[Guille]

Originally Posted by WithoutMe

ooook regarding Decronstructionism, one of the first Philsophers (or if u have a different anme , plz do suggest me), who deconstructed most of what was then known as established theories or even currents of thoughts, was the Buddhist Philosopher called Nagarjuna. Its a seperate thing that u may not be aware of "Mula Madhyamika Karika"... infact one tradition of Buddist Monkhook, aspiring monks have to study Nagarjuna & then finally deconstruct Narguna's works & this has been way back many many yrs prior to Derrida or any Western Philosopher!!!! lol!

I agree with you in that I believe that ideas do not understand of frontiers or states. Preciselly because if people thought a bit, they would realize there is no sense in frontiers and states. Now, I have not read any of Nagarjuna works, but I do know about deconstruction, and I know that the proposals of Derrida come from a heavy western philosophical background (phenomenology, hermeneutics, existentialism, structuralism, surrealism, psicoanalisis) and if you are trying to tell me that all those movements were previouslly thought by eastern philosophers, then I'll have no alternative but to accept the reality of your radical fanatism towards your cultural background, and thus, you would be as stupid as you think that I am (which I'm actually not). Anyway, what do you think that deconstruction is? Don't give a wikipedia definition, or any google search stuff, but your interpretation. Cause that will clear up many things, if not, our discussion is useless and I've already said that I don't want to waste my time. Anyway, your absurd misinterpretations are nothing else but the proof of the absence of background in your arguments, if you have arguments at all: it has been posmodernism and poststructuralism that have deconstructed the world, just look at how the art is today, and what science is trying to do by the idea of a TOE, or at any aspect of society&culture and you'll see. The 'deconstruction' of which you speak is for sure not what I'm talking, nor Derrida. You seem to miss an important point; you think that with only a lingustig operation, a gramatic analysis of the word deconstruction, you know what it is, whiles if you had read any western philosophy of the 20th century (and you say you have) you should know it has centered preciselly on the problem that language doesn't correspond thought. But of course now you'll came and say something like some guy called something similar to gkeeirjaklgfh discovered everything much before, before even the earth was formed... Listen, withoutme, I search intellectual discussion, not a cheap politics-like and diplomatic-like discussion that we are having, so don't continue with your assertions cause there is nothing behind them but your inconformity with life or with thought, and in any of the cases I don't care.