RobinZ comments on The role of neodeconstructive rationalism in the works of Less Wrong - Less Wrong

33 Post author: thomblake 01 April 2010 02:17PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (22)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: RobinZ 01 April 2010 03:24:13PM 1 point [-]

What does "deconstructive" mean? </sincerity>

Comment author: cousin_it 01 April 2010 11:42:08PM *  10 points [-]

See "How to Deconstruct Almost Anything" - an engineer's trip report into postmodernist studies. I enjoyed it a lot.

Comment author: RobinZ 01 April 2010 11:55:04PM 0 points [-]

This is an interesting link - I will include it among my hypotheses when considering deconstruction in the future.

Comment author: thomblake 01 April 2010 03:27:31PM 1 point [-]

"deconstructive" means "concerned with deconstruction".

"deconstruction" is the act-noun form of "deconstruct".

Comment author: thomblake 01 April 2010 03:48:20PM 2 points [-]
Comment author: RobinZ 01 April 2010 03:45:37PM 2 points [-]

What does "deconstructive" mean if "deconstruct" is tabooed?

Comment author: ata 01 April 2010 10:11:45PM 6 points [-]

Nothing.

Comment author: thomblake 01 April 2010 04:00:52PM 3 points [-]

From Wikipedia:

Derrida began speaking and writing publicly at a time when the French intellectual scene was experiencing an increasing rift between what could broadly be called "phenomenological" and "structural" approaches to understanding individual and collective life. For those with a more phenomenological bent the goal was to understand experience by comprehending and describing its genesis, the process of its emergence from an origin or event. For the structuralists, this was precisely the false problem, and the "depth" of experience could in fact only be an effect of structures which are not themselves experiential. It is in this context that in 1959 Derrida asks the question: Must not structure have a genesis, and must not the origin, the point of genesis, be already structured, in order to be the genesis of something?

Comment author: ShardPhoenix 02 April 2010 09:20:00AM 13 points [-]

what