Talk:Deconstruction/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Lead

Am I the first to recognise that the lead is largely a plagiarism of Positions? Large portions of text have been taken from Bass' translation of Positions and pasted in without quotation marks. This is from page 41 of Positions:

To do justice to this necessity is to recognize that in a classical philosophical opposition we are not dealing with the peaceful coexistence of a vis-a-vis, but rather with a violent hierarchy. One of the two terms governs the other (axiologically, logically, etc.), or has the upper hand. To deconstruct the opposition, first of all, is to overturn the hierarchy at a given moment. To overlook this phase of overturmng is to forget the conflictual and subordinating structure of opposition.

This is the lead as it currently stands:

Derrida's theories of Deconstruction first demonstrate that in a classical philosophical opposition, readers are not confronted to the peaceful coexistence of a vis-à-vis, but rather with a violent hierarchy.[4] One of the two terms governs the other (axiologically, logically, etc.), or one of the two terms is dominant (signified over signifier; intelligible over sensible; speech over writing; activity over passivity; male over female; man over animal, etc). The deconstruction of the opposition, is to reverse the hierarchy at a given moment. To overlook this phase of overturning is to forget the conflictual and subordinating structure of opposition.[5]

I hazard a guess that the remainder of the lead is plagiarised from elsewhere. Note that even with the plagiarism that is an inadequate definition of deconstruction, so the folly is double.

I am about half-way through creating a new lead (which is accurate and substantiated). I am taking the task seriously so it will take me some time to complete. It will also serve as a template for the remainder of the article so it deserves to be done well for this reason also. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I have marked the article as "Under Construction" and I have replaced the lead with a new—albeit—incomplete lead. The existing lead was a piece of poor plagiarism, it contained factual errors, it demonstrated a lack of understanding of deconstruction, it was grammatically bad—it was, to be blunt, a piece of shit (which was ironically posted by a self-confessed fan of Derrida. To-do for the lead:

Provide synopsis of non-Derridaean deconstruction, especially Yale critics
Provide synopsis of influence of deconstruction and its historical pattern
Provide synopsis of most salient criticisms of deconstruction

I have deliberately avoided introducing more jargon than is absolutely necessary to communicate the substance of deconstruction and to provide a context for what will follow. I would be pleased if literate editors that actually understand deconstruction were to provide feedback and contribute. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

As a complete newcomer to the field of Phenomenology in Philosophy, my first reaction in comparing the two leads, is that the old one, for an encyclopedia entry, is actually far superior and much better. That is because it tries to explain what Deconstruction is from within the main definitions and explanations provided by Derrida. The new lead should be probably the introduction to a philosophical paper on deconstruction to be published in a Philosophy peer-reviewed journal. It departs from a starting point that is inherently critical of deconstruction and of Jacques Derrida, and tries to "explain" it by first pointing out what would be the philosophy's weak points or inconsistencies, in the view of the writer, of course. To start explaining deconstruction in a basic encyclopedia entry by mentioning the metaphysics of presence right in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the lead shows the critical intention of the writer, rather than the explanatory intention.

From a first cursory reading of the new lead I can see I am already completely confused by the assertion, on the one hand, that "intrinsic meaning exists," which is then completely negated in the next sentence by the assertion that "Deconstruction denies the possibility ... of essential or intrinsic meaning." Looks to me, on a rather cursory reading of the only the first paragraph so far, pretty much like a non-sequitur right of the bat?...

From all the walls of text that the editor has previously published on this page and on the Derrida page, it looks to me that he should be using his time and his knowledge and views of the subject to write professional papers to be published in Philosophy peer-reviewed journals, not on writing basic encyclopedic entries for people non-knowledgeable or non-specialized in Phylosophy in general, for which an encyclpedia is generally written. warshy ^¥¥ 14:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

So a lead which is factually incorrect and plagiarised poorly is superior?! There is absolutely no criticism in the current lead so your premise is still-born. The metaphysics of presence is central to the entire deconstructive project, deconstruction is incomprehensible without it. Your "first cursory reading" is flawed. The metaphysics of presence--which is the object of deconstructive criticism--is the alleged source of notions of inttrinsic meaning. Deconstruction qua critique of the metaphysics of presence posits that there is no such thing as intrinsic meaning. That distinction is clearly stated. The claim that you obtained anything of value from the previous lead is patent garbage. You are in effect claiming that cut-and-pastes of Derrida's writing are more suited to the novice than paraphrasing? That is just bullshit. On the one hand you state that "a complete newcomer to the field of Phenomenology in Philosophy" (random capitalisation in original) then you proceed to offer an analysis of the metaphysics of presence where you conclude that the author (me) "and tries to "explain" it by first pointing out what would be the philosophy's weak points or inconsistencies". Given that you don't understand that central notion which recurs in all of Derrida's writings how can you determine its significance? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Wether the old lead is plagiarism or not, on which I am not offering an opinion, to call my readind and understanding of it "patent garbabe" and "bullshit" borders on a personal attack. But trying to offend and diminish your interlocutor is your normal style as can be seen above. It really doesn't faze me. However, you cannot determine that my reading and understanding of the previous lead, which did provide me with more insight into the subject matter than your confused explanation by means of critique, is "patent garbabe." I am allowed to express here freely my own jugdgment of your unclear attemp at explanation without my own reading and judgment being not only dismissed, but actually diminished and made insignificant. The apparent contradiction between the two consecutive statements, you certainly did not explain. Because, as I said, you seem to prefer to just offend your interlocutor personally, rather than even entertain a different opinion. But, again, it is clear from everything you write that you have, for some unknowm reason, just chosen Wikipedia as a means to publish your own critique of decontruction, and I, as a newcomer to the field, am not going to be able to dissuade you of accomplishing it. If your understanding of the subject matter is indeed so good and so right, why not publish it where it can be properly analyzed instead? warshy ^¥¥ 16:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

@ AnotherPseudonymWill you insult everyone again when we disagree with you?

- Derrida is the creator of Deconstruction, however he insisted on not being a post-structuralist, your reference is weak on this issue... I think that the post-structuralism subject should not be in the introduction, at least not first line. This issue should be developed after in explaining that while some journalists and others non-deconstructivists have assimilated Deconstruction as a post-structuralism philosophy, Derrida refused this appellation.

- Do we really need your ref. to "the Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory."? 3 references at this stage of the intro!! Man this is heavy!!

- "as understood by Derrida—refers to the notion that consciousness can be completely oriented towards the present such that concepts—unmediated by prior knowledge, future expectations or language, i.e. self-sufficient concepts—become available as knowledge to the conscious subject.[11]" This is not necessary in the intro. Stay focus on Deconstruction. The metaphysics of presence as understood by Derrida can be explained outside the intro.

- You used Derrida's name at least 4 times. This is too many. There are other philosophers related to Deconstruction.

- Why have you removed my reference to the first use of the term "Deconstruction"? Isn't it important to know when the term was first used? The reference to "Meconaissance" and Jacques Lacan is also important.

- At least in the intro, you need to use a language that non-philosophers and non-scientists will understand. The subject should be placed in a context familiar to a normal reader.

- I agree with warshy, your intro is different but not essentially better. It is still confused. You have removed some good materials from the previous intro while some of the paragraphs that you included aren't good enough.

--Christophe Krief (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I have removed about 30% to 40% of AnotherPseudonym proposed intro which was too long. I think that the sections that I removed were not relevant for the Intro. I have added a reference to the first use of the term "Deconstruction" which was in the previous intro.

For me the intro is clear as it is now.

I have removed references to some contemporary authors who I think may be relevant for some sections of the article but not of significant importance to Deconstruction as to be in the intro. --Christophe Krief (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Christophe, you can't remove citations, WP:VERIFY is one of Wikipedia's most important principles. Substantiation is important, especially on a topic such as this. When the term "deconstruction" was first used is just trivia. Why is it important? Also I stated clearly that I'm not finished with it and other deconstructionists will soon be mentioned. And no "Meconaissance" and Jacques Lacan and not central to deconstruction. Heidegger and the metaphysics of presence are central to deconstruction. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, most post-structuralists say they aren't post-structuralists. I can give you perhaps twenty sources that categorise deconstruction as post-structuralist. I can accept some of your changes but some of them are unacceptable. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Chritophe, also what you wrote is historically incorrect it was Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences that presented the fundamentals of deconstruction (even though it didn't mention the term deconstruction) and that was before Of Grammatology. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Christophe, I have reversed your edits because they are unjustified. I have justified all of my statement with reference to multiple sources. I am prepared to push on this matter until it goes to arbitration. Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences presents all of the core ideas of deconstruction and that was presented in 1966, OG was published one year later. The most important influence oon Derrida's work is Heidegger and I have provided cistations for that and can provide more if needed. Lacan's influence on deconstruction is minor. The term "deconstruction" is derived from Heidegger's destruktion. Again, I can substantiate all of my claims with sources, you have none. You can't use your interpretation of a text as a source. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

AnotherPseudonym I did not reverse any of your work so far. You have been very arrogant on this talk page and you still are now. I am just trying to help you improving the article. Note that 90% of the intro as I left it, was written by you... As it was indicated by another user, your intro as you published it prior to my intervention, is not clearer than the previous one, maybe the contrary.

Don't you think that I had a good reasons for reverting your lead? Instead I decided to participate and to improve your work, as I thought that there was space for this... You should try that sometimes...

You have too many quotations which are not helping for a good understanding of the article. An intro should not be overloaded, specially when many authors that you quoted are not important enough to be there, it sounds like if you were promoting their works... I would be ok to use their works for other parts of the article, but not the lead.

Plus there is a lack of clarity in your lead as you published it. You need to understand that you do not own this page and that you need to accept other users' opinions --Christophe Krief (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Christophe, I am trying to accomodate you but you can't put unsourced and false information into an article. It is perfectly acceptable to have quotes in citations, the oroginal complaint related to quotation in the article itself. Every part of the article--including the lead--needs to be substantiated. You must conform to Wikipedia:Core content policies. Let's review the problems:

Your history is wrong, Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences came out before OG
Deconstruction is post-structuralist regardless of what Derrida said; almost all post-structuralists say they aren't post-structuralists
Heidegger is the single largest influence on deconstruction
Lacan is not a major influence on the development of deconstruction
Metaphysics of presence is the most important to deconstruction, without the metaphysics of presence there is nothing to deconstruct

Furuther, I cam substamntiate all of my edits. You on the other hand are unable to do so. So let's start again from the beginning of the lead. Raise your complaint and present your propoal and give me a chance to reply. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Christophe, I don't want an revert war. Discuss and then edit, that is Wikipedia procesure. I told you that Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences came out a year before OG and that paper explained the fundamentals of deconstruction so that edit is inaccurate. AnotherPseudonym (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Many of your quotations are not appropriate, they do not provide the reader with a clear understanding but bring confusion instead.
If I am wrong stating that Derrida first used the term Deconstruction in "Of Grammatology" then prove it... Your link to Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences does not say that Derrida used the term in this work but that this work is part of his theories on Deconstruction. So I can be wrong, but give me the page number, if Derrida used the term Deconstruction in this publication.
I have nothing against a ref to Heidegger being in the intro. I had included a reference to him in the intro that I drafted few months ago and which was reverted by an ignorant.
I agree that Lacan has not officially a major influence on Derrida's work. But I think that he had a large influence without Derrida acknowledging it. Lacan 's "Meconaissance", which is a term used by Derrida in Of Grammatology, is completely in the subject. But I agree this is an opinion which will be difficult to defend on Wikipedia.
Metaphysics of presence is important but just state it in the intro, don't enter into details at this stage.
I WILL NOT START AGAIN - I GIVE UP IT IS ALL YOURS - SUCH A PITY FOR DECONSTRUCTION REALLY...

And by the way stop posting on my User Talk Page...--Christophe Krief (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that Derrida used the term "deconstruction" first in Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences, I said he first described what came to be called "deconstruction" first in that paper. You wrote that deconstruction was first described in OG and that is wrong. The word "deconstruction" was first used in OG but the key ideas of deconstruction are in "Structure, Sign, and Play". That is my point. If you can't provide a source for Lacan 's "Meconaissance" then it can't be in the article, those are the rules (WP:VERIFY). I think you are being unreasonable. The usual procedure is to propose a change on the talk page, discuss it, modify it if necessary and then make the edit. Why do you refuse to abide by that procedure? I am willing to work with you but in that way. I took the initiative to try and fix the article, the least you can do is acknowledge that. You didn't do anything to fix the lead and now that I changed it you became interested. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"You wrote that deconstruction was first described in OG" NO I DID NOT!
"The usual procedure is to propose a change on the talk page, discuss it, modify it if necessary and then make the edit." Well you have not done that...
"I took the initiative to try and fix the article, the least you can do is acknowledge that." I have...
"You didn't do anything to fix the lead and now that I changed it you became interested." WRONG! I have proposed a nice intro in replacement ot hte one that you deleted, but some anonymous pseudo decided that my lead was not adequate. After an edit war I just gave up. Note that I did not revert your work, but that I lighten up your lead which was much to heavy and to confusing.

--Christophe Krief (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok Christophe. My first complaint is that deconstruction should be described as poststructuralist because there are many sources that describe it as such even though Derrida resisted the term. Another reason is that Wikipedia articles need to be consistent with each other. Refer to the article on Post-structuralism. I can provide you as many sources as you need that describe deconstruction as post-sructuralist.

My second complaint is that in the absence of the concept of the metaphysics of presence deconstruction is incomprehensible. A text can only be deconstructed to the extent that it relies on the metaphysics of presence. Maybe you are right that this idea is too "heavy" but is it legitimate to "lighten up" so much that we fail to describe what deconstruction is all about? Now the article references "presence" and "absence" and "pure presence" without any prior explanation in the lead itself and the metaphysics of presence article is just a stub. Do you think those terms are self-explanatory? I don't. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

My third complaint is your removal of references to secondary sources on Derrida exposes us to allegations that we have misinterpreted Derrida (I know that is ironic). The purpose of the references to his expositors is to indicate that the reading of Derrida is not merely my/our own but a recognised reading. That is consistent with the prohibition of WP:OR. If you refer only to Derrida then some "ignorant" (as you put it) can come along and say "No, that's not what Derrida means". Then what? How do you resolve such a complaint without referring to secondary sources? By removing the references to those secondary sources I included you have effectively removed our defense against the "ignorant". AnotherPseudonym (talk) 02:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Fourthly, I don't understand what the purpose of citation [1] is and it contains what looks to me to be your personal opinion which is a breach of WP:NOR. I don't think that citation adds anything useful to the lead. I don't understand why you think page 25 of the French edition is of such special significance that it warrants special mention. Is it that important to mention the page in which the word "deconstruction" is first used and does the rest of the page gain some special status because it is the page in which the term is first used? Unless you can provide a good justification I will remove reference [1]. I am giving you a chance to defend it, a courtesy you do not extend to me. (PS:- According to Spivak "It is interesting to note that, in the first published version of De la grammatologie, Derrida uses the word "destruction" in place of "deconstruction." Just some trivia.) AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

OK Anotherpseudo...

What about being clear?... I propose " often characterised as post-structuralist " As per the wiki article on post-structuralism defining Derrida's work.
On your second point you are mistaken, the concept of the metaphysics of presence is included in the lead now published. In the first paragraph, second phrase, it is already stated that: "The premise of deconstruction is that all of Western literature and philosophy implicitly relies on a metaphysics of presence." With 2 long references that you inserted and a development following on the deeply related concept of "presence". My point is that sometimes less is more. It will not be possible to clearly and completely describe the concept in this intro. Let the reader click on the internal link to find more about it. Develop the concept in the article if you wish, but outside the intro.
On your third point... You had inserted 6 ref. to defend 2 obvious statements which are that Deconstruction is "literary theory[2][3][4] and philosophy of language[5][6][7]". These 6 references were not helping for the comprehension of the article, which is about Deconstruction, let's not forget it... I understand that is important to reference the statements, but not by compromising clarity. You must not discourage any novice reader but in the contrary interest him or her... If necessary (I personally don't think that it is), one reference after "literary theory" and another one for "philosophy of language" will be greatly enough if they are carefully chosen and well relevant to the article.
On your fourth point... You need to keep in mind that this article is informative. We are not attempting a Deconstructive work, but an encyclopedic description of Deconstruction which may imply the same. Why isn't it relevant to state when the term was first used? This is an important information for anyone interested to learn more about Deconstruction. Especially when the information points to "Of Grammatology", which is one of the pillars for Deconstruction. Do you pretend that your long references to "Gasché, Rodolphe" or "Haddad, Samir" which you had inserted in the first line of the intro were more informative and related to the subject? With Reference No.1 directed to "Of Grammatology" and the first use of the term in a published document, a novice reader starting his study will be taken straight to the source of the subject... Honestly, the argument here, becomes an issue of "Obscurantism" or clarity. --Christophe Krief (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Christophe, I developed a habit of over-citation from working on contested articles where someone presents to object to literally every sentence. The purpose of the citations of Gasché et al is in effect to say "this is not my personal interpretation of deconstruction, it is the generally accepted reading amongst subject experts". If we remove all references to respected expositors of deconstruction such as Gasché, Norris, Royle etc. I/we will be naked, so to speak. Look at the history of the article. Do you understand my perspective? What will you do if some "ignorant" does appear and says that this or that is wrong? If the "ignorant" is also using the same book as you are using and arriving at a different reading (yes I know this is ironic) you will have to refer to secondary sources. I am merely pre-empting that response. I am answering the "ignorant's" complaint before (s)he even makes it. Regarding [1], you can refer to the first use of the term without the WP:OR about Lacan. Overall I am happy with your concessions.

I think the lead needs some mention of non-Derridaen deconstruction and its its main protagonists. Then should follow some detail about the influence of deconstruction on various disciplines and finally criticism in brief. This must come from reputable sources and contain citations. I have some books and journal papers on some of these topics but not all that I need. If we get the lead right that will serve as a map for the rest of the article. Lastly, before I posted the new lead you admitted that the existing lead was awful and you distanced yourself from it. Then after I posted the new lead the older lead which you repudiated became as good as my own (and that other person claimed my lead was worse). Now with some relatively small edits the lead is now good. Really? This to me seems like pride and cheap point scoring. You saw an opportunity to score a point and you took it. Half of the old lead was out-of-context cut-and-paste of Positions with bad English between the plagiarised text. My lead was no better than that? Really? Can you not at the least try and maintain an objectivity in relation to the article? My work stands or falls on its own merits and that is how I expect other editors to receive it. That other person, wishy-washy, or whatever his name is, was apparently hallucinating criticism in the lead I posted and he was also hallucinating a great contradiction, he was rambling about peer-reviewed "Philosophy" and "Phylosophy" (with a capital P) journals (he couldn't decide how to spell "philosophy" or whether I was under or over-qualified to edit the article). These were both figments of his apparently overactive imagination and you knew that. You knew that there was no criticism or contradiction in the lead but you put point scoring before the interest of the article, "Better to score a cheap point against Anotherpseudo than to pursue a better article". Tsk, tsk, tsk. Not good for the article. When I wrote my commentary where I questioned the value of contrbuting to an article on deconstruction or Derrida it was written with people like wishy-washy in mind. You need to ask yourself whether you want me or wishy-washy (and his kind) helping you compose the article and which collaboration would produce the better article. Wishy-washy or AnotherPsuedonym. Yes wishy-washy is amusing with his misunderstaning of proper nouns, his chronic misspellings and his strained efforts at reading comprehension but how far will those qualities get you in producing a good (or even satisfactory) article? The novelty of wishy-washy will wear off quickly. Wishy-washy and his kind will agree with you on everything. Is that what you want? Do you think that someone like wish-washy will produce the dialectical exchange that will benefit the production of the article? If you want this activity to devolve into herd or gang behaviour then the article will suffer. What is more important to you: producing a good article or scoring cheap points? If you are unable to unwilling to approach my edits objectively then I will not waste my time and energy here on this article. Let me know. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Anotherpseudo, you are the only one trying to score points here...

I am very objective, and I am sure that any one following this talk page will agree. My only interest here is to provide the reader with a good article and I am not even paid for that. What is your interest here anotherpseudo? Please answer as this is an important question?

Referencing is a good thing, I have contributed to many articles just by adding references. However, if references are adding confusion rather than clarity, so it becomes a problem. The previous lead was awful, this is why I have worked on your replacement which represents an opportunity to improve this article... Thanks for this anotherpseudo... But please do not waste this opportunity. Don't take it personally. I am not playing football or any other sport or game where points are to be scored... For me points have to be made... I will be off Wiki for today. Talk to you tomorrow maybe. --Christophe Krief (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Christophe, don't be evasive. You allied yourself on the side of ignorance, stupidity (and semi-literacy) because it was expedient for someone seeking to score a point. Wishy-washy made all sorts of bizarre and unsubstantiated allegations that are quite distinct from your subsequent concerns and you gave him your tacit support. This suggests that you value cheap point scoring over and above the quality and integrity of the article. Moreover it shows that your are also willing to sacrifice your self-respect—by siding with ineptitude—in order to score a cheap point. You effectively contradicted yourself by then endorsing my lead with a few peripheral edits. Regarding your specific question, I am here to educate and inform and to encourage people to think and I have amply demonstrated that in my work on other articles before this. You've dug yourself deeper under wishy-washy's miscounted two points (see below). AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem with anotherpseudo is that it does not accept opinions which are not in line with its own...

I am removing from the intro materials which are repetitive.--Christophe Krief (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't me that re-introduced the text on the metaphysics of presence it was User:Bhny: diff. I agree with User:Bhny's re-introduction. You have no regard for Wikipedia:Consensus. Citation [1] is a breach of WP:NOR so my removal of it was justified. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 09:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments

2 comments on the side of the railroading of one particular view/critique of decontstruction that has just begun:

One possible answer to my own central question above, as to why you have chosen WP as the vehicle for publishing your own critique of deconstruction, is that in the real academic world, one cannot hide behind "another" pseudonym. Actually, in there one cannot hide behind pseudonyms at all. To publish in the real academic world, one has to stand squarely behind one's name. (Again the metaphysics of presence?)
Interesting how it seems to be a pretty common tactic of philosophers to simply argue that the opponent is not even "intelligent" enough to understand the concept as it is being used by the philosopher. You have argued that Derrida used this tactics against his opponents, and here you are, just using it again against me... This is just another case of 'the pot calling the kettle black..."
If and/or when this clear case of POV pushing and of name calling goes to some kind of arbitration on WP be sure that I will be here to bear witness. warshy ^¥¥ 18:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Where have I published my "own critique of deconstruction"? So you are criticising me for something that you claim I will do in the future? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Also nowhere did I use the word intelligent in my discussion with you so don't quote that word as if to suggest I used it. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just re-read your inept ramblings with fresh eyes. What the f**k are you on about? You have THREE comments, count them. "On the side of the railroading"? So a metaphor for an action has a "side"? Where is my critique of deconstruction? Show it to me. The "real academic world" as opposed to what, "the fake academic world"? Why is "another" in quotes? Why are you answering your own (misguided) questions? If you know the answer then why ask a question? You made your intelligence—and again why is "intelligent" in quotes—an issue and then you posted a bunch of garbage that would cause someone to question your intelligence. So you've arrived at the conclusion that you are infallible and omniscient? You are implying that you are always entirely correct in your comprehension of everything. You've ruled out the possibility of error on your part a priori. So are you saying that I am a philosopher but at the same time saying that you know more about (all branches of) philosophy than a philosopher? If it's a "pretty common tactic of philosophers" and it is "interesting" then give me a list of all the philosophers that do what you allege. To form the conclusion that it is a "pretty common tactic" you must have performed some sort of survey. "[U]sing it again against me"? So where and when have I used this alleged tactic on you before? Why are there ellipsis here: 'the pot calling the kettle black..."? That phrase is complete so you aren't elliding anything so it doesn't need ellipsis within the (asymmetrical) quotation marks. "If and/or when" means: "If and when" (i.e. if it happens and when it does happen) and "If or when" (i.e. If it happens or when it happens) and that is a redundancy, the "and/or" serves no purpose in that context. Show me where the "clear case of POV pushing" is in my edits to any article. You are harassing me on the basis of an unfounded allegation. If you continue this behaviour of unfounded allegations I will report your behaviour. "I will be here to bear witness", no you won't be here on the talk page you will be there wherever the arbitration occurs. Your behaviour constitutes WP:Harassment and WP:AOBF; you are threatening me on the basis of what I have not done and what you predict I will do. If you persist in threatening me and making accusations against me on that basis of your alleged ability to see into the future then I will be making a complaint against you. You have been warned. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

At least we know his name... I fully agree with warshy's point on the "metaphysics of presence". For someone insisting on this issue you are somewhat aside the subject rather than within Mr anotherpseudo.--Christophe Krief (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Christophe, you should read closely before signing your name. What did wish-washy post? This deserves to framed:

Philosophiæ Wishy-Washicus

As a complete newcomer to the field of Phenomenology in Philosophy, my first reaction in comparing the two leads, is that the old one, for an encyclopedia entry, is actually far superior and much better. That is because it tries to explain what Deconstruction is from within the main definitions and explanations provided by Derrida. The new lead should be probably the introduction to a philosophical paper on deconstruction to be published in a Philosophy peer-reviewed journal. It departs from a starting point that is inherently critical of deconstruction and of Jacques Derrida, and tries to “explain” it by first pointing out what would be the philosophy's weak points or inconsistencies, in the view of the writer, of course. To start explaining deconstruction in a basic encyclopedia entry by mentioning the metaphysics of presence right in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the lead shows the critical intention of the writer, rather than the explanatory intention.
From a first cursory reading of the new lead I can see I am already completely confused by the assertion, on the one hand, that “intrinsic meaning exists,” which is then completely negated in the next sentence by the assertion that “Deconstruction denies the possibility ... of essential or intrinsic meaning.” Looks to me, on a rather cursory reading of the only the first paragraph so far, pretty much like a non-sequitur right of the bat?...
From all the walls of text that the editor has previously published on this page and on the Derrida page, it looks to me that he should be using his time and his knowledge and views of the subject to write professional papers to be published in Philosophy peer-reviewed journals, not on writing basic encyclopedic entries for people non-knowledgeable or non-specialized in Phylosophy in general, for which an encyclpedia is generally written.
Signatory Wishy-Washy Signatory ____________________ <-- Christophe please sign here

Christophe, read closely. Is he saying what you are saying? Your concern—if I have understood you—is that the concept of the metaphysics of presence is too complicated and too esoteric to mention in the lead. Wishy-washy on the other hand thinks that the metaphysics of presence is something I/Derrida (who knows from that semi-literate nonsense) invented. He doesn't understand that deconstruction is a critique of the metaphysics of presence; he thinks it is a component of deconstruction and (for some unstated reason) that it represents a weakness of deconstruction and that the mere mention of it undermines deconstruction. Look at the second paragraph of Philosophiæ Wishy-Washicus for a confirmation of this. Clearly wishy-washy is incompetent. Wishy-washy's charge is utterly bizarre and incompetent. If you wish to endorse it then be my guest but by doing so you will be at the expense of your credibility. Above you wrote:

"The previous lead was awful, this is why I have worked on your replacement which represents an opportunity to improve this article... Thanks for this anotherpseudo... But please do not waste this opportunity. Don't take it personally."

Then you write:

"I fully agree with warshy's point on the "metaphysics of presence"."

So you agree with wishy-washy that by mentioning the metaphysics of presence in the lead—which is the object of deconstructive critique, the antithesis of différance—represents a surreptitious attempt to undermine deconstruction from the outset? That is like saying mentioning capitalism in the lead of the article on Marxism "shows the critical intention of the writer, rather than the explanatory intention". Is this what you are endorsing? I think you need to clarify yourself.

To you wishy-washy you are ignorant and entirely incompetent to comment on this article or any article on philosophy. For the sake of your education: The metaphysics of presence is not a component of deconstruction it is what deconstruction is critiquing. Deconstruction attempts to demonstrate the error of the metaphysics of presence, it is not an error of deconstruction and no part of my lead stated or implied otherwise. The contradiction that you think you identified is a product of your ignorance. The metaphysics of presence suggests that intrinsic meaning is possible; deconstruction qua critique of the metaphysics of presence suggests that intrinsic meaning is not possible. It looks like you have made a hobby of making a fool of yourself on Wikipedia and this is just but one other episode. You are a member of the epistemology task force. Well f**k me gently with a chainsaw. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Anotherpseudo, I agree on the fact that your are not present on Wikipedia as a human being, so that it is Ironic for you to insist on elaborating on "pure presence". You have insulted Western philosophy on Wikipedia with direct unprovoked attacks towards me and others. You should either come clean to speak man to man (as per Heidegger understanding of man to man) or you should be more respectful. I don't know and I don't care about your previous discussions with Washy, but during discussions with you, your lack of respect and your personal attacks were obviously linked to the hiding of your identity. So it is your absence on Wikipedia which lead to your attitude, and this is very ironic in relation to your insistence on the metaphysics of presence. I think it is what washy said, and it is why I agree with him on this subject.--Christophe Krief (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Post-modernism and post-structuralism aren't the entirety of Western philosophy, they are actually a relatively small part of Western philosophy that is more fad than serious work. My username is not a breach of WP:UN and I am not going to use Heidegger the Nazi as a moral exemplar. Yes "man to man", but that does not include Jews, homosexuals etc.. I'm happy to not meet Heidegger's standards of moral excellence. I'm not going to do all of the heavy lifting and just have you tacking on silly citations that breach WP:NOR and arbitrarily deleting my work without any attempt at establishing a consensus. I'll leave the article to you and wishy-washy. In any event I have proved my points: I have a better understanding of deconstruction than the charlatans that inhabit this sorry part of Wikipedia; I am able to provide a lucid exposition of deconstruction; and I can write more fluently than the charlatans that lurk here. In summation: this. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I tried to post on this page a little contrary opinion on the new lead being pushed here by this certain pseudonymous user. My little attempt at a critical reading of the first pargraph of the new lead was met with abuse, scorn, derision, mockery, offense, and threats. My attacker to begin with, refuses to address me as an equal user of WP, worthy of basic human respect, by simply referring to me through an invented mock user-name, which is conceived to begin with to convey disrespect, disregard, to diminish and to make a mockery of the person posting a different opinion. Simple offending vulgarities where thrown at me twice. I was called "hallucinating," "bizarre," "ignorant," "semi-literate, "inept," and even "a fool." (No, the rhetoric is actually much worse than that: "It looks like you have made a hobby of making a fool of yourself on Wikipedia and this is just but one other episode.") I was also called a charlatan, no less, me "and my kind." ("You allied yourself on the side of ignorance, stupidity (and semi-literacy), ... siding with ineptitude...")

I was categorically determined, multiple times, as an "incompetent" editor. Nay, more than that, it was actually already determined by this certain pseudonymous user, based on two or three little interactions we've had during the past month or so, that I am "entirely incompetent to comment on this article or any article on philosophy."

In addition to all this, I have also been warned and threatened by this pseudonymous, rather anonymous user.

Look above and see the heap of offense and scorn the same pseusonymous user has thrown at a different opponent. What would any normal person call all this? This type of aggresive, diminishing, actually abusing and demeaning behavior toward people that dare to hold or express here in writing a different or contrary opinion? Since I believe I have at least now faithfully described here what has gone on above, and all the names, adjectives, and qualifiers that were thrown at me for daring to post a contrary opinion, I will for the time being just leave it at that. After all, occasional interactions with this type of interlocutor must be just another facet of trying to edit/contribute to Wikipedia. warshy ^¥¥ 19:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

lead paragraph again

I've reverted to my last edit as this at least has a short 1st paragraph that is almost encyclopedic and understandable. Obfuscation doesn't help anyone. Please keep it simple and correct errors and improve the references. (We need more secondary references and less Derrida quotes) Bhny (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I modified the second phrase in preserving the intended meaning. In the same phrase you had: "is that - or that - ond that". With regard to non Derridean reference, you sound as if they should be added whatever their relevance as to provide a wider range of references... I disagree on this point... - It appears to me that it is only a reference to Heidegger's Destruktion of Western philosophy which is missing in the lead. This aspect of Heidegger's work exerted a profound influence on Jacques Derrida, although there are also important differences between Heidegger's Destruktion and Derrida's deconstruction. I will be adding a reference to or from Heidegger's Destruktion. Any other references will need to be carefully chosen for their importance and relevance. --Christophe Krief (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit, that is an improvement. I'm currently only interested in the first paragraph and the references 1 through 6 are primary texts by Derrida with overly long quotes, ref 7 seems a good reference, but the rest make it seem like wp:OR. Also, I could not see the words "metaphysics of presence" in any of the references.Bhny (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I was looking at including a reference to Heidegger's Destruktion but it appears that all references to Martin Heidegger were removed from the article. Is there a reason for this?

Reference 1 is from me... There is no personal research except from the reference to Lacan which I am sure about but cannot prove it. I am not willing to write a book about it, but I am sure that Derrida never quoted Lacan because of his strong political involvement. However the use of the term "meconaissance" in the French version "Of Grammatology" cannot have another source than Lacan's researches. The rest of ref.1 is only stating information on the first use of the term Deconstruction in a published work. It points the reader of this article towards a pillar of Decosntruction, so i believe that it should be preserved as the first reference.. What would you consider more relevant? With regards to ref.7 I think that it could be replaced with something which has more history and more background. It is a joke that Heidegger is missing from this article when unknown authors are quoted in the lead.--Christophe Krief (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal of Jacques Derrida on deconstruction

Rationale The two articles are nearly identical, with the exception of the lead (mind that the lead of Deconstruction is about Derrida on deconstruction), and the comparably tiny "Alternative definitions" section in Deconstruction. 㓟 (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest not merging them. Just my 2cents...This one was originally created as a standalone article because so much of it was redundant in the original Deconstruction article. There was a bit of edit-warring at Deconstruction because it was so Derrida-heavy. Thought I'd provide some background. But I really don't have a horse in this race. Happy editing... OttawaAC (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Since Heidegger created the concept and it has been advanced theoretically outside of Derrida both before and after him, no it should not be merged 75.161.86.55 (talk) 06:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
A selective merge of relevant, non-redundant material is probably called for. If there is concern that Deconstruction is too heavily weighted toward Derrida, maybe some material could go to Jacques Derrida, but from the current condition of Jacques Derrida on deconstruction, I don't see a big potential loss if the page is just redirected to Deconstruction. Cnilep (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Am I correct in concluding that this proposed merger has consensus? MergerDude (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I suggest not merging them. I agree to lighten up the "Deconstruction" Article from Derrida's influence and to expend more on other authors while keeping the other article about Derrida on Deconstruction. However, I do not really have the expertise to carry out this task. All I know about Deconstruction is extracted from Derrida's theories. --Christophe Krief (talk) 08:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

No reason was given against the merge (other than a suggestion not to) so I'll go ahead and do it. Bhny (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No arguments were presented against the merger so I think there is a consensus. You gave ample opportunity for the presentation of arguments and Christope Krief's "I suggest not merging them" and OttawaAC's "I'd suggest not merging them" aren't arguments, i.e. they are devoid of reasons, and Wikipedia doesn't operate on the basis of ballot. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Unjustified tagging

Various editors have added vague tags to the article with no talk followup in the past (see WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING). An anonymous editor added yesterday the following tags: Lead too long, Over-quotation, Confusing.

According to WP:LEAD the lead "should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate"; obviously, the introduction is not too long for the overall article length.

The confusing tag is unjustified as well. There were some weasel-worded and vague phrases in previous versions but I recently removed them. One should note that the subject of this article is technical since anyone to understand the details of the theory would have to be familiar with several related debates over literary criticism, epistemology, and ontology within Continental philosophy. However, the article is fairly readable for readers who are not familiar with the material and the lead is written quite well: I deem that non-experts can understand and verify its content.

We could only keep Over-quotation since this is an issue that has been raised several times before in the talk-page. --Omnipaedista (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the strict reading of WP:LEAD, and irrespective of the overall length of the article, which is of questionable relevance, the question of whether the lead is too long is 'obviously' a matter of opinion. In particular, the fourth paragraph could easily be moved into its own section below, but this would not help the readability of the lead at all. It is the second paragraph which could do most with thinning out and simplifying, without being dumbed-down. This might bring the benefit that more readers would read the whole lead before giving up.

This leads on to the next argument, over whether the article is confusing or not. Familiarity with the context of the debates within Continental philosophy no doubt helps understand the subject, but why would someone with such a familiarity ever refer to Wikipedia to help them understand deconstruction? They would be unlikely to need Wikipedia for this purpose. Instead, they would probably just start by reading some Derrida. To say that anyone unfamiliar with those debates cannot understand deconstruction is tantamount to saying anyone referring to this article in order to understand deconstruction at its most basic level is wasting their time. Maybe so, but I find that attitude rather undermines the point of having this Wikipedia article. Much better to risking dumbing down the article than take that approach.

Jonathan G. G. Lewis 04:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonazo (talk • contribs)

The lead remains 90% my original work and is the clearest synoptic account of the topic that the article has ever had. Any further simplification of the 2nd paragraph risks making it inaccurate. My orginal lead had at least one citation from a well-regarded secondary source for every citation of Derrida as a demonstration of the technical accuracy and WP:NOR of my version of the lead. The motive for this was the oversupply of ignorant idiots that circled this article and made it the technically inaccurate and obscurantist pile of shit that it was (and largely remains). I agree that the article remains awful, and I hasten to add that I am responsible only for (most of) the lead. It is plainly obvious that as soon as you leave the lead you are landed into a qualitatively different territory. The article—less the lead—is technically inaccurate, badly composed using broken English and uninformative. Part of the problem is due to Derrida's writing being awful and easily misunderstood—as the article itself readily demonstrates. Part of the problem is the seemingly inexhaustible supply of amateur (pseudo-)philosophers that are attracted to this article. But certainly part of the problem is the phenomenological framework of deconstruction (and much of Continental philosophy) and this can't be magically dispensed with. I detest obfuscation as much as I detest Derrida but I do not think that the idea central to deconstruction—the metaphysics of presence—being steeped in phenomenology as it is will yield to a simpler exposition, that retains technical accuracy, as I have produced in the lead. My original lead was more elucidatory than the current version in regard to the central obscure idea behind deconstruction; the current lead is essentially an edited version of my original lead with the secondary sources (which served to demonstrate WP:NOR) removed. In creating the lead I read through about 20 secondary sources to see if a simpler elucidation—that was also accurate—existed and I found none. My participation in the article ended because I was the only editor doing any real work. I had three ignorant idiots hounding me and when I left the article they didn't contribute anything more to it. The idea which troubled these idiots was akin to the idea that an atheist couldn't have substantive knowledge of Christianity. Essentially that because I openly believe Derrida is a con-artist and that deconstruction is bullshit I must not understand it and will necessarily give it partial account. My lead—which I repeat is 90% preserved in the current lead—was heavily supported with references to Derrida's texts and respected commentaries yet this idiotic and unsubstantiated accusation of biased editing persisted. The first, i.e. [1], citation should be removed. It is not one of my own and is based on a translation by an editor, hence it breaches WP:NOR. The text of the citation is also poor English that adds nothing but confusion. The over-quotation in the article proper is a product of the ignorant idiots I have already mentioned. They don't understand deconstruction so they just cut-and-paste slabs of Derrida's badly written, French-to-English translated text in a bizarre ritual of faux scholarship. The "glue text" between the quotes is even more cryptic and badly composed than the Derrida quotes, e.g. "This confirms the subject as not present to itself and constituted on becoming space, in temporizing and also, as Saussure said, that "language [which consists only of differences] is not a function of the speaking subject."[41] Sub-sections such as this are just more obfusactory bullshit as is the entire negative definition of deconstruction which the article is built around. I've commented at length on this unencyclopedic style and the inappropriateness of embracing Derrida's claims and agenda in the act of composing an ostensibly encyclopedic article about deconstruction but this fundamental point is yet to be acknowledged by anyone. With other articles this point is so obvious it is not worth making but here it is not only not even questioned its violation is championed by some as a virtue. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The lead is awful and the tagging is entirely justified. It's full of technical jargon and completely incomprehensible to anyone who isn't already an expert in the field. WP:LEAD: "the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style". But clearly I must be an "ignorant idiot". Poujeaux (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

If you believe that merely because you are unable to understand a text—with the exclusion of all other salient considerations—that text is deficient then you too may be yet another ignorant idiot that is drawn to this article. Deconstruction is a contribution to long-running conversation in Continetal philosophy, it represents a response to an established position. You can't understand deconstruction unless you understand to what it is that Derrida is responding. Further, you can't understand deconstruction unless you understand the conceptual framework within which Derrida's contribution is presented. If you contend that the lead is awful then I challenge you to try and read one of Derrida's books, e.g. Of Grammatology, and provide an alternative lead—that is more lucid but also technically accurate—here in the discussion section. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This is quite comical. You seem to have forgotten what the point of an encyclopedia is. A common failing among obsessive wikipedia editors. I came here to try and find out what the term "deconstruction" meant, without having to read Derrida's books. Poujeaux (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

As AnotherPseudonym wrote above, the central idea of deconstruction is the metaphysics of presence. Of Grammatology is an attempt at deconstructing the metaphysics of presence. A simpler exposition (that is, an exposition which would omit the starting point of Derrida's critique of Western philosophy) would be downright misleading. I have encountered several books by literary theorists (see Donald E. Hall, Literary and Cultural Theory: From Basic Principles to Advanced Applications, Houghton Mifflin, 2001, p. 161ff.) and art historians (see Rosalind Krauss's introduction in: Hal Foster, Rosalind Krauss, Yve-Alain Bois, Benjamin H. D. Buchloh, Art Since 1900: Modernism, Antimodernism, Postmodernism, London: Thames and Hudson, 2004, Introduction, 4: "Poststructuralism and Deconstruction", p. 48) who attempt to gently initiate readers to the applications of deconstruction to literary criticism and art historical interpretation. However, such books are not authoritative sources about deconstruction as a philosophical enterprise, and one could argue that often, they actually obfuscate even further the concept of deconstruction behind unrelated concepts drawn from post-Derridean discourse. --Omnipaedista (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Derrida's entire project is meaningless without the metaphysics of presence; a text can only be deconstructed to the extent that it relies on the metaphysics of presence. The binary oppositions—that people that have received one lecture on Derrida in the context of a semester unit on "theory" in a fashion or art course are invariably obsessed with—are merely products of that metaphysics of presence. The binary opposites in and of themselves have no special significance. Deconstruction is—at bottom—an anti–foundationalist critique and it is incomprehensible unless you understand the foundation that is being critiqued. Expecting a lead to somewhow supply all of the necessary conceptual background material and to also be concise is a fool's errand. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Why have all references to Heidegger and Destruktion been removed?--Christophe Krief (talk) 09:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

AnotherPseudonym: ``However, the article is fairly readable for readers who are not familiar with the material and the lead is written quite well: I deem that non-experts can understand and verify its content. `` is false. The whole article in general, and the lead in particular, means absolutely nothing to a non-expert. And YES that means the text is deficient because WP is NOT a thesis: it is supposed to be understandable by anyone — it is especially true for the lead. Cheers, Thouny (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thouny, thanks, spot-on. Poujeaux (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add, though, that I am in no way trying to diminish the work of the editors. Indeed the lead may be deficient and the article on the whole just gibberish for the non-expert BUT the subject is (or at least seems to be) awfully complicated and the sheer number sources and notes (if only that) indicates that a tremendous amount of work has been poured into the making of this article. On a similar note, I am absolutely unable to judge its accuracy and veracity. And, well, I think that sometimes time is what works best for WP: maybe one day someone will see this article and will be able to use the material already present with his own way of thinking and turn it into something that even a non-expert can understand :) Anyway, thanks for your work.

Cheers, Thouny (talk) 10:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

French lead

I find the lead of the French version somewhat clearer:

La déconstruction est une méthode, voire une école, de la philosophie contemporaine. Cette pratique d'analyse textuelle est employée pour décortiquer de nombreux écrits (philosophie, littérature, journaux), afin de révéler leurs décalages et confusions de sens, par le moyen d'une lecture se focalisant sur les postulats sous-entendus et les omissions dévoilées par le texte lui-même. Ce concept, participant à la fois de la philosophie et de la littérature, a obtenu une grande notoriété aux États-Unis, où il est assimilé à la philosophie postmoderne, et plus globalement à l'approche divergente de la philosophie continentale d'Europe. Si le terme « déconstruction » a d'abord été utilisé par Heidegger, c'est l'œuvre de Derrida qui en a systématisé l'usage et en a théorisé la pratique.

Le terme de déconstruction apparaît chez Derrida pour la première fois dans De la grammatologie. Derrida expliqua qu'il souhaitait « entre autres choses » proposer une traduction pour les termes allemands de Destruktion et Abbau, que Heidegger emploie dans Être et Temps ; Derrida estime cette traduction plus pertinente que la traduction classique par destruction, dans la mesure où il ne s'agit pas tant, dans la déconstruction de la métaphysique, de la réduire au néant, que de montrer comment elle s'est bâtie.

En traduisant et récupérant à son compte la notion de déconstruction, Derrida entendait que la signification d'un texte donné (essai, roman, article de journal) est le résultat de la différence entre les mots employés, plutôt que de la référence aux choses qu'ils représentent ; il s'agit d'une différence active, qui travaille en creux le sens de chacun des mots qu'elle oppose, d'une façon analogue à la signification différentielle saussurienne en linguistique.

I tried to translate it:

Deconstruction is a method, or even a field, of contemporary philosophy. This type of literary analysis is used to break down a large number of written essays (philosophy, literature, newspapers) in order to reveal their discrepancies and confusions of meaning. This was done through a reading focused on implicit postulates and omissions exposed by the text itself. This concept, which takes from both philosophy and literature, became famous in the United States where it is linked to post-modern philosophy and more globally to l'approche divergente de la philosophie continentale d'Europe. (I can't really translate that). If 'deconstruction' was first used by Heidegger, it is Derrida's work that systematised and theorised its use.

'Deconstruction' first appeared in Derrida's book De la grammatologie, where he explains that, 'among other things', he wants to propose a translation for the German 'Destruktion' and 'Abbau', which Heidegger uses in Être et temps. Derrida feels that this translation is more relevant than the classical 'destruction' to the extent that the deconstruction of metaphysics is not as much about bringing it to nothingness as about showing how it is built.

By translating and appropriating this notion of deconstruction, Derrida wants to show that the meaning of a given text (essay, novel, column) is the result of the difference between the words that are used, rather than of the reference to what they represent: it is an active difference, qui travaille en creux le sens de chacun des mots qu'elle oppose, d'une façon analogue à la signification différentielle saussurienne en linguistique. (I can't really translate that either).

Cheers, Thouny (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the translation. I like your suggestion a lot, and I would support such a move, if the suggested text for the new English lead above would be worked on a little more among different editors here. I agree that this lead is much clearer and straightforward for the lay WP reader. warshy ^(¥¥) 14:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks :) But, yeah, sure, do work on it, it's a translation way above my level, and in a field I'm almost entirely unfamiliar with. Cheers, Thouny (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Unjustified reverting

Omnipaedista, if you do not agree with my contribution, please, explain me why. Please:

Be polite

Assume good faith

Avoid personal attacks

For disputes, seek dispute resolution

On my side I try to respect article policies:

No original research

Neutral point of view

Verifiability

Thanks Hibrido Mutante (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

See WP:BRD. Please discuss before making changes against consensus. --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

You have made radical changes to the long-established lead section. Moreover, claims such as "Derrida called undecidables, that is, unities of simulacrum, 'false' verbal properties (nominal or semantic) that can no longer be included within philosophical (binary) opposition: but which, however, inhabit philosophical oppositions, resisting and organizing it, without ever constituting a third term, without ever leaving room for a solution in the form of speculative dialectics (e.g. Différance, Archi-writing, Pharmakon (philosophy), supplement, Hymen, gram, spacing)" are clearly original research. --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

LOL Sorry. You are wrong.

This is not “original research”, as you suggested. It would be easy for you to confirm that.

Please, do some homework before reverting the contributions from other users.

Please, confirm you are competent to do your own contributions, and, please, do a favor to yourself and to others: do not edit beyond your means (wp: competence).

Please confirm, Derrida own words (Positions p. 43), in a famous interview (and that is being used extensively in this article) are:

“I have called undecidables, that is, unities of simulacrum, "false" verbal properties (nominal or semantic) that can no longer be included within philosophical (binary) opposition, but which, however, inhabit philosophical oppositions, resisting and disorganizing it, without ever constituting a third term, without ever leaving room for a solution in the form of speculative dialectics (the pharmakon is neither remedy nor poison, neither good nor evil, neither the inside nor the outside, neither speech nor writing; the supplement is neither a plus nor a minus, neither an outside nor the complement of an inside, neither accident nor essence, etc.; the hymen is neither confusion nor distinction (neither identity nor difference, neither consummation nor virginity, neither the veil nor unveiling, neither the inside nor the outside, etc.; the gram is neither a signifier nor a signified, neither a sign nor a thing, neither a presence nor an absence, neither a position nor a negation, etc.; spacing is neither space nor time; the incision is neither the incised integrity of a beginning, or of a simple cutting into, nor simple secondarity. Neither/nor: that is simultaneously either or; the mark is also the marginal limit, the march, etc.). In fact, I attempt to bring the critical operation to bear against the unceasing reappropriation of this work of the simulacrum by a dialectics of the Hegelian type (Which even idealizes and "semantizes" the value of work), for Hegelian idealism consists precisely of a releve of the binary oppositions of classical idealism, a resolution of contradiction into a third term that comes in order to aufheben, to deny while raising up, while idealizing, while sublimating into an anamnesic interiority (Errinnerung), while interning difference in a self-presence.”

This interview is also used here:Stanford online encyclopedia("Derrida has provided many definitions of deconstruction. But three definitions are classical. The first is early, being found in the 1971 interview “Positions”):

“ Insofar as the difference is undecidable, it destabilizes the original decision that instituted the hierarchy. After the redefinition of the previously inferior term, Derrida usually changes the term's orthography, for example, writing “différence” with an “a” as “différance” in order to indicate the change in its status. . Différance (which is found in appearances when we recognize their temporal nature) then refers to the undecidable resource into which “metaphysics” “cut” in order to makes its decision. In “Positions,” Derrida calls names like “différance” “old names” or “paleonyms,” and there he also provides a list of these “old terms”: “pharmakon”; “supplement”; “hymen”; “gram”; “spacing”; and “incision” (Positions, p. 43). These names are old because, like the word “appearance” or the word “difference,” they have been used for centuries in the history of Western philosophy to refer to the inferior position in hierarchies. But now, they are being used to refer to the resource that has never had a name in “metaphysics”; they are being used to refer to the resource that is indeed “older” than the metaphysical decision.”

Please, do not revert all my contributions. It took me a long time to do it. You can change this or that sentence, even paragraph and explain me why. But do not revert everything I’ve done.

Thanks.

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks. It is not OR sensu stricto, but it still is problematic. This is not the way we write articles. Copypasting long quotes from interviews is not appropriate when writing a lead section. The previous lead section is long-established. There is no consensus for your changes. Also, please explain your pointless changes to formatting. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:OR again: "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." There is an abundant secondary literature on deconstruction. We need to have more citations to secondary literature (see the thread above). Accumulating overly long Derrida quotes is a terrible way to write an article on deconstruction. Your edits primarily consist in accumulating quotes. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

See also WP:PARAPHRASE. --Omnipaedista (talk) 08:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

When you say "we" who are you talking about? I'm an editor just like you. Please, respect others. You are just like everyone else. And you have to prove you are competent to edit (and revert) contributions from others with valid arguments.

I made long contributions to this article during the last two years. Most of it includes now long contributions by me but also by many others.I accepted some of your contributions during the last two months, even when they were, in my opinion, incompetent, but I thought they were not totally wrong.

In my contributions I tried to maintain most of what was in the old version (except small parts that were only repeating without adding anything). This is how I understand pluralism. Please, do the same and try to get serious consensus with me.

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.

Your first explanation that I was publishing "original research" was false and proved to everyone that you are not competent to be editing this article. You should apologize...It would be nice.

We are talking here about 4 paragraphs. Please explain me what you do not agree in each one. Also, make it clear when your critics are about content or only about form.

It is not true that my contributions are only "primary sources".

First paragraph is based ONLY in secondary or tertiary sources to correct limited framing about deconstruction(including, but not limited to Encyclopedia Britannica about the subject): "deconstruction, form of philosophical and literary analysis, derived mainly from work begun in the 1960s by the French philosopher Jacques Derrida,(...) In the 1980s it designated more loosely a range of theoretical enterprises in diverse areas of the humanities and social sciences, including—in addition to philosophy and literature—law, psychoanalysis, architecture, anthropology, theology, feminism, gay and lesbian studies, political theory, historiography, and film theory."

Second paragraph adds important reference to Rorty to complement limited understanding about what is "difference" in previous version.

Third paragraph and forth are based on Stanford approach. Present version does not understand that there are 2 phases in deconstruction with important ethical and political implications, explaining its importance to other authors, specially in human sciences(and your accusation that this was my "personal research" is a symptom of your lack of understanding about the subject". ("Derrida has provided many definitions of deconstruction. But three definitions are classical. The first is early, being found in the 1971 interview “Positions” and in the 1972 Preface to Dissemination: deconstruction consists in “two phases” (Positions, pp. 41-42, Dissemination, pp.4-6)").

This was present in older versions but incompetent editing remove it. We must correct this.

I repeat:":“ Insofar as the difference is undecidable, it destabilizes the original decision that instituted the hierarchy. After the redefinition of the previously inferior term, Derrida usually changes the term's orthography, for example, writing “différence” with an “a” as “différance” in order to indicate the change in its status. . Différance (which is found in appearances when we recognize their temporal nature) then refers to the undecidable resource into which “metaphysics” “cut” in order to makes its decision. In “Positions,” Derrida calls names like “différance” “old names” or “paleonyms,” and there he also provides a list of these “old terms”: “pharmakon”; “supplement”; “hymen”; “gram”; “spacing”; and “incision” (Positions, p. 43). These names are old because, like the word “appearance” or the word “difference,” they have been used for centuries in the history of Western philosophy to refer to the inferior position in hierarchies. But now, they are being used to refer to the resource that has never had a name in “metaphysics”; they are being used to refer to the resource that is indeed “older” than the metaphysical decision.”

I believe we are doing a proper use of paraphrase here ( "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with or without quotation marks), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text – for example, by adding "John Smith wrote ...," together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph".)

Please, avoid being vague in you accusations and give "us" concrete critics and serious explanations why you do not agree with my contributions. Also, make it clear when your critics are about content or only about form.Edit step by step and avoid edit warring.

Please, respect other editors.

Thanks

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

(outdent) "I accepted some of your contributions during the last two months, even when they were, in my opinion, incompetent, but I thought they were not totally wrong." You do not own the article; moreover, you keep making ad hominem attacks. Regarding the lead I still believe that you are closely paraphrasing primary sources in an undue way. The old lead by AnotherPseudonym has been de facto accepted by many editors who have edited the article during the last few months. Your new version of the lead (essentially, a long quote from a Derrida interview) is obfuscating. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It is a fact, no one owns the article, not me, not you (but it looks you don't understand that). Respect others. The difference between me and you is that I don't come here and simply revert what others do, even when I do not agree with it. You should do the same.

No, I don't "keep making ad hominen". I use the word "incompetent" referring: do not edit beyond your means (wp: competence). You accused me of publishing original research. I proved you didn't know what you were talking about and, in my opinion, that proved you were editing beyond your means. You are still doing it.

Please, at least, apologize for the serious accusations you have made (don't defend your self attacking me).

You just have to read the posts here to confirm that most editors don't agree with AnotherPseudonym during December. You can find serious critics to him and his behavior (from all the editors except you). No one wants to talk with people with that king of behavior. No one wants to be insulted by people with any sense of social behavior. And if when you say "we" you are considering yourself and him... I would advice you to choose your partners better. But it is only a friendly suggestion.

All the rest of "us" do not agree with AnotherPseudonym and you. Maybe, we just need more time than you to make our contributions referring solid sources (at least reading the basic interviews referred by the experts in the subject, but also other encyclopedias about it). We are more than two, and we are giving small contributions for this article for many more years than you.

First: You should start by confirming that I respected most of your contributions (even if I think they are from people that do not understand properly what "deconstruction" is, how it proceeds and why it is useful to others and to whom).

It is totally false I added a "long quote from Derrida" (this is the 3rd time you give false justifications to your behavior.)

I proved you that each time. Last time, I explained my sources to the first paragraph( Enciclopedia Brittanica), and what I have added to the second (Rotry quotes) and to the last one (based on Encyclopedia of Stanford). Quotes from Derrida come from different interviews and articles (but most were contributions from many editors that are already in the rest of the article).

To each paragraph I explained the reasons to my contributions.

Please, avoid being vague in you accusations and give "us" concrete critics and serious explanations why you do not agree with my contributions. Also, make it clear when your critics are about content or only about form.Edit step by step and avoid edit warring.

DO NOT REVERT. 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. (part of the Edit warring policy")

Thanks

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

(outdent) (i) "incompetent editor" is indeed an ad hominem attack. Please refrain from making baseless accusations. (ii) I do not agree with the impolite way AnotherPseudonym addresses other editors, but this does not mean that I do not appreciate his/her efforts at improving the article. (iii) My first comment regarding your edits on your talk page was this: "Please stop messing up the formatting of pages and stop removing [...] content without a justification". I apologize for the "clearly original research" part of my criticism above but I still abide by the belief that messing up the formatting of pages and removing content without justification (as you did in the Jacques Derrida article) is not constructive. I also still abide by the belief that the new version of the lead is obfuscating and that the rest of your additions (superficial modifications of material from other sources) consist in closely paraphrasing Derrida and Rorty in possible violation of WP:COPYVIO. I will not revert your edits anymore but I still deem those contributions to be of questionable value. As Bhny wrote above "we need more secondary references and less Derrida quotes" ("we" refers to Wikipedia editors). Eventually many of those quotes will have to be removed. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you changed your tone. Now we can work consensus ;)

i) I've based my "accusation" in the "clearly original research" part of your criticism. You have apologize. I don't have more reasons to call your attention to it. I'm glad we can change tone.

ii)I've tried not to delete AnotherPseudonymous efforts at improving the article. Only to complement it with a) other areas where deconstruction is used b) explanations about the two phases of deconstruction

iii) I'm sorry if a) I've messed formatting.There were a lot of copy pastes and I agree that here and there I was not rigorous.Sorry. I see you already clean it up. Thanks, in the name of us all.b) It was not my intention to delete anything. I have already corrected it. If there was something that escaped me, fill free to point it to me. I will try to correct it asap.

iv)I did not understand your criticism to my contributions to each paragraph and why you consider it obfuscating. I assume that after more than a quarter of a century reading about these subjects there are things that are obvious to me and can not be so to others. I assume that me, as Derrida,grown up in a different "form of life", playing a different "language game" and I would like to believe that, even so, it is possible to partially translate our perspective to English, even being aware of possible "indeterminacy of translation", "incommensurability" and/or "différend".

iv)Considering paraphrasing, as I pointed before, I believe we are doing a proper use of it: ( "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with or without quotation marks), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text – for example, by adding "John Smith wrote ...," together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph".)

I believe you agree with first and second paragraph.

Third paragraph and forth are based on: Stanford approach.: "Derrida has provided many definitions of deconstruction. But three definitions are classical. The first is early, being found in the 1971 interview “Positions” and in the 1972 Preface to Dissemination: deconstruction consists in “two phases (Positions, pp. 41-42, Dissemination, pp.4-6)").

(...) “ Insofar as the difference is undecidable, it destabilizes the original decision that instituted the hierarchy.

After the redefinition of the previously inferior term, Derrida usually changes the term's orthography, for example, writing “différence” with an “a” as “différance” in order to indicate the change in its status. . Différance (which is found in appearances when we recognize their temporal nature) then refers to the undecidable resource into which “metaphysics” “cut” in order to makes its decision.

In “Positions,” Derrida calls names like “différance” “old names” or “paleonyms,” and there he also provides a list of these “old terms”: “pharmakon”; “supplement”; “hymen”; “gram”; “spacing”; and “incision” (Positions, p. 43).

These names are old because, like the word “appearance” or the word “difference,” they have been used for centuries in the history of Western philosophy to refer to the inferior position in hierarchies.

But now, they are being used to refer to the resource that has never had a name in “metaphysics”; they are being used to refer to the resource that is indeed “older” than the metaphysical decision".

I'm open to develop a new version of these 2 paragraphs that presents this phases. I used material that was already in the rest of the article. I think it is a good way to say the same thing (and even better).But I'm open to review its form.

I believe we Can do it together. Please suggest.

Thanks

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I still think that the phrase "Derrida called undecidables, that is, unities of simulacrum, "false" verbal properties (nominal or semantic) that can no longer be included within philosophical (binary) opposition: but which, however, inhabit philosophical oppositions, resisting and organizing it, without ever constituting a third term, without ever leaving room for a solution in the form of speculative dialectics (e.g. différance, archi-writing, pharmakon, supplement, hymen, gram, spacing)" should not be in the lead section. By the way, another editor attempted a re-write which has many problems. Having the phrase "With his detailed readings of works from Plato to Rousseau to Heidegger, Derrida frequently argues that Western philosophy has uncritically allowed metaphorical "depth" models to govern its conception of language and consciousness" (copypasted from Jacques Derrida) in the lead section is also not helpful. --Omnipaedista (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you explain me why that phrase should not be in the lead? Is it the content or is it its form that make you uncomfortable? Could you propose another way to say the same thing?

As I told you before, this is a paraphrase of Derrida himself in "Positions", p.43 (I know you are aware of it).

I will give the long quotation (that puts it in context and shows how many other parts on this article are related to it). I believe it is easy to understand why it is so important.

We can try to say the same thing in an other way. But I think it is quite important to say it (in my opinion, and the opinion of many scholars, it is crucial to understand Derrida move, specially considering his own "context", where "hegel" and "marx" are considered "important" philosophers, and not what we could call "anglo-saxonic" readings of him)

Derrida interview with Jean-Louis Houdebine and Guy Scarpetta

Houdebine: Could you specify, at least under the rubric of an introduction to this interview, the actual state of your research, whose effectiveness immediately showed itself to have considerable bearing on the ideological field of our era, the state of development of the general economy again recently demarcated in three texts that are perhaps the symptoms of a new differentiation of the sheaf: your reading of Sollers's Numbers, in "La dissemination"and then (but these two texts are contemporaries) "La double seance" and finally "La mythologie blanche"?3(...)

Derrida: What interested me then, what I am attempting to pursue along other lines now, was, at the same time as a "general economy," a kind of general strategy of deconstruction. The latter is to avoid both simply neutrallzing the binary oppositions of metaphysics and simply residing within the closed field of these oppositions, thereby confirming it.

Therefore we must proceed using a double gesture, according to a unity that is both systematic and in and of itself divided, a double writing, that is, a writing that is in and of itself multiple, what I called, in "La double seance ," a double science.

On the one hand, we must traverse a phase of overturning. To do justice to this necessity is to recognize that in a classical philosophical opposition we are not dealing with the peaceful coexistence of a vis-a-vis, but rather with a violent hierarchy. One of the two terms governs the other (axiologically, logically, etc.), or has the upper hand. To deconstruct the opposition, first of all, is to overturn the hierarchy at a given moment. To overlook this phase of overturning is to forget the conflictual and subordinating structure of opposition.

Therefore one might proceed too quickly to a neutralization that in practice would leave the previous field untouched, leaving one no hold on the previous opposition, thereby preventing any means of intervening in the field effectively. We know what always have been the practical (particularly political) effects of Immediately jumping beyond oppositions, and of protests in the simple form of neither this nor that. When I say that this phase is necessary, the word phase is perhaps not the most rigorous one. It is not a question of a chronological phase, a given moment, or a page that one day simply will be turned, in order to go on to other things. The necessity of this phase is structural; it is the necessity of an interminable analysis: the hierarchy of dual oppositions always reestablishes itself. Unlike those authors whose death does not await their demise, the time for overturning is never a dead letter.

That being said- and on the other hand- to remain in this phase is still to operate on the terrain of and from within the deconstructed system. By means of this double, and precisely stratified, dislodged and dislodging, writing, we must also mark the interval between inversion, which brings low what was high, and the irruptive emergence of a new "concept", a concept that can no longer be, and never could be, included in the previous regime. If this interval, this biface or biphase, can be inscribed only in a bifurcated writing (and this holds first of all for a new concept of writing, that simultaneously provokes the overturning of the hierarchy speech/writing, and the entire system attached to it, and releases the dissonance of a writing within speech, thereby disorganizing the entire inherited order and invading the entire field), then it can only be marked in what I would call a grouped textual field: in the last analysis it is impossible to point it out, for a unilinear text, or a punctual position, 'I an operation signed by a single author, are all by definition incapable of practicing this interval.

Henceforth, in order better to mark this interval (La dissemination), the text that bears this title, since you have asked me about it, is a systematic and playful exploration of the interval-"ecart," carre, carrure, carte, charte, quatre,lO etc.) it has been necessary to analyze, to set to work, within the text of the history of philosophy, as well as within the so-called literary text (for example, Mallarme), certain marks, shall we say (I mentioned certain ones just now, there are many others), that by analogy (I underline) I have called undecidables, that is, unities of simulacrum, "false" verbal properties (nominal or semantic) that can no longer be included within philosophical (binary) opposition: but which, however, inhabit philosophical opposition, resisting and disorganizing it, without ever constituting a third term, without ever leaving room for a solution in the form of speculative dialectics (the pharmakon is neither remedy nor poison, neither good nor evil, neither the inside nor the outside, neither speech nor writing; the supplement is neither a plus nor a minus, neither an outside nor the complement of an inside, neither accident nor essence, etc.; the hymen is neither confusion nor distinction, neither identity nor difference, neither consummation nor virginity, neither the veil nor unveiling, neither the inside nor the outside, etc.; the gram is neither a signifier nor a signified, neither a sign nor a thing, neither a presence nor an absence, neither a position nor a negation, etc.; spacing is neither space nor time; the incision is neither the incised integrity of a beginning, or of a simple cutting into, nor simple secondary. Neither/nor: that is simultaneously either or; the mark is also the marginal limit, the march, etc.).l1

In fact, I attempt to bring the critical operation to bear against the unceasing re-appropriation of this work of the simulacrum by a dialectics of the Hegelian type (Which even idealizes and "semantizes" the value of work), for Hegelian idealism consists precisely of a releve of the binary oppositions of classical idealism, a resolution of contradiction into a third term that comes in order to aufheben, to deny while raising up, while idealizing, while sublimating into an anamnesic interiority (Errinnerung), while interning difference in a self-presence. 12"

Since it is still a question of elucidating the relationship to Hegel- a difficult labor, which for the most part remains before us, and which in a certain way is interminable, at least if one wishes to execute it rigorously and minutely- I have attempted to distinguish differance (whose a marks, among other things, its productive and conflictual characteristics) from Hegelian difference, and have done so precisely at the point at which Hegel, in the greater Logic, determines difference as contradiction 13 only in order to resolve it, to interiorize it, to lift it up (according to the syllogistic process of speculative dialectics) into the self-presence of an ontotheological or onto-teleological synthesis.

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)