Very easy to propose ideas that you have no intention of putting into action. Very difficult to answer the hard practical questions, much less put your theoretical understanding to work. How many mice have to die trying to hang a bell on the cat, before you’re ready to show some humility?
If your ontological framework cannot resist a bit of outside criticism, maybe you need to keep looking for viable alternatives. “We have to keep going with the wrong answer, because I haven’t figured out the right one yet” isn’t philosophy. It’s theology.
I feel Americans have bastardized the Original concept of “Deconstruction.” In American pop-philosophy to “deconstruct” seems to stand for “taking apart” or “dismantle.” When the Original meaning of “deconstruction” involves a method of reading and analyzing texts. Every text can be deconstructed and enumerating their structural flautines or linguistic ambiguities does not make a text more or less valid. Being aware of the fact that language is not static does not automatically devalue everything conveyed through language but rather helps us find more nuance when analyzing texts.
I feel this is also a by product of this Americanized idea of criticism as a marketing tool. The capitalist logic that: “To critique texts is to put them into hierarchies”; “Make one text more desirable for consumption than another.” But critique can also be used to understand and explain a text: “Criticism can be a bridge between the text and it’s reader.” We can deconstruct a text to understand it, not just invalidate it.
