Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum / Good Critiques of Deconstructionism and Post-Modernism

**Posted by Jeremy Taylor** 9/26/2016 4:51 am

Does anyone know any good critiques of deconstructionism and post-modernism (post-structuralism, etc.), especially within literary theory/criticism, the humanities, and social sciences (I know Sokal and Bricmont's criticism)?

I'm particularly interest more intellectual critiques, perhaps even those that try to take what is truly interesting or worthwhile from deconstructionism, post-modernism, et al., whilst setting apart what is not.

**Posted by iwpoe** 9/26/2016 12:12 pm

Good? You have to take it one guy at a time.

For instance, I think Derrida is passable as a phenomenologist in some of his writing, but he has the old parisian rhetorical problem of having to write decent things in a highly pretentious way.

Foucault does interesting philosophical history; it's just that his conclusions are dubious, though you have to dwell with it.

Deleuze is just doing weirdo metaphysics because the european context hasn't had good systematic metaphysics in wide acceptance for a century. Read it and apply your own metaphysical understanding.

Lyotard seems to be a crazy person who says crazy crank leftist things in philosophical jargon.

etc.

What were you interested in?

Last edited by iwpoe (9/26/2016 12:13 pm)

**Posted by Mysterious Brony** 9/26/2016 1:24 pm

Hi Jeremy Taylor,

Have you read Mark Dooley's Moral Matters? He does criticize some forms of Post-modernism and deconstructionism.

**Posted by Jeremy Taylor** 9/27/2016 4:25 am

Thanks for the recommendation, Mysterious Brony.

Iwpoe,

I have read a few works of literary criticism lately where the influence of deconstructionism and postmodernism was clear.

**Posted by iwpoe** 9/27/2016 10:45 am

Jeremy Taylor wrote:
Iwpoe,

I have read a few works of literary criticism lately where the influence of deconstructionism and postmodernism was clear.

That's a different matter. The lit-crit people weren't philosophers and followed philosophic writing to absurd directions. Did you want something focused on literary criticism as such or on the academic reception of the ideas in general?

Last edited by iwpoe (9/27/2016 10:45 am)

**Posted by Jeremy Taylor** 9/27/2016 8:33 pm

I guess both would be good, but especially literally criticism and in the humanities/social sciences.

I think that, within literary criticism, etc., the post-moderns and deconstructionists makes some valid points. It is correct that literature can represent different voices, and some of these representations reflect different power relations. To use an example from history, it is true, for example, that Greek and Roman accounts of barbarians cannot necessarily be taken at face value - they reflect cultural biases and traditions of interpretation, though I'm not sure it required the post-moderns to tell us this. But I think the post-moderns and deconstructionists make far too much of these insights, turning literature or history or culture into simply a matter of power relations - with no room for other motives beyond social and political power nor room for genuine wisdom or artistic merit - and proliferating disunity and differing voices to the complete exclusion of any unity or universal themes or meaning.

**Posted by iwpoe** 9/27/2016 9:17 pm

It's one thing to say words etc *have* power relations. It's madness to say they *are* power relations.

**Posted by iwpoe** 9/29/2016 3:03 pm

Do you have anyone you're reading in particular?

**Posted by Jeremy Taylor** 9/29/2016 5:23 pm

From the library I managed to pick up John Ellis's Against Deconstruction and David Lehman's Signs of the Times, but haven't read them yet though.

I'd be interested to know how more traditional forms of literary criticism - the kind practiced by a Dr. Johnson, Coleridge, or T.S. Eliot - have reacted to and dealt with deconstructionism.

**Posted by iwpoe** 9/29/2016 6:05 pm

I mean, which deconstructiony type people are you dealing with?