Talk:Deconstruction: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger (→Huh?: new section) |
imported>Larry Sanger (→Huh?) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
== Huh? == | == Huh? == | ||
"Process of reading texts against themselves"--what does ''that'' mean? When defining terms used by people who are famously obscure, Tom, it is ''not'' a virtue to use obscure terminology yourself! :-) --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:16, 3 October 2008 (CDT) | "Process of reading texts against themselves"--what does ''that'' mean? When defining terms used by people who are famously obscure, Tom, it is ''not'' a virtue to use obscure terminology yourself! :-) | ||
This goes for the article itself. It is frankly a disgrace. I happen to know what it is trying to say, but that is only because I had to suffer through some of this stuff in my philosophy training. But for anyone who does not already know what deconstruction is, this article is useless as an introduction to the topic. | |||
Please set aside your post-modern, deconstructionistic tendencies and approach the topic in a good old-fashioned straightforward way. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:16, 3 October 2008 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 12:18, 3 October 2008
Huh?
"Process of reading texts against themselves"--what does that mean? When defining terms used by people who are famously obscure, Tom, it is not a virtue to use obscure terminology yourself! :-)
This goes for the article itself. It is frankly a disgrace. I happen to know what it is trying to say, but that is only because I had to suffer through some of this stuff in my philosophy training. But for anyone who does not already know what deconstruction is, this article is useless as an introduction to the topic.
Please set aside your post-modern, deconstructionistic tendencies and approach the topic in a good old-fashioned straightforward way. --Larry Sanger 12:16, 3 October 2008 (CDT)