<p>I respect your opinion, no matter how imbued it is with the stench of generality and apparent singularity. I am not entirely certain what "authorities" you have corresponded with
[/quote]
</p>
<p>1) Your first point of reference should be Derrida's own texts, where he lambasts the literary misappropriation of his work.
2) Your second point of reference should be none other than Stanley Cavell, professor Emeritus of Aesthetics at Harvard, who also complains of the lack of respect for 'deconstructionism' in literary criticism.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but I assure you that literary criticism most definitely facilities the ideas of construction in the sense that it expediates actualization through exploration.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your assurance is misguided. This is not intended to offend; Derrida has himself expressed his disapproval of such appropriation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I do not feel I am in the wrong by holding the belief that Jacques Derrida intended decontructionism to be the philosophical exploration of deeper meanings within a work in order to actualize more understanding.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If scholars, with what they think are 'right interpretations of deconstructionism' have been the source of Derrida's humor till his death, I am sure you are no closer to finding the point of it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yet you decry my entire reprisal with your version of Derrida's ideal? Let me rephrase that....I mean to say that your desire to point out the fallacies of my argument is inappropiate because you admit to not having a complete comprehension of his proposition as well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Logical fallacy, so much for the analytic training, eh?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I never said it did. If my diction elucidated that, I apologize. I think you have just summed up why deconstructionism IS an excellent form critical thinking. It seeks not to tear down the walls of a proposition, but it does compel us to view it in a broader spectrum.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You just misappropriated it again. Have you even read 'De La Grammatologie'?</p>
<p>
[quote]
My point was that criticism is a beneficial component of law school preparation, and analyzing Derrida's ephemeral ideal is quite healthy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>1) It does not at all. His texts are not logical (they are not illogical). They do not emphasize the analytic skills required for law school in the least. I assure you that you will derive more use from reading the works of logical positivists than you will ever find in reading 'De La Grammatologie'. Ironic how a text in the French language somehow provides useful guidance for reading legal texts.
2) It is not healthy; I have been warned on numerous occasions of the dangers of misappropriating deconstructionism. These have not been from students, but from prominent professors who have personally met Derrida. </p>
<p>You are young, you are just heading into college, and you think you are right about the purpose of deconstructionism. Scholars upon scholars have been denounced by Derrida himself, and deconstructionism in literary criticism, according to him, has been a farcical notion which barely resembles the intended purpose. Do you mean to tell me that your intuitions of deconstruction are somehow stronger than what Derrida has explicitly claimed?</p>
<p>I think not.</p>
<p>I do not know what deconstructionism is, but I know what it is not; it is definitely not the fatuous display you just rendered.</p>
<p>Edit: Analytic philosophy, up until now, has, and will for the near future, control of legal academia. You are not going to get through law school by critiquing logic, you will graduate with a J.D. under the assumption that you have worked through it and use it as a valuable tool, with all the rigour therein. </p>
<p>I do not know whether that is a good or bad notion. Logic definitely has its uses - such as in law - but it can be potentially dangerous, especially to ordinary language.</p>