Random Thought on Deconstruction

Last night I caught a documentary on Jacques Derrida. I was already familiar with his pervasive influence on the world through his philosophy of deconstruction. Deconstruction is the result of trying to make a case against the philosophy of structuralism. Structuralism taught that there was a system of knowledge and understanding that brought about clear cut, definable, basic concepts. Poststructuralism, to which deconstruction belongs, is a rebellion against the idea that we really know anything. The task of the deconstructionist is to simply take something and deconstruct it to show that there is a contradiction in there somewhere. And if contradiction exists you cannot claim it to be true. The methods the deconstructionist gets to use are at his whim and do not even have to be rational. He claims rationalism is not true and therefore he does not have to be rational (convenient eh?). Well how does he know rationalism is not true? Because he deconstructed it of course!

Poststructuralism would eventually give birth to postmodernism. Many of the ideas and concepts of the two cannot be separated. Understanding this helps one to understand what we are facing with the prolific indoctrination of postmodernism in our society and in theology. Our postmodern “theologians” that run in the church of Christ circles have one basic objective; to deconstruct our established belief system. How do they do this? By trying to create contradictions in the system of thinking (remember their arguments do not have to be rational or logical because ration and logic are flawed). They believe that if they can deconstruct and show a flaw or contradiction that they have proved their case that our entire belief system is no good (more accurately the system we use to arrive at our beliefs). This old system, therefore, must be tossed out and replaced with a new one.

Now back to Derrida. After watching the irrational Derrida for an hour and a half (Derrida would not be insulted by calling him irrational; He would probably wear it as a badge of honor) I’ve arrived at a few conclusions. One of them I will share here. Derrida claims he now knows that we cannot know anything about anything unless we know everything about it. The irony is that he is certain he knows this. That leads me to one of three conclusions: Deridda knows everything, Deridda doesn't really believe what he says, or Deridda is unconsciously showing that reality and his philosophy are in two totally different realms.