Jacques Derrida, Founder of Deconstruction, is Dead

Mohammad Gill,

It is sad that Derrida has passed away. He will be missed in sadness, now, because with his end Derridian research into deconstruction has concluded and in happiness because of the difference his work has made to the fields ranging from literature to philosophy to architecture.

Deconstruction indeed can not be defined, in general, because no other field of philosophy can be defined either. Existentialism, for one, can not be defined either. Sartre`s Being and Nothingness is such a comprehensive text the likeness of which is existentialism has never been written. But even this work has a major flaw because Sartre proposes on the one hand that chief goal of humanity is to become ``god like`` in stiving for perfection of the self. And on the other hand, he says that knowledge of the self is not possible. See the contradiction?

Specifically, deconstruction can not be defined because it has not yet become coherent enough to encompass a cornerstone method of `deconstructing` the deemed `constructed`. Like many subjects in philosophy, deconstruction is just too `untamed` to be classified by a signature formula that would characterize it.

Coming back to Derrida, he will be missed. May he rest in Peace!

Peace!

The gender essentialists make absolutely no sense to me, but all the patriarchs and patriarch supporters in our society support them. Our institution, funding, even our Honorable President Sahib, a man who embodies Anti Intellectualism, supports gender essentialism. And yet no one can conclusively prove that gender essentialism is truth. We can thank the science world for that particular bit of nonsense....and we hope the science world remembers this and many other nonsense ideas that have been supported by much coin because these accepted theories play on basic sexism and racism.

ana:

I came across Derrida`s name, at first, in the context of ``Science Wars.`` The postmodernists had launched a vicious onslaught against physical science. It was more aimed at the scientists and science became an unfortunate target. They used social construction to reduce physical science to the status of sociology. The whole thing was ridiculous.

I tried reading Derrida`s ``Of Grammatology`` but soon gave up. I could not make much headway in understanding what he was saying. In spite of his diffincult and almost inscrutable style of writing, he did influence a large segment of readers. I thought it would be appropriate to post a brief obituary note on Chowk.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Mohammad Gill

Gill sahib,

this reads more like an obituary from a newspaper, which is somewhat understandable considering how much we know of derrida.

i read about jacques derrida and deconstruction in my contemporary literary theory classes, and i understood little of it, to be honest, but i do recall the fascination my curmudgeonly professor had with derrida. his constant references to what is truth and questioning the existence of absolutes had much to do with derrida`s influence. and when derrida`s name comes up, i automatically think of him, and how much of an impact he has had on my learning. and i guess that is how more than a few will remember derrida. for the impact and influence he made on their thought processes.

if people think he is difficult to comprehend, they should try reading one of his translators. . .gayatri chakravorty spivak. i have to remind myself that i am reading the english language! it`s fun being challenged though!

regards