The great website jewornotjew.com has this to say about Derrida and deconstruction: “Ummmmm… yeah… well, this shouldn’t be too hard, right? Derrida was a proponent of deconstructionism. His idea was that essentially, there is no inherent meaning in anything save the hierarchies created by its oppositions? Sort of? So, basically, words themselves have no meaning, but instead form a code that must be by examined for its intrinsic contrast in order to understand the greater message?
Yeah, we got nothing. Derrida may have been a great philosopher and a great Jew. He may even have deserved that doctorate. But when your ideas are so dense that even other philosophers don’t get it, you’ve clearly gone a little off the deep end.
Yeah, that’s brilliant! Makes the reader pretty curious, I’m sure. The jews here knows what they’re doing. It’s like telling someone not to read Ulysses, or not to push the read button: then you just have to do it! At least this reader feels this.
But to be critical: this is really not more than the stupid lack of intellectual curiosity and good will as found in the essays by John Searle. One pf the points they doesn’t mention is the ideality present in the ego before the words are formed, the inner vision if you like, not that different from Rousseau rip off Steven Pinker’ s new text published online about writing. The point is to write as if you havr something in sight, visual, before your very eyes, and are explaining this to someone. This requiers abstract objectivity, and that is to be found in the transcendense between inter- and intrasubjectivity, or from the writers mind to the readers understanding.