Before You Deconstruct...

The approach I would like to take this week with my blog post is to dissect what I've read and explain to the best of my ability what I took from the reading and how I could assist those who may have similar thoughts. After reading John Locke’s analysis, I grabbed a good sense of knowledge; it wasn't as complex as Derrida but to some extent I can say that I walked away with a clear grasp of what point John Locke was coming from. The basic concept that I received from my reading from John Locke is that language can be a problem. Language can be a problem because language requires signification which means “conveying of meaning” you may wonder how that could possibly be a problem, but if everyone signifies with words differently, then what is language?  That is the problem. Different context has different meaning and can potentially create confusion.  The best example that my group and I came up with in our section of John Locke was the “n-word” because everyone signifies with the word differently. It’s a part of language, but without certain context clues one can quickly take offense to the statement. Another example would be a drawing of a triangle, to some it’s just a shape; to others it’s symbolic and a religious symbol.

This week with Derrida, I’m sure you all can agree that the reading was quite complex with clauses and filled with metaphors and dissection was nearly impossible, but it makes complete sense why we would move on to Derrida after reading Locke. Derrida plays with language even as he writes, and digs deeper into signification.

I would personally like to touch on the topic of “destruction”. Derridas philosophy founded the practice of destruction, which is a way of reading but to my understanding “reconstructualism”.

Let’s take a relationship for example. Couples argue from time to time, and the perfect way to explain destruction in terms of language is an argument. There is always one person "deconstructing" while the other preents the "text", usually in defense. The angry person, which in this cae we will call the reader, tackles the text they have been given, picking away at the the words or phrases used with the full intention of proving that their discourse flawed and, that they mean the opposite of what they say. Just about anything is open for attack, and that is an example of destruction of language or even text.

 

Derrida talked about ‘difference’ a lot, and the way that language is founded on it. What this means is that, if you had half a sentence, you couldn’t necessarily finish it. You might well speculate on what would come next, but unless you had the back end of it, you couldn’t know what it means. This is because every word we add to a sentence will subtly alter the meaning of those that precede it. I don’t know if any of this made sense, but this is how I understood the reading, if anyone understood it a different please comment.

Works Cited

• Derrida, Jacques. “Différance.” Literary Theory: An Anthology, Second Edition. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Wiley/Blackwell, 2004. 278-288.
• Locke, John. "From An Essay Concerning Human Understanding." The Rhetorical Tradition: Reading  from Classical Times to the Present, Second Edition. Ed. Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2001. 814-827.  
• http://web.utk.edu/~misty/Derrida376.html
• http://litlove.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/derrida-for-dummies/