@Micaelis Deconstruction/Linguistics.

[scop]

It is because of différance that the movement of signification is possible only if each so-called present element, each element appearing on the scene of presence, is related to something other than itself, thereby keeping within itself the mark of the past element, and already letting itself be vitiated by the mark of its relation to the future element....
Jacques Derrida

In another thread the idea of linguistics was raised, yet one of the fundamental roots of Derridean philosophy is that one is lead past linguistics, in essense we reach a type of grammatology (the infamous science of writing or textuality).

My question to you is simple, why do you believe Deconstruction is useful and more importantly what has it taught us, is it indeed beneficial for
thinking?

I would prefer more of a discussion than a debate, I am long past picking sides and I am not interested in race as much as you can imagine many here are.

[scop]

P.S. There is nothing outside the text. :D

[Micaelis]

You're right, grammatology is the science in which deconstruction, arche-writing, the trace, and other such things operate. It essentially overcomes linguistics, though linguistics continues to function as a literary discipline. For this reason we must continue to take it into consideration the attempted breach of linguistics by Derrida that has not yet occured within it. We may metaphorically state that Derrida is the bomb that has not yet gone off, and linguists have done their best to diffuse that bomb.

Your questions are quite simple, and I believe we could accomplish more with this thread than proving whether or not deconstruction has anything to teach us, and if it is beneficial for thinking. I would hope those two questions to be self-evident. :)

[Die]

"...only if each so-called present element, each element appearing on the scene of presence... "

Ouch.:222:

[scop]

Your questions are quite simple, and I believe we could accomplish more with this thread than proving whether or not deconstruction has anything to teach us, and if it is beneficial for thinking. I would hope those two questions to be self-evident. :)

Why? Nothing is self evident to me when it comes to philosophy, that I hope is its appeal.

I can see the uses for it in abandoning Structuralism, it has its place but to extend Derrida to other fields in thei world of interdisciplinary studies bemuses me. Are we always in the world trying to do as Husserl did in trying to reconcile two different orders, reducing everything in a sordid attempt at reconciliation that can never be achieved.