Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to Deconstruct Almost Anything, by a Software Engineer

info.ucl.ac.be

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 107 posts

Re: How to Deconstruct Almost Anything, by a Software Engineer

#41

Post by adw »

cschwarm wrote: post #14
muhfuhkuh wrote: post #4

While I should just shrug it off and say "haha, you got us, we're certainly stuffy", look at the things we often are trying to discuss in Literature. Now, it's one thing to question the artistic merits of literature studied in academia, such as the almost impenetrable "Finnegan's Wake". It's not all because of its vernacular (I can't really read too much of it at a time because it blurs into almost gibberish after aw…

Sorry, but that does not make sense to me. A discipline either establishes common criteria to distinguish good stuff from bad stuff or it doesn't. And these should not be arbitrary otherwise the judgment remains subjective and therefore worthless. Since you admit that "there's alot of hacks", it seems literary criticism has no criteria or they are mostly subjective. Otherwise, you wouldn't have such a lot of hacks, b…

I like Radiohead. I don't much like the Spice Girls. Any criteria I could give you for why this is true, for me, is ultimately subjective.

Re: How to Deconstruct Almost Anything, by a Software Engineer

#42

Post by michael_dorfman »

three14 wrote: post #37
michael_dorfman wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, they are simple and should be easy to answer, if there is an answer: if I'm missing something, then show me what it is, in terms I can understand. This is a patently unfair test. Without a doubt, someone with infinite patience could take the time to explain all this to Chomsky-- but the fact that he lacks the inclination to actually study Continental Philosophy, and there aren't any volunteers willing to take…

I call strawman. It's not McCartney and Perelman, it's Chomsky and Continental Philosophy.

The difference being?

Genius in one field doesn't translate to another.

And, the real strawman is Chomsky's claim that he can't understand Continental Philosophy. I guarantee that if he put in, say, 10-15 hours a week of study for, say, 2 years, he'd have a decent competence without any problem.

Re: How to Deconstruct Almost Anything, by a Software Engineer

#43

Post by michael_dorfman »

Arun2009 wrote: post #39
michael_dorfman wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, they are simple and should be easy to answer, if there is an answer: if I'm missing something, then show me what it is, in terms I can understand. This is a patently unfair test. Without a doubt, someone with infinite patience could take the time to explain all this to Chomsky-- but the fact that he lacks the inclination to actually study Continental Philosophy, and there aren't any volunteers willing to take…

> if Paul McCartney said that someone should explain Perelman's proof of the Poincare Conjecture to him, and that if they couldn't, it meant that it was bunk. Sure, it's possible that Chomsky hasn't taken the time to truly understand Continental Philosophy or lacks the technical training to understand it even if someone were to explain it all to him. But it's also possible that continental philosophy is just profound…

As someone who has actually studies Continental Philosophy, I can tell you that it's not nonsense.

Your "looks like a duck, walks like a duck" test would just as easily apply to nuclear physics or non-Euclidean geometry, if you are not already familiar with the terms of art of those fields.

And the pressure for greater clarity and simpler exposition is admirable, so far as it goes-- but (as many mathematics texts demonstrate) notation matters. Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler-- and this latter part is often difficult.

Re: How to Deconstruct Almost Anything, by a Software Engineer

#44

Post by michael_dorfman »

cousin_it wrote: post #40
michael_dorfman wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, I'll try to do this, but honestly, I don't have the kind of time it deserves. Deconstruction is, roughly speaking (and believe, me, I'm speaking schematically here) for the purposes of this discussion, the philosophy of Jacques Derrida, and his followers. (We'll ignore, for the moment, the more literary analysis of Paul De Man, which often go under the name of deconstruction as well.) Derrida makes it very clear…

The four levels of scientific thought, by cousin_it: 1. This is true 2. This works 3. This sounds true 4. This sounds neat With all due respect, the example of Derrida's deconstruction that you give ("pharmakos" and all that) doesn't seem to rise above level 4.

First of all: who called it "scientific thought"?

I'm sorry that my one-paragraph summary of Derrida's reading of the Phaedrus was not up to your high standards. Perhaps you would like to offer a one-paragraph summary of some other reading of the Phaedrus that you think rises above level 4?

Re: How to Deconstruct Almost Anything, by a Software Engineer

#45

Post by tptacek »

michael_dorfman wrote: post #42
three14 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I call strawman. It's not McCartney and Perelman, it's Chomsky and Continental Philosophy.

The difference being? Genius in one field doesn't translate to another. And, the real strawman is Chomsky's claim that he can't understand Continental Philosophy. I guarantee that if he put in, say, 10-15 hours a week of study for, say, 2 years, he'd have a decent competence without any problem.

He's not commenting on the lack of available tutors; he's observing that masters of e.g. topology and quantum physics are capable of rendering their fields comprehensible, because of an internal structure, consistency, truth, etc that postmodernism might lack.

Re: How to Deconstruct Almost Anything, by a Software Engineer

#46

Post by michael_dorfman »

Robin_Message wrote: post #38
michael_dorfman wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On page 8 of that book Geoff Bennington says "It is, of course, impossible to write a book of this sort about Derrida." And, then, of course, he goes on to do the impossible. This notion of "the impossible" is, in itself, a key concept in Derrida's thought, but we're getting ahead of ourselves. If you can't explain something, you don't understand it. If no-one can explain it, no-one understands it and it doesn't mean…

Okay, so he deliberately threw me by using a term in an in-group way in a book meant to explain things? Do you see how that is unhelpful? However, I put the book on my wishlist after reading the parts I could; obviously I need to read the whole thing to have a proper opinion. http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/txt/al.html -- Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity (In Words of Four Letters or Less) On the basis of yo…

Before you go ahead and order the Bennington, let me ask you a question: have you read much in the broader philosophical tradition? In other words, are you relatively up to speed on, say, Plato and Descartes and Kant, for example?

If not, the Bennington isn't going to be of much use.

Derrida situates himself within a particular tradition; it's (necessarily) hard to read him in isolation.

Re: How to Deconstruct Almost Anything, by a Software Engineer

#47

Post by mjw »

michael_dorfman wrote: post #32
mjw wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found your reply interesting too. I didn't really expect the author's jokey explanation of deconstruction to be technically accurate, and I can understand why it would irritate people in the field. I'd be more interested to hear what you think of his other arguments, and the comments quoted by Chomsky in this thread. In particular charges of obscurantism, intellectually-vain tail-chasing, being 'epistemologically c…

In particular charges of obscurantism, intellectually-vain tail-chasing, being 'epistemologically challenged', his metaphors of 'genetic drift' and 'peacock feathers' where academic communities evolve to fill the vacuum with linguistic puffery, jargon and self-referential bullshit in the absence of any clearly-stated objective or externally-imposed goals and success criteria. This may be how it looks to an outsider l…

Re jargons: I don't think all jargons are created equal.

I'd say that it's possible, and worthwhile, to investigate and make some attempt at classifying jargons with respect to properties like:

* To what extent do layers of jargon correspond to layers of depth of ideas in the field which they describe * How precisely-defined are they, and how well-founded are the definitions * Are there clear externally-verifiable criteria which can be used to distinguish valid use from misuse or dishonest, empty, bullshitty use of the jargon.

Re: How to Deconstruct Almost Anything, by a Software Engineer

#48

Post by jcromartie »

michael_dorfman wrote: post #42
three14 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I call strawman. It's not McCartney and Perelman, it's Chomsky and Continental Philosophy.

The difference being? Genius in one field doesn't translate to another. And, the real strawman is Chomsky's claim that he can't understand Continental Philosophy. I guarantee that if he put in, say, 10-15 hours a week of study for, say, 2 years, he'd have a decent competence without any problem.

The thing is, I don't think that any amount of study lets you understand lit crit. It just lets you produce it and nod in agreement at other regurgitations.

Re: How to Deconstruct Almost Anything, by a Software Engineer

#50

Post by Loy »

"Besides, there is no such way to gain admittance, or give defence to strange and absurd doctrines, as to guard them around about with legions of obscure, doubtful, and undefined words : wich yet make these retreats more like the dens of robbers, or holes of foxes, than the fortresses of fair warriors"

-- John Locke

Post reply on HN