I'll begin by admitting my own ignorance of deconstructionism. I haven't read anyone outside of Caputo, and only snippets and secondary sources on many of the philosophers of deconstructionism. This post is meant to be a follow-up on Tony Jones post over at churchandpomo that I posted below.
Although the comment below is powerful, I missed the forest for the trees. One problem I have with "my" understanding of deconstructionism is that it leaves us stripped and bare with no bearing, but Jones argues something different. He calls it a hermeneutic of bursting through our own understandings. The final goal of this bursting is justice.
The images that I have with this bursting forth is one that allows us to hold onto who we are and what we've learned while moving beyond those experiences. If deconstructionism truly does this, and Jones is not just biased toward this system, then I'm very sympathetic. Otherwise, until I get some Derrida, Kearney, and Caputo under my belt I'm unsure.
Although the comment below is powerful, I missed the forest for the trees. One problem I have with "my" understanding of deconstructionism is that it leaves us stripped and bare with no bearing, but Jones argues something different. He calls it a hermeneutic of bursting through our own understandings. The final goal of this bursting is justice.
The images that I have with this bursting forth is one that allows us to hold onto who we are and what we've learned while moving beyond those experiences. If deconstructionism truly does this, and Jones is not just biased toward this system, then I'm very sympathetic. Otherwise, until I get some Derrida, Kearney, and Caputo under my belt I'm unsure.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment