I'm not sure what deconstructionism says about truth, reality, knowledge, etc. They seem to border on nihilism, but not sure.

Deconstruction is a term used in philosophy, literary criticism, and the social sciences, popularised through its usage by Jacques Derrida in the 1960s. The Oxford English Dictionary defines deconstruction as "A strategy of critical analysis directed towards exposing unquestioned metaphysical assumptions and internal contradictions in philosophical and literary language."

Derrida developed the term deconstruction in relation to his critical engagement with phenomenology, structural linguistics, and literature in the 1960s. The term is also related to the traditions of hermeneutics as it works with questions of how texts should be read and interpreted and immanent critique as a deconstruction demonstrates problems or contradictions that are already operating within the deconstructed text. Concerning deconstruction Derrida states that

wiki

i hope that helps

No. It doesnt answer the questions. Especially how do they approach qiestions about universe?

All is pointless... the end.

Well there is:
Jacques Derrida
Friedrich Nietzsche

Neither seem to have any valid philosophical claims.
For example, the claim that human's not only have a will to power, but this is their main objective. As far as I am aware, humans do not have any sort of will to power. I guess the desire to control of others?

Exhibiting any desire is part of a "will to power" so your argument is negated by your own comments.

Not it's not. Any action towards a desire or any expression of desire is not what will to power means.

According to Nietszche, the fundamental element of human nature. The power in question is not necessarily domination over others, but can be achieved in creative activity: it is associated with self-sufficiency and self-confidence. When this will is frustrated, consolatory myths appear in the shape of unhealthy ethical systems promoting ‘virtues’ such as charity and humility, which are in fact sublimations of resentment and envy.
http://www.answers.com/topic/the-will-to-power
Self-sufficiency/ self-confidence = I want.

Here's what I got:
humans are always attempting to inflict their wills upon others. Every action toward another individual stems from a deep-down desire to bring that person under one's power in one way or another. Whether a person is giving gifts, claiming to be in love with someone, giving someone praise, or physically harming someone, the psychological motive is the same: to exert one's will over others. This presupposition entails that all human beings are ultimately and exclusively egoistic by nature. Therefore, according to Nietzsche, there are no truly altruistic actions. The will to power is not, however, limited to the psychology of human beings. Rather, the it is the underlying noemenal reality of the universe, which manifests itself in various ways in everything and everyone. Growth, self-preservation, domination, and upward mobility are some of the basic elements of this will, which everything in the world exhibits, according to Nietzsche.

What concepts are there to support the idea that all humans have the desire to bring the world around them under their power? What would be and individual's purpose for having this desire?

What concepts are there to support the idea that all humans have the desire to bring the world around them under their power?


Belief in E.S.P?

(Or is that the Will to Power being thwarted?)

So there is nothing to support this idea of will to power? What about deconstructionism? Are they claiming that there is no such thing as truth? How do they define truth?

All words represent a particular concept. What about the word truth or true? What concepts do they represent?

Dynamite seems to be more deconstuctive to me..but then what do I know.

So there is nothing to support this idea of will to power?

Martyrdom?

Any creature that risks its life is denying the "will to live". In such a situation, that creature shows something more fundamental still - the Will to Power.

I'm not sure what deconstructionism says about truth, reality, knowledge, etc. They seem to border on nihilism, but not sure.

It doesn't say anything. Any notion that uses the term 'meta-' is pure bunk.

...
...
...
All words represent a particular concept. What about the word truth or true? What concepts do they represent?

Truth is the conformity of a concept or notion in the mind to actual reality. Evidence is a demonstration of that conformity consequently.

Truth is the conformity of a concept or notion in the mind to actual reality.


The mind is not part of 'actual reality'?

The mind is not part of 'actual reality'?

It is and the information it represents often doesn't correspond to reality.

It is and the information it represents often doesn't correspond to reality.


"It is no longer relevant to say the real world "exists". No system of representation or analysis can refer to the reality"

- Jean Baudrillard



How would you respond?

You guys suck.
This must be "the idiot thread".
I guess I will attempt to partake in social events. But not a social event where all the people are having fun being idiots.

Truth is the conformity of a concept or notion in the mind to actual reality. Evidence is a demonstration of that conformity consequently.
I think knowledge is more of an understanding of the truth.
Truth is a quality. Something is either true or false. Describe the quality of something that makes it true or false.

How would you respond?

I would say that person could use an education in hard science.

I think knowledge is more of an understanding of the truth.
Truth is a quality. Something is either true or false. Describe the quality of something that makes it true or false.

Knowledge is the expertise and skills acquired by a person through experience or education. A person whom is skilled at worshiping the great Cthulu is not working with truth. The quality of what makes something true or false is very clear. It is when an idea or notion in your mind corresponds to actual realtiy. Seeing as you asked the same question twice, I have to assume you didn't understand the first answer, so maybe if I anthropomorphize it it will help you.

Truth is when reality says "I agree".

Reality doesn't have to say I agree. If X is true, and somebody is 100% certain X is true, that is knowledge. If somebody is 100% certain X is false, that is not knowledge. The person does not have the knowledge that X is true.

If a person is 100% certain, the sun goes around the earth, The person does not know (does not have the knowledge) that the sun does not go around the earth.

I would say that truth is actual reality. Anything that is not actual reality is false.

Reality doesn't have to say I agree.

It does, and the reason is because the concept of truth only exists because the human brain can also collect information that isn't true.


If X is true, and somebody is 100% certain X is true, that is knowledge.

More importantly, the concept or notion in that person's mind matches actual reality.


If somebody is 100% certain X is false, that is not knowledge. The person does not have the knowledge that X is true.

More importantly, the concept or notion in that person's mind DOESN'T match actual reality. See why reality has to say "I agree" for something to be true?



If a person is 100% certain, the sun goes around the earth, The person does not know (does not have the knowledge) that the sun does not go around the earth.

The degree of certainty a human attains is irrelevant unless reality agrees with the concept or notion in that person's mind.


I would say that truth is actual reality. Anything that is not actual reality is false.

You are on the right track and at the same time not quite there. If we remove humans from the equation, there is no concept of 'false'. Truth requires an entity to represent information about reality as well as the presence of actual reality. If the entity's representation matches the real thing then truth is established.

If the entity's representation matches the real thing then truth is established.
True and false are completely independent of human existence. Something is true or false whether there is a human/any observer there to observe it or not. Truth does not have to agree with anything human. There is no necessary relationship between the human mind and truth.

True and false are completely independent of human existence. Something is true or false whether there is a human/any observer there to observe it or not. Truth does not have to agree with anything human. There is no necessary relationship between the human mind and truth.

"What is" is completely independent of human existence. "False" doesn't exist without some kind of entity to mis-represent information. Without involving life on Earth, can you point out something that is objectively false?

Nobody needs to point out anything for someting to be true or false.
2 + 2 b 4 whether anybody is there to point it out or not.

The sun goes around the earth. This is true or false whether or not any entity exists. Whether any entity thinks of it. The point is, something is true or something is false - whether or not any observing entity thinks about it - or whether or not any observing antity exists. Nobody anywhere exists to observe it, but the sun going around the earth remains false.

Nobody needs to point out anything for someting to be true or false.
2 + 2 b 4 whether anybody is there to point it out or not...
...
...
<re-exemplify-ad-nausium>

I agree. What I am saying is that without earth-based-life invoved, will the notion of 2+2=87 arise? The answer is a glaring no. In other words 'false' only exists when there are entities present that can misrepresent information. Humans would be one of those entities.

Any notion for anything can arise or not arise. Observer or not. Truth and false exist independently of anything existing to have any sort of notion about anything. Even if no observer has such notion - Things remain either true or false. All truth and false remain the same whether or not the notion for anyting arises. Thus, 2 + 2 b 87 is either only true or only false whether any observer exists to have such notion.

You're missing the point. Maybe this will help. Point out a single instance of something that is objectively 'False' that doesn't involve life on Earth. You'll find that you can't, simply because the only way for something to be 'false' is for an entity to misrepresent objective information.

No. 2+2 b 4. The sun revolving around the earth. These things are either true or false. They can only be characterized by either quality. Regardless of which quality they fall under (T or F), they will fall under either of those categories regardless of whether or not there is any observer to have any notion. NOTHING requires an observer with a notion in order for it to be true or false.

These 2 examples or anything else will never require an entity to interpret them as true or false. An entity's interpretation is completely irrelevant.

There is no such thing as being both true or false at the same time or neither true or false at the same time.

The Tetralemma
A. True
B. False
C. Both true and false at the same time.
D. Neither true or false.

In logic, any statement can only fall under A or B. A statement can never fall under C or D which are logical contradictions.

Claiming that because there is no observer the idea these 2 examples as well as any example can neither be true or false is absurd.
-2 + 2 b 4
-The sun revolves around the earth.

The lack of any observer does not mean either of these no longer abide by any true or false.

You're so close coolskill, but for whatever reason you can't or don't want to acknowledge that 'false' is a state of information misrepresentation and truth is information correspondence with reality.

Maybe if your education and power of thought improves in the future this will make more sense.

Truth, fallacy, true, false.

True and false are qualities that exist independently of any observer's perception of them. I am not sure where you are going with your misinterpretation/correspondence, but it cannot be denied that these qualities are independent of interpretation by observer.

With that established. Let's take the examples of typical mathematics.
2+2=4 - True
2+2=5 - False

When it comes to qualities, there are degrees and dichotomies. A quality such as intelligence exists as a degree. Other qualities such as quantities exist in either/or. T/F exist in the form of quantity. Thus the quality of being T or F can be seen as a binary quantity.


1. True and false are opposing qualities of being. I am not certain as the best way to describe them.

2. They are definitely not dependent on existence of an observation. It is incorrect/invalid to assume they are. Any quality of anything does not need to correspond to any third party. The qualities of all forms are characteristics of a particular without dependence on any form of observation. However they may be described, in order to proceed in validity, the qualities of True/False or anything cannot be described as subjective to any observation.