Talk:Deconstruction

message: 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)
thread_title:  Who cares?  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Weird lede 

message: :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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. After relisting and notification of projects, the discussion is tied though trending towards "oppose" since the relisting.  Favonian (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Support per nom  --- Tbf69 P • T 15:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Philosophy has been notified of this discussion. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 17:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Literature has been notified of this discussion. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 17:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 3 March 2023 

message: New here :) so apologies if I’m not quite doing this right… Conscious this is a minor suggestion, but it would be an essentially new contribution (although… haha) so I don’t want to play fast and loose with it while I’m still new to editing.
I was looking through the section explaining deconstruction is “not post-structuralist”, and I was struck by the examples of structure and of genesis given therein.
Currently, the examples given are “sensory ideas” and “binary oppositions such as good and evil.” What strikes me as unhelpful about this is that these two seem, at least superficially, to have little if anything to do with one another. This suggests that the problem of structure and genesis is more a matter of choice, emphasis, or preference (“structure or genesis?”), rather than the way the paradoxical relationship between structure and genesis both complicates the intelligibility of each on their own and resists a simple synthesis of the two. This is especially unhelpful as it may feed into persistent misconceptions about deconstruction and Derrida’s work (e.g. that it is a simple rejection of structuralism as distastefully totalising), which this 
Fortunately, the latter of these two confusingly separate examples furnishes us with a better suggestion. My proposal would be to take instead the example of the Biblical ‘genesis’. On the one hand, you have the fall as the original act of sin/evil, and the act from which we are all cast into an economy of sin and from which all subsequent human evil flows; on the other, this genetic act was precisely to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, i.e. to enter into the structure within which this act is intelligible as evil. While I’ve probably not put it as clearly or as pithily as possible, I think this does a better job of getting at the problem Derrida is concerned with, while also being accessible to most readers. At a guess, I think readers are more likely to have heard of the Garden of Eden than of empiricist epistemology, and I think many people who read that story are puzzled by essentially this problem. “If Adam and Eve only knew the difference between good and evil after eating the apple, then surely they didn’t know it was wrong to eat the apple? And if they didn’t know it was wrong, can we really say it was evil to do so?” Obviously, this isn’t the last theological word on the issue but I think it can help readers grasp both the precise nature of the problem and its (conceptual, cultural, ethical) stakes. It also has the additional benefit of being explicitly discussed by Derrida, if I recall correctly, in The Animal That Therefore I Am. Interested in people’s thoughts. BarryBoosta (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example of the Structure/Genesis Problem 

message: The redirect DeconstructionIsm has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Aaron Liu (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:DeconstructionIsm]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]