What the fuck is deconstruction and why is post-modern bs so obsessed with it?

What the fuck is deconstruction and why is post-modern bs so obsessed with it?
give me some examples of deconstruction, lads. The smaller the better.
Like, write a para deconstructing Yea Forums.
What are some good examples of it in popular literally work or maybe its Yea Forums adaptation?

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 116.34K)

Other urls found in this thread:

rsbakker.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/reactionary-atheism-hagglund-derrida-and-nooconservativism/
rsbakker.wordpress.com/2016/10/04/derrida-as-neurophenomenologist/
rsbakker.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/the-one-eyed-king-consciousness-reification-and-the-naturalization-of-heidegger/
andrewgripp.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/derrida-for-dummies-a-semiological-understanding-of-god/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Think of a show like Family Guy making fun of the tropes of other shows

It boils down to explaining things you can't (out of a lack of philosophical competence and insight) understand or explain in a way that satisfies ones requirement for dismissing it.
Imagine a psychopath who is convinced empathy isn't real using some nonsensical statements and how silly it would look from an outside view.

> What the fuck is deconstruction and why is post-modern bs so obsessed with it?
>I don’t know what it is but I have already decided that everything affiliated with it is illogical
Trying to get you to understand it is like reading Ulysses to a goldfish

it's a coping mechanism for midwits who aren't capable of doing mathematics and the hard sciences

The idea is to expose things that are to assumed to be permanent, immutable, natural, universal truths and realities as socially constructed, meaning that they are instead contingent on the social, cultural and historical circumstances in which they are embedded. It is usually then implied that they can be ignored or replaced with “better” social constructs.

>What the fuck is deconstruction
rsbakker.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/reactionary-atheism-hagglund-derrida-and-nooconservativism/

"Trace and differance, far from ‘explaining’ the ‘ultratranscendental’ possibility of ‘life,’ are themselves open/exposed to explanation in naturalistic terms. They are not magical.
Deconstruction *can be* naturalized.
So what then is synthesis? How does reflexivity arise from irreflexivity?

Before tackling this question we need to remind ourselves of the boggling complexity of the world as revealed by the natural sciences. Phusis kruptesthai philei, Heraclitus allegedly said, ‘nature loves hiding.’ What it hides ‘behind’ is nothing less than our myriad cognitive *incapacities*, our inability to fathom complexities that outrun our brain’s ability to sense and cognize. ‘Flicker fusion’ in psychophysics provides a rudimentary and pervasive example: when the frequency of a flickering light crosses various (condition-dependent) thresholds, our experience of it will ‘fuse.’ What was a series of intermittent flashes becomes continuous illumination. As pedestrian as this phenomena seems, it has enormous practical and theoretical significance. This is the threshold that determines, for instance, the frame rate for the presentation of moving images in film or video. Such technologies, you could say, actively exploit our sensory and cognitive bottlenecks, hiding with nature *beyond our ability differentiate.*

Differentiations that exceed our brain’s capacity to sense/cognize *make no difference*. Or put differently, *information* (understood in the basic sense of systematic differences making systematic differences) that exceeds the information processing capacities of our sensory and cognitive systems simply does not exist for those systems–*not even as an absence*. It simply never occurs to people that their incandescent lights are in fact *discontinuous*. Thus the profundity of the Heraclitean maxim: not only does nature conceal itself behind the informatic blind of complexity, it *conceals this concealment*."

Derrida was a pedophile: everything he invented can be dismissed as pedo witchcraft.

>What the fuck is deconstruction
rsbakker.wordpress.com/2016/10/04/derrida-as-neurophenomenologist/

"Phenomenologists typically respond to the problem by invoking *horizons*, the idea that nonpresent contextual enormities nevertheless remain experientially accessible—present—as implicit features of the phenomenon at issue. You could argue that horizons scaffold the whole of reportable experience, insofar as so little, if anything, is available to us in our entirety at any given moment. We see and experience coffee cups, not perspectival slices of coffee cups. So in Husserl’s analysis of ‘time-consciousness,’ for instance, the past and future become intrinsic components of our experience of temporality as ‘retention’ and ‘protention.’ Even though absent, they nevertheless decisively structure phenomena. As such, they constitute important domains of phenomenological investigation in their own right.

One way to put Derrida’s point is that there is always some occluded context, always some integral part of the background, driving phenomenology. From an Anglo-American, pragmatic viewpoint, his point is obvious, yet abstrusely and extravagantly made: Nothing is given, least of all meaning and experience. What Derrida is doing, however, is making this point *within the phenomenological idiom*, ‘reproducing’ it, as he says in the quote. The phenomenology itself reveals its discursive impossibility. His argument is ontological, not epistemic, and so requires speculative commitments regarding *what is*, rather than critical commitments regarding what can be known. Derrida is providing what might be called a ‘hyper-phenomenology,’ showing how the apparently originary, self-sustaining, character of experience is a product of its derivative nature.

But since Derrida, like the phenomenologist, has only the self-same keyhole, he does what humans always do in conditions of radical low-dimensionality: he confuses the extent of his ignorance for a new and special kind of *principle*. Even worse, his theory of meaning is a *semantic* one: as an intentionalist philosopher, he works with all the unexplained explainers, all the classic theoretical posits, handed down by the philosophical tradition. And like most intentionalists, he doesn’t think there’s anyway to escape those posits save by *going through them*."

>le heckin Ulysses!!!

Isn't that like the opposite of reductionism?

That first part of pic related bothers me
>unquestionable metaphysical assumptions
Am I take take this to mean that critical theorists and deconstructionists have such an airtight philosphy that their fundamentals are proven? That they've managed to prove the more known from the less known?

I think it's a typo of unquestioned, deconstructionists usually expose tacit ontological commitments in texts

That puts my autism slightly at ease. I've no problem with the concept of deconstructionism, as long as those who fellate themselves over it are aware their standards can always be used against them. Thats something Carnap, autistic faggot, seemed to forget.

That's just historicism, but there's clearly a qualitative difference between people like Vico and Herder, and pomo Derrida.

Doesn't occasionalism or pre-established harmony solve this?

it's a pseud thing. pop culture nerds will talk about movies and TV shows being "deconstructions" all the time. it's just redditors trying to sound smart

>Doesn't belief in winning the Magical Lottery Ticket solve this?

this has always been my confusion with deconstruction, how is it distinct from any other hermeneutics or from heidegger's destruktion?

Occasionalism does solve all philosophical problems, that was Ghazali's point. Put down your Grammatology and pick up the Quran.

>Occasionalism
>pick up the Quran.
Prove to me that *your* God is God, and not lovecraftian Azathoth, the Nuclear Chaos.
Prove to me that designating the tolerated uncertainty as "God", implies doing what *your* set of instructions tells you to do.

Attached: azathoth2.jpg (1024x906, 503.41K)

>pick up the Quran

Attached: pukes.webm (448x255, 450.52K)

>What the fuck is deconstruction and why is post-modern bs so obsessed with it?

It's literally German Nazi philosophy. "You can't no nuffin" straight from the Kraut's mouth. Derrida only copied and pasted Heidegger into French, don't be fooled.

Why would that matter? Of course God can recreate the world however he chooses according to his will, that's what occasionalism is.

>Of course God can recreate the world however he chooses
And how is this statement helpful? I can, likewise, say "All causes originated from a magical unicorn's fart. Because I said so, and because the unicorn is magical". Dispove.

What is way more helpful is this:
1, Humans perception is faulty.
2. What you perceive as causes, are not. Hail agnosia and anosognosia.
3. You do not have access to this kind of inquiry. Same way as you can claim "I know", but you cannot provide a theoretical explanation of what the hell this "know" means.
4. Philosophy is a misapplication of your cognitive inquiry toolkit.
5. Your cognition (- all moral judgement aside -) is an error, spawned by your brain's inability to differentiate it's own states in space-time.
6. ???
7. Whatever god/Big Bang/Azathoth is, It isn't sentient the same way as you and It doesn't give a fuck about you. You are not exceptional, your cognition is not exceptional, your planet is not the Centre of the Universe. No one is going to tweak the reality in your favor, just because you went to the Church on Sunday.

Yep, were all just puppets, slaves if you will, of Allah.

>Derrida only copied and pasted Heidegger
rsbakker.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/the-one-eyed-king-consciousness-reification-and-the-naturalization-of-heidegger/

"The problem, Heidegger thought, one riddling all philosophy back to Aristotle, lay in a single fundamental equivocation: the inclination to think *being* in terms of beings, and the faulty application of what might be called ‘thing logic’ to things that are not things at all and so require a different logic or inferential scheme altogether. The problem, in other words, was the universal tendency to ‘level’ what he called the Ontological Difference, the crucial distinction between *being* proper and beings, between what was prior and ontological, and what was derivative and ontic. Any philosophy guilty of this equivocation he labelled the Metaphysics of Presence.

What I want to do is clarify his clarification with some obscurities of my own, speculative possibilities that, if borne out by cognitive neuroscience, will have the effect of *naturalizing* the Ontological Difference, explaining what it is that Heidegger was pursuing in, believe it or not, *empirical* terms. Heidegger, of course, would argue that this must be yet another example of putting the ontic cart in front of the ontological horse, but I’ve long since lost faith in the ability of rank speculation to ‘ground’ anything, let alone the sum of scientific knowledge. I would much rather risk crossing my ontological wires and use the derivative to explain the fundamental than risk crossing my epistemic wires and use the dubious to ‘ground’ the reliable."

Yes, but His true will and specific set of instructions is written in the Necronomicon by Al-Hazred, not Quran. Disprove.

It is all just a branch of the relativism tree, just like psychoanalysis.
It is not really worth engaging with either, as any complaints or attacks of Derrida or Deconstruction will be met by its supporters by claims that there was a misreading of any one of his obscured texts.

At the end of the day, as you said, deconstruction can be deconstructed, just like the beliefs of the psychoanalyst can be chalked up to various extraneous circumstances, similar to how the psychoanalyst explains the beliefs of others.

Thats my thing man, and why do you think that is? Like obviously these guys are really smart, but they never seem to apply their standards to themselves? Its that sort of intellectual hypocrisy which leads me to see anyone into Foucault with suspicion. "Muh discourses as power," as if that in itself can't be dismissed from the same logic.

It's just Jewish people revenege-intellectualising in the post-holocaust WW2 era. They don't have divine forgiveness so they make weird stuff up

Isnt that just Malebranche?
I have something on Vico I'm reading right now

Vico still believed in meta-historical truth, hence his belief that metaphysics and Christianity would be vindicated over rationalism *by rationalism’s own criteria.* In Derrida, metaphysics is violence.

I've seen plenty of people say that Neon Genesis Evangelion is a deconstruction of the mecha genre but I don't even know what that means.

that's just idiotic

Derrida is an arch-Hegelian on my view, very faithful (all-too-faithful) reader of the Phenomenology who, like Hegel, laughed at the attempts of the later phenomenologists to ground experience.

To understand Derrida you’ve really got to understand the Germanic trope of the Ship of Fools, an endless procession of the errors of life. That’s what absolute knowing is - unending cognition of the inevitability of error - and it’s from this perspective, somewhat obscured and compartmentalized by the aging Hegel in his fame and fortune, that Derrida turns on all of philosophy and uses it to carve out his own vocabulary.

In a certain sense it is therefore flashy existentialism. Despite the American school’s emphasis on the text, reading, etc., which were stamped on “deconstruction” by De Man and his followers, Derrida’s interests were always in the phenomenological elements of experience, the fundamental metaphors imported from metaphysics into the description of the concrete. He found that these metaphors revolves around figures of lines drawn in space - writing - and attempted to use this concept of all concepts to undo the texture of philosophy itself. And in this too he was faithful to Hegel, for whom, as everyone recalls, the collapse of sensuous certainty is confirmed by “a simple experiment” in WRITING the time of day down on a sheet of paper, and observing the obliteration of the I that wrote it and his entire world.

They mean that it lays bear its basic tropes and attempts to turn them against the driving narrative structures typical of mecha genre. It’s a very Americanized reading of the word, again in the De Man-Bloom tradition of specifically literary deconstruction, whose first major casualty was Romanticism.

I really think they are giving depth and irony where it's just not there. Eva is a spiritual anime about the meaning of huamanity, technology, and being visited by deities.

What material are they socially constructed out of?

You guys have to understand
A. The bourgeois fancy son obsessed with his own cleverness was an old archetype, already 300 years old by the time of Derrida. Die Verkehlte Welt, 1799 - a play in which an audience on stage audits and mocks the players, and gets in arguments with them, casting themselves and having the players sit down to watch. “Postmodern” themes are very old and sacred elements of bourgeois culture, always in the air but only thematized in moments of crisis. And those of you who know German should recognize this phrase from one of the Phenomenology’s most difficult and confusing chapters, Force and the Understanding.
B. On the other hand, the post-existentialists, Hyppolite’s students, all of them were trying very hard to do philosophy “the old fashioned way,” to be scholars, serious and mature - and their survey of the past showed them that this posture could not be maintained. So whereas in Foucault I read a kind of tragic melancholy at the detritus, in Deleuze a resignation to the hard work of metaphysical reinvention, in Derrida it’s a silliness that has always been the driving force of truly great philosophy.

tl;dr - Derrida ponders distinctions where there are no clear answers. That's it.
This is all you need to think about to understand Deconstruction:
>"If the eulogies continue for 30 years, does it mean that something is dead? Or does that not mean something is not dead?"
Deconstruction is poking around the murky boundaries between concepts. Like there's one essay where Derrida writes about 'invention' in the legal sense of patents but also in the Rhetorical sense - finding the thesis of a speech. He's interested by this moment where something is that didn't exist, the thesis, comes from nothing into being for the first time, but if you repeat the speech or the augment then it's not longer 'new' and no longer an invention.
There's another essay where he offers up a translation of a bi-lingual poem and ponders what effect has been lost in the translation, since the non-French parts were already alien to the reader, is the effect preserved or different.
Again, not a straight answer.
People who expect clear answers from Derrida as for the impossible.
They blame Derrida for not writing about nice and neat categorical distinctions between things, when his whole intention is exploring the murky blurry contradictory things.
Understanding Derrida and Deconstruction isn't hard, understanding the things he Deconstructs is.

But it uses mecha tropes to do it in a way that is opposite what mechas typically did at the time, which was promise salvation of humanity thru victory over enemies.

Evangelion is a deconstruction if the mecha genre because it completely twists its tropes on their heads.
The mecha genre is inhabited by hot blooded heroes like Kouji Kabuto that instantly know how to pilot the robot and BTFO the bad guys all the time.
It’s a power fantasy.
Evangelion deconstructs this by giving us Shinji, a pussy that doesn’t want to get in the robot.
The world is post apocalyptic but the heroes are not invincible ubermensch like Kenshiro their broken people and their struggle is hopeless.
also the Evas are not robots but gigantic humanoids in suits
I’m too tired to explain it in detail but that’s the gist of it.

>Understanding Derrida and Deconstruction isn't hard, understanding the things he Deconstructs is.
Precisely. All his texts are commentaries, and presupposes a level of erudition in his readers spanning 6 languages.

Agree with desu I'm not very familiar with mecha so maybe my opinion is worthless, but Evangelion does go pretty far in questioning just about everything about its premise, from the heroism of its hero to what the definition of a mech is to whether NERV is even doing the right thing. I don't think it's unfair to call it a deconstruction, or at least an attempt at one.

>because it completely twists its tropes on their heads
That's called subversion, you dumb fuck.

No, subversion is pithy and done for attention only.

That's exactly how anno wrote Evangelion in his own words.

>in his own words
I'd love to see them.

>Beavis tries to seem smarter by asspulling a category and insisting it’s different from the deconstruction because…it just is ok!!
>Butthead takes the base and agrees to the distinction

Ok this is epic burnz!

R.O.A.S.T.E.D ((xD LMAO))

Deconstruction is basically the take that philosophy is based on language, and therefore is always in flux and that it flows. As such no permanent meaning or truth can be attained, and the goal of philosophy is to create as strong contrasts between concepts and terms as possible instead, by introducing opposing concepts, terms, etc.

It is often weaponized by midwit leftists to "critique" prevailing ideas to show them to be fundamentally irrational. This is correct, according to Derrida. The leftists however then assume that just because something is irrational, they could replace it with something rational (Wrong, theirs will also be irrational) or that it should be replaced in the first place (Also not necessarily true, and these idiots never bother to come up with good reasons why it would be true in the particular case.). This constant weaponization by midwit leftists makes midwit authrights and conservatives salty and they demonize deconstruction for sport, and assume it to have no possible value because it has been used to slap them in the face one too many times. It's a wonderful shitshow.

Basically it's an okay concept that is sometimes useful, especially in order to improve clarity of emerging fields such as bioethics and philosophy of AI. By introducing opposite concepts to the early works clarity can be improved and it becomes easier to think/converse about a subject.

its when someone tries to put out an original philosophical bunch of thoughts using lots of jargon and references to people collecting dust in random university faculties no one really knows, and when it flops you tell everyone actually I was being ironic, this is a deconstruction of a real idea! Whoah gotcha!

This ignored my point re spirituality. Youre addressing how it was told not what was

Tiny hats.

andrewgripp.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/derrida-for-dummies-a-semiological-understanding-of-god/


Différance:
>imagine a shack
Then:
>imagine a shed

What's the difference between these two? They can probably be classed within the same category, but there's a distinct difference between the two that makes it unique. A shack for example may be a crude structure/cabin made out of wood located in an outdoors space. A shed might be constructed with metal, not intended for anyone to live in - usually located in a backyard.

Why is this important? Language is based on the signifier-signified-referent relationship.
To get a better understanding of this, take a look at the picture I've attached of the semiotic triangle. Deconstruction puts this to use in language - the words used in any text only make sense in context by the words surrounding them, hence the Différance, and our classification of abstract concepts versus concrete descriptive words. All language, whether plain or dressed-up, begins to chain and point towards other signifiers & concepts to describe real world events and states of affairs.

Anyway, when we start using signifiers for abstract concepts and philosophy, we ultimately point the transcendental signifier as "Science" or "So & so philosophy". But, if we were talking about religion (maybe judeo-christian religions, as they are the most prominent), their signifiers throughout religious texts point to the signifier "God". Every word within their text can point to this signifier, but what ultimately defines 'God' as a signifier?

Religion funnily enough manages to define the 'God' signifier thru negation (expressing what he is not, rather than adding positive attributes to what he is) This is how we end up with the word being completely arbitrary to begin with, yet we end up making Unmoved-Mover arguments and Ontological arguments endlessly (which can't relate the signifier of 'God' to any one particular religion either)

Lacan and Derrida found that there is nothing outside the language. What you see is what you get. If this language barrier were managed to be dissolved (by the use of chanting, repeating mantras, hymns like most world religions) you would experience semantic satiation, a full linguistic barrier being broken thru and see 'God' in whatever form you believe he exists. (Allah, Buddha, Yahweh, etc)

This is essentially what post-modern deconstruction solved, and that's why so many postmodernists like Derrida were nihilistic. There is nothing outside of language, barring your imagination. And a signifier like God is self-referential, pointing to itself, leading back to itself (and no religion can define the word 'God' in absolute terms)
A perfect storm, in the sense of how circular and maddening this ends up. Honestly, the only funnier shit is trying to watch Academic Biblical study take to the historicity of Jesus and the crucifixion when we barely had any details of the guy to begin with

Attached: Extended-version-of-semiotic-triangle-14.png (700x640, 172.27K)

>Religion funnily enough manages to define the 'God' signifier thru negation (expressing what he is not, rather than adding positive attributes to what he is)

Proofs? Abrahamic religions certainly don't seem to align with this statement, although I couldn't vouch for Judaism as I don't have a good knowledge of its theology.

Literally illiterate, Derrida was not nihilistic. He presupposes erudition and common sense, he actually presupposes a minimal ethical respect that must be taken seriously in order for his arguments to be legible at all - see the interviews attached to Limited Inc where he professes “good (yes good, not bad)” uses of his concepts

Well, take a look at their conceptions were.
Judaism: Signifier referring to the tetragrammaton, el shaddai, elohim. Beyond all human thought or comprehension. Transcendent, but somehow written into the Torah.

Christianity: Somewhat of the same deal, except we go with Yahweh, El Shaddai, Kyrios, Pater, etc. along with all the mythos of Christ added in.

Islam: Probably one hundred or more names of god all with different descriptions or attributes. These folk are similar to the jews in how they tried encapsulating and naming attributes of god (jews came up with 72 names for God, but that's part of angelology and some sort of hierarchy)

Where does this link to God as a signifier?
How does the transcendence, or ontological arguments for God link this to 'God' the signified?

They don't, it's not possible, they never will be able to. The word or concept of god cannot ultimately signify anything at all other than an abstract concept, some deified Other, or submit to self-identification (note how schizos usually believe they embody Christ or the archetype of him while in psychosis)

Ultimately you can make these arguments but it never ties back to one specific, ultimate signified god. Frankly, unless god parted the skies right now and defined himself for everyone, this is all we have for any conception of god or transcendence. It's a circular definition, and it will work in just about any case, hence the Bible, hence the Torah, hence the Quran - even all the what-have-you mystical shit like the Kabbalah or Cabala

Attached: Self-Reference-and-Paradox.png (850x547, 36.01K)

If you didn't read the rest of what I wrote, I'm not very concerned about whatever the fuck Derrida's personal philosophy was

Criticism of the concept-system organized around values secured transcendentally as presuppositions of a beyond their own linguistic constitution cannot compass does not imply wholesale liquidation of the values that spurred philosophical inquiry in the first place - on the contrary it makes the burden of fidelity to those values more difficult, more rigorous, and more exacting.