Maybe your definition of deconstruction is different from mine. I understand it as interpreting thoughts, texts and systems from many different aspects. It is not act of "isolation", but rather interpretation. — Corvus

Deconstruction... only points to the necessity of an unending analysis that can make explicit the decisions and hierarchies intrinsic to all texts. — Wikipedia

The idea is that by studying a text, we can determine which side of a dichotomy the author favours. This is usually favoured by treating it as a singularity, not as a dichotomy at all. It's not a bad thing, is in fact a necessary thing as writing goes, but means that understanding a text necessitates this "unending analysis", otherwise you are reading from within the same preference, those silent assumptions and biases that the author adheres to.

Or alternatively in Hegelian synthesis, either the thesis or antithesis is implicitly preferred, leading to a synthesis biased toward one or the other.

There's a nice list of quotes about deconstruction on the same Wiki page (deconstruct my laziness there):

t's possible, within text, to frame a question or undo assertions made in the text, by means of elements which are in the text, which frequently would be precisely structures that play off the rhetorical against grammatical elements. — Paul de Man

(and you should listen to him because he's de Man).

the term 'deconstruction' refers in the first instance to the way in which the 'accidental' features of a text can be seen as betraying, subverting, its purportedly 'essential' message. — Richard Rorty

Deconstruction begins, as it were, from a refusal of the authority or determining power of every 'is', or simply from a refusal of authority in general. — Niall Lucy

[Deconstruction] signifies a project of critical thought whose task is to locate and 'take apart' those concepts which serve as the axioms or rules for a period of thought, those concepts which command the unfolding of an entire epoch of metaphysics. — David Allison

The thing you should take from the last three of those is that 'Rorty' is a perfectly good name for a baby girl.

Sorry to derail the thread, but I'm the sole defender of postmodernism on this forum, gotta put the hours in. :)

Or you could suggest somone to affirm the proposition in your place who has no objection to debating me. I'm much more interested in rigorously exploring the issue than in having grudge-match with you. Banno & Hanover have suggested improvements to the debate format that would have improved the last two and I'd like to put the updates to a test with two members seriously committed to opposing sides of the issue at hand. So suggest your alternative if that's more agreeable to you.

Yeah, but to what end or purpose other than deflating all claims, implicit or explicit, in a text to mere biases or empty rhetoric? Sure, all discourses might be nonsense – thus, 'power-play relativism' as p0m0 suggests – but, by rejecting even the pragmatic distinction of latent nonsense & patent nonsense (Witty), "deconstruction" refutes itself (like Dada or nihilism or global skepticism).

Sorry to derail the thread, but I'm the sole defender of postmodernism on this forum, gotta put the hours in. :) — Kenosha Kid

Don't get me wrong. I think Deconstruction is great. Aesthetics is of of my favourite subjects. But I have a funny feeling that postmodernism and deconstruction wouldn't go very well with God debates.

The idea is that by studying a text, we can determine which side of a dichotomy the author favours. This — Kenosha Kid

I read some Derrida, and in the deconstruction process, they would even bring in the Paraconsistent Logic (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/), which denies the Law of Contradiction. So an object can be both white and black at the same time. It is actually a very realistic system for representing the real world - such as in the country you have a population who are for the policy and at the same time, against it. There is no definite truth to say this is it.

And according to the deconstructionist, the Bible is definitely irrelevant for modern times, because it had been written thousands years ago. Everything has changed. Historicism doesn't work for the present time ...etc. Interesting thoughts and methods, I would say. Great system for art critic analysis of course. The traditionalists will not approve of it of course for obvious reasons.

And according to the deconstructionist, the Bible is definitely irrelevant for modern times living, because it had been written thousands years ago. Everything has changed. Historicism doesn't work for the present time ...etc. Interesting thoughts and methods, I would say. Great system for art critic analysis of course. The traditionalist will not approve it of course for obvious reasons. — Corvus

Indeed. I wouldn't say Feyerband invented post-truth, but his "science fails, therefore God it is" brand of pomo oughtn't to have been difficult to deconstruct. Derrida himself said that deconstruction is not an equaliser. There's a lot more to unpack in a work of theology than in a scientific paper.

Anyway, now we really are derailing the thread. I'm waiting with baited breath to see who Wayfarer and/or 180's seconds will be now that Wayfarer has declined the invitation.

but what about someone else? — 180 Proof

I so want to do it, either side, and my posts on this are scattered all over the forum. But I just don't have the time, I can't even log in to the forum every day, sometimes even for several days in a row.
I have an enormous amount of work in the garden, and while I pull weeds and dig over the soil, I think of witty retors to the forum posts I read, although by the time I'm able to long in, the moment's long gone ...
Like ...

Standards for Forum Debates

I have a question:
What is the purpose of a debate? What is attempted to be accomplished by a debate?

Indeed. I wouldn't say Feyerband invented post-truth, but his "science fails, therefore God it is" brand of pomo oughtn't to have been difficult to deconstruct. Derrida himself said that deconstruction is not an equaliser. There's a lot more to unpack in a work of theology than in a scientific paper. — Kenosha Kid

I couldn't find any God mentioned by Derrida in his books I own. He seems constantly interpreting texts even in his lecture notes "Life Death".

Anyway, now we really are derailing the thread. I'm waiting with baited breath to see who Wayfarer and/or 180's seconds will be now that Wayfarer has declined the invitation. — Kenosha Kid

Sure, we did veered from the topic a wee bit right enough, but our discussions were to demonstrate and stress on how clarifying, establishing and agreeing on the abstract concepts prior to embarking debates could help the debaters avoid some harsh sophistry dog fights, in the essence, was related to the topic (deconstructively speaking).

Or perhaps definitions themselves could be some of the topics of the debates just like Socrates used to do often. He keeps asking "What is x?" x= justice, good, bad, beauty, wisdom, soul ...
For example, before going into debates "Does God exist?", perhaps they should debate first, "What is God?"

How about The Grand Trismegistus. — Noble Dust

I joined the Elks Club because my wife and I wanted to use its location for our wedding reception (it was unusually nice and even had a golf course). I've always liked the title of its leader--Grand Exalted Ruler. No doubt the Masons have something even more silly, or perhaps the Shriners.

have a question:
What is the purpose of a debate? What is attempted to be accomplished by a debate — baker

hate debates. It is the folly of the age to reduce every important or pleasant activity to a mere competition. Even fishing! I await with despair the first series of The Great British Fuck Off *. — unenlightened

As to these two comments, I agree that the competition can be distracting, leaving open the question of why we'd do that to ourselves. Perhaps the debate should contain a preamble stating its purpose, declaring it should be to elicit interesting points, increase the understanding of the audience, and to do all such other things you might expect an educator might ask for, as opposed to do what a man in an arena might bring forth.

"Are you not entertained?

Are you not entertained!

Is this not why you are here!?"

Wow, I forgot about the Shriners.

:clap: ('Cause nobody gets a rudius in the end!)

I challenge Wayfarer to affirm the proposition (or very close to it): "Both philosophical and scientific materialisms are fallacious" in a formal debate against either myself or someone else in opposition to the proposition.

Materialism of either sort is a position, not an argument. It can be true or false, but not valid or fallacious.

Yes; but useful (self-consistent) or useless (not self-consistent) is more like it.

Wow, I forgot about the Shriners. — Noble Dust

Are those the panhandlers in the roadway with the funny hats?

Post-Modernists are art critics. Their interest is not in truths, but in desconstruction. — Corvus

You are marrying the right concept with the wrong one. Deconstruction is the truth. There may be other truths as well, but at the present state of science and philosophy, this is what we got. Maybe down in history this will change.

I believe in the supremacy of logic. If logic proves or supports overwhelmingly that deconstruction is valid, or move valid than god-worshipping or Buddhism or Platonism or a thousand different theoretical constructs, then I go with deconstructivism, provided, again, that it is the most logically sound of all available ones.

I'm only pointing out that debaters aren't always so disagreeable that they can't even agree to a debate. It's not always that hostile. It really depends upon the personalities. — Hanover

I'm going along the lines of pure reason. If the debaters have different versions of truth, and that's why they debate; and their different versions are superstructures of earlier logic or premise(s); and if they both reason (use logic) well; then their premises must be different. If their premises are different, then their other superstructures will be different, such as definitions. If definitions are different, then they will argue what definitions to use. Hence, the rules that are DEFINED are suspect to never reach a common ground between the two debaters.

I grant that this above would not work if the defined rules do not violate the premises used by either debaters.

That's just a front. The acquisition of petty change is a long con; they melt it down and turn it into gold. They're an ancient order of alchemists. Their leader is known as The Supreme Immortal Magister of West Virginie, coincidentally my vote for debate moderator title.

Perhaps we leave it as is. @180 Proof and I stopped debating long ago, but the discussion thread (although now under a different title) continues on, and we've got this thread as well. So much discussion generated from what is being questioned as in need of repair. We need to realize that all that TPF sells is discussion, and it looks like we've come up with a way to increase production.

Yes; but useful (self-consistent) or useless (not self-consistent) is more like it. — 180 Proof

Useful is a very low bar to clear for any position. Even self-contradictory positions might be useful from time to time. Unless you mean 'useful' in the more technical context of pragmatism.

"Is the useful, the true?" might be a good debate topic.

As to these two comments, I agree that the competition can be distracting, leaving open the question of why we'd do that to ourselves. — Hanover

I'm not distracted by the competition. It's hard to fight when it's not clear what the weapons to be used are and what counts for victory.
And we'd need an emperor to decide, of course.

- - -

Peirce & Dewey, Popper & Witty, for example, don't equate 'useful' with 'truth' (that's a vulgar form of pragmatism associated with William James or Richard Rorty IIRC). Metaphysical, like methodological, positions (e.g. materialism) aren't truth-apt or theoretical explanations, but are, instead, conceptual descriptions, interpretations or procedural criteria. So yeah, philosophy itself is "a very low bar" – anyone can "have" one to live by – the significance of which, however, consists in a combination of its relevant questions' rigour and probity.

Peirce & Dewey, Popper & Witty, for example, don't equate 'useful' with 'truth' (that's a vulgar form of pragmatism associated with William James or Richard Rorty IIRC). Metaphysical, like methodological, positions (e.g. materialism) aren't truth-apt or theoretical explanations, but are, instead, conceptual descriptions, interpretations or procedural criteria. So yeah, philosophy itself is "a very low bar" – anyone can "have" one to live by – the significance of which, however, consists in a combination of its relevant questions' rigour and probity. — 180 Proof

Any of the opinions expressed here would make a good debate subject.

In any case, the things that need agreement before a debate include:
Post length.
Number of posts
Time between posts.
Permissible links and images
Sequence
Right of reply
Moderation. If a moderator is used there is an implicit agreement to abide by their decisions.
including or concluding or excluding a poll to decide winners and losers. — Banno

So after this discussion, what would you change on this list?

In any case, the things that need agreement before a debate include:
Post length.
Number of posts**
Time between posts.
Permissible links and images
Sequence
Right of reply
Moderation. If a moderator is used there is an implicit agreement to abide by their decisions.
including or concluding or excluding a poll to decide winners and losers.
— Banno

↪180 Proof

So after this discussion, what would you change on this list? — Banno

I'd add these:

MC (instead of "Arbiter" or "Moderator")

List of topic-relevant key terms with agreed upon definitions (terms with definitions not agreed upon are indicated with "?")

Number of posts** (minimum of 5: first 3 posts stating position, next 2 posts are replies, more posts or not???)

Hear ye, hear ye:

Noble Dust's proposed rules for debate are as thus:

The moderator shall be named Supreme Magus Yaldabaoth

The first interlocutor shall be named Pistis

The second Zoe

They shall perform a blood rite before commencement which shall bind each to the other until the death, either by argument or by the use of bare hands (should they discover one another's physical location)

Post length shall be limited to 3 quatrains per post and shall be judged by the depth of philosophical content able to be exhumed from each line of each quatrain, and down to the very word

Time between posts shall be limited to 30 days, in accordance with the constraints of international mail

Right Of Reply will be solely determined by the judgement of the Supreme Magus Yaldabaoth

Hear ye hear ye