel this should be rectified. Any thoughts on alternative terms we might use to replace "method" and "analysis" for that matter, since Derrida rejected both of those terms outright? Cheers! TheArcane03 (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)TheArcane03

Good catch the problem is that if we want to reduce Deconstruction to something outside Deconstruction and stay true to the spirit of Derrida we'll have to talk about it in terms of an aporia that Derrida considered undeconstructable (the basis of his support for a pseudo-Levinasian morality). "Deconstruction is a body of theory concerned with...", "Deconstruction is a philosophy concerned with...", or "Deconstruction is a critical outlook..." (given his occasionally phenomenological methods he doesn't appear to have something against point of view)?--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2015

Jacques Derrida's name is spelled incorrectly in the FIRST LINE of the article! It should be "Jacques", not "Jacque." Salibanr (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Done Thank you. --Stabila711 (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Article reads like complete gibberish

This article may make sense to someone familiar with the topic, but to the lay-person it might as well be greek. I am not exaggerating here. I literally cannot comprehend anything that is being said here and I strongly suspect the same would apply to any lay-person.

W3ird N3rd, thank you for posting the link to the TV tropes article. I was at least able to obtain a basic understanding of the concept. I hope it's not massively misleading. JiFish0 (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The TV Tropes article is not incredibly accurate, and it isn't covering exactly the same type of deconstruction as the philosophical construct of Derrida's. Trust me, this article is a vast improvement over a year ago, and I'd ask that instead of outright condemning the article you provide constructive criticism so that we may together work towards making it more readable for the layman.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd _love_ to provide some constructive criticism, but I literally cannot understand enough of the article to do so. It's a case of understanding the words but the sentences making no sense. Is there an article the other 'type' of deconstruction? Is that information burried in this article? JiFish0 (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

JiFish0, does my explanation (starting with "In buildings, deconstruction means..") make sense to you? And Ollyoxenfree, is my explanation even remotely accurate? If not, could it be modified so it becomes accurate enough to use in the article? W3ird N3rd (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The easiest way to understand "deconstruction" is that it is intellectual charlatanism that arose as part of a nutty movement in art and literature criticism, that thankfully is in decline, called "postmodernism". For example, post modernists will "deconstruct" Newton's Laws and through this "deconstruction" claim that they are invalid because they are jut a manifestation of "male domination and capitalism" (becasue, for example gravitation resembles the "attraction a man penis for a vagina, or the capitalist's attraction for resources and assets" - I'm not making this up!). It has become associated with the political/economic left even though actual leftists (for example Noam Chomsky or almost certainly Marx weer he alive today) reject it as total nonsense. The best understanding of "deconstruction" can be had by looking up the "Sokal Affair" article.

I'm sorry W3ird N3rd your explanation isn't particularly accurate. How about this, before I go changing the article more and run up against more obscurantist editors I'll try and explain deconstruction to the two of you. The anonymous comment left above this is of course inaccurate and unfair. The Sokal Affair has nothing to do with deconstruction, and the example interpretation is senseless from anybody's perspective. Here goes: deconstruction cares primarily about the relationship between text and the meaning (or lack of) in it. A central belief is in differance, basically stating that meaning comes from the relationship between words and to their etymologies (synchronic and diachronic sources of meaning) rather than the word itself just having a meaning independent of context. From this view, since words are always understood in contrast with what is and what is not present, meaning is never totally there. The view that meaning is totally there is considered a bias that pervades philosophy called metaphysics of presence. Instead meaning is deferred to other elements of the text and to what is left unstated. Now to add another element in, there are also these things called binary oppositions, these are two elements that are opposites of each other and they can be anything. For example, existence and non-existence, traditionally certain philosophers such as Hegel believed that such an opposition cancels out in what could be put over-simplified as a synthesis of the thesis and antithesis. He believed for instance that the synthesis of existence and non-existence (being and non-being) was becoming. In Derrida's view, the synthesis cannot occur and not only that but the opposition is hierarchical, in other words the metaphysics of presence, the bias we all use, favours one side over the other. Existence is better than non-existence, straight is better than gay, action is better than words, etc. One can go on to show that often when a text tries to express a certain point of view, it may assume the opposite viewpoint. For example a support of gay rights might be written in the language of heteronormativity, etc. Does that make sense at all? --Ollyoxenfree (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay I had a moment of idleness so I just decided, hey, why not remake the lede from that explanation and reuse some of the stuff already there. So as of now, I have updated the lede so that hopefully it has greater clarity. I'll make a new section about that but comments are appreciated.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not because W3ird comes here saying what ever he wants that it gives you the authority to do what you want. What is there is result from consensus from many editors and you have to respect it.

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ollyoxenfree! It makes.. some sense. The article now as well, I feel like I'm beginning to understand it. But there's a problem. Various animals make sounds and some apes (read it in a newspaper so no source sorry) produce various grunts that have some meaning. They had 4 grunts or so with meanings like "food" and "danger". And language doesn't seem to be 100% culture, some of it is hardwired in our brain. Some words or combinations are just really likeable. (or the opposite) I'm pretty sure (not sure if it was ever tried, it's kinda not humane) that if you put a few human babies together and let them develop their own language, it won't be 100% random. I saw a test on TV where participants were shown images of a spikey cartoon character and a bubbly cartoon character. They asked: who is Kiki and who is Bubba? Everybody knew. Kiki was the spikey character. So words/sounds do appear to have meaning all by themselves.

Simply put, looks to me like Derrida was wrong. ;-) His method could still provide interesting insights or inspiration, just like mushrooms can, but that doesn't mean any of it is true.

Also (but that may just be me) I flat out disagree with "Existence is better than non-existence, straight is better than gay, action is better than words". This completely depends on the context. Is action better than words? Not when you're talking about a rapist. I'd rather a rapist would speak and try to explain to us what is going on in their mind rather than taking action. Or a politician, or some investment bankers? I'd rather they would talk and try to reach consensus instead of jumping to some silly action that's not completely thought through. Straight better than gay? If you want to reproduce, I guess. But otherwise it's like saying red is better than blue. Existence better than non-existence, you'd think there would be no argument.. Yet I'm grateful for many things because they do not exist. (anymore) And there are various things where I'm thinking almost every day how much better the world would be if they didn't exist. Existing and not existing are two sides of the same coin. Many great artists are not great because of what they show, because of what they bring into existence, but because of what they do not bring into existence. (in that case: the things they do not publish and put straight into the bin) And often, something first needs to not exist before somebody can make it exist. Many words would cross my mind as I write this. If I wrote every single one, this would be even more of a mess than it already is. The text becomes (more or less ;-)) something coherent because of everything my mind had to create and didn't get written down. But if all that had never existed, this text couldn't exist either.

Long story short: in order to make lemonade, you need lemons. The lemons no longer existing afterwards is crucial to the creation of lemonade. Existence and non-existence are two sides of the same coin. I don't prefer one over the other. I might try later to write yet another short description of deconstruction, but I'm not sure there's a point to it. W3ird N3rd (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Derrida is committed, like most post-modernists, to anti-humanism. The belief that there is no fixed human nature, refer to Foucault's argument with Chomsky on some of the evidence that you point to in your reply, suffice to say the argument is more two-sided than you imagine. That said, I'm not an anti-humanist, I believe there is a fixed human nature, however I'm telling you what Derrida believes not what I believe. To your next point: "Also (but that may just be me) I flat out disagree with 'Existence is better than non-existence, straight is better than gay, action is better than words'." Derrida doesn't believe that, however he believes that there is a general bias in those directions underlying western philosophy which he was attempting to rectify. His philosophy attempted to deconstruct those hierarchies if you will. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

xkcd.com/451 174.21.117.240 (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

That's why I came here to try and improve it. It is better than it was before, it still needs work, but its made progress at least. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Make article more "universal"

Changes made to the last paragraph in the introduction made it to much "american centric". Deconstruction is still quite important in Humanities, Social Sciences and Law in Continental Europe and every where Continental Philosophy prevais (South America, Africa, etc). Specially Law (where Romano-Germanic law prevails) and Content Analysis (where this is basically "common sense"). The changes I made were because in Continental Europe: a) It was not only in the 80s that Decunstruction was important in the referred disciplines b) In Philosophy, Humanities and Social Sciences we can not talk about "Western universities" but we need to make the difference between Continental Europe and "Anglo-saxon". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibrido Mutante (talk • contribs) 17:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Deconstruction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130516144840/http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=13&vol=6&no=1 to http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=13&vol=6&no=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130516144840/http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=13&vol=6&no=1 to http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=13&vol=6&no=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Both links lead to the same place. So, there could be some combining of references (or deletion of the one that's an external link, since it is referenced in article body). Dhtwiki (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Regret

It's a shame that there doesn't appear to be any way to explain this topic in a way that doesn't sound like complete nonsense. EEng 17:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It is quite surprising to me how this is almost common sense to any Humanities' graduate in continental Europe and is so hard to anglo-saxon ones to understand it. I don't even understand what is so difficult to understand (is it because they don't read Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger, Nietzsche, Marx... perhaps... even if I don't see a complete dependence here... reading habits? latin grammar structure? ... it is a fact that when I try to read these authors in English it becomes harder... ). It is clearly another "language game" and comes from another "form of life"... but... well... it is not exactly rocket science. I really would like to help... Do you think they are doing a better job here? What could we learn from them to improve our article here: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Derrida - Deconstruction

--Hibrido Mutante (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it would help if examples of the practice of deconstruction could be given, otherwise one just reads a tangle of undefined abstract nouns. Examples might help to show the meaning, if any. Derrida seems to read like a complete charlatan, but I'm not quite sure that he was one. Seadowns (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I've semi-protected the page for a month due to a persistent semi-vandal. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

"For deconstruction of buildings, see Deconstruction (building). For the approach to post-modern architecture, see Deconstructivism. For other uses, see Deconstruction (disambiguation)."

really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.139.148.41 (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

This article still doesn't make any sense

If the objective of this page is to show that text can exist without meaning, then it has been successful. It makes no sense to anyone who doesn't already understand deconstructivism. VineFynn (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

There are no easy answers to this. Derrida was famously hard to understand, and he argued that deconstruction could not be properly be explained with language because it was an attack on the very language that would be needed to describe it. The clearest explanation I have found is this 90s article by Chip Morningstar, which includes a simple example of deconstructing a text. But because of his critical view, it is unlikely we would be able to use it as a description. Anywikiuser (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Why exactly should Wiki defer to deconstructionist "definitions" of deconstruction? They appear to be obscurantist, and I see no reason why their refusal to be hypocritical in describing something that defines itself as indescribable should prompt us to ignore sources which give an actually coherent description of deconstruction, even if that definition does not meet the explicitly unmeetable standards of the concept/subscribers in question. There are more authorities on this matter than deconstructionists, after all.

I also don't see a "critical" view being an issue in describing it, but rather Morningstar's lack of authority on the matter; then again, with a subject matter that seems to be defended from criticism by the fact that nobody understands it, what does that matter?

Apologies if I seem bothered, I'm not- I just can't seem to articulate this in a manner which doesn't come off as critical of deconstruction (which I guess *is* telling lol) VineFynn (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I should clarify, by "definitions", I mean "denunciations of definition". I know this article already contains definitions by non-deconstructionists, but they all seem to err on the side of being non-comprehensive- none of them seem to discuss its apparent normativity (which is to say, it says you *should* do something) vis-a-vis literary analysis, despite the fact that it is supposedly not a critical theory. Then again, what would I know? VineFynn (talk) 08:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Multiple issues: more citations needed, research paper, synthesis

I've just added a message book to underline three issues with this article. Here is a brief description of the problems:

• More citations needed: quite a few claims seem to be made without a reference. To help solve this, a first step, which I'll try to work towards, would be to add "[citation needed]" in various places.
• Research paper : the article currently reads like an academic essay presenting the concept. This is not appropriate for a wikipedia article. Fixing this is harder, as it would require in my view to signficantly restructure and rewrite the article.
• Synthesis : in various places, the article reads like an unpublished synthesis of views on the concept. I confess that I am not entirely sure whether I am making correct use of this template so feel free to remove or change this issue in the message box.

Fa suisse (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Fa suisse: As a courtesy, per @VineFynn:'s comments, I'm pinging you to say that I think (strongly) that there's no real point in the Research Paper template, as the content is in fact a very academic one. The article probably should read more like an academic essay than most Wikipedia articles, the same way that thoroughly examined scientific concepts should. I've already removed the template, but we can reopen the issue. Triplingual (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Making "Sense"

Regarding whether the article "makes sense", it seems like there's an intra-Wikipedia conflict here. For what I think is a parallel example, look at the regular Uncertainty principle article. Though I have a basic grasp of the Uncertainty Principle, I can't follow most of that page. Does that make it not OK? No, it makes it OK for a particular audience that's sufficiently versed in math and science language and practice. This article, too, doesn't need to shy away from complexity and arcana. If it's not comprehensible, maybe you're not sufficiently versed in literary theory. (That's not a put-down. I don't understand Deconstruction terribly well, and I've tried.)

If there's already a settled discussion on Wikipedia about how literary theory has to be explained so everyone can understand it and scientific theories can be explained in a way that's beyond most people, I'd be happy (honestly!) to read it. Triplingual (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you User talk:Triplingual. Your explanation makes complete sense to me, and it looks to me also like a very humble and good one. Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep in mind that there is a difference between only be understandable to an audience that is sufficiently versed in the jargon of the field etc, and only being understandable by an audience which already understands the concept. I'm not a literary critic, so I'm not saying that it does fall into the latter category, but I do have my suspicions given the criticisms section of this article (which is about the only bit I can confidently say I understand, since I'm supposedly not meant to be able to think of deconstruction in terms of.. language? anyway.) VineFynn (talk) 08:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Totally get that there's a difference. There's also a difference between "jargon" (generally a negative term) and "appropriately specific vocabulary". Here again, to use science as an example, a quark is a quark. It's not a thingy, doohicky, or whatsit. It is addressable by circumlocution, but that tends to use specific vocabulary as well. Remember, just because there's criticism of a concept as being excessively abstruse or hollow doesn't mean it is.

Since it's been a couple weeks, I'm going to go ahead and strip the warning about this being written like a research article. Triplingual (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you User:Triplingual. I completely agree with you. warshy ^(¥¥) 22:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

You should reply to the talk section regarding its addition if you are looking to remove it. Since you didn't and you hadn't previously mentioned your intent to remove it, there was no reason to expect a reply from the user who added it- after a few weeks or ever (or indeed from anyone who might otherwise have defended its addition). You should revert its deletion. VineFynn (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Not to start an edit war or anything (since I don't watch this page and wouldn't stop you reverting even if I did), but I added it back for you :) VineFynn (talk) 07:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what section you are referring to, and I do not agree with your rationale anyhow. Since I had already agreed with User:Triplingual's arguments twice above, I am going to revert you. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I should think it was pretty obvious what section I was referring to- the one created by the person who made the edit in the first place: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deconstruction#Multiple_issues%3A_more_citations_needed%2C_research_paper%2C_synthesis Trippy's section here reads like a reply to *my* post, not the linked section, so your extremely enthusiastic agreement didn't seem relevant to the research paper tag either. I had no idea Trippy planned to remove the tag, which is where my rationale comes from- it doesn't matter whether you "agree" with it or not.VineFynn (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@VineFynn: Not sure where you got "Trippy", but that's not my name or handle. I've courtesy-replied to Fa suisse above. Triplingual (talk) 03:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. Thanks, thoughVineFynn (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Examining the link between ontic states (actualities regardless of human knowledge and interpretation) and human sentience, knowledge, interpretation, experiencing

There is not a single case. Some ontic states are misinterpreted, some introspective experiences are ontic states in themselves but unrelated to other actualities, etc. Also, mixed relationships are very common: partially correct interpretations with some extra causally unconnected aspects.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410B:CC2F:8C54:2B3A:669:3F53 (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

2016 Flags Need Confirmation or Removal

The flags on References and External Links seem unnecessary to me, but I don't have the baseline knowledge to be confident in removing them. Someone more well-versed should examine the sections and either remove the flags or update the flag dates. As it stands, the flags cast what I think is unnecessary suspicion on the sections. Triplingual (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Since the "flags" (which are usually called templates by their particular names) were placed, the "Further reading" section has been reduced by about half, but the "External links" section by only three links. So, the latter section, especially, could use a going over before removing the challenging template; but I wouldn't arbitrarily remove either template without some investigation. For example: are any external links duplicates of article citations, or is the link to the archived German law article important enough to include, e.g. is it not referenced at one of the other links? Dhtwiki (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Who cares?

I've flagged many statements with {who} in my time, but there are cases where I find this teetering into obnoxiousness.

Consequently, some critics[who?] have considered the exchange to be a series of elaborate misunderstandings rather than a debate, while others[who?] have seen either Derrida or Searle gaining the upper hand.

Is it really not to be possible to indicate that distinct camps exist without having to name names in every instance?

Sometimes the problem with actually naming names is that you run smack into undue attention, in having to privilege given exemplars over others (all those whose names remain unspoken).

That's not perfection, either. — MaxEnt 21:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Weird lede

The article currently begins:

The term deconstruction refers to approaches to understanding the relationship between text and meaning. It was introduced by the philosopher Jacques Derrida, who defined it as a turn away from Platonism's ideas of "true" forms and essences...

This sounds.... wrong. Based on that definition, one might say "Last year was the year of my deconstruction, by which of course I mean my turn away from Platonism's ideas of true forms and essences". But I really don't think Derrida meant to define deconstruction as a person's (or any other entity's) transition in that manner. And the first sentence is similarly weird: It seems to state that deconstruction comprises all such approaches taken together, but I think it meant to imply that any such approach, considered separately, is a deconstruction. Sneftel (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)