I like to think of myself as a nihilist but many times I have been called a deconstructionist.

From what other people observe of my writings does myself being called a deconstructionist make any sense to you?

Of course I can somewhat see it in that I am not so much concerned with putting things together in philosophy as I spend most of my time taking things apart.

( I enjoy taking things apart far more.)

You’re a deconstructionist in addition to a nihilist, if we want to throw labels around here.

Both philosophical ideologies are highly skeptical, which I like.

Deconstructionism is something that could have been predicted. It was highly probable that after several hundred years of philosophy (mis-use of language), yet another philosophy would come along and use the same nonsense to critique the prior nonsense.

Isn’t deconstruction simply critical thinking?

Impious go to the youtube video thread and click the Zizek link, then watch part 2/7.

Zizek gives a hyperbolic demonstration of deconstructionism as Judy Butler might use it to describe a bottle of tea.

Very funny.

It begins at 5:00 minutes.

I think the best way in describing my own ideology would be deconstructive nihilism.

All at the same time in this deconstructing nihilism of mine I add my own flavors of pessimism and existentialism into the lot along with my social political understandings of anarchism.

Pretty much.

I think alot of people have a hard time understanding my positions because of the large amount of deconstructionism I bring to philosophical conversations.

People will ask whether my conversations have a point or what point I am advocating for but in my understanding of deconstructionism there is no objective point at all in existence beyond what we make for ourselves and when people say we must do this or that, I just see subjective perspectivisms in conflict with each other with nothing else beyond it.

‘Thought is not what inhabits a certain conduct and gives it its meaning; rather, it is what allows one to step back from this way of acting or reacting, to present it to oneself as an object of thought and to question it as to its meaning, its conditions, and its goals.’

  • Michel Foucault, May 1984

By this definition I’d say that I was right with what I said above.