Logocentrism, Deconstructionism, and the Fall of Common Sense - Part 1

Originally posted - Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Part 1

Is that a lofty enough title for you? Some of you may remember that I wrote something on Islam a while back. Well, it was so long that I divided it into 2 parts. This will definitely be like that except that I'm not going to divide it up. I'll probably post this, and then go back and read it and edit it. So I don't know what version you've got. Anyway, I want to go over my point first, and then go into my long explanation.
I wish to explain logocentrism within deconstructionism (to the extent of getting at my purpose, not really covering the 'whole' of deconstructionsim). I also wish to explain why I dislike deconstructionism because of my contention that is directly related to the fall of common sense in this politically correct world. Okay, if this doesn't seem interesting, then tune out now cause this is going to be a long one.
Deconstructionism could properly trace its roots back to Socrates. Have you heard of the "Socratic method" of teaching? This method basically tries to teach by asking questions. Socrates' goal in asking questions was to show how poor one's foundations were in his/her arguments. This lack of a strong foundation meant someone could not really be sure of what he believes. The ethics of this is that one will not use his beliefs as a club over someone else's head. "Allah says kill the infidel, so you must die." See how dangerous a powerful belief can be? Okay, let's get a grasp of logocentrism.
Logocentrism is basically the idea that there is no such thing as a given. There is no unquestionable starting point from which to build all knowledge. Remember above where Socrates questions a person's argument by challenging his/her "given" or what they hold to be true. Remember the Aristotelian sense of arguments? Basically, all arguments are Premise 1 = Xa. Premise 2 = Xb. Premise 3 = Xc. So, Conclusion 1 = Y. Then Conclusion 2 = Z. So from, the 3 premises, one could properly draw conclusions 1 & 2. Logocentrism says that even our premises are taken upon past conclusions that were based on poor premises. I fell victim to this recently. I used a "the Bible says, so it must be true" argument. Well, I'm taking a "given" (i.e. the Bible) whereas logocentrism (rightfully in this case) says that this is not a given. The Bible isn't unquestionable to everyone, therefore it can't be taken as a given to everyone. The fact that I view it as paramount in epistemology is irrelevant to some, so what good does it do to use it in attempt to convince them of an error? Logocentrism claims that our foundational truths are conclusions, not indisputable givens. Everything that we think is a given (e.g. The Bible) is merely a long-standing conclusion.
Deconstructionism takes logocentrism to its extreme. It challenges so much of what we believe objectively. That means that it applies this ruthless standard of 'absolute certainty' as essential. Well, the reality is that deconstructionism, as I've seen it, wouldn't say one could have absolute certainty, but the impression left by its results is that one needs absolute certainty to sidestep it. This is the practical feeling. However, because of the death of objectivity with Kant, nothing is 100 percent certain. All we can do is take the G.E. Moore move, which is to say that I believe things based on the greatest proportion of evidence. If something has more/better proofs to it being true (say 70 percent) versus a minority of problems (30 percent), then I have a valid reason to go ahead and believe in it. I wonder if I'm making any sense. "The 10 Commandments are good because God gave it to us in the Bible." Deconstructionism would ask does God exist? Did he give it to us, and how do you know that? Does he even communicate with humans? Does this single event even apply to humans even today? Why? Why does it matter if I follow them or not? What does it matter what God says/gives? The fact that a person couldn't flatly refute all these problematic questions is no reason to deny Christianity or the validity of the 10 Commandments.