Deconstruction for Beginners by James N. Powell

Deconstruction for Beginners Reviews

• 
  Joe

  When did we stop agreeing on definitions as a society? Why can't we agree on what we're even arguing about any more? Why aren't there any 'facts' anymore? To that I say (with tongue only slightly in cheek) you can blame "Deconstruction."
  
  Here's what I got from this: According to Deconstruction, there isn't much that means anything. An example: If you hear the person delivering your mail say 'I'm a mail man' do they mean they are a letter carrier or a very, very male person? But Joe, I would just use context to decide. Ah yes, Deconstruction would say, but then you must deconstruct that context. Down and down we go into the rabbit hole until everything is gibberish and nonsense and no one can agree on anything.
  
  It seems to me that the best us of Deconstruction is as a sword, not a shield. It allows the aggressor to say "your argument means nothing because you're relying on sexist/racist/marxist/etc. language so that invalidates everything that comes after it."
  
  One of my biggest frustrations in this modern era is refusing to believe that there is "objective good." The purpose of many philosophical movements is to discover this objective good, i.e. Is murder wrong? Which religion is correct? Is Cilantro delicious or gross? Deconstruction seems to exist to tear these "truths" down.
  
  To an extent, Deconstruction is necessary and refreshing. So much of our learning and history is build upon presumptions that favor the historian. If Germany had won WWII, let's just say the books would be a little different these days. I don't necessarily think Deconstruction says objective good doesn't exist, I think it just makes it very difficult to define what that is.
  
  I enjoy Deconstruction because it forces the person who is presenting an idea to go back to basic principles. I could see this being a particularly useful tool between two people arguing about pro life/pro choice. That's one of those arguments that definitions matter and both sides play pretty fast and loose with them.
  
  All in all, I'm glad I read this book, although I don't see myself becoming a "Deconstruction Disciple" any time soon.
• 
  Benoit Lelièvre

  Slightly disappointed. The book gets its point across, but this is very much a skippable book if you've read Derrida for Beginners (which I did). It explains deconstruction in similar terms in there and does it better. In "Derrida", Powell goes over every basic term of deconstruction and how they go interact together and goes over hypothetical questions a reader would have as he goes along. "Deconstruction" is illustrated as a discussion between a coyote, Mark Twain, a Derrida reader, Derrida a sex-crazed Buddhist icon and many others. It goes over many of the same concept, yet it doesn't have the satisfying methodology of its predecessor. Too bad, I was expecting a lot out of this one, but it didn't add much to what I've learned from the enlightening Derrida for Beginners. A little, but not much.
• 
  Dawson

  This is a very descriptive book on this subject that someone can start to study Derrida's foremost rigorous theory on Deconstruction.
  
  where deconstruction become something affordable in its literal form is this allegorical comic nature is very rarely we find in this manner to get some clear idea of key concepts of Derrida's work.
  
  
  i would highly recommend this book for anyone who is keen and curious about deconstruction study.
  
• 
  Sandy

  Too general even for a comic type book dialogue moved at a snail's pace.
  Maybe good for freshman in high school.
• 
  Nicholas

  A very entertaining overview of Derrida's deconstructivism and its relation to Buddhism and Zen.
• 
  Cedjap

  Wala pa rin akong alam.
• 
  Lucas

  xxxxx
• 
  Adam Di Filippe

  Would have been 4/5, but I can't get past how ridiculously chauvinistic all the examples are.
• 
  Ray Zimmerman

  Kingfisher splashes
  The pond a serene mirror
  silver fish flies away