The contemporary elitist capitalistic racist sexist Francophobic narrative is that Jacques Derrida has undergone the ultimate deconstruction.

But if, as he once suggested, we use postcultural structuralist theory to deconstruct hierarchy, then it could be said that the characteristic theme of this pseudo event is in reality the rubicon of neodialectic bioidentity. In fact, consider this in the context of the fact that he actively promoted the use of predialectic narrative to challenge society, thus contextualising the subject into a neodialectic deconstruction that includes reality as a totality. By this reasoning (bearing in mind that reason is not a road to truth), it could be said that death itself is dead.

Just as Foucault's model of postmaterial patriarchialist theory states that language serves to exploit minorities (and thus serve majorities, such as the dead), so will the inevitability of the ultimate choice, between neodialectic deconstruction and posttextual nihilism.

If one examines predialectic narrative, one is faced with another choice: either accept cultural demodernism or conclude that the significance of the participant, dead or alive, is social comment, given that reality is equal to consciousness, and death is equal to the ultimate unconsciousness. The premise of the capitalist paradigm of discourse suggests that culture is used to entrench outdated, lifeist perceptions of class, including the ultimate oppressed, those no longer even with us, as the current narrative suggests that Derrida is.

Ultimately, that will be his legacy--the destruction of communication, and the decimation of clear thinking in many university English departments.

Here is a memorial website to him and his works.

Y'know, every once in a while I think, Gee, maybe I should have taken a really good modern philosophy course in college. Then I run into stuff like "neodialectic deconstruction" and thank my lucky stars I took "Introduction to Music Listening" instead. My thoughts on this guy's passing? GooDerridance!

Actually, very few departments of philosophy pay much attention to this crapola. For some reason, its natural habitat is English departments.

What do you get when you cross a mafioso with a deconstructionist? Someone who will make you an offer you can't understand.

To the dust he has deconstucted. Perhaps he will be better fertilizer than his neo-crapist hallucinations.

"If no thought thy mind doth visit,
Make thy speech not too explicit."

- Piet Hein

Works on lots of levels....

Don't even get me started on the effect that he and his ilk (Foucoult, Deleuze & Guatari, et cetera) have had on architecture. Bad, bad, awful, and awful once more! And unfortunately quite popular.

Actually, I do think that the deconstructions have their place, and have made some real contributions, within a certain psycho-socio-linguistic niche. The problem is that they are a bunch of ontological imperialists -- ooh, I like that insult, I think it would really piss them off -- who have gone around declaring that "EVERYTHING is a text!" and "It is ALL just sliding signs and signifiers!" which is of course a steaming pile of anti-rational bullcrap.

The other place you find Derridians is in Anthropology. At this point Anthro departments may have more hard-core Marxists than even Literature or History. (I'd guess you could probably blame Levi-Strauss.)

brilliant!
thanks ^_^

A classic! Reminds me of another scientist's foray into deconstruction.

Don't forget about the deconstructionists in the Supreme Court.

If I understand what you said, reality reached out and slpped frenchie upside the head with a Clue-By-Four™.

Right?

What makes you think that I understand what I said?

Great satire! I've had this stuff pushed on me at university as well, in the social work department and in anthropology classes.
At first, I thought I was dumb b/c I couldn't understand any of it, then I realized what they were really trying to say with invented words and terms. I need some science and math courses!!

While she was getting her MFA in fine art my wife dealt with a Yalie who insisted that understanding Derrida and his ilk were crucial to being a successful artist. Two thirds of the way through the semester he stopped giving reading assignments to the class because they were "too stupid" to understand meaningless tripe. She was really upset about the whole situation and worried that she wasn't smart enough for graduate school, all because rambling meaninglessness just didn't compute for her. She got past that, realizing that artists *make art* while postmodernists *make nothing*.

What is it about being obtuse that makes people think they're so smart?