The Deconstructist theory is the theory that says of language that language is fluid and we can never really know what the meaning of a text (this is a literary theory for those of you fortunate to never come across it). They deny that there is an objective and correct meaning to any text. They say words change from era to era (that is true). They say that there are many ways to interpret a sentence (that is also true, but we can usually figure out what the intention of the author or speaker, by the context, by the inflection, by the social understanding and by the person themselves). Is it an exact science, no. Can you understand to a certain extent, yes. Are you going to make mistakes, yes.
Furthermore I am not sure what the reason for deconstructive theory‘s deconstructing a text. If meaning is fluid than dosen't this deconstructionist writing need to be deconstructed? Then that other deconstruction needs to be deconstructed. It is just a theory that you can go on and on, because there is really no starting point.
You cannot make a good argument without a basis that there is no proof of. They are trying to undermine that basis.
If you want to say there is no at least somewhat objective truth of a text, then what is the use of any criticism, if you throw out logic, how can one be expected to argue? If language is so fluid then what is the use of talking?
No comments:
Post a Comment