Forum Overview :: We Love Katamari :: Re: The act of deconstruction is completely at odds with the act of judging a po

[quote name="Zsenitan"][quote name="lol u no"]If you have the ability to deconstruct something, you understand it: yes or no?[/quote] No. You introduce a thousand uncertainties and potentialities into it. You expand it past the point of understanding it as some kind of cohesive single thing. [quote]If you understand something you are in a position to say whether it's correct or incorrect: yes or no?[/quote] No. Example: I understand why the sun rises in the east. The sun rising in the east lies on no axis of correctness. Again, you're so sloppy with words that I wonder whether you know what you yourself are thinking. Perhaps, and I give you the extreme benefit of the doubt here, you mean to say "if you understand an argument, you are in a position to say whether it is correct or incorrect." Again: no. I understand the religious, moral, and emotional argument against abortion. It's not incorrect and it's not correct. It's a position, not a light switch. Here is what you need to limit <i>the whole of your domain</i> to in order to start pulling your super bullshit here: you need "something" to mean "an argument or statement which is either true or false." This limits you to the area of "oranges are black" and "icycalm runs an internet message board." Things with no grey areas, no complexities. Statements of well-known facts, arguments that act like mathematical functions. <b>By definition</b> these things can be said to be "understood" - you have to start out understanding it just to have it in your domain in the first place, since you have to be able to tell whether it's true or false. Icycalm's interminable screeds don't fall under categories like "true" or "false." They fall into categories like "boring" and "hysterical." [quote]I'll put it like this: if someone has the ability to deconstruct a building/car/whatever (as in take it apart piece by piece without damaging it, and that IS an widely accepted definition of "deconstruct" btw),[/quote] Yes among you and your sloppy friends, not among, say, <i>deconstructionists.</i> [quote] then they would most likely also know whether it has been built correctly.[/quote] Nope wrong again, have you ever been outside of your basement like ever? Here's a simple counter-example: go into your mom's kitchen, open the fridge, take out a jar of mayonnaise. EXPERIMENTS: * Take all the mayo out of the jar and spread it very thinly all over the floor. Have you deconstructed it? * Spread it out to a single molecule's thickness. Have you deconstructed it? * Now separate it into egg, oil, and acid. Have you deconstructed it? * Was the mayo correctly made or not? Did you know whether the jar was correctly built or not when you opened it? Do you even know what you mean by "correctly built"? [quote] At the very least it shows they understand how it has been built. [/quote] When you open the jar, do you receive knowledge of how it was built? Or were you born with that knowledge? [quote]It works the same way with arguments. This isn't playing "head games", it's merely showing that you know what you're talking about. You could even say it's a courtesy, showing people how you came to a conclusion, rather than just giving them your conclusion.[/quote] You're still trying to get "deconstruct" to mean "point-by-point rebuttal with extensive evidence" and it will <i>never mean that.</i>[/quote]