Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
i wish you guys didn't use the word "deconstruct" without knowing what it means.
but if you're talking about the need to know what the fuck one is discussing before discussins it, the answer is an obvious "but of course..."
obvious everywhere except for american universities of course... there its the "theory" that you can apply to "anything" including shit you've never even heard of but can write authoritatively about... oh don't get me started... the biggest fucking con of the century...
|
I entirely agree with the first sentence of this post, and agree with the remainder also.
Unfortunately, there's a particularly Derridian irony to the fact that the word 'deconstruct' has been subject to
effacement to the effect that it is now used as a synonym for 'analyse/ analysis'. Personally, it strikes me that this is far more widespread in the States than it is over this side of the Atlantic; it's not for me to say that this process is wrong (I'm not clever enough to take on the might of our beautifully fluid language) - I can, however, assert that it baffles me quite why people say 'deconstruct' when 'analyse' seems infinitely more fitting.
Deconstruction is, to my understanding, not a single process that may be applied to anything one wants to; it's a similar misunderstanding to the commonly held ones about the (already horrifically complicated/ convoluted) notion of postmodernism.
Anyway, it's the internet, and you've all switched off to watch porn or something by now. I think the answer to the question is probably "people say too many things. Less people speaking would be a good thing" so long as it's understood that I am not one of the people who should stop speaking.