Changes
The LinkTitles extension automatically added links to existing pages (https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles).
===Approaching a definition of deconstruction===
Part of the difficulty in defining ''deconstruction'' arises from the fact that [[The Act|the act ]] of defining ''deconstruction'' in the [[language]] of Western metaphysics requires one to accept the very ideas of Western metaphysics that are thought to be the [[subject]] of deconstruction. Nevertheless, various authors have provided a [[number]] of rough definitions. The philosopher [[David B. Allison]] (an early translator of Derrida) stated:
:"[Deconstruction] signifies a [[project]] of critical thought whose task is to locate and 'take apart' those concepts which serve as the axioms or rules for a period of thought, those concepts which command the unfolding of an entire epoch of metaphysics. 'Deconstruction' is somewhat less [[negative]] than the [[Heideggerian]] or Nietzschean terms 'destruction' or '[[reversal]]'; it suggests that certain foundational concepts of metaphysics will never be entirely eliminated...There is no simple 'overcoming' of metaphysics or the language of metaphysics." (Introduction by Allison, in Derrida, 1973, p. xxxii, n. 1.)
== Criticisms of deconstruction ==
Deconstruction is [[The Subject|the subject ]] of at least three main types of criticism. Critics take issue with what they believe is a lack of seriousness and [[transparency]] in deconstructive writings, and with what they [[interpret]] as a political stance against traditional [[modern philosophy|modernism]]. In addition, critics often equate deconstruction with [[nihilism]] or [[relativism]] and criticize deconstruction accordingly.
===Lack of usefulness===
"Now these problems of the foreign debt - and everything that is metonymized by this concept - will not be treated without at least the spirit of the [[Marxist]] critique, the critique of the [[market]], of the multiple logics of [[capital]], and of that which [[links]] the [[State]] and [[international law]] to this market". Spectres of [[Marx]], 1994.
So différance can also be understood as part of the revolutionary [[dialectic]] that destroys the established order to permit the adoption of some [[New World Order|new world order]]. In general the deconstructive writers are much more closely associated with the political left and various elements of academia than with the political right but their work may benefit either faction.
Thus, some critics view deconstruction as means of academic [[empire]]-building; they see deconstruction as elevating the [[practice]] of reading and deconstructing a text to the same status as the original act of writing the text. For example, critics have taken issue with deconstructive writings which seem to elevate the ''[[criticism]]'' of Western science, metaphysics, and philosophy, such as quantum mechanics and the writings of [[Aristotle]], to the same political status as the original scientific and philosophical writings. This seems to give deconstructive writings a privileged position with respect to other writings. This, critics suggest, is arrogant.
