Ever tried to understand what deconstructionism is about and tried to find some introductory resources, only to be frustrated with the in-your-face opacity of it all? You may find this explanation of deconstructionism interesting:
info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/decon.html
I’m particularly interested in the opinions of people who are acquainted with postmodern literary criticism and deconstructionism. How accurate is this portrayal?
A deconstructionist once told me there is no such thing as “deconstructionism”; it’s called “deconstruction”.
But who is doing the calling?
Is that a deconstructionist joke?
Never, or rather, I found this but was never frustrated by it. Perhaps it’s a British humour, trying to be ‘cleverer than thou’ trait, but I find the sometimes ludicrous opacity of deconstructionist texts compelling, not at all unlike a detective novel (for an example of a deconstructionist detective novel, though not a particularly good one, see Philip Kerr’s A Philosophical Investigation).
After all, understanding philosophy always takes some degree of mental effort, and without this we’d all be thick.
Seen it before (predictably), but it’s a good reminder.
Not particularly, but it isn’t all that inaccurate either. Put it this way, if I were to discuss the problems with deconstruction, I’d take a very different approach. But I know a lot more about deconstruction than the engineer who wrote this, as I’m sure he knows a lot more about engineering than I do.
If you want me to do a point by point analysis of this commentary then I’d be happy to do so, but I’m not going to launch into one right now for fear of boring you, and it’s late. Needless to say, there was a thread started by omar a couple of weeks back on which I provided an approximation of my position on such theories.
No, ‘this says nothing’ is a deconstructionist joke. ‘Who is doing the calling’ is a pre-structuralist, but perfectly valid, question.
This joke was good.
I’m not very well read on deconstructionism but in any case I did find the article quite succinct and lighthearted.
I can see why the more math based aspects of society would find philosophy so convoluted sometimes, but (like I think the writer of that article knew) the convolution is there for a reason. Not only does it provide more of a depth to life itself (for those who study and understand it) but it’s also the inevitable path of expansion.
Thank you for demonstrating to us that deconstruction is just a stupid language game.
Whereas endlessly idolising Nietzsche is positively mature by comparison.
It offends you that someone should hold Nietzsche in such high esteem. A sign of ignorance trying to pass itself off as wisdom.
It offends me (greatly!) that anyone should hold anyone in high esteem (with the possible exception of themselves)
Any way we’ve hashed this shit half to death before right 
i can’t see whats either Nietzschian or philosophically useful about hero worship
hail krossie!
Nope, not what I said. My comment wasn’t about holding Nietzsche in high esteem, it was about reducing all philosophical conversations to ones about Nietzsche, which Ollie does on a regular basis.
Says the person who can’t even understand who a comment is addressed to and why, and leaps in with their own conclusions rather than simply asking…
‘One repays a teacher very badly if one forever remains a student’ - Nietzsche
The article is interesting, there appears to be a direct contradiction though. Author mentions that the hard sciences have been spared the ‘drift’, because of commercial necessity. Earlier the Author had mentioned that his own experiences(engineering) for the most part have nothing to do with the actual work, but rather with convincing people who dont ‘know’, that his(the?) work is necessary. At no point does he say it truthfully is, for if it were, then it would be apparent. If academics’ are guilty of BS’ing, it appears that the engineers are no different at least from the article.