Quote from: KenHRYou're a bitter little basement dweller, aren't you?

You can't be a "deconstructionist" because deconstruction is not a set of principles or beliefs one can profess. It's a term that encapsulates one's misunderstanding within itself.

Never said I was, and I never called anyone that...then again, you weren't quoting me in your original post, so I'm probably being all self-important in responding this way.

Allow me to clarify, since you seem to've missed the point and merely taken it as an insult.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/-ist

Deconstruction is the ongoing subversion of the sorts of things one can be an -ist about. No one, not you, not I, not some vast historical and cultural trend nor anything else, can be "deconstructionist". Because of this impossibility, the word is a misunderstanding.

Post-modernism (n) - affectation involving taking anything and everything that exists in the "real world" and twisting it 90' out of phase simply because it pisses off mommy and daddy (or, alternately, "the Man" (q.v.)). Usually only expounded upon by those who can't face the "real world" and have aversions to things like work and personal hygene. Proponents tend to throw around large words and larger philosophers, knowing it tends to distract and/or bore their "square" opponents during interminable monologues (referred to as "debates" or "conversations" even though there is clearly only one side to them). This allows them to claim victory when in reality they've just been reading from the back of a cereal box or, more frequently, quoting each other. Prone to saying things like "Its only blue because someone DECIDED TO CALL IT THAT! What if one day we decided it was green instead?" in a tone that implies great profundity. Usually found in large colonies at colleges, on internet fora, or working the night shift at Wendy's.

Quote from: Pierce InveraritySince then it's become this undead, urban myth-like, wobbly thing.

Hey, I'm a Wobbly!   //www.iww.org

Quote from: RPGPunditFoucault, for example, was a sick fuck who spent the last few years of his life intentionally infecting people with AIDS because he felt it would prove a deconstructivist point.

This has got to be utter horseshit.  I'm surprised others let it pass. Can we get some links here?

Quote from: walkerpThis has got to be utter horseshit.  I'm surprised others let it pass. Can we get some links here?

It's a baseless slander, the academic equivalent of "Jews did WTC!" No one has ever been able to find any person Foucault infected with HIV. Similarly, Foucault died in 1984, well before AIDS had a known pathology (IIRC, also before it was recognised as a single syndrome instead of a number of unrelated immunodeficiency cases). To intentionally infect people with it, he would have needed medical knowledge that was only discovered and organised after his own death.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineTo intentionally infect people with it, he would have needed medical knowledge that was only discovered and organised after his own death.

Clearly he was from the future then! How post-modern!

(Not saying any of it is true, just making a lame-ass joke.)

Its been my experiance that people who use the post-modern descriptor a lot are just trying to be "cooler than thou" and not much else. Its like what Ian mentioned in the current use of "green" or "eco-friendly" as the new black of descriptive text. It just looks like an attempt at pretentiousness by pseudointellectuals to me.

I'm sure that there is an actual respected school of art known as post-modernism, but it has about as much to do with everything else as "green" or "eco-friendly" have to do with car insurance in the US (as an esurance marketting gimmick).

Quote from: RPGPunditPost-modernism in the academic context is the assertion that truth cannot be understood or found, and thus in academic study the search for fact is a worthless endeavor and its discourse and semantics, not facts, that matter.

Its very closely connected to relativism and deconstructionism, and the main proponents of all of these are generally despicable human beings and terribly bad academics.
RPGPundit

As an archeology student, that's been my experience with it as well. A big part of it in Anthropology is the Anthropologist doing an ethnographic account of themselves as ethnographers; it's nice for identifying biases but is otherwise navel-gazing that wastes resources that could often be better spent on salvage ethnography.

Another part of it, as Pundit mentioned, is cultural relativism. Once again, it's good for exposing western/euro/colonialist/etc bias but tends to be taken farther, in that its adherents often place native opinion/myth on the same pedastal as scientific analysis. It's that kind of crap that can let blatantly-false propaganda like creationism into public schools.

The final pomo straw (for me, anyway) is how its proponents often claim to be "voices for the indigenous oppressed" but their writing can generally only be understood by overacheiving graduate students. That's just hypocritical posturing.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineAllow me to clarify, since you seem to've missed the point and merely taken it as an insult.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/-ist

Deconstruction is the ongoing subversion of the sorts of things one can be an -ist about. No one, not you, not I, not some vast historical and cultural trend nor anything else, can be "deconstructionist". Because of this impossibility, the word is a misunderstanding.

I didn't.  I understand what you're getting at, believe it or not.  I studied this stuff in college pursuing my useless degree and graduated at the very top of my class.

It's more the hyperbole in the post I responded to, coupled with the condescending tone of your posts.  I know you're an intelligent guy, seriously, but your attitude could use some adjustment.

Though I do apologize for the "basement dweller" bit.  Uncalled for and asshole-ish on my part.

No worries mate.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYou can't be a "deconstructionist" because deconstruction is not a set of principles or beliefs one can profess. It's a term that encapsulates one's misunderstanding within itself.

For that, you would have to argue with the academics at my uni who in tutorials called themselves deconstructionists.

Quote from: Kyle AaronFor that, you would have to argue with the academics at my uni who in tutorials called themselves deconstructionists.

I would, and I'd be right. Derrida is on the record as saying that deconstruction was not a school or a method or any such thing. I'm not going to make excuses for lazy thinkers and speakers.

Ah, the Founder school of thought. The Founder gets to decide everything about the philosophy. So modern academics aren't doing deconstructionism, Dubya isn't a Christian, Stalin wasn't a Marxist, etc.

I don't believe that. A philosophy is what people make of it, which is not always what the founder(s) of it intended.