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 tell us something useful, or go away."

The useful something I would tell you is: don't assume that people making fun of something actually understand what that something is. Furthermore, don't assume that just because something can't be easily explained in a blog post, it is nonsense. And finally, 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. (My brother-in-law is a professor of Shakespeare at Cambridge, and you should see the look on his face when someone at a cocktail party raises the "authorship" issue...)

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 questions their assertions?

Many times I've encountered people who seem to use techniques described in the article when trying to discuss social issues, and in my experience at least, 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. They are more than happy to continue the conversation as long as it consists of them continually making assertions in obtuse language, and casually deflecting questions by changing the subject, but the moment you insist they explain something they just said, the conversation usually ends. In my experiences, anyways.

As interesting as I find the subject, I think Chomsky's got the right idea: "End of Reply, and (to be frank) of my personal interest in the matter, unless the obvious questions are answered."

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.

> "points are awarded on the basis of style and wit rather than substance,"

This is a cheap shot, and is mostly about style and wit, rather than substance. But is it possible that writing in a more obtuse manner is rewarded within academic circles, which I believe is the argument actually being made?

> "Decide what the text says. This can be whatever you want,"

Again, this is cheap, and I guess is also a shot at post-modernism in general. From the author's and your comments, I guess it should have been "Choose an accepted, face-value interpretation of the text."

> "Deconstruction, in particular, is a fairly formulaic process"

But here I don't see your argument. From your other posting, Derrida then goes through the entire Platonic corpus, and quotes every time the word "pharmakon" certainly sounds formulaic. You also say I would say that deconstruction consists most often of a micrological reading (that is to say, a very close reading of the actual words of the text, not not just the broad concepts) which takes into account the (usually unconscious) assumptions that the author is working within. Most often, these assumptions, when taken to their logical conclusion lead to either a contradiction or an aporia, and the text often reflects this, unknowingly. So, a deconstructive reading often picks up on latent implications of the text itself. That sounds formulaic, so it what sense is it a bad description of deconstruction?

If deconstruction is not a formula for lit crit, what is it? Deconstruction can't be the philosophy of Derrida. Well, it can be, but the obvious question is then, what is the philosophy of Derrida? I think this is the core issue. If the philosophy cannot be explained to an outsider, then to what extent is it a real thing, and to what extent is the collective hallucination of the in-group?

> don't assume that people making fun of something actually understand what that something is.

I should like to apologise and take back my comment that you were sneering. It was rude, and as it turns out, untrue. You genuinely believe the author is trying to make fun of the philosophy, but I don't think he is. He has read the books and thinks he can explain what deconstruction is. He takes a somewhat dim view of it to be sure, but that doesn't mean he doesn't understand it or that he wants to make fun of it.

> don't assume that just because something can't be easily explained in a blog post, it is nonsense.

See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1490304 for Chomsky's comments on this. (Basically, no-one has explained it to me yet, and I don't get it, and I'm damm smart, so it's either way over my head, and therefore very smart indeed, or bunk.)

> 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. (My brother-in-law is a professor of Shakespeare at Cambridge, and you should see the look on his face when someone at a cocktail party raises the "authorship" issue...)

I am in no way dismissive of philosophy and my axe is sharp enough. As I see it, in this case the insiders are dismissive of the outsiders -- "you have to read all these works to even understand what we are talking about, and we might still say you are not in the in-group and you are just trying to make fun of us." Given that, it is hardly surprising when outsiders are dismissive of you.

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 more obtuse manner is rewarded within academic circles, which I believe is the argument actually being made?

It's possible, but not accurate. Philosophers are not obscure just for the hell of it, any more than physicists are. And any outliers who are perceived as being needlessly obscure are not rewarded for this-- quite the contrary.

From the author's and your comments, I guess it should have been "Choose an accepted, face-value interpretation of the text."

Actually, we don't "choose" the interpretation at all when we read a text.

But here I don't see your argument. From your other posting, Derrida then goes through the entire Platonic corpus, and quotes every time the word "pharmakon" certainly sounds formulaic. Is it's not a formula for lit crit, what is it?

This is indeed the crux of the biscuit. The fact that (in his reading of the Phaedrus) Derrida quoted every time the word "pharmakon" came up does not make this a general formula to be applied to every other text. In fact, I can't think of another example where Derrida did something similar to another text (i.e., pulling out all of the instances of a particular word in an author's corpus.)

In other words: the way that Derrida read the Phaedrus is not a model for how one should read another text.

What is noteworthy is that Derrida found the tools for reading the Phaedrus within the Phaedrus itself; he did not apply some outside formula to the text.

If the philosophy cannot be explained to an outsider, then to what extent is it a real thing, and to what extent is the collective hallucination of the in-group?

It can be explained to an outsider, if that outsider has the necessary background and patience. You wouldn't expect to be able to explain a proposed proof of the Riemann Hypothesis to someone who didn't know algebra, would you?

In order to properly understand Derrida's philosophy, you need a solid understanding of the philosophies of Husserl, Heidegger, Hegel, Freud, Nietzsche and Levinas. (Derrida admits as much in one of his notable early works.) I promise you that to anyone who has that background, Derrida will be perfectly understandable.

(Basically, no-one has explained it to me yet, and I don't get it, and I'm damm smart, so it's either way over my head, and therefore very smart indeed, or bunk.)

That is an adequate representation of Chomsky's view. Unfortunately, it's a category error. Chomsky is indeed, very smart. That doesn't mean that he should expect his genius to transfer to disciplines outside his own. If Chomsky had the patience (and inclination) to adequately study Continental Philosophy, I guarantee he'd be able to understand it in a year or two of study. The fact that he's not interested in doing so, and that no-one else is willing to try to spoon-feed it to him is no reflection on the discipline itself.

As I see it, in this case the insiders are dismissive of the outsiders -- "you have to read all these works to even understand what we are talking about, and we might still say you are not in the in-group and you are just trying to make fun of us." Given that, it is hardly surprising when outsiders are dismissive of you.

I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to the author of the piece, who certainly is dismissive of deconstruction, and seems to have an axe to grind. Furthermore, the pseudo-quote you offer is a canard: this is what all disciplines do. And, in fact, Derrida has a nice interview on the subject on "The Ethics of Discussion", which states that the sine qua non for any ethics of discussion is to actually read the work one is criticizing. You wouldn't trust a film critic who didn't see the film, right? So, why is it so much to ask that someone actually read a philosopher (and the prerequisites he relies upon) before dismissing him?

If I already perceived half of those guys as going in the wrong direction entirely, is there any value to reading what is essentially a commentary on them?

I must say, a long exposure to the analytic tradition has, to me, evaporated all these excuses. When you're saying something about morality or the nature of knowledge, you can state it directly, even at the risk of restating some elements that others have stated. This is true even if you're directly responding to them (in which case you restate the points you are responding to). The main prerequisite is a training in logic, simply because many statements in analytic philosophy are most clearly expressed in variously-formal logical forms.

On the other hand, if you're only offering a commentary on past philosophers, perhaps some novel technique of reading their texts (which, judging by your posts, seems to be Derrida's primary innovation) is enough of an innovation.

> 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?

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..."