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

31–40 of 107 posts

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

#31

Post by michael_dorfman »

mistermann wrote: post #24
michael_dorfman wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried in another posting to respond, but I'll take another crack at it here. Here are a few outrageous errors, taken at random: "Deconstruction, in particular, is a fairly formulaic process" "points are awarded on the basis of style and wit rather than substance," "Decide what the text says. This can be whatever you want," I try to be as civil on the internet as I am in real life. IRL, I'd say "Stop sneering and te…

> don't be surprised when people who take a complex discipline seriously are reluctant to engage with dismissive outsiders with an axe to grind and no real desire to engage. Would you also consider Noam Chomsky (I refer to the link posted within this thread) to be a "dismissive outsiders with an axe to grind and no real desire to engage"? Could it be possible that they are reluctant to engage within anyone who questi…

I responded to the Chomsky quote above.

when you ask them to explain what they have just said in a prior statement, the usual response is a change of subject, even though I am genuinely interested in understanding their point of view

This is quite understandable, I'm afraid. Trying to explain Heidegger to someone who hasn't read Kant is a very difficult game indeed. If you're genuinely interested in learning the more elevated parts of a discipline, you need to put in some time on the basics.

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

#32

Post by michael_dorfman »

mjw wrote: post #22
michael_dorfman wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly wish I had the time to give it the explanation it deserves. (In addition to having 4 kids and my second start-up, I'm in the middle of a M.A. in Buddhist Studies, and have a paper due shortly, so when I said "I don't have time to fully explain", I really meant it.) Continental Philosophy is a fascinating discipline, and I really don't understand why people who don't understand it feel the need to dismiss i…

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 like Chomsky, but it's not an accurate description of the academic communities that he is not a party to.

"Jargon" is what an outsider calls another discipline's terms of art. "Generative grammar" is jargon to a ballet dancer. "Battement tendu" is jargon to a linguist.

I'm sorry if Chomsky expects philosophy to have a "clearly-stated objective" or "externally imposed goals and success criteria" beyond what they've had for the past couple millenia, but there you have it.

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

#33

Post by Robin_Message »

michael_dorfman wrote: post #29
Robin_Message wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess my disagreement with you is that I don't believe the original author was trying to make fun of deconstruction, only to make an attempt to understand and explain it as an outsider. He certainly wrote in an amusing way, but I felt he was trying to get somewhere. Looking at the errors you illustrated: > "points are awarded on the basis of style and wit rather than substance," This is a cheap shot, and is mostly…

I guess my disagreement with you is that I don't believe the original author was trying to make fun of deconstruction, only to make an attempt to understand and explain it as an outsider. Well, we certainly disagree there. I don't think the piece was written as a good-faith attempt to explain deconstruction, but rather, as an attempt to ridicule and dismiss it, for the most part. But is it possible that writing in a…

I accept that I am insufficiently knowledgeable to continue discussing philosophy. As a final question, what benefit could I gain from understanding Derrida? Is there an elevator pitch or value proposition?

> So, why is it so much to ask that someone actually read a philosopher (and the prerequisites he relies upon) before dismissing him?

It is indeed not too much to ask. However, if a pure scientist says to me, "I can't explain it, but we're discovering something we think is interesting," I have more faith in her than a philosopher saying much the same thing, and I'm more happy for e.g. the government to fund her research and not the philosopher's. Is that wrong?

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

#34

Post by michael_dorfman »

Robin_Message wrote: post #28
michael_dorfman wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Derrida would've been much better off, in terms of intellectual legacy, if he had a student who took him somewhat less seriously on that point, perhaps even against his wishes. Say, someone who was willing to write even a fairly difficult and technical book, but in straightforward, fairly clear prose, attempting to explain at least a version of the main ideas Derrida's works dealt with You want to know the fu…

On page 8 of that book Geoff Bennington says "It is, of course, impossible to write a book of this sort about Derrida." (Unfortunately the conclusion of that thought is on the next page, which Amazon isn't showing me, but I'm assuming he means what he says here.) 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 anything. A theory with no pred…

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 anything. A theory with no predictive power is useless.

I can explain it. Geoff Bennington can explain it. However: you have to meet us partway. You have to read the whole damn book, not just the Amazon previews.

Seriously: is that too much to ask?

Has anyone explained Derrida using words of four letters or less, without a single pun?)

Has anybody explained Kant, or Einstein, or Descartes or Newton or any other difficult thinker in words of four letters or less?

Is there any point attempting to understand this philosophy?

Yes.

Will it make me a better person?

Yes, in my experience. (It is largely about ethics, believe it or not.)

Will it enable me to organise society better?

To a certain extent, yes. And it will better help you understand why certain efforts to organise society are doomed to fail.

Will it help me understand the universe more fully?

Yes, definitely.

Or will it simply mean I can count myself part of an in-group that has no discernible external beliefs?

It has discernible external beliefs, I'm afraid. I hope that's not a deal-breaker for you.

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

#35

Post by michael_dorfman »

Robin_Message wrote: post #33
michael_dorfman wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess my disagreement with you is that I don't believe the original author was trying to make fun of deconstruction, only to make an attempt to understand and explain it as an outsider. Well, we certainly disagree there. I don't think the piece was written as a good-faith attempt to explain deconstruction, but rather, as an attempt to ridicule and dismiss it, for the most part. But is it possible that writing in a…

I accept that I am insufficiently knowledgeable to continue discussing philosophy. As a final question, what benefit could I gain from understanding Derrida? Is there an elevator pitch or value proposition? > So, why is it so much to ask that someone actually read a philosopher (and the prerequisites he relies upon) before dismissing him? It is indeed not too much to ask. However, if a pure scientist says to me, "I c…

As a final question, what benefit could I gain from understanding Derrida? Is there an elevator pitch or value proposition?

I find Derrida to be a fascinating philosopher for several reasons. One, his thought has a profoundly ethical component (influenced by Levinas). Second, he questions many of the assumptions that other philosophers have taken for granted (in a way similar to Nietzsche). Third, he has a very subtle phenomenology which I personally find very compelling (i.e., it seems to aid my understanding of the world.)

Of course, your mileage may vary.

However, if a pure scientist says to me, "I can't explain it, but we're discovering something we think is interesting," I have more faith in her than a philosopher saying much the same thing, and I'm more happy for e.g. the government to fund her research and not the philosopher's. Is that wrong?

Obligatory joke-- College president, to the head of the physics department: "Why do you need such a big budget for equipment? Why can't you be like the mathematics department? all they ask for are pencils and wastebaskets. Or, better yet, like the philosophy department-- all they ask for are pencils..."

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

#36

Post by michael_dorfman »

_delirium wrote: post #21
michael_dorfman wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Derrida would've been much better off, in terms of intellectual legacy, if he had a student who took him somewhat less seriously on that point, perhaps even against his wishes. Say, someone who was willing to write even a fairly difficult and technical book, but in straightforward, fairly clear prose, attempting to explain at least a version of the main ideas Derrida's works dealt with You want to know the fu…

Interesting, perhaps that would be a better place to start. I've attempted to read some Derridean secondary literature, and it has not been very enlightening at all; much harder to read than Derrida himself, actually. Two random entry points I've attempted, besides some miscellaneous journal articles, are through Paul de Man and Michael Marder (the latter because the idea of a realist reading of Derrida interests me)…

There is one factor which counts above all others in trying to understand Derrida: you need to have an intimate understanding of the work he is commenting upon.

Trying to read Derrida on, say, Condillac, is absolutely pointless if you haven't read the Condillac.

Fortunately, in the course of his career, Derrida read through a large swath of the philosophical corpus, so it should be pretty easy to find a work of his which comments on something you already know well.

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

#37

Post by three14 »

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…

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

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

#38

Post by Robin_Message »

michael_dorfman wrote: post #34
Robin_Message wrote: post #28

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." (Unfortunately the conclusion of that thought is on the next page, which Amazon isn't showing me, but I'm assuming he means what he says here.) 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 anything. A theory with no pred…

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 your answers I shall read the Bennington suggested, but I must admit I'm not optimistic. Discernible external beliefs are not a deal-breaker; they are the point of the deal.

I would like to conclude there (feel free to have the last word; that is not an attempt to cut off the discussion on my terms, but merely to get on with some work :-) You have been somewhat persuasive and very civil in the face of my disagreement, thank you. Thank you also for your time, I owe you a beer/coffee (and by then maybe I can have done the reading and we can talk properly.)

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

#39

Post by Arun2009 »

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…

> 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 nonsense that thrives based on the following fallacy:

1. Profound stuff (general relativity, quantum mechanics, Poincare conjecture) is very often difficult to understand.

2. Continental philosophy is difficult to understand.

3. Hence, continental philosophy is profound stuff.

Frankly, applying the "looks like a duck, talks like a duck, walks like a duck" criteria, I feel it's more likely that continental philosophy doesn't qualify as a genuine area of human knowledge - it's all just nonsense. But it might serve some other important purpose (e.g., a form of harmless mental hashish that's genuinely pleasurable).

At any rate, pressure for greater clarity and simpler exposition is always good in any field.

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

#40

Post by cousin_it »

michael_dorfman wrote: post #16
lionhearted wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Deconstruction is not a method, and does not follow a formula, and pointing out the (numerous, outrageous) errors in this piece would take more time than I have. C'mon, this is Hacker News, we don't say "This is wrong, but I won't tell you why" here. For what it's worth, I'd actually like to hear your perspective if you take the time. The article provided a coherent explanation of deconstruction that jives with wha…

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.

Post reply on HN