Deconstruction Theory

[@mieliav]

one of the more useful guides to basics of deconstruction, thank you.

[@becauseitscurrentyear8397]

Whats amazing about difference (the concept) is that the etymology of a word can actually correct for the loss in meaning when defining the word, for example there are several definitions of (after boiled down to words) difference: dissimilarity, unlikeness, change, distinguishing, distinctive, discrimination, distinction, disagreement. what is interesting about most of the definition of the words is they can be seen in using the root (difference) as a modifier depending on the use. but in the etymology of the word difference, we learn that it is old french taken from the Latin, "differentia" meaning diversity, In this one act we can demonstrate that meaning is not so much lost, as much as they are misused, and over time modified to fit more specialized meanings, this can be observed in leaps and bounds when new slang words are created to describe a new thought, If words had no fixed meaning than how could a word or idea be invented? how could it be explained? and why can't we describe a color to a blind person? because color has no meaning.

[@alextupou4992]

A good job! I enjoyed this video. Deconstruction is often a default position for the pessimist but this is an important binary with positivist position to scientific enquiry, no different from Descartes skepticism. Derrida reminds us of the alternative ways to offer explanations that are not necessarily obvious. Foucault reminds us of how language is the basis for our understanding and the power within discourse and discursive interactions. Thank you for making this video.

[@neptasur]

The video says Deconstruction need not go down the path of Nihilism because it can be used for social utility: empowering the poor, or what have you. Well, then "empowering the poor" either has the transcendent value that Deconstructionists seek to deny, or it's just more meaningless mumbo-jumbo on the path to Nihilism.

[@robharris5782]

You incorrectly translate "il n'y a pas de hors-texte" - it should be "there is no outside-text." Might not seem like a big deal, but it changes the meaning of the phrase considerably. Instead of cutting the text off from outside influence, it actually increases the need for an understanding of the context of the text. The structures at play in the text do not exist independently of anything else, they extend out of the text and into the world. The "outside-text" becomes as much a part of the reading of a text as the text itself. This means that deconstruction not only looks at the text, but at the structures surrounding it that give it meaning. A text deconstructs itself by having multiple meanings, this includes the authorial intent, but does not privilege it.

[@hontaiwangshu1289]

Deconstruction doesn't try to assert the absolute truth of anything. It doesn't even take itself seriously which makes its complicated. I almost gave up trying to understand it.

[@lindy867]

I thought I was the only one who wants to give up,

[@BrieStafford]

Very good presentation and explanation on deconstruction, thank you.

[@freya7pc]

I stopped this video at 0:52 to deconstruct it

[@allenrosario7133]

I am studying here in the philippines...can you help me out how to deconstruct any litarature...

[@Hobbes1964]

how can there be ‘deconstruction’ if there is no thing to deconstruct? why ‘name’ this?

[@pruesarn2372]

Such a brilliant video, thank you so much.

[@kabasakalis]

Regarding the fragility of binary constructions, please realize that the relationship of opposites has been exhaustively studied from Eastern philosophies centuries ago, Derrida has nothing to add to this. For example look at Nagarjunas' Mulamadhyamakakarika , almost two thousands years ago.

[@vampireducks1622]

"Take, for instance, the meaning of the word 'difference'. There are two possible definitions of that word. One is 'to differ'. So, something is good because it's not evil, it's cold because it's not hot. Right, that's a state of negation, or difference. The other is 'to defer'. So to hold in check or in parentheses, to delay, to wait, is to defer something..." This seems to me utter nonsense. The speaker claims, nonsensically, that *'difference' has two meanings: (1) 'to differ', and (2) 'to defer'*. (1) is tautological and (2) is arbitrary misidentification.

[@galek75]

Sorry, but could it be possible to disagree with Derrida's thought without be accused of "misinterpreting" or "misunderstanding" his thought?

[@galek75]

And yet his followers believe and act as if he does have the truth. If knowledge is only based on the world of appearances and not on "the things themselves," does that matter? The fact that the phenomenal world can be explained at all with reliability is fine with me.

[@jamesferry1523]

Dude, you spelled "Difference" wrong. The whole point is that it's spelled "Differance" :-P

[@JulianWegner]

You said "there is nothing outside the text" but it would have been "There is no outside-text." It is a translation mistake as I heard.

[@robharris5782]

absolutely correct. The translation provided here is completely wrong.

[@n.r.1085]

a deconstructionist would say: “No, that's not really a good way to look at it”, because deconstruction stands for valid judgements that are purely contextual, and is against privileging one term of a binary over another? Please correct me if I understood this wrongly. Thank you!

[@pruesarn2372]

Rusy Nusaibah I think maybe their point is that there are no such things as 'valid judgements' to begin with? Not sure.

[@robharris5782]

No, the point is that what constitutes a valid judgement only gains it's validity in the context of the meaning it attempts to give itself. Not all judgements are valid, but those that are, find validity on unstable ground and susceptible to deconstruction.

[@lata4555]

Easy to understand .... many thanks

[@redtilldeath01]

Thank you Mate. This helped a lot. Cheers.

[@ArnoldvanKampen]

Meaning out of language may be fragile. Some things are pretty consistent over time like death and tax. Saying, I will not die, because it is just all made up or just someone's opinion sounds awfully silly. I myself hate people who constantly say: that is your opinion, I have my own. It is shear horrible.

[@josephbeshara16]

Well, actually what Derrida is about is saying that meaning is elusive since every word is in turn related to and affected by several others; like morouse example in the video. Also, the related connotations of each word differ from one person to another. So, even in talking about death it depends on what you mean with death: merely ceasing to live? Being forgotten? Accomplishing nothing? How people view death and life differs, and so someone really can say I will not die and it will be true to them.

[@Onlyhas99]

okay but why do I need to a transcendental signified in order to describe a tree?

[@sanabakkoush]

isn't "demonstrate how one term of binary can't exist without the other" a structuralist move? saussure states that "each unit is defined in reciprocal determination with another term" for example we understand 'evil' by identifying 'good'. sorry if i'm totally reading into the point wrong haha

[@mattalberhasky9952]

You're right to say one term of the binary can't exist without the other is a structuralist move in the sense that one can derive meaning from the binary, but the deconstructionist move is to destabilize the binary and demonstrate how we can never really tie meaning down through binaries.

[@yanyenleungl157]

It is a good summary. Thank you!

[@allenrosario7133]

I want to make a thesis in deconstruction

[@jonathanjerome17]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/lYbMnZxtaNaWh5Y My fav part of the video. I've been scratching my head this whole time trying to understand the context of these concepts and this really illustrated my confusion perfectly. I feel like im in a wormhole

[@captainutki01]

i did not understand anything. am i stupid?

[@bored3611]

No, you r not. Actually that's normal thing with Deconstruction

[@shmars7580]

Hi, this has been great, that described and explained deconstructionism clearly and understandably! Thank you!

[@erictrowbridge4035]

Thank you. Clear.

[@panj9918]

what text of foucault was used here?

[@octavioavila6548]

3:45 Deconstruction sounds pretty Taoist, rather esoteric

[@mauriciotrujillo867]

Thanks!

[@PH-en9gg]

5:15 - should be Transcendental Signified not Signifier.

[@mattalberhasky9952]

Paul Hunter Thanks for catching that!

[@santipdplays3821]

Matt Alberhasky Amazing video! One quick question! Can you briefly explain how to do the analysis itself? Would really appreciate it! thanks!

[@papaguenobalfre]

santipdplays Yes indeed, that would be extremely helpful!!!!

[@papaguenobalfre]

santipdplays Very, very, very ,very helpful

[@mattalberhasky9952]

santipdplays One way to "do deconstruction" would be to identify a binary in the text and then demonstrate either how that binary does not work to tie the meaning of the text down, or to show that the binary contains a privileging of one term over the other that can be reversed or subverted.

[@MrMaximchuk]

It was a very good theory explanation (even though very bad joke telling;)

[@kharla.97]

i got lost

[@tristanhurley9071]

Its all relevant. I think that sums up all of Derrida. You'r welcome.

[@alnoowrbrimah5944]

Wow so beauty Dr. khaleel

[@Aiycee]

What the fuck did I just watch?

[@yanyenleungl157]

Then show us what you have, if you have it. Plain and unreasonable criticism offers nothing other than noise.

[@colinmurphy7985]

this shit made no sense man