How to Deconstruct Almost Anything, by a Software Engineer • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by shadowsun7 » Tue, Jul 06, 2010, 2:28 PM UTC

michael_dorfman wrote: post #30

Arun2009 wrote: post #7

Here's Chomsky on the same issue: http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/chomsky-on-postmodernis... A quote: "It's entirely possible that I'm simply missing something, or that I just lack the intellectual capacity to understand the profundities that have been unearthed in the past 20 years or so by Paris intellectuals and their followers. I'm perfectly open-minded about it, and have been for years, when similar charges…

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…

The fact remains that somebody can explain Perelman's proof of the Poincare Conjecture to Paul McCartney, if McCartney was so interested.

Whereas you aren't likely to find people who're able to so explain deconstruction of something or the like in a manner that's clean and simple and easy to understand. This either suggest that a) the person doesn't understand it, fully, himself; or b) deconstruction/humanities is so difficult no human mind can fully understand it.

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

#52

Post by shadowsun7 » Tue, Jul 06, 2010, 2:35 PM UTC

michael_dorfman wrote: post #43

Arun2009 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 dem…

> And the pressure for greater clarity and simpler exposition is admirable, so far as it goes

I agree with you that greater clarity is good, so long as it doesn't sacrifice truth, or accuracy. But the context here is that Continental Philosophy/Deconstruction/the Humanities do not seem to even consider the pursuit of clarity to be worth its while. It seems, in fact, to value verboseness and unclarity above all else.

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

#53

Post by michael_dorfman » Tue, Jul 06, 2010, 2:42 PM UTC

shadowsun7 wrote: post #52

michael_dorfman wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dem…

> And the pressure for greater clarity and simpler exposition is admirable, so far as it goes I agree with you that greater clarity is good, so long as it doesn't sacrifice truth, or accuracy. But the context here is that Continental Philosophy/Deconstruction/the Humanities do not seem to even consider the pursuit of clarity to be worth its while. It seems, in fact, to value verboseness and unclarity above all else.

Sorry, but that's really not true. In fact, much of the lack of clarity (to outsiders) comes from the desire to be concise, and not verbose. You may think that they are being purposely obscure, but I promise you, they are trying to be as clear as possible without sacrificing truth or accuracy, or nuance.

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

#54

Post by michael_dorfman » Tue, Jul 06, 2010, 2:44 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #45

michael_dorfman wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Comprehensible to whom?

Masters of continental philosophy have no problem rendering their fields comprehensible to, say, graduate students in the field. Some (easier) texts are comprehensible to undergrads.

Any "lack of an internal structure, consistency, truth" is imagined by Chomsky.

Really.

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

#55

Post by michael_dorfman » Tue, Jul 06, 2010, 2:47 PM UTC

jcromartie wrote: post #48

michael_dorfman wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Speaking as one who actually understands it, I don't know what makes you think you are qualified to claim otherwise.

I don't understand a lot of high-level physics, but that doesn't lead me to imagine that physicists just sit around bullshitting each other all day.

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

#56

Post by powrtoch » Tue, Jul 06, 2010, 3:14 PM UTC

greenlblue wrote: post #12

The lesson here is that intellectual inbreeding is a terrible and sad thing if you're an outside observer. All fields of academic study should once in a while be faced with outside scrutiny because without it the discipline optimizes cleverness instead of actual intellectual content.

Of course, in a sense they are subject to this scrutiny. Humanities programs are very often the first ones proposed for the chopping block whenever budget cuts come around. At which time, I assume, they are forced to make appeals as to why they are too important to be slashed. Obviously I don't think these appeals involve explaining the workings of deconstruction to administrators, but presumably they are able to say something convincing enough to stay afloat.

In the end, it probably amounts to most people (very arguably for the better) being unwilling to declare something as bunk just because they don't personally understand it or see the merit.

I think the real test should be outside application. If the supposed advances made in some particular arm of literature can only have meaning, effect and influence within that closed literary community, then what can it really be doing for society as a whole? Ultimately we want a discipline to offer something to the world at large, not just to itself. You don't have to be a scientist to see the merit in studying the human heart, you just have to know (or just be able to conceive) someone with heart disease. And it's not just sciences that could withstand this test. If studying music theory helps people to write more beautiful songs, that will be apparent to many people who have no music training whatsoever.

Point being, I think the real acid test is outside application. I won't leap to the conclusion that deconstructionism is garbage. I just ask to be shown that understanding it does indeed help someone to do something other than write deconstruction papers.

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

#57

Post by michael_dorfman » Tue, Jul 06, 2010, 3:21 PM UTC

shadowsun7 wrote: post #51

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…

The fact remains that somebody can explain Perelman's proof of the Poincare Conjecture to Paul McCartney, if McCartney was so interested. Whereas you aren't likely to find people who're able to so explain deconstruction of something or the like in a manner that's clean and simple and easy to understand. This either suggest that a) the person doesn't understand it, fully, himself; or b) deconstruction/humanities is so…

I could explain deconstruction to an interested party, and I imagine I could do so in slightly less time than it would take to explain Perelman's proof of the Poincare Conjecture to McCartney.

If the interested party is already well read in the philosophical works of Husserl, Heidegger, Hegel, Nietzsche, Freud and Levinas, I could probably do it in a weekend.

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

#58

Post by michael_dorfman » Tue, Jul 06, 2010, 3:30 PM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #26

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…

> I should point out that the author here is completely wrong when he writes "Step 2 -- Decide what the text says. This can be whatever you want...." This is egregiously incorrect. In fact, one of Derrida's main points is that we do not decide at all what the text says. (As an aside, decidability is actually a term of art within deconstruction, so the author's abuse of it here is particularly irksome. If he had say "…

To me at least, it sounds like perhaps what you are talking about is legitimate, sincere deconstruction, whereas the author is talking (correctly, in my opinion) about an "evil twin" so to speak (ie: conservatives --> neo-conservatives).

Perhaps I am; where does this evil twin reside?

I am speaking of the work of Derrida, and the work of his followers that is (for the sake of simplicity) published by university presses-- because that's what I read.

If the "evil twins" are undergrad posers, well, I don't really know or care what they're up to these days.

I think that statement illustrates the disconnect...."figuring out" is what should be done, but "deciding" is what is often actually done. To me it seems you are talking about the uncompromised (correctly implemented) theory, whereas he is talking about what the theory has typically become, in actual practice. If that makes any sense.

It makes sense, but it's not what I was getting at.

My point was a Nietzschean one (which Derrida concurs with).

We don't consciously choose how to interpret a text.

Here's a link to an old Usenet post I wrote, which collects a few Derrida quotations, one of which is precisely on this subject:

http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.classics/browse_th...

(Sorry about the crappy formating there...)

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

#59

Post by cullenking » Tue, Jul 06, 2010, 3:34 PM UTC

michael_dorfman wrote: post #44

cousin_it wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think the point is, who cares about a philosophical reading of Phaedrus? What does this do for society as a whole? Does this advance people towards a better understanding of life and nature? What does this do to raise living standards or promote equality for people who do not have it?

I think this is the main portion of the debate: all this talk is nonsense in any bigger picture.

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

#60

Post by knieveltech » Tue, Jul 06, 2010, 3:39 PM UTC

michael_dorfman wrote: post #54

tptacek wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Comprehensible to whom? Masters of continental philosophy have no problem rendering their fields comprehensible to, say, graduate students in the field. Some (easier) texts are comprehensible to undergrads. Any "lack of an internal structure, consistency, truth" is imagined by Chomsky. Really.

Assuming there is a point to this sort of recursive thought exercise, the largely impenetrable nature of the material by definition guarantees no benefit to society at large or other academic fields.

So other than providing a private game preserve for a peculiar flavor of intellectuals that aren't interested in a day job and can't be bothered to gravitate to fields with demonstrable intrinsic value what, exactly, is the point to all of this?