MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Semiological Reductionism: A Critique of...

Semiological Reductionism: A Critique of the Deconstructionist Movement


Derridian thought is permeated by a semiology that reduces all meaning to the signification of signs thus challenging the philosophy of deconstruction at its roots. This interprets Derrida and looks beyond deconstructionism. A critique that identifies a pervasive flaw in Derrida's thinking: the semiological reduction that permeates deconstructionist theory and postmodernism in general. The critique focuses on Derrida, but its conclusions may be applied to other major figures in the postmodern tradition who espouse the variant of Saussurean semiology that reduces all meaning to the signification of signs. This thought challenges the philosophy of deconstruction at its roots, and does so on the basis of a diligent reading of central texts and an understanding of the tradition of Continental philosophy providing the context for Derridian thought.

Discuss

reply

What!?

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

"Alright memorex,just give me every thing you got.πŸ˜‰

reply

[deleted]

Plinko is better.

reply

Only this!?πŸ˜ͺ

reply

Semicolon?

reply

Are you Dane DeHaan?

reply

You could probably watch five You Tube videos... one on Derrida, one on semiotics, one on deconstruction, one on postmodernism, one on de Saussure and save yourself eight years of graduate school. Although they cover many interesting ideas, the one problem that I have with critical theorists is that they feel compelled to speak in an elliptical, overly complex manner instead of communicating in plain English. It's not that difficult ideas never require nuanced language, but as Orwell proves they generally don't.

reply

Schopenhauer despised Fichte and Schelling, but he hated Hegel and described him as β€˜that clumsy and nauseating charlatan, that pernicious person, who completely disorganized and ruined the minds of a whole generation.’ On almost any square foot of ground in the landscape of his writings a geyser of wrath may suddenly erupt, spewing out imprecations against the same three men. β€˜What was senseless and without meaning at once took refuge in obscure exposition and language. Fichte was the first to grasp and make use of this privilege; Schelling at best equalled him in this, and a host of hungry scribblers without intellect or honesty soon surpassed them both. But the greatest effrontery in serving up sheer nonsense, in scrabbling together senseless and maddening webs of words, such as had previously been heard only in madhouses, finally appeared in Hegel...’ Hegel, said Schopenhauer, was β€˜a commonplace, inane, loathsome, repulsive and ignorant charlatan, who with unparalleled effrontery compiled a system of crazy nonsense that was trumpeted abroad as immortal wisdom by his mercenary followers...’ I do not think anything in the whole history of philosophy compares with this invective by one now world-famous philosopher against another, especially when one considers that they were near-contemporaries and colleagues.

reply

If two trees debate in Esperanto in a forest...

reply