Vincent J. Curtis
28 Aug 22
To an Aristotelian, Deconstruction is
self-contradictory and asks questions that were answered long ago. Those who have read Mortimer J. Adler’s book Some Questions about Language will be
especially unimpressed with Deconstruction, and they are well equipped to understand
what I’m about to say.
Let’s start with Wikipedia’s description of
it. “Deconstruction is an approach to
understanding the relationship between text and meaning.” Okay, here’s the relationship: the text conveys
the meaning. Text contains the
meaning. From the writer’s perspective,
the text is how the author conveys his meaning to the reader, and from the
reader’s perspective, the text contains the meaning in the author’s mind. Text is the means by which meaning is
conveyed. It’s hard to get a wedge between
text and meaning. Without text, there is
no meaning to be conveyed, and without meaning, the text is simply gibberish.
Is it possible for the author to confuse
the reader, or for the reader to misunderstand the text? Yes, but that changes nothing in the relationship
between text and meaning. It is also
possible for the author to use the wrong words to convey his thought.
Clearly also, the reader and writer have to
have a common language of communication.
If the reader doesn’t understand Russian, text in the Russian language
is gibberish to him.
So the deconstructionist gets into trouble
immediately by questioning the relationship between text and meaning. In math, division by zero is not permitted
because you can end up with an equation that says 1 equals 2. An error similar to this seems to be
happening when deconstruction claims there to be a wedge between text and
meaning.
The self-contradiction of deconstruction
occurs when, in exploring the alleged wedge, “Deconstruction argues that
language… is irreducibly complex, unstable, and difficult to determine.” These are three different things, but let’s
start with “irreducibly complex.” What
is meant here is that there are infinitely many possible interpretations of
text. Well, actually, there can’t be
infinitely many interpretations because there are only a finite number of
people. But regardless, the argument is
that language is irreducibly complex.
Here is the contradiction: if language is
irreducibly complex, why are you trying to communicate after you just said communication
is impossible? If language is
irreducibly complex with meaning unstable and difficult, why are you insisting
that your interpretation is correct?
Didn’t you just say that no interpretation can be judged “correct?”
Walking past these self-contradictions and
false problems leads to trouble. I’ve
ready used a math metaphor, let me try one from quantum mechanics. There are expectation values and variances in
matrix mechanics. An energy level is an
expectation value, and the variance associated with that expectation value is
the standard deviation one observes when conducting an experiment. A line in a spectrum isn’t of zero width,
which it would be if the variance were zero.
A line of zero width would be invisible.
Even in quantum mechanics there is some tolerance, some variance, in
expectation values, which doesn’t change what the expectation value is.
In language, we frequently use
universals. With each species there is associated
a universal. To illustration, consider
the sentence, “The cat ran under the fence.”
The reader of this will have called to his mind his universal “cat” and
his universal “fence.” The mental image
of a person’s universal for cat can be black or white, Persian or mixed, a
house cat or a big tom cat. Regardless, the reader understands what a cat
is, for purposes of the sentence. The
variance of the expectation value isn’t so great that a cat would be mistaken
for a dog. Deconstruction theory would
hold that variance must either be zero, or else be so large that cat could be
misunderstood to be a dog.
Likewise with “fence.” It could be wire mesh or wood that is called
to mind. It could be two feet tall or
ten feet. It could be painted blue or
brown. Whatever the universal in your
mind for fence is, it suffices to convey the meaning the author intended by
saying the cat ran under the fence. Deconstruction
theory finds understanding this sentence either impossible or at least
mysterious.
Consider the language of Shakespeare. Doesn’t that show that the English language is
“unstable” and “difficult to determine?”
Yes, to modern English speakers, Shakespeare can be a challenge, but not an impossible one. It just takes a bit more work. It can be a joy to learn something new about
the thinking and style of the 16th century.
Another less obvious fallacy is found in
deconstruction. “Deconstruction
instead places emphasis on the mere appearance of language in both speech and
writing, or suggests at least that essence as it is called is to be found in
its appearance, while it itself is "undecidable", and everyday
experiences cannot be empirically evaluated to find the actuality of language,”
to quote Wikipedia. The problem here is
that of infinite regress. If language is
mere appearance, then writing about a passage is itself a mere appearance; and
trying to interpret that mere appearance of a mere appearance is itself mere
appearance. And so on ad infinitum.
If
something is “undecidable” is that mere appearance too? Is it in fact really decidable in fact, or
not? And to say something is undecidable
is itself a decision, so if language itself produces nothing decidable, it is
contradictory to claim that decision to be true. To deconstruction, everyday communication
between people is a complete mystery, and yet its proponents try to communicate
that decision.
The
mystery is why deconstruction was ever taken seriously. It is said to be based on a rejection of
Platonism, and yet it walks right past Aristotle as if he never existed. This is certainly an indictment of the philosophical
profession that Derrida wasn’t machine-gunned with ridicule into oblivion. But the answer could lie in its utility to
Marxism, a wider political reason, and in particular to the utility of what
Aristotle called Irrelevant Conclusions, a vicious tactic of the Sophists.
Consider George Washington. He was the Commanding General that defeated
the British in the American Revolution.
He was chairman of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia. He was America’s first president. His importance to America’s founding is
unquestionable. But he was a slave
owner. Nowadays, that makes him
bad. That makes him an unmentionable
non-person whose statues around the country must be torn down, schools named
after him renamed after some minor, historical Black figure, and America’s
founding becomes a mystery not to be plumbed.
Same thing with Thomas Jefferson, author of
the Declaration of Independence, in which he said that “all men are created
equal.” He too was a slave owner, and
therefore must be stuffed into the memory hole so far as possible. Besides, what’s this crack about all men being equal? What about women? (That is, if you can define what a woman is!) The fact that America has come to fulfill its
founding promises after two centuries is of no moment. The taint of slavery (or whatever else is
your issue) makes America forever and irredeemably evil. (That’s some conclusion!)
That Washington and Jefferson were slave
owners is irrelevant to their importance in American’s founding and her first
decades of existence. But if the sophist
yells his irrelevant conclusion loud enough and often enough, no further debate
is possible. Which is why Aristotle was
merciless to sophists because of the viciousness of their method.
Another example is that because America had
slavery 160 years ago, the white people of today owe the Black people of today
reparations. The conclusion doesn’t
follow from the premise, and never mind how absurd it is ethically. But it’s so outrageous that it holds a
certain fascination. Like the Big Lie:
it stuns the listener.
For the Marxist, undermining confidence in
western civilization is an end in itself, and forcing attention upon the allegedly
clay feet of western heroes is a means of using politeness and decency against
that confidence.
Irrelevant conclusions are now before
forced into medicine, math, and sciences.
Math is racist! Science is
racist! Why? Because it was all created by Europeans! We can’t say “women” because it might upset
the transgendered, and, poor delicate darlings that they are, we can’t upset
them! So, “people” get pregnant. And we have “birthing people,” etc.
European is not a monolith, but regardless,
truth has no race. Whoever discovered a
truth is an accident of that truth.
(Study Aristotle to grasp what an ‘accident’s is. Accidents are distinct from essentials, BTW.) As for the latest fashion on transgenderism,
I’m not a psychotherapist, and neither are most people calling sex a social
construct. This is deconstruction trying
impose unreality on clear language, without a shred of decency or
politeness. They’re right and you’re
wrong, despite there being no “right” or “wrong!” (In The
Categories, Aristotle explains what substance is, and transgenderism is an
attempt at the miracle of transubstantiation.
This is why it is so reality-bending.)
Why would intellectuals even take
deconstruction seriously given its obvious flaws? I think it’s because a certain type of
intellectual likes those shocking conclusions: that 1 equals 2; that there is
no absolute truth (except the one I just uttered), and that communication is
impossible and never mind that I’m trying to communicate my thoughts to
you. So, shock value I think explains
part of it.
Another part is the opportunity for
mischief, and even downright viciousness, by the use of the Irrelevant
Conclusion to destroy. It makes them
important.
Deconstruction ought never to have been
taken seriously, and it’s an indictment of the honesty, integrity, and even
competence of today’s intellectuals that it did, and that its techniques
persist. Aristotle answered all its
alleged problems. It is
self-contradictory, and has insuperable problems with infinite regress. It is a glorified method of the sophistical
technique of the irrelevant conclusion.
Deconstruction builds nothing; it leads straight to nihilism.
-30-
