Talk:Deconstruction

Recent edits by Byelf2007

1. The article ought to explain what the X is as soon as possible. Currently in the second sentence it says "Although he avoided defining the term directly, he sought to apply..." This is background info on *how* the concept came about by the creator but not *what it is*. Having "Derrida proposed the deconstruction of all texts where..." as the second sentence works much better in this respect.

2. The lede is currently very unprofessional: "On the one hand..." and starting a paragraph with "but" are particularly bad. I think I've cleaned them up pretty well.

3. A bunch of separate sections on what deconstruction is is very weird. I think it's much better to put them under "On deconstruction".

4. "Definitions by other authors" seems unprofessional to me. I prefer "Alternative definitions".

5. "Developments after Derrida" also seems unprofessional to me. I prefer "Post-Derrida development".

6. I believe etymology sections are encouraged. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 June 2012

Examining the link between ontic states (actualities regardless of human knowledge and interpretation) and human sentience, knowledge, interpretation, experiencing

There is not a single case. Some ontic states are misinterpreted, some introspective experiences are ontic states in themselves but unrelated to other actualities, etc. Also, mixed relationships are very common: partially correct interpretations with some extra causally unconnected aspects.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410B:CC2F:8C54:2B3A:669:3F53 (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

2016 Flags Need Confirmation or Removal

The flags on References and External Links seem unnecessary to me, but I don't have the baseline knowledge to be confident in removing them. Someone more well-versed should examine the sections and either remove the flags or update the flag dates. As it stands, the flags cast what I think is unnecessary suspicion on the sections. Triplingual (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Since the "flags" (which are usually called templates by their particular names) were placed, the "Further reading" section has been reduced by about half, but the "External links" section by only three links. So, the latter section, especially, could use a going over before removing the challenging template; but I wouldn't arbitrarily remove either template without some investigation. For example: are any external links duplicates of article citations, or is the link to the archived German law article important enough to include, e.g. is it not referenced at one of the other links? Dhtwiki (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Who cares?

I've flagged many statements with {who} in my time, but there are cases where I find this teetering into obnoxiousness.

Consequently, some critics[who?] have considered the exchange to be a series of elaborate misunderstandings rather than a debate, while others[who?] have seen either Derrida or Searle gaining the upper hand.

Is it really not to be possible to indicate that distinct camps exist without having to name names in every instance?

Sometimes the problem with actually naming names is that you run smack into undue attention, in having to privilege given exemplars over others (all those whose names remain unspoken).

That's not perfection, either. — MaxEnt 21:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Weird lede

The article currently begins:

The term deconstruction refers to approaches to understanding the relationship between text and meaning. It was introduced by the philosopher Jacques Derrida, who defined it as a turn away from Platonism's ideas of "true" forms and essences...

This sounds.... wrong. Based on that definition, one might say "Last year was the year of my deconstruction, by which of course I mean my turn away from Platonism's ideas of true forms and essences". But I really don't think Derrida meant to define deconstruction as a person's (or any other entity's) transition in that manner. And the first sentence is similarly weird: It seems to state that deconstruction comprises all such approaches taken together, but I think it meant to imply that any such approach, considered separately, is a deconstruction. Sneftel (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 3 March 2023

• Deconstruction → Deconstruction (philosophy)
• Deconstruction (disambiguation) → Deconstruction

– There does not appear to be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC with regards to faith deconstruction and, to a lesser extent, the album and form of real-life building demolition. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 17:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support no PT as nom states. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Support per nom --- Tbf69 P • T 15:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nomination, In ictu oculi and Tbf69. There are 22 entries (including the three appearing under "See also") listed upon the Deconstruction (disambiguation) page, with no indication that the philosophical theory, postulated in 1967, has such a hold on this term that it overwhelms the combined uses within the remaining 21 entries. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose American Heritage Dictionary lists the philosophical movement and theory first, and the related school of criticism third. Merriam-Webster's primary definition is that of the philosophical or critical method. Brittanica only talks about deconstruction with respect to the philosophical and critical approaches. Oxford Languages (used by Google) puts the philosophy/critical analysis first. Unless I'm misunderstanding the Primary Topic stuff and the request for move —not impossible— this article is very much the anglophone primary topic. Usage of the word in Christianity (explicitly derived from the philosophy and analysis usages) and building trades post-dates its use in philosophy and critical analysis by a lot and Primary Topic gives weight to long-term usage in addition to volume of usage. The acceleration of use in Christianity and building trades may make this not the primary topic at some point, but I don't think we're there yet. Triplingual (talk) 05:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Triplingual. No evidence that anything is broken. Again, we seem to be inventing ambiguities out of thin air. No such user (talk) 08:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Philosophy has been notified of this discussion. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 17:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Literature has been notified of this discussion. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 17:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Triplingual and page traffic. The philosophical theory is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as page traffic clearly indicates. Faith deconstruction should also be incorporated into and merged into the main page unless there is enough material to justify a WP:SPINOUT, these are both the same kind of deconstruction. - car chasm (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Triplingual, No such user, and Carchasm-- and Faith deconstruction is to Deconstruction as Literary modernism is to Modernism. :3 F4U (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)