Talk:Deconstruction/Archive 4

243:

and I am shocked to discover that in that short period of time the deconstruction page has been completely gutted of its substantial content. Many of the paragraphs that have been deleted in their entirety were extensively referenced material that represents almost a years work of carefully researched editing of this difficult topic. I am also concerned that the lengthy discussions concerning the development of the article over the last year has also been deleted without acknowledgment or explanation of why the deletion has taken place and that none of the material that has been removed has been preserved in the discussion section for others to see. It seems that the major deletion of material was undertaken by Rspeer on the 19th of July who does in fact attempt to justify this action a little further down this page. Rspeer states that some material was deleted that he expected to be re-instated. I'd respectfully suggest that Rspeer should be a little more conservative before deleting material if he is not certain that it actually merits deletion in future (though I must admit that I did have problems with certain parts of the article that were deleted by Rspeer and that there was some slightly reckless value in his deletion of such material). Rspeer's apparent intention to allow certain material to be reinstated is somewhat complicated by the the number of subsequent edits that have taken place since then. I am concerned that Rspeer justifies his deletion of material that he did not understand while calling for experts to get involved and criticising a "deconstructivist perspective" (people who work with Derrida professionally don't tend to refer to themselves as 'deconstructivists' and the term is used with more or less abusive conotations by Rspeer...perhaps if you are prejudiced against a particular topic you are not the most ideal editor to work in it?). Of less concern but still problematic is the apparently well intentioned but nevertheless destructive deletion of the section on Husserl claimed by 71.191.118.228. There is considerable work involved in restoring the material lost in the last two months and the assistance in its restoration and continued positive editing of the page are greatly appreciated.

2382:

redundancies can be omitted and sentences shortened. You seem to have a keener eye for copy editing than me so why don't you give it a go? I know that its contrary to academic standards but maybe we could just remove the ellipses from the quotation and indicate that the quotation is edited in the footnote? "To 'deconstruct' philosophy would be to think the structured genealogy of philosophy's concepts" could perhaps be paraphrased as "To deconstruct philosophy is to think carefully within philosophy about philosophical concepts in terms of their structure and genesis." The next part of the quotation is harder to paraphrase. Maybe: "To deconstruct philosophy is to think carefully within philosophy about philosophical concepts in terms of their structure and genesis. Hence deconstruction tries to understand the implications of this history of philosophy as if we could reflect upon it from the outside. Especially the implications of the history of philosophy that have been least obvious because they have controlled the operation of all philosophical thought. Deconstruction operates both faithfully within philosophy and violently tries to escape it to some degree in order to understand it better. Deconstruction does this in order to challenge the basic controlling operation of all philosophical thought: the meaning of being as presence." Such paraphrasing makes me nervous because I worry that it might lose some level of meaning I'm not fully aware of. In Derrida's defense - the quotation is from an interview and he was presumably improvising his explanation to some degree...and its translated from the original French (not by me!).

1946:

approach which rigorously pursues the meaning of a text to the point of undoing the oppositions on which it is apparently founded, and to the point of showing that those foundations are irreducibly complex, unstable or, indeed, impossible." Unfortunately, this sentence has been excised by editor Jefffire, who apparently believes this sentence to be "clear nonsense." I myself note that there is a substantial overlap with the dictionary definition which has now been added in its stead, but in my humble opinion the sentence as I have formulated it is clearer and more precise, as well as not being simply a quote lifted from a dictionary. Re-inclusion of the sentence which I have composed, and removal of the dictionary definition, will benefit the article. In addition, the entire "Theory" section is quite poor, and should be removed and replaced. As mentioned, no improvement of this situation is likely unless editors who are currently contributing rethink their role. Some editors would be well-advised to cut back their involvement to a minimum, and there is no point engaging in debate with these editors. In the current circumstances it is nearly impossible to contribute positively to the article.

2836:

dismissed as trivial. Critics could say "You just go looking for contradictions in the text and look so hard that you actually create them! Your deconstruction is not important to people that really care for the philosophy you refer to." For Derrida deconstruction happens to a text because it is always the illustration of problems that were already there in the text. It is for this reason that the deconstruction of a text is not the trivial whim of some prankster but the illustration of real problems that are simply made more obvious to other people. This is why Derrida states that deconstruction is "always already" in the text. For Derrida the text is pregnant with the possibility of deconstruction and the philosopher that produces the deconstruction is a kind of midwife that just helps bring it forth. Deconstruction is very much a work of communication and of neutral description. This emphasis on the neutrality of description is derived from Husserl's insistence on the neutral description of the phenomena of conscious experience in

276:

deconstruction and is therefore a valuable asset to the topic. The latter subsection is designed to go some way towards explaining one aspect of Derrida's negative description of deconstruction and replaces the scrappy three lines under the heading of "Method" for obvious reasons - check the citations. In terms of how this page SHOULD be developing there should be other subsections here concerning why (1) deconstruction is not an analysis (2) A critique .I reproduce the three lines from the "Method" section below in case anyone wants to reincorporate this material at a future stage. I think that it WOULD actually be useful to have a section explaining how there has been an attempt to treat deconstruction as a new way to read a text as long as it is made clear that this is an appropriation of the term that ignores Derrida's warnings that deconstruction is not a method.

1764:

I got a bit alarmed when I saw all that work had apparently apparently just disappeared. I am glad for the burst of momentum that has taken place recently in spite of the high traffic problems from the xkcd incident and, as you say, your critical eye has allowed me to see a lot of the material more critically myself. I'll try to clarify the relevance of the section on Husserl as per your advice and trim what isn't absolutely relevant. I've also been thinking of restoring the section on "Late Deconstruction" even though the old version that you removed was rather poor because there is a marked shift in how Derrida engages in deconstruction in the 90's (instead of a critical engagement with other philosophers there was a tendency to consider the strict impossibility of pure philosophical terms) and some treatment should be given of this in the final article.

3267:

I continue to believe it is a perfectly good sentence and one necessary to the article. It is clear, however, that one particular editor is determined to excise it, and as its author I am not going to engage in any further campaign for its inclusion. A great problem for this particular Knowledge (XXG) article is that it attracts editors who have no knowledge or or even interest in the topic, but who nevertheless are very keen to exert their influence on the article. This is unfortunate. Until editors who actually care about the article learn to collectively resist these kinds of editors, it will be very difficult for the article to escape the parlous condition in which it finds itself (although I should add there has been quite some improvement in the last couple of months). Good luck to those genuinely interested in creating a good article on this topic.

3448:

is what wikipedia is all about. If understanding of a certain concept depends on the understanding of some other concept, then say so, provide a link, and after that link explain how it depends on the other concept. You can't assume that a reader has a strong foundation in literary criticism. In fact, you should assume he doesn't, and he's reading this article because he ran into the word deconstruction and wants to know what it means. An encyclopedia article needs to be a starting point for a layperson, not the definitive text on the subject. Start by a simple, short definition of what deconstruction is, or what it's about. If there is no such definition, then be honest and start out by saying that it is undefined, yet bandied about in discussions of a certain type.

2057:: this topic tends to attract editors who are simply dismissive of Derrida and deconstruction, and it is therefore easy for editors who are sympathetic to the subject to convince themselves that they are the ones who comprehend the subject, when in fact that comprehension may be rather deficient. Good faith and good will does not necessarily result in a good article. Both of these suggestions I am making, however, require self-reflection on the part of editors, which I have noticed cannot always be counted on at Knowledge (XXG). At present, however, I do not feel it is possible to contribute effectively to this article. In the meantime, given the very poor state of the article, in my opinion the best option is to cut back the article to a minimum. 2881:

authoritatively be said to understand deconstruction? The idea that no one understands deconstruction is a myth promulgated by people who don't. It's not a matter of blaming the failures of the reader for all misunderstanding of the topic but a matter of pointing out that to expect passive learning in the area is to expect too much. Coming to understand deconstruction isn't infotainment. No one is watching Fox News when they read this article. They're trying to understand a difficult twentieth century philosophy that is heavily based in previous, equally technical, philosophies while carefully challenging some of the most commonly accepted intellectual practices of

2291:

will not do because people will just red ink the individual statements in the theory section as unsupported material. Note also that its damn hard to find Derrida speaking explicitly about deconstruction as he does in that quotation (normally he just uses the term and the term is determined through its role in such usage) and it is therefore a kind of precious flower :0) ...I'm not really sure how to explain it for the total amateur but maybe the material in the second paragraph could be used first (whatcha think?) as it is a bit more general and talks about what a deconstruction means etc.

2661:

considers the negative descriptions a clarification of how the term deconstruction has been critically received (for example by the Yale School). Derrida's clarifications do clear up the meaning of the term within this context of professional philosophers and critics working with the term deconstruction when Derrida's work was just being translated from the original French. It does however operate upon some kind of prior understanding of the term that is assumed to be in place (i.e. that the relevant texts have actually been read in the first place). It is clear in the sense of a

3425:

the average Joe to catch without following twenty links. I agree that some of the sentences could be shortened and more links provided, but let us not forget what it is we are dealing with here. I will put this on my list of articles to work on, but be nice to the editors who have given this topic much work. It is a good article despite its flaws, and if editors have questions or need clarity on specific areas of the text, I would suggest asking those questions one by one and letting others answer them then find a way to clarify in the article itself.

2996:, if you insist that words should mean things." Are you under the misapprehension that deconstruction implies words mean nothing? Let me assure you that this is not the case. Derrida's theory of language effectively proposes an alternative theory of meaning not the absence of meaning. What Derrida denies is a straightforward theory of intentional meaning or the ability of the language user to make language mean exactly what they want it to mean. Meaning for Derrida is what is negotiated by the language user and the philosopher alike. 1164:"Definition difficulty" (as I believe it used to be?) and both the primary and secondary views on definition belong there. 3. "Continuing developments" could be a useful section but so far nothing in it is about continuing developments. (The most recent text listed is twelve years old.) I'm not sure what the purpose of that section is supposed to be, but if there is one then it should have a relevant title. 4. In general there are too many overly long sentences, but copy-editing's not vital till the content is all mostly there. - 3468:

the subject. I am looking into it myself, and will probably get around to making some major changes this weekend that should help. I guess my point is that with such a term, putting it into clear context for the average reader will take a skill far beyond what many of us possess. Just as it is sometimes harder to write a short poem than a longer one, it is also much harder to describe a complex philosohy without being complex. I am just asking that we be a bit nicer to those who have tried so hard in the past :)

2488:

models. (If there are good or featured articles that order things differently, then sure.) But I don't think it matters that the history section (or any section) becomes terribly complex if that's unavoidable. The important thing is that each section starts out as simply as possible and builds up to that complexity, so that people can stop reading when they've had enough. In the history case this is simple and it's already in effect. The section starts with an easy-to-read list and then goes on into more detail.

1097:

detailed; it is highly complex and obscenely difficult to read, so that it is very challenging even to make statements about the internal relationship of his work to itself, to say nothing of relating Husserl to other philosophers. (Students of philosophy who have read Husserl's treatise on phenomenal time consciousness might, I think, empathize with my concerns on this point.) For my part, I vote that Derrida's house be set in order before building a bridge to Husserl's rather daunting intellectual fortress.

2731:

sort of tension with each other. Should I look backward for clarification? No, that's just a lengthy account of who wrote what that also uses the word "genetic" in a quite perplexing way. Should I look forward? Nope, then there's a hideously unclear quote from Derrida where he seems to be chiding Husserl for not accepting "an eternal truth created by an infinite reason". Or maybe he's doing the opposite, but you can't tell if it's in a positive or negative context because there's an ellipsis in between.

259:

passage in which Derrida first uses the term deconstruction according to the extensive annotated bibliography by Schultz and Fried) and contains plenty of references and quotations. I've tried to explain the terminology and significance of Derrida's argument as best as I can without personal interpretation and if this explanation is confusing then feel free to improve it etc. in the regular wikipedian way...but ask yourself if you understand the material better and can explain it more clearly.

3362:

terminology when simple descriptions will suffice. Start by identifying what deconstructionism is rather than what it is not. If deconstructionism is a way to examine a piece of literary work and identify the bias and assumptions inherent in it, then explain in steps how that process is done. If the editors have a sincere desire to impart knowledge rather than to obscure a concept for the appearance of profundity, then a simplified explanation shouldn't be too hard.

3551:, the backcovers have it written upon their very self. And this self does not bare deconstructive practices? That is what identity-politics does for you. But, it is nice to see that all this french deconstructive nonsense is not taken seriously by the authors and readers of the article. Still, Deconstruction seems to be a great successs, as the W. list of people influenced by it shows. Too bad the cute red bibles mutated into all those XXXL-sized Derridaean tomes.-- 1536:

article helped me Not At All. By all means we can (should?) add back almost all of the removed material, but we should conform to Knowledge (XXG)'s standards in doing so. That is: a general introduction understandable to the layman, followed by more accurate, verifiable details with citations to established sources, all laid out in as concise and clear (jargon-free) a manner as is possible. Accuracy is absolutely important. Comprehensibility is indispensable. -

2863:

clear from the previous material of the paragraph but it can be clarified easily in the article. People like specific examples when they're confused by the abstract argument so this is straightforward - Husserl will not allow the structure of the mathematical system to be considered an eternal truth created by an infinite reason (there is always a history of how this structure originated) and this type of argument influences Derrida's deconstruction.

2981:

burden of proof on Derrida (or on other thinkers like Nancy working with some of Derrida's philosophical terms) while trying to explain deconstruction is not the role of this wikipedia article. The point is to familiarise readers with some key aspects of deconstruction not to evaluate whether deconstruction is true or false, right or wrong. Such a decision is not ours to make and the point is surely that the reader can come to their own conclusions.

31: 3037:, where a considerable amount of current research is unpublished. There are also some published pop-science books on voting theory, which promote ways of understanding voting theory that don't really hold up in the face of the current unpublished arguments. When working on such articles, I have accepted the fact that they will contain some explanations I don't think are entirely correct, which are sourced to the pop-science books, because 2987:

taking the criticism of deconstruction seriously - through the medium of wikipedia. You certainly can't prevent Nancy's book from taking deconstruction seriously or wikipedians for reporting that he does. If you have a bone to pick with deconstruction then try putting some work into the "Criticism of Deconstruction" section by, for example, figuring out how to better explain exactly what John Searle's criticism of deconstruction is.

3707:"deconstruction" from the outside, because they're the only ones willing to say something meaningful (and yes, what they say is typically negative). Those who write about deconstruction from within the field seem to be terrified of anything with an actual meaning, lest Zombie Derrida jump out from behind it and deconstruct them. They can't talk about the game without playing it. I'd be happy to see a counterexample, though. 2093:

of informational content has been produced. This is good progress. More expertise would, of course, always be lovely - but hard work is going into improving this article. Its not really helpful to just dismiss all that effort by reiterating your position from two months ago from before the current form of the article took shape. It's important not to just give up and wait for someone that will be

3752:

seriousness and superficiality of deconstructive texts--but that's part of the whole point of deconstruction, to undermine the seriousness and profundity of all texts. So we should be able to cover such criticism all throughout the article wherever it is appropriate. We'll state what Derrida said, and then show how Derrida's opponents vehemently agree. (I'm only half kidding here.)

1572:

isn't the case that this is a trivial task. If we make mistakes simplifying the material then there will always be people coming along and telling us we've got it so wrong so its better to stick to the primary material and the facts. Just because deconstruction is associated with the arts and humanities doesn't mean that it is easier to understand than other technical topics from

3821:, but we don't have to write the entire article in French. So while it is likely to be necessary to refer to many other aspects of literary theory to describe deconstruction, it shouldn't be necessary to succumb to aimless wordplay that attempts to deconstruct itself or avoid deconstructing itself or whatever. (What makes this difficult is that it seems many secondary sources 2073:

bit sympathetic to the subject; I am sympathetic to Knowledge (XXG) and people who want to know more about it.) You clearly have a thorough grounding in deconstruction, but like you say, most of us don't: we don't even know what the 'bare minimum' you propose actually is. If you list your problems with the article, then other experts (obviously not me) can work to fix them. -

1610:. I'm not indicating these problems in order to discourage participation but merely to indicate the actual difficulties involved. Respected philosophers like Searle and Habermas have been honestly confused by Derrida's work and this just indicates that expertise in one area of philosophy is not necessarily transferable to another. Reynolds and Roffe in their introductory text 3672:

deconstruction to people who are not already familiar with them, why aren't we referencing secondary sources that aim to do exactly that, such as the "for beginners" books mentioned above? Is it just because one editor thinks they're wrong? Why, instead, are we constantly referencing Derrida? Given how many academics have failed at explaining Derrida, doesn't it constitute

2022:

than the medialit one Jefffire used originally) and the theory section needs serious improvement. But I disagree that it should be replaced: an article about deconstruction needs a section that explains the need for and the methods of and thought behind deconstruction. It does not have to have a single word penned by me. It just needs to be helpful and informative. -

1148:. I made this a new subsection so that it will be easier to move down the page to an examples of deconstruction section if need be. I've also asked for help editing on the Heidegger talk page so maybe we can find someone who can detail the role of Heidegger in the development of deconstruction. What are your thoughts on all this mtevfrog, rspeer, and snookerman? 3023:

deconstruction is "good or bad", it's about whether it should be defined or not. I'm not asking for a "burden of proof" from Derrida at the expense of explanation, like you say. Quite contrarily, I'm asking for more explanation, from a larger variety of secondary sources that can hopefully do a better job of grounding the term "deconstruction" in meaning.

1658:

a general idea of Derrida's deconstruction. Just because Derrida deliberately wrote badly does not mean this article should. A couple of examples: the contents box needs tidying. 1.2 should not read "Derrida's Deconstruction of Husserl's Phenomenology in Speech and Phenomena" - just call it "Speech and Phenomena". Then, in that subsection, state that

2893:. I'm patiently putting a lot of effort into explaining deconstruction in the article and on this talk page. Taking this honest and voluntary effort into account I am most certainly not responsible for what other people don't know in this area or others and it is unreasonable to imply that there is some kind of conspiracy of nonsense at work. 2433:

approximately chronological article structure but I can't see an alternative if the precursors section is to be done properly - readers will be like "The limit of Hegelian sublation what?" and that wont do :0). Oh, Kant's aporia, critique of pure reason, and a-priori conditions of possibility should be mentioned in the precursors too.

3637:

arise from the operation of différance." What exactly is being "deferred" here, or is the term "deferral" being used with a different meaning than its meaning in English? Isn't it a wild exaggeration to say that anything in literary criticism could account for "all difference and all presence", which would seem to require a physical

2334:

amateur - it's too complex - but there are ways of making the sentences less difficult to read. The present quote isn't even grammatical: when we ellipse the qualifiers in the first part we end up with "To 'deconstruct' philosophy would be to think the structured genealogy of philosophy's concepts". That's not even a sentence. :) -

3030:-- even though the article currently haughtily dismisses them as "problematic" with the uncited assertion that they are "academically criticized". These sources are likely to have the most straightforward definitions, and as long as the more "authoritative" sources are silent, the "problematic" sources are what we have to rely on. 3748:

actually I think that most of the sources cited here are secondary sources--keep in mind that this also includes Derrida writing secondarily about Derrida. I don't think the primary source references are inappropriate, but to the extent that we can mix in secondary commentary about Derrida's statements too, that would be better.

3208:, writing an encyclopedia article, care if "deconstruction criticizes" (there's that unspecified agent again) the language we use to explain it? If someone deconstructs a statement about deconstruction, why does it matter? This should be about as relevant to us as whether the Académie Française objects that our 2680:

maths or poetry to a student does not mean that the equations or poems in question are nonsensical, merely that they have not been understood). I suggest rewriting the sentence as "In response, Derrida attempts to clarify the situation by stating explicitly what deconstruction is not." That should cover it.

3760:

using only simple English, without reference to certain mathematical style, conventions, and mannerisms developed over decades in the field. Deconstruction isn't quite as specialized a field as mathematics, but the same principle applies to at least some extent. As far as it can be done, though, I'm

3732:

is pretty good, though maybe could use some stylistic changes, and the first quote is a little awkward. To answer your question, what is being "deferred" is meaning itself. All Derrida was saying is that when you try to point to something and identify its meaning, you are pointing in the wrong place,

3659:

is "undeconstructable and therefore suitable for a philosophy after Derrida". This implies that (a) it is possible to assert with confidence that something is "undeconstructable", (b) it is important and good for something to be undeconstructable, and (c) now that there's Derrida, any philosophy that

3245:

I'm getting the impression that the only people who actually understand deconstruction have been so scarred by the very concept that they're unable to write intelligibly about it. But yes, I agree. This article doesn't need to stand up to deconstructive criticism, it just needs to explain the concept

3138:

I've been studying the indroduction for a little while, and this is the best interpretation I can make of it: "Deconstruction shows that any text has multiple possible interpretations. These interpretations are incompatible but necessarily related to each other in in complex ways. A casual reading of

2986:

There is space for criticising deconstruction in the "Criticisms of Deconstruction" section and all meaningful criticism can be placed here to aide the reader coming to their own conclusion concerning the merit of the material. You can't prevent people taking deconstruction seriously - or conversely,

2741:

I understand the urge to blame the reader for not understanding -- it's easier than successfully explaining things, after all. It seems to be a widely-used strategy in literary criticism. But you can't make a good Knowledge (XXG) article by blaming the reader. When you say passively that the concepts

2333:

Would it not be possible to simply paraphrase the quote, or only quote a phrase or two? Or to start the section a bit more generally still? For example, start out by stating that Derrida attempts to shake philosophical foundations, etc. You're right that it doesn't need to be fully comprehended by an

2132:

I am not attempting to disparage other editors, merely to point out certain truths about the situation. I believe I have indicated some specific problems, while also pointing out my belief that there is no benefit in getting into debates about this at the moment. As an example, however, every word of

1763:

Hey Rspeer! I'm so sorry for any offense I have caused you and for over reacting when I saw the extent of the clean up. Obviously I'm not trying to claim ownership over the article but I have been working on it for over a year - slowly trying to increase the amount of sound material on the page - and

1657:

argue that Derrida's work is an invitation to philosophise because there is no alternative to thinking your own way through the complexity of Derrida's writing." Good. That's the sort of thing that needs putting in the article, near the top, with citations to the page numbers, so that the amateur has

1385:

Central to deconstruction is the idea of binary opposition and a text’s ‘undecidability’. Every term has a binary opposite, for example, something can be either ‘good’ or ‘bad’ but not both. However, Derrida argues that because the two opposites are inextricably bound, a text can mean the opposite of

343:

I agree that (i)-(ii) isn't equivalent to (iii)-(iv). In order for that to be the case, there would have to be no such thing as a border separating inside from outside. (i.e. The Hymen could be inside the border, or outside the border, but not on the border.) It also assumes that the concept of Hymen

137:

currently a section on Husserl but a section on the influence of Heidegger (to lesser extent some consideration of Levinas, Saussure, Hegel and Nietzsche would also be beneficial). (Heidegger is outside my current expertise so I need help from editors on the Heidegger article to help with that aspect

3636:

The word "différance" is used extensively, but its initial definition in the article is nonsensical: "Crucial to Derrida's work is the concept of différance, a complex term which refers to the process of the production of difference and deferral. According to Derrida, all difference and all presence

3513:

I agree. I've come back to this article after leaving it alone for several months, to find that it has not improved one bit, even though the "cleanup" and "confusing" tags were silently removed by an anonymous editor and nobody has put them back. The net change in this article over a year and a half

3292:

I'm going to have to agree with 141 and Jefffire (and I see no reason to believe they're the same person). "Undoing the oppositions on which it is founded"? Is that supposed to make sense to anyone? Is this a jargon use of the word "oppositions", or was it supposed to say something like "Undoing the

3266:

There is very little doubt that the above comment by 141.212.111.116 is in fact by a particular user who has a problem with that sentence and who has again deleted it. Presumably that person wanted to give a greater appearance of support for his or her position. I am the author of that sentence, and

2559:

Good point - I agree that its probably best to stick to the chronological order. If readers want to skip a section then that's what the links in the contents box are for. I'm trying to finish a paper and then I'm away for a bit so I'm not going to be able to do much else for a few weeks. It's a good

2092:

Mtevfrog, I think the advice of people who don't fully understand the material has been very valuable here because they have helped to illustrate points of confusion in the article. I think the that the structure of the article has improved considerably in the last week and a sketch of the key areas

1940:

This article remains extremely poor, and clearly written by editors without the knowledge or skills to convey the ideas correctly. Unfortunately, as I have previously pointed out, this situation is unlikely to be rectified unless there is a consensus about the best way to proceed. The first sentence

1708:

for being so bad). If there were a good article here, it would be able to take someone like me, who starts from basically no knowledge of the topic, and give me some idea of what it's about. I strive to do the same when I work on articles within my own area of expertise. Please do work on that, just

1119:

I appreciate that the section on Husserl might appear somewhat unrelated to deconstruction if you are yourself unfamiliar with deconstruction but Derrida's philosophical development was inextricably linked to his study of Husserl and this shaped the development of deconstruction. It is impossible to

175:

Two or three paragraph length summaries of deconstructions Derrida has has actually performed could be given here as examples. Alternatively this section could link to other articles summarising particular deconstructions by Derrida. These articles could be started here as examples and then moved to

157:

An account of what Derrida terms the structural problematic in Husserl is required. From the tension of this problematic can be derived the two general tendencies of deconstruction: (1) genetic or phenomenological deconstruction in which Derrida problematises what he terms the metaphysical appeal to

3490:

In an encyclopedia, the entry on "Deconstruction" isn't special in any way: it's not any more or less "complex," nor any more "context-dependent," nor any more "meaningful," nor any more "hard to explain" than the entry on "Petroleum." It's just an encyclopedia article, so write in a manner fitted

3467:

I agree with you. But it is one thing to provide a clear lead with a simple definition of the term and its general use, and it is entirely another to have an entire article that attempts to give an overview of a complicated matter in a way that is easily understood by someone with little grounds in

3447:

The article doesn't have to explain deconstruction in full detail, but it should give a layperson a good idea of what deconstruction is really about. So far, it just feels like this article is trying to eat my brain, and it's less than useless. Following twenty links is fine. Following twenty links

3083:

Deconstruction is a term in contemporary philosophy, literary criticism, and the social sciences, denoting a process by which the texts and languages of Western philosophy (in particular) appear to shift and complicate in meaning when read in light of the assumptions and absences they reveal within

2910:

You're right that a NPOV is not necessarily sympathetic to the subject matter of an article but that doesn't mean that it's a vox pop either. There is the outline of a lengthy criticism section and I've already fleshed out the Foucault section considerably. I'll get round to the section on Habermas

2812:

things. I agree that to ascribe actions to what appears to be an abstract noun is generally considered poor grammar. The guidelines of good grammar are therefore perhaps more suited to describing everyday situations in which people are said to do things not abstract nouns! Let me assure you however

2679:

the case and that deconstruction is by implication some kind of nonsense. The article should be NPOV and that means that we should try to avoid prejudice concerning the subject matter - such as falsely inferring from incomprehension that the subject matter is nonsensical (i.e. a failure to explain

2487:

Sorry for the delayed reply. Re: the quote, I don't think we can remove the ellipses, even with a footnoted explanation. I'm not sure about putting precursors below theory, either - purely because the good or featured Wiki articles I've seen all use the chronological order, and these are great role

2381:

I've rearranged the two paragraphs in the theory section to try and make it a softer introduction to the topic for non-technical readers. I 100% agree that the sentences need to be less difficult to read but I need to come back to this section later with fresh eyes in order to see exactly where the

2290:

I understand what you're saying about the opening quote but the problem is that I built the theory section around an exposition of what is said in the quote. The quote is therefore the textual support for most of what follows. I don't think putting the quotation in a footnote to the whole paragraph

2150:

The notion of "absence" also comes into play when reading a text. Through deconstruction, the reader can attempt to read what a text does not say, for example, texts written by a dominant group may not make mention of minorities. Deconstruction can therefore have political applications, although it

1945:

impossible to define deconstruction within the context and requirements of encyclopedic writing, but comprehension of the topic of the article is of course a prerequisite to being able to do so. I have previously added the following as a second sentence for the article: "Deconstruction refers to an

1712:

Now, with that aim, I feel obligated to point out that the second section you added, about Husserl, is the very model of the "obscurantism" that is often referred to as surrounding deconstruction. That paragraph conveys nothing to a non-expert, so for the sake of the quality of the article it needs

1261:

I think this is a real improvement, a good starting point. The biggest omission is that there is no mention of what deconstruction actually involves: the idea of binary oppositions (undecidables), presence-absence, differance, etc. There ought to be a section mentioning each of these things in turn

1183:

Thanks for the advice Snookerfan, keep it coming! BTW it's funny to be reminded that twelve years old is not considered current by most standards when the phrase "modern philosophy" typically refers to anything after Descartes in the last four hundred years...in an area like philosophy where people

970:

It's never a bad time for Captain Obvious! xkcd wasn't the first to make that observation, by the way. Anyway, what we have here is a challenge: usually it's best for articles to be written by experts in the field, but experts in this particular field tend to write things that are indistinguishable

3747:

The "Derrida-centric bias" is mainly because most writing about deconstruction is actually writing about Derrida's writing. It's not that what Derrida said is the gospel--it's that what Derrida said is the alphabet and grammar for the language of deconstruction. As to the use of secondary sources,

3585:

The point with deconstruction seems to be, that every statement/proposition, any "sense" hidden anywhere really --"dialectically" one would have said in the previously dominating school of philosophical romanticism, has or shows its own "non-sense", in fact expresses this negative space better and

3424:

I think some of these criticisms are a bit unfair. Deconstruction is not a topic that the average reader will be able to jump into without a clear understanding of previous genres of philosophy and literary criticism, and thus it would be particularly tough to provide all the context necessary for

3200:

But in this article, you see the same thing. It avoids making statements about deconstruction that would undermine themselves if someone were to come along and deconstruct them. It shies away from definitions and treats words as having mutable meanings, because that's the way everything appears to

3088:

Deconstruction isn't the process by which texts appear to shift (and complicate, wtf that means) in meaning. It's the process of analysing texts in light of the various cultural assumptions the reader brings to the task. It's also the process of discovering the various hidden cultural assumptions

3014:

I wasn't saying that deconstruction implies words don't mean things. I was referring to one particular word, which is "deconstruction", which this article is about. Derrida considered it a bad idea to say what deconstruction is (because an attempt to define it would be deconstructible, and I don't

2730:

Who does what now? For all the verbs and nominalized verbs in that sentence, there are only two subjects, and one of them ("deconstruction") nobody knows what the hell it is anyway. When you dig through all the passives you find that apparently origins and structure, whatever they are, are in some

2633:

I think that I and the writer of that sentence have very different ideas of what "clarified" and "clearly" mean. That sentence basically promotes the point of view that the issues surrounding deconstruction are "clear" and that any lack of understanding is the reader's fault. To make it neutral, I

2250:

Nice one. :) It does need simplifying a little, because the first bit needs to basically summarize things for the total amateur. (Then it can get more expert as it goes into more detail.) The first quote, for example, is rather cumbersome, and I don't think it would be very helpful to non-experts.

2072:

Mtevfrog, can you please be specific about what is wrong with the article? You request that non-experts take a step back, but we have all already done so. Rspeer has made no edits recently, and I have only made or proposed superficial edits to the layout to aid cohesion. (I am not in the slightest

2021:

Hi, Mtevfrog. I tried to persuade Jefffire to revert your definition (see his talk page) as it was much better than the stuff in the theory section (which I wrote from scratch and am waiting for people to improve upon). I agree on both levels: the definition is poor (though the OED's one is better

766:

Sorry, Timb66, I've undone your edit. XKCD's comic - while brilliant - is not relevant in an article about deconstruction. If there was an article about the wikipedia article on deconstruction, then the xkcd link would absolutely be appropriate. But XKCD is not relevant to deconstruction itself. -

242:

I am pleased that a number of other people have recently taken an interest in the page on deconstruction - I've often desired the assistance in improving the page of people with expertise beyond my own. I haven't had a look at it in two months because I've been busy writing up my thesis on Derrida

136:

Please realise that Derrida develops his philosophy during critical engagements with other philosophers in the 1960's. It is therefore IMPOSSIBLE to give a faithful account of deconstruction without giving an exposition of how these critical engagements shaped the development of the term. There is

3706:

So much for that as a source. This author fell into the Uncyclopedia cliche -- that is, writing about a subject in the style of its subject -- as swiftly as Knowledge (XXG) did. I think we may have to rely largely on sources from linguists, scientists, and all the non-literary-critics who look at

2862:

It is actually much easier to qualify the latter point of confusion. Derrida is admiring Husserl and taking on his argument as a model for deconstruction when he notes that Husserl refuses to accept structures as "an eternal truth created by an infinite reason". Personally I thought that this was

2844:

of phenomena that always risks prejudice. I'm not sure whether it would necessarily improve the clarity of the section by inserting this lengthy explanation of a point upon which there could be confusion. If I was writing a paper I'd put it in a footnote. I'll see what I can do for the article to

2660:

Derrida's negative descriptions are clear in the sense that they represent a fairly direct thematic discussion of deconstruction designed to correct misconceptions surrounding the term. Derrida states that he is explaining "what deconstruction is not, or rather ought not to be". Derrida therefore

1593:

the uncomprehending reader to understand...if the reader is uncomprehending then the best you can do is give them a few facts about the origin of the term, some related concepts, and indicate the relevant area of the terms operation. Personally I'm not sure deconstruction makes sense without some

1504:

Rspeer and Snookerfan. I appreciate your enthusiasm but you admit yourselves that you know very little about the subject matter and I respectfully suggest that you reconsider the value of your recent re-organisation of the article. Some of the sections you have removed might appear to be tangents

1415:

A further idea of ‘absence’ applies writing itself. Letters can function without the presence of either the writer or the intended reader. Where speech requires the presence of both speaker and listener, writing requires absence and delay and therefore ambiguity. Written words are “abandonable to

315:

is true, as (iv) is not equivalent to (ii). The current text claims that it is, but (a) there's nothing in formal logic that would get you that, and (b) that's patently false anyway. I would suggest changing it, but they not be much left once the the mistake is removed - perhaps it should just be

198:

This section explains Derrida's clarification of the term deconstruction in light of how it was misunderstood by its critical reception in English literature departments. This should contain the following subsections: (1) Deconstruction is not a method (2) Deconstruction is not a critique (in the

107:

Based on the above criteria this is a plan for what the finished article should look like when it is based on primary material and the facts. I would strongly discourage people from trying to give inadequate definitions of deconstruction from introductory guides as the substantial content of this

3700:

n. not what you think: the experience of the impossible: what remains to be thought: a logic of destabilization always already on the move in 'things themselves': what makes every identity at once itself and different from itself: a logic of spectrality: a theoretical and practical parasitism or

3667:

But meanwhile, even the criticism section baffles 'em with bullshit: "Foucault's mention of 'crossings-outs' refers to the return to problematic terms under erasure (see the section on Derrida's negative descriptions of deconstruction). Foucault also alludes critically to the problematisation of

3498:

Other articles on Knowledge (XXG) generally aren't just agglomerated nominalized vaguenesses. They say something in particular. They say it in clear, easy to understand language. They do so even if they happen to be talking about complicated subject matter. So, how about let's try to do that

3388:

That sentence is 38 words long and has ONE ACTIVE VERB, and that verb happens to be "IS." I know what the words themselves are supposed to mean as they're ordered now only because I'm familiar with the material. To a general audience, if the sentence were written well (with some active verbs, a

1571:

Hey Snookerfan. I appreciate that Knowledge (XXG) is aimed at the general population and not a masterclass. I am personally very committed to the challenge of making Derrida's ideas communicable to a wider audience - that's one of the reasons I'm involved in developing this article - but it just

1535:

Hi, Seferin. It's not so much that the removed material was tangential, but that it was incomprehensible. As I've stated and you've noted, I am not a deconstruction expert, but I do have a broad academic grounding in similar literary/philosophical ideas/techniques and the previous version of the

1482:

I've added a new section on the methods of deconstruction and reordered the page a bit. At the moment the method section is extremely basic, and I'm not sure that the House of Leaves reference belongs there. Probably better to go into more detail about architecture and visual art contemporary of

189:

It is a fact that the term deconstruction was popularised in english speaking literature departments in the 1970's and an account of this must be given along with how this affected the (mis)understanding of the term. There can be a subsection here on (1) the YALE SCHOOL OF DECONSTRUCTION (2) The

166:

This is the section that explains Derrida's first actual use of the term and is where the explanatory core of the article should probably be. This section could be carefully edited to say more about, for example, the operation of deconstruction in relation to intentional meaning (but don't start

3802:

analogy for something, or what it would be referring to if it were -- there is simply no way to proceed. There is some meaning being obscured here (unless what's actually being obscured is a lack of meaning, which would be worse), and such obfuscation doesn't belong in a Knowledge (XXG) article.

3755:

As to writing about the subject in the style of the subject, I think it's possible to get away from this to some extent, but there is a limit to how much you can "dumb down" this particular subject matter. You probably wouldn't be able to effectively or accurately discuss a complex mathematical

2980:

Rspeer, I don't think that the aspects of the article to which you refer can be properly understood as biases. In order to explain the material you have to explain how the arguments work and what the significance of those arguments is for Derrida. This isn't bias - its explanation. To place the

1405:

The notion of ‘absence’ also comes into play when reading a text. Through deconstruction, the reader can attempt to read what a text does not say, for example, texts in a white, male-dominated society may not make mention of minorities. Deconstruction can therefore have political applications,

1096:

o I'm not sure how far y'all have gotten in re-writing/editing this article, but might I suggest that the section on the Husserl connection be left to the side until some semblance of coherence can be brought to the primary source material? Husserl's corpus is vast (45,000 pages!) and minutely

275:

I've also re-inserted the sections "Derrida's negative description of Deconstruction" and the subsection "Deconstruction is not a method". Derrida's negative descriptions of deconstruction are important on topic comments from PRIMARY MATERIAL that are intended to refute common misconceptions of

258:

I've re-inserted the section "Deconstruction is what happens when language is understood as writing".This is as good as it gets for a definition of deconstruction by Derrida and is therefore valuable to the topic. It is also works extensively with the PRIMARY MATERIAL and the FACTS (this is the

3801:

But you can't find "différance" defined anywhere else on Knowledge (XXG). And when the only explanation of différance says, for example, that it is the source of "all difference and all presence" -- a wild exaggeration if it's literal, and there's no hint that it might instead be a metaphor or

3693:

Here's an update on my attempt to pin down an introductory definition in a secondary source. I found "Deconstruction: A User's Guide" on Google Books, and it's certainly not going to help as a secondary source. The entire first chapter is a struggle with the definition of deconstruction, which

2835:

To understand why Derrida deliberately employs this slightly odd mode of description just consider what would happen if this was not the case. If a person is said to be the agency of deconstruction, if it was correct to say that "I deconstruct the text", then the deconstruction could be easily

2724:

Derrida refers to this tension between the incompatible but equally necessary demands of origin and structure as the "structural problematic" and it is within this tension that deconstruction operates - raising questions of origin when confronted with structures and questions of structure when

2574:

No, don't stick to chronological order. If you do that, then making any sense out of the article will probably require reading it out of order. For someone to grasp "how deconstruction got this way", they first have to know what "this way" is. The article should progress in the order that best

2044:

What I am saying is that all editors who do not feel confident that they have a grasp of the meaning of "deconstruction" should step back from any significant role in drafting substantive content for the article. That is, those who are not confident of their understanding of the subject should

1662:

was Derrida's first book length deconstruction, published in 1967. In it, he etc. 3 should not read "Deconstruction is what happens when language is understood as writing" but simply "Language as writing". (It probably shouldn't be a section at all, it should be part of the theory section. The

1163:

Nice work so far, Seferin. A few practical suggestions: 1. The "first class" quote in the introduction doesn't belong - not NPOV. 2. "Secondary definitions" does not belong in the early reception section. The current "Derrida's negative descriptions of deconstruction" section should be renamed

3751:

I agree there should be more critical material on deconstruction. We probably don't even really need a separate "criticism" section for that, because quite often, criticism of deconstruction is nothing more than agreeing with deconstruction. For example, a lot of people criticize the lack of

3402:

Let's just stipulate that by editing this article, you want to communicate the things you know to people who don't know about them. You need to make sure you're actually saying something instead of just giving the vague impression you've said something deep to people who don't know enough to

3393:

In his work, Husserl talks about how genetic and structural description is both necessary for and how there are problems with describing that way as well. Derrida wrote a very early essay titled "Genesis and Structure' and Phenomenology"on Husserl's work on this subject and that essay is

835:

The caption of the opening picture seems to this naive reader to be some sort of parody. Perhaps it was added by a jokester? In any case, the reference to "topologically homeomorphic" is ridiculous to anyone who knows anything about mathematics. This leads me to fear that the references to

3361:

This article needs to be simplified. Consider writing at least the introduction and outline on a newspaper reading level and then proceed to the more complicated subjects in a systematic way. Outline the major tenets of the philosophy. There is no reason to use complicated wordage or obscure

2880:

I'm not sure what you mean by asserting that "one of them ("deconstruction") nobody knows what the hell it is anyway". Are you making an empirical assertion? Do you want me to simply state that I understand deconstruction or point to someone more famous like Geoffrey Bennington that can more

2432:

I'm starting to think that the precursors section could actually be more complicated than the theory section to the amateur as its development continues. Perhaps it should be moved down after the theory section so that people get to the key goods first? I know that this would deviate from an

3671:

Finally, the article has an unsustainable reliance on primary sources. Knowledge (XXG) is a tertiary source; its job is to compile the current understanding of a topic and explain it, not to create that understanding out of original research. Given that our job is to explain the basics of

1120:

adequately explain the topic without giving that exposition in relation to Derrida's engagement with Husserl. This isn't just a personal opinion of mine, its the opinion of the respected Oxford critic of Derrida Christina Howells in the opening section of her philosophically rigorous book

3022:

This aversion to definitions is what I object to. It's apparently widespread among people who understand deconstruction, but such an aversion doesn't belong on Knowledge (XXG), whose goal is to make information accessible to more people. So the "bias" I'm referring to isn't about whether

3246:

to laypeople. Take a look at Britannica's article on Deconstrution. Just the first sentence already gives a clear idea of what deconstruction is about. After reading the entire thing, I still don't understand deconstruction, but at least it doesn't feel like it's trying to eat my brain.

365:

I'm talking LEM to be something like the claim that for any statement, either it or it's negation is true. I guess LNC would be something like the claim that for any statement, it cannot be the case that both it and it's negation is true. But in any case, someone has already deleted the

877:

Heidegger wrote extensively on the temporal and liguistic components of existence, aspects of Socratic philosophy that were not adequately incorporated in contemporary western philosophies, and a reinterpretation of Nietzschean existentialism through an eastern (particularly Buddhist)

1667:

Derrida, and not about Derrida at all; it should simply state that Derrida questioned stuff. Then, in the theory section, the article goes into the detail that's floating in the history section. The history section needs to be about history and the theory section about the theory.) -

3015:

follow the logic here, but apparently that makes it bad). So he only says what it isn't. The article goes on to claim that refusing to define deconstruction "preserves the possibility for the deconstruction of everything", as if defining it would weaken it somehow. I was saying that

1835:

This is all very contradictory, and at the very least I think this paragraph should make it more clear how deconstruction is related to metaphysics and consciousness. I thought it was just a technique or process used to analyze texts; certainly not a philosophy of consciousness.

535:

It seems to me that the added publicity won't hurt this article -- in fact, nearly any edit to it will have no choice but to improve it. For example, the entire "Logocentrism" section could be replaced by "PENIS PENIS PENIS LOL" and it would greatly improve the overall clarity.

3809:

article does a better job of describing deconstruction than this article does. No, the bias is that the article presupposes that we should all think of the world in the same way Derrida did, and that we should agree with him about what philosophical approaches are suitable or

714:

I was pointed this way from xkcd. I was hoping to edit and improve. Having read the article in its entirety twice I am now more confused than before. Might I suggest it be deleted in its entirety and rewritten from scratch? It can't end up more confusing than it is now....

666:

Not really. The alt-text is, "If you think this is too hard on literary criticism, read the Knowledge (XXG) article on deconstruction." It means that if you read the article, first of all, you won't understand it, and if you do, you'll realize how accurate the comic is.

180:

should be included on the deconstruction page because Derrida considered this the archetype of his later work (but an account of Speech and Phenomena could also be placed higher up in the article in the section on Husserl's influence on the development of deconstruction).

3398:

Given how vague that is, and that there are no wikified links, what the sentence communicates to an average reader is: Derrida wrote a very early essay titled "Genesis and Structure' and Phenomenology"on Husserl's work and it helps one understand deconstructionism.

3139:

the text can only go so far." So basically, the indroduction completely fails. It really seems to me like the kind of thing you'd find on uncyclopedia. The indroduction needs to be rewritten in plain english. The same could probably be said for most of the article.

3201:

work in deconstruction. The main players like Derrida wouldn't define deconstruction, because "Derrida believes that the term deconstruction is necessarily complicated and difficult to explain since it actively criticises the very language needed to explain it."

2144:

An example is the sentence “Socrates was a good person.” In reading this text the reader cannot help but question in what way Socrates was good, and why this needed stating. “Badness” as well as “goodness” is brought to mind, and in this sense, the text becomes

1395:

An example is the sentence ‘Socrates was a good person’. In reading this text the reader cannot help but question in what way Socrates was good, and why this needed stating. ‘Badness’ as well as ‘goodness’ is brought to mind, and in this sense, the text becomes

3406:

Use short sentences with clear subjects and active verbs. When you refer to other authors, works, "big" ideas or jargon, provide links. If there's a big idea that needs context, explanation, or expansion, stub it out to another article and work on it there.

1917:

I think what 98.114 means is that the rather opaque and obfuscatory writing style of the article reflects some common criticisms of deconstruction. I have to agree; after reading the article, my understanding of deconstruction is not much better than before.

2845:

clear this point up but I don't think that its necessarily a good idea to clutter up the theory section further with another subheading and I do not believe it is possible to pre-empt all possible confusion in the introductory paragraph to the theory section.

2749:

Finally and somewhat unrelatedly, NPOV is not "sympathetic point of view"; an NPOV article should not ignore the widespread belief that deconstruction is nonsense, and it certainly should not dismiss thinkers who say so as "somewhat mistaken" as it does now.

3180:

I've thought a bit about what makes this article such a failure to communicate. Sure, it's a difficult topic to talk about, but that's not really the problem. The problem is the mistaken idea that to write about a topic such as this you need to write within

3381:

Husserl's understanding of the necessity and problems associated with the demands for both genetic and structural description is the topic of Derrida's very early essay "'Genesis and Structure' and Phenomenology" and key to understanding the development of

3494:

Use short sentences with clear subjects and active verbs. When you refer to other authors, works, "big" ideas or jargon, provide links. If there's a "big idea" that needs context, explanation, or expansion, stub it out to another article and work on it

2949:

There's also the sweeping statement that "By refusing to define deconstruction positively Derrida preserves the infinite possibility of deconstruction, the possibility for the deconstruction of everything." ...Or the possibility for the deconstruction of

1584:

and some practical familiarity with operations in the area. Derrida states in the "Letter to a Japanese Friend" (the best introductory text to deconstruction by Derrida as it's short and direct at only four pages) that he was translating Heidegger's term

1232:

Some of the text can certainly be put back, but it will probably take an expert -- an expert with a good sense of perspective -- to sort out what really belongs in the article. However, my hope is that the shorter article is somewhat of an improvement.

3219:

on these secondary sources, because they don't have their meaning obfuscated by trying to fit themselves into the philosophy. Knowledge (XXG) is a tertiary source, and it works best when it provides an overview of secondary sources, not primary ones.

3856:

I mean, I care about this article, in the sense that I wish it weren't as bad, but I can't do much for it because it's not at all in my field of knowledge. Is there anybody who has the ability and inclination to address some of the problems with it?

2138:

Every term has a binary opposite, for example, something can be either “good” or “bad” but not both. Derrida undermines this, arguing that because the two opposites are inextricably bound, a text can mean the opposite of what it apparently attempts

1941:

is uncontroversial and OK. The current second sentence simply resorts to quoting a dictionary definition which is itself rather vague. Inclusion of this quotation in the second sentence of the article is tantamount to an admission of defeat. It is

381:

Ah. Now that I look back on it, I made a mistake and confused the Law of the Excluded Middle with the Law of the Undistributed Middle. In the latter case, you need three propositions; but it wouldn't really be the LEM if there were more than two.

336:

Isn't (i)-(ii) an example of the Law of Non-Contradiction? I was led to believe that LEM is a device for syllogistic reasoning, and (i)-(ii) doesn't have an evident third statement/conclusion that would make syllogism relevant to the logic of the

1280:

Hey, if you have some knowledge of what deconstruction actually involves, maybe you can get us started there and you don't need to be so wary. I know I basically left that out, mostly because I have no idea what deconstruction actually involves.

1696:

Why the attack, Seferin? Both of us are working on improving the article. By no means am I insisting that the parts I took out need to stay out, but perhaps by taking them out I've encouraged people like you to put them back with more clarity.

3663:

The tag on the criticism section highlights this as well. Critical responses to deconstruction are condensed into a ghetto at the bottom of the article; the first 2/3 of the article act as if deconstruction were a universally respected idea.

530:

No no edit storm, despite that this aricle still has a "need improvement" tag, first thing that happens (after 10 edits) is a semi protection. Not good for the article, but is userly helps those who kill out the vandals. :07:45, 18 July 2008

445:

I've reinserted the section "Structuralism and Poststructuralism" as "Deconstruction is not Poststructuralism". Once again this section works with primary material and clears up common misconceptions. It is therefore valuable to the article.

2674:

The allegation that it is partisan to suggest that "the issues surrounding deconstruction are "clear" and that any lack of understanding is the reader's fault" is necessarily somewhat partisan itself because it implies that this is actually

2817:

is theoretically deliberate. It is not really that uncommon either - people often use phrases like "love conquers all" or "time changes everything" and what is meant in this cases is well understood despite the slightly unusual grammatical

1334:

I would like to suggest further simplifying the first sentence. Most of the words have no value. "Deconstruction is a term used in contemporary literary criticism, philosophy, and the social sciences, referring to a process of..." --:

1713:

to be removed or rewritten. You might be the person who can rewrite it! You also seem to have inadvertently ended the History section, which was supposed to contain the "Precursors" subsection, by interposing the Husserl section there.

2097:

to come and sort out the wikipedia page on deconstruction. I think the possibility of an effective summary is starting to emerge that will be based around the challenge deconstruction makes to intentional meaning evident in both the

1614:

argue that Derrida's work is an invitation to philosophise because there is no alternative to thinking your own way through the complexity of Derrida's writing. The challenge is very interesting though and that makes it worthwhile.

1505:

but, respectfully, if you don't understand the material then you are not really in a position to evaluate their relevance. Please work with the editors and material already involved in the page rather than trying to year zero it.

3334:

To Rspeer: I wasn't referring to you. I don't know anything about your knowledge of or interest in this topic. I look forward to the accurate, helpful, informative and encyclopedic version of this article that you help to write.

572:

Pages referenced by xkcd in the past have often been locked or protected. I noticed this one still is not. While the comic seems to call for improving the page I am worried whether all of the reader base will see it that way

3483:

I'd be a bit more understanding, and thus use a somewhat less harsh tone, if the article were actually comprehensible or marginally readable. But it's not. Instead, it's terrible. And it's been that way for a long, long

212:

to develop an undeconstructable understanding of community. (2) Simon Critchley's development of an Ethics of Deconstruction (3) Richard Beardsworths development of a Politics of Deconstruction (derived from Critchley).

207:

This section should briefly indicate the substance of developments around deconstruction after Derrida and link to the releveant articles elsewhere. Things that should be mentioned include (1) Jean-Luc Nancy's attempt in

932:

I haven't read enough of Heidigger to tell for certain, but it fits with what I've heard from the philosophers I know -- the Buddhist connection has been made before, but I don't know how explicit or intentional it is.

228:

The popular attacks on deconstruction are typically just the repetition of claims made by the above thinkers combined with even greater ignorance of the material actually being criticised and needs no special mention.

225:) (4) Chomsky (see "Rationality/Science"). It should also demonstrate how Derrida responded to the criticism of each. (5) the "Open letter against Derrida receiving an honorary doctorate from Cambridge University". 158:

absolute presence evident in all strategies of legitimacy. (2) Structural deconstruction in which the development, instantiation, or origin of a structure is used to disturb its apparent neutrality and atemporality.

750:

The xkcd cartoon was a comment about this actual article. This is noteworthy of inclusion, provided it is clear the comment refers to the current veriosn of the article (which will hopefully be improved one day).

2491:

Finally, I'd be willing to have a go at copy-editing, but since I'm neither experienced in WP copy-editing nor well-versed in deconstruction, I'd do more harm than good. However, there's a list of copy-editors at

1831:

is a method or school of philosophy" , but now we are told that it "draws on and expands the opposing metaphysical philosophies of phenomenology and structuralism," and then Derrida's thoughts on consciousness.

2915:

page you will note that misunderstanding did largely characterise their disagreement. Having said that I don't have a problem with your NPOV'ing edit until the details of the disagreement can be fleshed out.

2698:

Rspeer, you reinstated the header tags for cleanup and confusion when some other editor had taken them out. Perhaps you can suggest some of the actual points of confusion so that one might try to solve them.

851:

How clueless are you? You'd have to be pretty stupid not to realize the picture was a joke. "Perhaps it was added by a jokester?" Do you really need a "perhaps"? If its not obvious to you you're a moron.

190:

attempt to make deconstruction into a methodology or a new way to read a text (3) Problematic Attempts to neatly define deconstruction (This will include the definitions by Paul de Man, John Caputo etc.)

3184:

There's this common gag on Uncyclopedia (which parodies Knowledge (XXG)), where articles are written entirely from the perspective of the topic they're ostensibly about. For example, the introduction to

1986:

The proposed second sentence -- 42 words long and laden with qualifiers -- exemplifies the "opaque and obfuscatory" writing that I referred to earlier. When my students write like that, I point them to

127:

Don't worry about the introduction until the body of the article has been filled out - the introduction can be easily written as a summary of the points made in the body of the article at a later date.

2946:

is described as "undeconstructable and therefore suitable for a philosophy after Derrida." This presupposes that philosophies that do not account for and avoid deconstruction are no longer "suitable".

688:

in this article has remained untouched. I thought the Wiki Community frowned on free publicity (they certainly seem to whenever xkcd is involved). Randall, you're right on the money about this one.

1788:

article there's a picture of Derrida's 'Glas' which would be very useful in the methods section on this page. I assumed we could use it and then it occurred to me that we probably couldn't. Can we? -

3019:, you can't deconstruct anything unless deconstruction has a definition. If anyone can be said to deconstruct anything, it is because they know what they are doing when they deconstruct something. 1378:

Then we need the actual description of deconstruction. I've drafted an example that I'm putting below in the hope someone who knows what they're on about can use as a template and put on the page.

3805:

The Derrida bias I'm referring to is not just that the article focuses on Derrida. This makes perfect sense, given that the subject is so entwined with Derrida. In fact, I have to wonder if the

2251:(I've read it twice and am still nonplussed.) But it's definitely great to get some stuff down there written by someone who knows what they're on about. I hope Mtevfrog is likewise placated. - 2049:. This is not to oppose the Wikipedian principle that anybody can edit, but to invite editors to question themselves about their own ability to do so. But in addition to this, even those who 1827:

The paragraph that begins with "Derrida’s deconstruction is an attempt to shake the foundations of philosophy" is unclear to me. In the introduction we are told that "Derrida himself denied

884:

Or is it nonsense? Is there anyone who can tell? Are there other parts of this article that are equally nonsensical? What about the completely unreferenced paragraphs under "Terminology"?

3403:

appreciate it. And that the subject is "complicated" or "hard to explain" can not justify just doing a really bad job. This is an encyclopedia article, not an excuse to pontificate.

1839:

Also, in the intro, the phrase "center for media literacy" should be capitalized. I can't make these changes because the article is semi-protected, so I hope someone will help out :)

813:

Hopefully xkcd's publicity will bring peoples attention that "deconstruction" is nothing but a joke by Derrida in order to see just how many people would pretend they understand it.

1365:

Jacques Derrida coined the term "deconstruction" in the 1960s, but later refused to define it, saying, “All sentences of the type ‘deconstruction is X’ or ‘deconstruction is not X’

1406:

although it does not have to. One of the things that Derrida feels history has slighted is writing itself: he says that western philosophy has always favoured speech over writing.

412:

Though Derrida insists that there is no true method of deconstruction since the concept defies definition, there have nevertheless been numerous attempts to deconstruct texts. In

2185:

So go ahead, take it out. But the article still needs a theory section, with words that aren't wrong, meaningless, poorly written, offensive to the All Things Good, etc., etc. -

221:

This section will give a brief overview of the attacks leveled at Derrida by (1) Foucault (see "My Body, this paper, this fire") (2) Searle (see Limited Inc.) (3) Habermas (see

1877:

This article needs to be seriously and thoroughly edited/re-written. It currently undermines itself by contradicting the very agenda it claims to support.--Mr. Unsigned-User

2216:

Hey Snookerfan I've rewritten the theory section. I hope you don't mind. Hopefully it's a bit better now but it needs copy editing. What do you think snookerfan and mtevfrog?

873:

The insults are quite helpful, of course. DWorley brings up a valid point: does this text (recently added by a new user with a throwaway-looking name) belong in the article?

2497: 2787:

Hey Rspeer, thanks for indicating some points needing clarification in the Husserl section. It would be helpful to indicate other points needing clarification elsewhere.

1700:

No, I don't know much about Derrida, but I know a bad Knowledge (XXG) article when I see one (especially when the article is getting wide publicity from places such as

997:

It's like you guys don't even read the talk page which you are editing. The pic is clearly a reference to today's xkcd comic, which is discussed just above this topic.

2151:

does not have to. One of the things that Derrida feels history has slighted is writing itself: he says that western philosophy has always favoured speech over writing.

1184:

earnestly study texts from two thousand years ago anything from the last fifty years is decidedly cutting edge and something that happened a mere twelve years ago is

821:

The animated picture in the article lead is very distracting, and makes it hard to read the text surrounding it - I'd suggest a non-animated one would be better. --

1215:

Discussions of other concepts besides the subject of the article, such as the other things that popular media use "deconstruction" to mean (let Wiktionary do that)

3694:

endorses without justification the idea that it's hugely important even though it doesn't mean anything in particular, and eventually settles on this definition:

3105:. If this is what you meant, perhaps use some examples of what Derrida wrote. And leave out the "proved more forthcoming". It isn't even interesting prose. 3813:

And I think there is much more to be done to avoid writing about deconstruction in the style of its subject. Yes, we use mathematical terminology to define a

3165:

Seriously, this article needs to be cleaned up or cut back to a stub. Having an article that is unreadable by the common man is NOT the point of wikipedia.

543:

doesn't seem to apply to this article so far. Everything is written from within the world of literary criticism. The "Criticism" section doesn't even mention

3701:

virology: what is happening today in what is called society, politics, diplomacy, economics, historical reality, and so on: the opening of the future itself.

1589:

and you can see that the wiki explanation of this term is itself just three quotations from Heidegger...they obviously give the reader a clue but you can't

649:

The alt-text of the comic claims that the Knowledge (XXG) article is hard on deconstruction. (The alt-text is displayed in the properties of the image) --

3586:

stronger than the text usually (trivially) understood. The plain sense expressed expressis verbis is boring or false, the de-constructed sense is IT.--

2133:

the following (from the "Theory" section) is terrible, and should be excised immediately on the grounds of being wrong, meaningless, and poor writing:

1580:(for example) just by reading the wikipedia article...that would require an understanding of the background concepts that matrix theory rests on like 3786:

way of understanding what the article means. In the article on natural transformations, for example, you can follow links to explanations of what a

3517:

I'm going to put back the "confusing" tag; I'm pretty sure nobody could say with a straight face that this article has actually become informative.

1314:

Okay, I've gone ahead and put in a big chunk about the theory. It's far from ideal, but hopefully it'll do until someone more expert comes along. -

299:

I can't make sense of this section - it's been written in a way that appears to misunderstand the law of excluded middle. According to LEM, one of

1996: 1923: 2942:

As the article expands, I'm seeing more sentences that inherently assume that Derrida's views are correct and others are incorrect. For example,

2738:. This is clearly not the only problematic paragraph. It would take an incapacitating lack of perspective to think that the article is now clear. 1425:

Derrida’s deconstruction is an attempt to shake the foundations of philosophy. He draws on and expands the opposing metaphysical philosophies of

736:

I can't fathom why an article of such poor quality would be locked. Thank you xkcd for pointing here, boo @ wikipedia for locking the article.--

1188:

current in the sense that it would be ridiculous to say that it hasn't actually happened yet...even though for a lot of people that's true :0)

955:

Is this a bad time to point out that if no one can tell if specific parts of the article are nonsense, xkcd's point is rather more than proven?

3617: 3166: 3363: 3125: 1343: 1104: 940: 722: 631: 521: 389: 351: 3744:

I wouldn't say that deconstruction is a "theory of everything". It's more like a "theory of writing", where writing includes everything.

1144:

I've tried to clarify the relevance of the section on Husserl and to briefly summarise the substance of his deconstruction of Husserl in

971:

from nonsense. Given that constraint, can we write a factual and clear article about this subject that seems to evade clarity and facts?

3197:

is written as if it were a multiple-choice test. Hopefully the idea gets across that this is not a way to write an encyclopedia article.

1709:

don't do it with some sort of grudge against me, because I'm working toward the same goal as you: turning this article into a good one.

1205:

I've just removed large parts of the article, so that we have something possibly more coherent to work on. The parts I removed include:

998: 859: 668: 599: 3652:

are "particularly problematic" because they are "academically criticized". This entire paragraph seems to consitute someone's opinion.

3377:

People repeatedly have commented that this article is confusing, self-contradictory and bad. I'll reiterate that and give an example:

3449: 3247: 3093:

Jacques Derrida coined the term in the 1960s, and proved more forthcoming with negative, rather than positive, analyses of the school.

1992: 1919: 1858: 1843: 617: 477: 367: 317: 3122:

I nominate you for rewriting the article. Your definition is incredibly more clear than anything the actual article hoped to convey.

2630:

The lead of the article currently says: "In response Derrida clarified the situation by clearly stating what deconstruction is not."

1884: 956: 2804:

You seem to be slightly confused in the first passage you quote by Derrida's seemingly odd personification of deconstruction as an

1857:

Never mind, it's not actually semiprotected. I'll fix the grammar, but I'm not qualified to make the clarifications that I need. --

703: 2053:

feel confident they understand deconstruction should, I believe, ask themselves whether they truly believe that confidence is

1369:

miss the point, which is to say that they are at least false.’ This owes to the implicit ‘undecidability’ in deconstruction.

94: 3655:

There is still a remarkable Derrida-centric bias, as I noted above to no satisfactory response. Consider the statement that

3089:

the author brings via the analysis of texts and language. Feel free to flesh this out if I'm missing nuances and details.

167:

throwing in trite definitions...they can be mentioned in the section below on the reception of deconstruction in English).

800: 86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 3215:

The article briefly mentions secondary sources such as "Deconstruction for Beginners". I think that we need to rely much

1972:

Mtevfrog - Perhaps it would be useful if you specified the editors that you recommend should step back from the article?

3644:

The text continues to say, without any sort of support from a source, that introductory texts on deconstruction such as

1899:

The article doesn't support any agenda; its aims are to be factual and coherent. If you can help it attain this, please

3817:-- but we don't use a page with nothing on it but arrows. We refer to many aspects of French culture to describe the 3668:

presence in deconstruction as a reading of what isn't there in the text." Does that mean something, and if so, what?

1209:

Paragraphs apparently written from within the deconstructivist perspective, and incomprehensible to anyone outside it

3633:

Here is a small sample of the major issues the article has. Many of these I have brought up before, to no response.

3212:

article is in English. Maybe Derrida is stuck inside the box he created, but we don't need to rely entirely on him.

2837: 1595: 1426: 38: 3389:

coherent flow of dependent and independent clauses, etc.) it would only communicate something along the lines of:

3097:

I can't even begin to know what this means. I assume the writer means that Derrida stated what Deconstructionism

3613: 3170: 1016:

You know the edit making the page all black and nonsensical? I can't find it. Anyone know what happened and how?

424:

in the right. In doing so, he attempts to bring into doubt the questions of authorship and linguistic stability.

3041:. Meanwhile, I also try to present what I believe is the current understanding through its much rarer sources.) 1262:(in a coherent way) near the top of the article. I'm not an expert, so I'm a little wary of doing this myself. 1108: 944: 517: 393: 355: 3818: 3367: 3209: 3129: 1347: 726: 635: 863: 672: 603: 3825:

succumb to aimless wordplay in describing deconstruction, like the one proposing the definition that began "

3453: 3251: 1862: 1847: 1002: 654: 621: 481: 3605: 1888: 1880: 1807:

to illustrate anything the subject of the image itself... and then only if there's no free alternative. --

1339: 1100: 960: 936: 855: 788: 718: 691: 595: 509: 473: 385: 347: 3882:, trans. John P. Leavey, Jr. & Richard Rand (Lincoln & London: University of Nebraska Press, 1986) 3814: 3757: 3609: 3162:

doesn't even make sense to a fairly educated person (me). What does "undoing the oppositions" even mean?

1602:(as an inescapable aspect of philosophy not as an intellectual fashion). These are to deconstruction what 371: 321: 513: 199:

Kantian sense) (3) Deconstruction is not a type of analysis (4) Deconstruction is not poststructuralism.

2508: 2342: 2259: 2193: 2081: 2030: 1908: 1793: 1676: 1544: 1488: 1472: 1366: 1319: 1267: 1172: 918: 772: 650: 796: 2992:

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the statement "...Or the possibility for the deconstruction of

1797: 3638: 3194: 3113: 3109: 1226: 695: 578: 2805: 737: 699: 592:

The comic doesn't call for improving the page. The comic points at deconstructionists and laughs.

47: 17: 837: 3340: 3272: 2160: 2062: 1951: 741: 496: 238:

Non-Consensus Deletion of Large Parts of the Article based on Primary Sources and its Restoration

3487:

And, again, saying it's hard or too complicated isn't any excuse for just doing a very poor job.

3140: 3033:(I have seen an issue like this from the other side, by the way. I am familiar with the area of 3026:

My proposal (unless someone has a better one) would be to use definitions from such sources as

2106:

material along with some comments about its operation in literary and philosophical texts (ie.

344:

can apply to objects in relation to other objects in ideal space, which isn't necessarily so.

3575: 3504: 3473: 3430: 3412: 3001: 2921: 2704: 2685: 2565: 2438: 2387: 2296: 2221: 2115: 1977: 1769: 1620: 1510: 1193: 1153: 1129: 841: 826: 451: 281: 264: 248: 142: 113: 2045:

recognise that their potential to write worthwhile sentences and paragraphs is very limited,

1900: 836:

Buddhism might be equally laughable, but that I do not know enough about Buddhism to notice.

540: 3862: 3834: 3712: 3683: 3522: 3309: 3232: 3053: 2966: 2762: 2646: 2587: 2501: 2335: 2252: 2186: 2074: 2023: 1904: 1812: 1789: 1749: 1725: 1669: 1537: 1484: 1468: 1315: 1293: 1263: 1247: 1165: 1054: 1028: 983: 914: 896: 768: 756: 559: 428: 3190: 2493: 2110:) and the more Kantian deconstruction of transcendental themes in the late deconstruction. 3806: 3795: 3144: 2912: 2560:

idea for you to see if we can get help copy editing the page. Take care in the mean time.

1988: 1785: 436: 3673: 2721:

Well, the article still contains sentences like this (this is from the Husserl section):

3591: 3556: 1603: 1581: 1356:

I agree with simplifying the first sentence too. I think the best layout would be this:

432: 3676:

to attempt to go straight from Derrida to an explanation with no sources in between?

3336: 3268: 3034: 2156: 2058: 1947: 1607: 1599: 1577: 1430: 1076: 492: 416:(1974) Derrida attempts to destabilize his own text by writing about the philosopher 3866: 3838: 3774: 3716: 3687: 3621: 3595: 3579: 3560: 3526: 3508: 3477: 3457: 3434: 3416: 3371: 3344: 3317: 3276: 3255: 3240: 3174: 3148: 3133: 3117: 3079:

First para is overly complex and hard to understand for a(n intelligent) layperson.

3061: 3005: 2974: 2925: 2770: 2708: 2689: 2654: 2595: 2569: 2510: 2442: 2391: 2344: 2300: 2261: 2225: 2195: 2164: 2119: 2083: 2066: 2032: 2000: 1981: 1955: 1927: 1912: 1892: 1866: 1851: 1816: 1773: 1757: 1733: 1678: 1624: 1546: 1514: 1492: 1476: 1323: 1301: 1271: 1255: 1197: 1174: 1157: 1133: 1112: 1080: 1062: 1036: 1006: 991: 964: 948: 922: 904: 867: 845: 830: 804: 776: 760: 745: 730: 707: 676: 658: 639: 625: 607: 582: 567: 500: 485: 455: 397: 375: 359: 325: 285: 268: 252: 146: 117: 3571: 3500: 3469: 3426: 3408: 2997: 2917: 2700: 2681: 2561: 2434: 2383: 2292: 2217: 2111: 1973: 1765: 1705: 1616: 1506: 1229:'s description to begin the article, as it was clearer than what was there before. 1189: 1149: 1125: 822: 792: 447: 277: 260: 244: 176:

form new stubs elsewhere. I think the deconstruction of Husserl's phenomenology in

138: 109: 2634:

suggest changing it to: "In response, Derrida stated what deconstruction is not."

3186: 3858: 3830: 3766: 3708: 3679: 3518: 3298: 3221: 3042: 2955: 2751: 2635: 2576: 1808: 1738: 1714: 1586: 1282: 1236: 1043: 1017: 972: 885: 752: 548: 413: 108:

article. Please let us know if you're getting to work on one of these sections.

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3514:

is that some paragraphs of pointless obscurantism have been replaced by others.

2813:

that Derrida's ascription of powers of action to terms like deconstruction and

2814: 544: 421: 3587: 3552: 910: 782: 574: 616:

I'm an English studies grad student, and I find that strip rather true :)

185:

The Reception of Deconstruction in English Speaking Literature Departments

3791: 3570:

The first sentence doesn't appear to make sense. Can anybody explain it?

1804: 1803:

Since it's copyrighted with no special license, we can only use it under

1072: 3782:

I recognize it's a technical field, but ideally, the reader should have

3733:

because that meaning is elsewhere within language--separated from it by

3787: 588:"...I am worried weather all of the reader base..." lrn2english please. 3189:

states "Just figure it out for yourself, or not. It doesn't matter."

162:

Deconstruction is what happens when language is understood as writing

1336:"Deconstruction is the process of...". --23:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC) 1042:

I'm going to assume it was an unprotected template. It's fixed now.

103:

A Concrete Plan for What This Article Should Look Like When Finished

3737:. This also illustrates the operation of presence, because through 2911:

soon but if you look at the section on Derrida and Habermas on the

1068: 2047:

even if they consult primary and secondary literature on the topic

417: 2667:

clear explanation for someone completely unfamiliar with the area

1701: 2742:"have not been understood", you're omitting whose job it is to 3547:

to complete this kind of essentialist description. It is also

25: 3741:, any presence of meaning is simply an absence in disguise. 1442:(Stuff about Saussure and the signifier and the signified) 3394:

important if one wants to understand deconstructionism. "

304:(ii) It is not the case that the Hymen is on the inside. 3660:

doesn't take deconstruction into account is unsuitable.

307:

is true. But that's not the same as saying that one of:

468: 193: 1576:

disciplines. We can't expect to be able to understand

1594:

understanding of how Derrida problematises Husserl's

913:, anyway. God knows about the rest of the article. - 1122:

Derrida, Deconstruction from Phenomenology to Ethics

3853:Is there anyone left who cares about this article? 3798:

that introduces natural transformations in context.

2500:, so we could maybe pull in someone from there. - 1483:Derrida, which I personally know nothing about. - 1124:. I am therefore going to reinstate this section. 1663:history section should be about people and ideas 909:That paragraph looks legitimate - it agrees with 194:Derrida's Negative descriptions of Deconstruction 3535:Halfbred Native American author (US- pomo tribe) 3193:spends the entire time talking about "you", and 505:..and the ban hammer ensure Its xkcd, not Xkcd. 3629:Current specific problems that must be resolved 3289:First of all, was any of that a response to me? 2954:, if you insist that words should mean things. 1653:"Reynolds and Roffe in their introductory text 1460:(Whatever else the hell deconstruction’s about) 3101:more often than saying what Deconstructionism 1221:Anything I wasn't patient enough to figure out 1218:Things that seemed to be going off on tangents 153:Deconstruction and the Structural Problematic 8: 132:Development and Derivation of Deconstruction 1212:Definitions that were not backed by sources 427:Deconstruction has also been applied to 223:The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity 3871: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2665:but it's not clear in the sense of a 1069:Knowledge (XXG) and the Zodiac Killer 7: 3728:I think the article's discussion of 3725:Just a few comments on the above: 3601:aporia(gordian knot;juggernaut?) 420:in the left column and the writer 312:(iv) The Hymen is on the outside. 24: 684:Ironic that the external link to 310:(iii) The Hymen is on the inside. 1386:what it apparently attempts to. 29: 3794:are, as well as an overview of 1779: 1598:and Husserl's understanding of 781:But hey, we could put it in an 302:(i) The Hymen is on the inside. 3650:Deconstruction: A User's Guide 3596:17:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 3580:12:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 3345:02:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC) 3318:00:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC) 3277:21:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC) 3241:15:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC) 3175:13:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC) 3149:09:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC) 1: 3867:08:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC) 3839:07:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC) 3775:12:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC) 3717:22:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC) 3688:03:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC) 3527:03:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC) 3509:23:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC) 3372:21:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC) 3195:Uncyclopedia:All of the Above 3062:04:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC) 1993:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 1920:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 1780:Picture of 'Glas' - fair use? 1092:Deconstructionism and Husserl 431:, in particular the works of 3646:Deconstruction for Beginners 3543:. Pedants might wish to add 3478:13:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 3458:10:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 3435:16:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC) 3417:14:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC) 3256:10:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 3028:Deconstruction for Beginners 3006:16:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC) 2975:04:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC) 2498:articles needing a copy-edit 203:Deconstruction After Derrida 3891:Collins, J and Mayblin, B, 3829:, n. Not what you think".) 3622:14:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC) 3357:This article needs clarity. 2926:10:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC) 2771:05:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC) 2709:22:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 2690:16:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 2655:05:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC) 2596:05:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC) 2570:15:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC) 2511:14:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC) 2443:15:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC) 2392:14:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC) 2345:12:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC) 2301:10:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC) 2262:20:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC) 2226:18:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC) 2196:13:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC) 2165:12:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC) 2120:11:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC) 2084:01:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC) 2067:00:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC) 2033:01:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC) 1679:15:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC) 1625:11:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC) 1547:00:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC) 1416:their essential drifting”. 1198:20:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC) 1175:19:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC) 1158:14:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC) 491:The edit storm cometh... -- 409:Methods of deconstruction: 3912: 3895:, (Icon Books, 2000) p.119 3561:08:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC) 3075:first Paragraph / Overview 2746:those concepts understood. 2001:17:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC) 1982:13:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC) 1956:10:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC) 1928:06:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC) 1774:22:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC) 1758:21:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC) 1734:21:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC) 1596:phenomenological reduction 1515:13:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC) 1134:13:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC) 456:17:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC) 286:17:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC) 269:17:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC) 253:14:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC) 171:Examples of Deconstruction 147:19:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC) 118:19:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC) 3657:The Inoperative Community 3297:on which it is founded"? 3134:18:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC) 3118:10:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC) 3017:because words mean things 2944:The Inoperative Community 2095:recognised as the messiah 1913:23:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC) 1893:17:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC) 1867:20:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC) 1852:19:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC) 1817:18:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC) 1798:12:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC) 1493:12:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC) 1477:23:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC) 1324:13:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC) 1302:04:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC) 1272:21:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC) 1256:21:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC) 1113:20:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC) 1081:16:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC) 1063:16:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC) 1037:16:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC) 1007:17:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC) 992:15:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC) 965:08:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC) 949:19:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC) 923:17:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC) 905:16:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC) 868:15:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC) 846:14:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC) 831:13:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC) 805:20:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC) 777:00:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC) 761:00:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC) 746:23:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC) 731:18:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC) 708:01:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC) 677:18:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC) 659:23:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC) 640:18:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC) 626:08:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC) 608:08:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC) 583:06:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC) 568:05:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC) 501:04:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC) 486:04:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC) 398:11:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC) 376:02:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC) 360:22:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC) 326:15:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC) 210:The Inoperative Community 3779:Thanks for the response! 3191:Uncyclopedia:Fourth Wall 3154:undoing the oppositions? 2938:Derrida bias creeping in 2725:confronted with origins. 2575:promotes understanding. 1451:(Stuff about difference) 785:section! (sarcasm off) 541:"Describe this universe" 3815:natural transformation 3758:natural transformation 3039:at least it's a source 2108:Writing and Difference 1655:Understanding Derrida 1612:Understanding Derrida 42:of past discussions. 3639:Theory of Everything 2734:I found all this in 2100:Speech and Phenomena 1660:Speech and Phenomena 1146:Speech and Phenomena 783:"In Popular Culture" 539:To be more serious: 469:http://xkcd.com/451/ 178:Speech and Phenomena 3893:Introducing Derrida 3539:So G. Vizenor is a 3499:here, for a change? 3187:Uncyclopedia:Apathy 2663:clear clarification 1829:deconstruction that 18:Talk:Deconstruction 3878:Derrida, Jacques, 3819:Académie française 3210:Académie française 3771: 3674:original research 3625: 3608:comment added by 1895: 1883:comment added by 1823:Unclear paragraph 1351: 1342:comment added by 1115: 1103:comment added by 951: 939:comment added by 870: 858:comment added by 807: 791:comment added by 733: 721:comment added by 710: 694:comment added by 610: 598:comment added by 526: 512:comment added by 488: 476:comment added by 400: 388:comment added by 362: 350:comment added by 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3903: 3896: 3889: 3883: 3876: 3769: 3756:subject such as 3624: 3602: 3491:to that purpose. 3315: 3312: 3305: 3302: 3238: 3235: 3228: 3225: 3059: 3056: 3049: 3046: 2972: 2969: 2962: 2959: 2840:rather than the 2768: 2765: 2758: 2755: 2652: 2649: 2642: 2639: 2593: 2590: 2583: 2580: 2506: 2340: 2257: 2191: 2079: 2028: 1878: 1755: 1752: 1745: 1742: 1731: 1728: 1721: 1718: 1674: 1542: 1337: 1299: 1296: 1289: 1286: 1253: 1250: 1243: 1240: 1170: 1140:A starting point 1098: 1060: 1057: 1050: 1047: 1034: 1031: 1024: 1021: 989: 986: 979: 976: 934: 902: 899: 892: 889: 853: 786: 716: 689: 593: 565: 562: 555: 552: 525: 506: 471: 383: 345: 295:Section on Hymen 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3911: 3910: 3906: 3905: 3904: 3902: 3901: 3900: 3899: 3890: 3886: 3877: 3873: 3851: 3807:Jacques Derrida 3796:category theory 3631: 3610:Rommelram1lovr2 3603: 3568: 3541:Native American 3537: 3382:deconstruction. 3359: 3313: 3310: 3303: 3300: 3236: 3233: 3226: 3223: 3167:141.212.111.116 3156: 3077: 3072: 3057: 3054: 3047: 3044: 2970: 2967: 2960: 2957: 2940: 2913:Jurgen Habermas 2766: 2763: 2756: 2753: 2650: 2647: 2640: 2637: 2628: 2591: 2588: 2581: 2578: 2502: 2336: 2253: 2187: 2104:Of Grammatology 2075: 2024: 1875: 1873:Article Quality 1825: 1786:House of Leaves 1782: 1753: 1750: 1743: 1740: 1729: 1726: 1719: 1716: 1670: 1538: 1297: 1294: 1287: 1284: 1251: 1248: 1241: 1238: 1227:User:Lizard1959 1166: 1142: 1094: 1058: 1055: 1048: 1045: 1032: 1029: 1022: 1019: 1014: 987: 984: 977: 974: 900: 897: 890: 887: 819: 563: 560: 553: 550: 507: 466: 437:Bernard Tschumi 407: 297: 240: 235: 219: 205: 196: 187: 173: 164: 155: 134: 125: 105: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3909: 3907: 3898: 3897: 3884: 3870: 3850: 3847: 3846: 3845: 3844: 3843: 3842: 3841: 3827:Deconstruction 3811: 3803: 3799: 3780: 3764: 3763: 3762: 3753: 3749: 3745: 3742: 3720: 3719: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3698:deconstruction 3630: 3627: 3599: 3598: 3567: 3564: 3536: 3533: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3529: 3515: 3496: 3492: 3488: 3485: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3461: 3460: 3440: 3439: 3438: 3437: 3375: 3364:74.131.134.143 3358: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3325: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3290: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3213: 3202: 3198: 3182: 3155: 3152: 3126:71.184.254.208 3076: 3073: 3071: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3031: 3024: 3020: 3009: 3008: 2989: 2988: 2983: 2982: 2939: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2747: 2739: 2732: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2693: 2692: 2671: 2670: 2627: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2489: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2147: 2145:“undecidable.” 2141: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2087: 2086: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1874: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1824: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1781: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1604:linear algebra 1582:linear algebra 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1480: 1479: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396:‘undecidable’. 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1380: 1379: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1370: 1363: 1358: 1357: 1353: 1352: 1344:66.117.137.139 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1275: 1274: 1223: 1222: 1219: 1216: 1213: 1210: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1178: 1177: 1141: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1105:71.191.118.228 1093: 1090: 1088: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1071:for details. — 1013: 1010: 995: 994: 954: 941:71.191.118.228 930: 929: 928: 927: 926: 925: 882: 881: 880: 818: 815: 811: 810: 809: 808: 723:76.173.110.216 713: 682: 681: 680: 679: 647: 646: 645: 644: 643: 642: 632:98.199.206.122 590: 589: 533: 532: 514:220.233.185.66 465: 462: 461: 460: 459: 458: 433:Peter Eisenman 406: 403: 402: 401: 390:71.191.118.228 352:71.191.118.228 341: 340: 339: 338: 330: 311: 303: 296: 293: 291: 289: 288: 272: 271: 239: 236: 234: 233:End Miscellany 231: 218: 215: 204: 201: 195: 192: 186: 183: 172: 169: 163: 160: 154: 151: 133: 130: 124: 121: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3908: 3894: 3888: 3885: 3881: 3875: 3872: 3869: 3868: 3864: 3860: 3854: 3848: 3840: 3836: 3832: 3828: 3824: 3820: 3816: 3812: 3808: 3804: 3800: 3797: 3793: 3789: 3785: 3781: 3778: 3777: 3776: 3773: 3772: 3765: 3759: 3754: 3750: 3746: 3743: 3740: 3736: 3731: 3727: 3726: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3721: 3718: 3714: 3710: 3705: 3699: 3696: 3695: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3685: 3681: 3677: 3675: 3669: 3665: 3661: 3658: 3653: 3651: 3647: 3642: 3640: 3634: 3628: 3626: 3623: 3619: 3615: 3611: 3607: 3597: 3593: 3589: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3581: 3577: 3573: 3565: 3563: 3562: 3558: 3554: 3550: 3546: 3542: 3534: 3528: 3524: 3520: 3516: 3512: 3511: 3510: 3506: 3502: 3497: 3493: 3489: 3486: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3475: 3471: 3459: 3455: 3451: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3441: 3436: 3432: 3428: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3414: 3410: 3404: 3400: 3396: 3395: 3390: 3386: 3385: 3383: 3378: 3374: 3373: 3369: 3365: 3356: 3346: 3342: 3338: 3333: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3319: 3316: 3307: 3306: 3296: 3291: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3278: 3274: 3270: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3257: 3253: 3249: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3239: 3230: 3229: 3218: 3214: 3211: 3207: 3203: 3199: 3196: 3192: 3188: 3183: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3176: 3172: 3168: 3163: 3161: 3153: 3151: 3150: 3146: 3142: 3136: 3135: 3131: 3127: 3123: 3120: 3119: 3115: 3111: 3106: 3104: 3100: 3095: 3094: 3090: 3086: 3085: 3080: 3074: 3069: 3063: 3060: 3051: 3050: 3040: 3036: 3035:voting theory 3032: 3029: 3025: 3021: 3018: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3007: 3003: 2999: 2995: 2991: 2990: 2985: 2984: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2973: 2964: 2963: 2953: 2947: 2945: 2937: 2927: 2923: 2919: 2914: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2843: 2839: 2838:phenomenology 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2818:construction. 2816: 2811: 2807: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2772: 2769: 2760: 2759: 2748: 2745: 2740: 2737: 2736:one paragraph 2733: 2729: 2723: 2722: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2710: 2706: 2702: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2691: 2687: 2683: 2678: 2673: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2653: 2644: 2643: 2631: 2625: 2597: 2594: 2585: 2584: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2567: 2563: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2512: 2509: 2507: 2505: 2499: 2495: 2490: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2444: 2440: 2436: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2393: 2389: 2385: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2346: 2343: 2341: 2339: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2302: 2298: 2294: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2263: 2260: 2258: 2256: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2227: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2197: 2194: 2192: 2190: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2166: 2162: 2158: 2155: 2154: 2152: 2148: 2146: 2142: 2140: 2135: 2134: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2096: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2085: 2082: 2080: 2078: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2034: 2031: 2029: 2027: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1957: 1953: 1949: 1944: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1929: 1925: 1921: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1910: 1906: 1902: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1894: 1890: 1886: 1882: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1849: 1845: 1840: 1837: 1833: 1830: 1822: 1818: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1795: 1791: 1787: 1775: 1771: 1767: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1756: 1747: 1746: 1736: 1735: 1732: 1723: 1722: 1710: 1707: 1703: 1698: 1680: 1677: 1675: 1673: 1666: 1661: 1656: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1613: 1609: 1608:matrix theory 1605: 1601: 1600:structuralism 1597: 1592: 1588: 1583: 1579: 1578:matrix theory 1575: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1548: 1545: 1543: 1541: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1465: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1432: 1431:structuralism 1428: 1427:phenomenology 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1377: 1376: 1371: 1368: 1364: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1355: 1354: 1349: 1345: 1341: 1333: 1332: 1325: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1303: 1300: 1291: 1290: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1254: 1245: 1244: 1234: 1230: 1228: 1220: 1217: 1214: 1211: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1176: 1173: 1171: 1169: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1139: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1091: 1089: 1082: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1061: 1052: 1051: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1035: 1026: 1025: 1011: 1009: 1008: 1004: 1000: 999:146.243.4.157 993: 990: 981: 980: 969: 968: 967: 966: 962: 958: 952: 950: 946: 942: 938: 924: 920: 916: 912: 908: 907: 906: 903: 894: 893: 883: 879: 875: 874: 872: 871: 869: 865: 861: 860:72.80.165.218 857: 850: 849: 848: 847: 843: 839: 833: 832: 828: 824: 816: 814: 806: 802: 798: 794: 790: 784: 780: 779: 778: 774: 770: 765: 764: 763: 762: 758: 754: 748: 747: 743: 739: 734: 732: 728: 724: 720: 711: 709: 705: 701: 697: 693: 687: 678: 674: 670: 669:164.111.199.1 665: 664: 663: 662: 661: 660: 656: 652: 651:Cheeseball701 641: 637: 633: 629: 628: 627: 623: 619: 615: 614: 613: 612: 611: 609: 605: 601: 600:81.190.70.129 597: 587: 586: 585: 584: 580: 576: 570: 569: 566: 557: 556: 546: 542: 537: 529: 528: 527: 523: 519: 515: 511: 503: 502: 498: 494: 489: 487: 483: 479: 475: 470: 463: 457: 453: 449: 444: 443: 442: 441: 440: 438: 434: 430: 425: 423: 419: 415: 410: 404: 399: 395: 391: 387: 380: 379: 378: 377: 373: 369: 363: 361: 357: 353: 349: 335: 334: 333: 332: 331: 328: 327: 323: 319: 313: 308: 305: 300: 294: 292: 287: 283: 279: 274: 273: 270: 266: 262: 257: 256: 255: 254: 250: 246: 237: 232: 230: 226: 224: 216: 214: 211: 202: 200: 191: 184: 182: 179: 170: 168: 161: 159: 152: 150: 148: 144: 140: 131: 129: 122: 120: 119: 115: 111: 102: 96: 93: 90: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3892: 3887: 3879: 3874: 3855: 3852: 3849:Anyone home? 3826: 3822: 3783: 3767: 3738: 3734: 3729: 3697: 3678: 3670: 3666: 3662: 3656: 3654: 3649: 3645: 3643: 3635: 3632: 3600: 3569: 3548: 3544: 3540: 3538: 3466: 3450:80.101.36.43 3405: 3401: 3397: 3392: 3391: 3387: 3384: 3380: 3379: 3376: 3360: 3299: 3294: 3248:80.101.36.43 3222: 3216: 3205: 3164: 3159: 3157: 3137: 3124: 3121: 3107: 3102: 3098: 3096: 3092: 3091: 3087: 3082: 3081: 3078: 3043: 3038: 3027: 3016: 2993: 2956: 2951: 2948: 2943: 2941: 2890: 2886: 2882: 2841: 2809: 2752: 2743: 2735: 2676: 2666: 2662: 2636: 2632: 2629: 2577: 2503: 2337: 2254: 2188: 2149: 2143: 2137: 2107: 2103: 2099: 2094: 2076: 2054: 2050: 2046: 2043: 2025: 1942: 1876: 1859:76.195.6.113 1844:76.195.6.113 1841: 1838: 1834: 1828: 1826: 1783: 1739: 1737: 1715: 1711: 1706:Language Log 1699: 1695: 1671: 1664: 1659: 1654: 1611: 1590: 1573: 1539: 1481: 1283: 1237: 1235: 1231: 1225:I also used 1224: 1204: 1185: 1167: 1145: 1143: 1121: 1095: 1087: 1044: 1018: 1015: 996: 973: 953: 931: 886: 876: 834: 820: 812: 749: 735: 712: 685: 683: 648: 618:80.121.49.79 591: 571: 549: 538: 534: 504: 490: 478:89.138.16.77 467: 429:architecture 426: 411: 408: 368:82.35.233.76 364: 342: 329: 318:82.35.233.76 314: 309: 306: 301: 298: 290: 241: 227: 222: 220: 209: 206: 197: 188: 177: 174: 165: 156: 135: 126: 123:Introduction 106: 75: 43: 37: 3810:unsuitable. 3761:all for it. 3604:—Preceding 3204:But why do 3084:themselves. 2883:methodology 2842:explanation 2504:snookerfran 2494:peer review 2338:snookerfran 2255:snookerfran 2189:snookerfran 2077:snookerfran 2026:snookerfran 1905:Snookerfran 1885:98.114.19.5 1879:—Preceding 1790:Snookerfran 1672:snookerfran 1587:destruktion 1540:snookerfran 1485:Snookerfran 1469:Snookerfran 1338:—Preceding 1316:Snookerfran 1264:Snookerfran 1168:snookerfran 1099:—Preceding 957:71.81.78.66 935:—Preceding 915:Snookerfran 854:—Preceding 787:—Preceding 769:Snookerfran 717:—Preceding 690:—Preceding 594:—Preceding 508:—Preceding 472:—Preceding 384:—Preceding 346:—Preceding 316:deleted? -- 36:This is an 3739:différance 3735:différance 3730:différance 3110:Lizard1959 2815:differance 630:^Lies!!!-- 545:Alan Sokal 422:Jean Genet 366:section!-- 337:situation. 95:Archive 10 3295:positions 2055:justified 911:Heidegger 696:SentoDude 686:The Onion 217:Criticism 87:Archive 6 82:Archive 5 76:Archive 4 70:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 3792:morphism 3618:contribs 3606:unsigned 3545:halfbred 3337:Mtevfrog 3269:Mtevfrog 2891:critique 2887:analysis 2157:Mtevfrog 2102:and the 2059:Mtevfrog 1948:Mtevfrog 1881:unsigned 1805:fair use 1367:a priori 1340:unsigned 1101:unsigned 937:unsigned 856:unsigned 801:contribs 789:unsigned 738:Thedagit 719:unsigned 704:contribs 692:unsigned 596:unsigned 522:contribs 510:unsigned 493:Shay Guy 474:unsigned 405:Untitled 386:unsigned 348:unsigned 3788:functor 3572:Rumiton 3566:History 3501:Ossicle 3470:Mrathel 3427:Mrathel 3409:Ossicle 2998:Seferin 2994:nothing 2952:nothing 2918:Seferin 2701:Seferin 2682:Seferin 2626:Clarity 2562:Seferin 2435:Seferin 2384:Seferin 2293:Seferin 2218:Seferin 2112:Seferin 1991:study. 1974:Seferin 1784:In the 1766:Seferin 1617:Seferin 1507:Seferin 1190:Seferin 1150:Seferin 1126:Seferin 838:DWorley 823:Ozhiker 817:Picture 793:Turiski 448:Seferin 278:Seferin 261:Seferin 245:Seferin 139:Seferin 110:Seferin 39:archive 3859:rspεεr 3831:rspεεr 3790:and a 3709:rspεεr 3680:rspεεr 3519:rspεεr 3495:there. 2889:, and 1809:SCZenz 1665:before 1606:is to 1574:harder 753:Timb66 3484:time. 3311:ɹəəds 3304:speer 3234:ɹəəds 3227:speer 3141:Bob A 3099:isn't 3055:ɹəəds 3048:speer 2968:ɹəəds 2961:speer 2808:that 2806:agent 2764:ɹəəds 2757:speer 2648:ɹəəds 2641:speer 2589:ɹəəds 2582:speer 1751:ɹəəds 1744:speer 1727:ɹəəds 1720:speer 1591:force 1295:ɹəəds 1288:speer 1249:ɹəəds 1242:speer 1056:ɹəəds 1049:speer 1030:ɹəəds 1023:speer 985:ɹəəds 978:speer 898:ɹəəds 891:speer 878:lens. 561:ɹəəds 554:speer 531:(UTC) 418:Hegel 16:< 3880:Glas 3863:talk 3835:talk 3784:some 3770:GDEN 3713:talk 3684:talk 3648:and 3614:talk 3592:talk 3588:Radh 3576:talk 3557:talk 3553:Radh 3549:true 3523:talk 3505:talk 3474:talk 3454:talk 3431:talk 3413:talk 3368:talk 3341:talk 3273:talk 3252:talk 3217:more 3171:talk 3160:lede 3158:The 3145:talk 3130:talk 3114:talk 3070:2009 3002:talk 2922:talk 2810:does 2744:make 2705:talk 2686:talk 2566:talk 2496:and 2439:talk 2388:talk 2297:talk 2222:talk 2161:talk 2116:talk 2063:talk 1997:talk 1989:this 1978:talk 1952:talk 1924:talk 1909:talk 1903:! - 1889:talk 1863:talk 1848:talk 1813:talk 1794:talk 1770:talk 1704:and 1702:xkcd 1621:talk 1511:talk 1489:talk 1473:talk 1429:and 1348:talk 1320:talk 1268:talk 1194:talk 1186:very 1154:talk 1130:talk 1109:talk 1077:talk 1067:See 1003:talk 961:talk 945:talk 919:talk 864:talk 842:talk 827:talk 797:talk 773:talk 757:talk 742:talk 727:talk 700:talk 673:talk 655:talk 636:talk 622:talk 604:talk 579:talk 575:f4hy 518:talk 497:talk 482:talk 464:xkcd 452:talk 435:and 414:Glas 394:talk 372:talk 356:talk 322:talk 282:talk 265:talk 249:talk 143:talk 114:talk 3181:it. 2677:not 2139:to. 1943:not 1335:--> 1073:Sbp 1012:WTF 3865:) 3837:) 3823:do 3768:CO 3715:) 3686:) 3641:? 3620:) 3616:• 3594:) 3578:) 3559:) 3525:) 3507:) 3476:) 3456:) 3433:) 3415:) 3370:) 3343:) 3314:ɹ 3308:/ 3275:) 3254:) 3237:ɹ 3231:/ 3206:we 3173:) 3147:) 3132:) 3116:) 3108:-- 3103:is 3058:ɹ 3052:/ 3004:) 2971:ɹ 2965:/ 2924:) 2885:, 2767:ɹ 2761:/ 2707:) 2688:) 2651:ɹ 2645:/ 2592:ɹ 2586:/ 2568:) 2441:) 2390:) 2299:) 2224:) 2163:) 2153:" 2118:) 2065:) 2051:do 1999:) 1980:) 1954:) 1926:) 1911:) 1901:do 1891:) 1865:) 1850:) 1842:-- 1815:) 1796:) 1772:) 1754:ɹ 1748:/ 1730:ɹ 1724:/ 1623:) 1513:) 1491:) 1475:) 1467:- 1433:. 1350:) 1322:) 1298:ɹ 1292:/ 1270:) 1252:ɹ 1246:/ 1196:) 1156:) 1132:) 1111:) 1079:) 1059:ɹ 1053:/ 1033:ɹ 1027:/ 1005:) 988:ɹ 982:/ 963:) 947:) 921:) 901:ɹ 895:/ 866:) 844:) 829:) 803:) 799:• 775:) 759:) 744:) 729:) 706:) 702:• 675:) 657:) 638:) 624:) 606:) 581:) 564:ɹ 558:/ 547:. 524:) 520:• 499:) 484:) 454:) 439:. 396:) 374:) 358:) 324:) 284:) 267:) 251:) 149:) 145:) 116:) 91:→ 3861:( 3833:( 3711:( 3682:( 3612:( 3590:( 3574:( 3555:( 3521:( 3503:( 3472:( 3452:( 3429:( 3411:( 3366:( 3339:( 3301:r 3271:( 3250:( 3224:r 3169:( 3143:( 3128:( 3112:( 3045:r 3000:( 2958:r 2920:( 2754:r 2703:( 2684:( 2669:. 2638:r 2579:r 2564:( 2437:( 2386:( 2295:( 2220:( 2159:( 2136:" 2114:( 2061:( 1995:( 1976:( 1950:( 1922:( 1907:( 1887:( 1861:( 1846:( 1811:( 1792:( 1768:( 1741:r 1717:r 1619:( 1509:( 1487:( 1471:( 1346:( 1318:( 1285:r 1266:( 1239:r 1192:( 1152:( 1128:( 1107:( 1075:( 1046:r 1020:r 1001:( 975:r 959:( 943:( 917:( 888:r 862:( 840:( 825:( 795:( 771:( 755:( 740:( 725:( 698:( 671:( 653:( 634:( 620:( 602:( 577:( 551:r 516:( 495:( 480:( 450:( 392:( 370:( 354:( 320:( 280:( 263:( 247:( 141:( 112:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index