I’m not sure about that quote from Thomas, but it certainly sounds true! Good discussing with you.

Sorry for the reductio ad Hitlerum. It’s a cheap way to get people’s attention . I have to say, your comments are very intelligent and you appear to be well-read. Most all I’m impressed with the calmness with which you have handled my blasts. I just looked at your blog and left a message regarding natural law.

All,

I’m getting ahead of myself, but I think once I’m done with worldview (well that will never be complete I don’t suppose), I’m thinking about doing a serious study of natural law and am looking for fellow travelers.

I may make one stop on the way to the natural law pilgrimage and read up on liberal arts and try to improve my ability to learn.

I need to go dig up the quote, but St. Thomas Aquinas said somewhere that constant study can become mind numbing, but conversation renews one’s mind and refreshes him to hit the books anew. Of course he said it better, so I need to go find that quote.

No, they aren’t silly at all. I made many of the same objections. I use the word “tendencies” deliberately. I am not a deconstructionist. Nevertheless, deconstruction helpfully informs my thinking. Note that deconstruction does not reject the existence of meaning, but rather insists that meaning is endlessly deferred. What I find most particularly helpful about deconstruction is its honesty: it deconstructs itself. What it reminds us to do is constantly check and deconstruct our interpretive frameworks. Our frameworks are _always_ fallible and subjective (I use that word hesitantly, as I am dubious about the modernist dichotomy of objective-subjective).

New Historicism is less drastic than its parent, and really isn’t a fad as far as I can tell. It has been the ruling school of literary criticism for a good while now. It roots itself in a more historical/grammatical framework, however it is honest (and informed by deconstruction) in that interpretation is a quest to near the truth, not reach it. History grounds interpretation, but what grounds history if not interpretation?

This is not a denial of truth, but rather an acceptance of our limitations in reaching it. In the case of the Bible, though, it is a denial of nothing, for we are not merely dealing with a dead book to which we merely hope to use our human faculties to absorb.

You have studied Deconstruction and New Historicism more than I have, so you will probably think that my objection is silly, but it seems to me that the fact that you are making this argument in and of itself refutes Deconstruction. It is only because words do have meaning that you can make your argument, and the fact that you make the argument tells me you must not have much faith in the idea.

There is no doubt that words can be misconstrued and a given sentence can be taken in more than one sense. The words, “Timothy, you have an excellent way of expressing yourself.” Can be taken in more than one way. It’s what logicians call (if I’m not mistaken) the fallacy of accent. Can we decipher the meaning of every sentence ever spoken or written? No, there are passage from ancient writers the meaning of which we will never know due to changes in language, culture, or inartful expression on the part of the original speaker/writer. This is why it is important for us to not use slang and colloquialisms if we want the next generation to understand us. This is why, when we have a serious discussion we define our terms.

Deconstruction, IMHO takes this kernel of truth and uses it as an attack on language. If I didn’t think that Deconstruction is just a fad—a fad which has in fact pretty much passed the way of the do do—I would say that it is a more dangerous attack on language than that of Goebbels’s propaganda tactics and Hitler’s burning of books.
When I was in college, my greatest ally in combating wacky professors’ ideas was the library. The answer to nonsense I heard in class was in the library. Whether it be history, philosophy, the social sciences—it doesn’t matter—the library is full of truth. I recall walking out of the library one night, and with a rush realizing the truth of the statement someone (I think it was one of Hitler’s German enemies) said: “The truth is in the libraries.”

People who hate the truth attack and/or abuse language, because they know “the pen is mightier than the sword.” It’s why we in America believe in free speech, because words are in fact so powerful, that tyranny cannot exist where it is exercised. Edmund Burke said “All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” All good men have to do is to speak, and evil runs for cover.

I don’t think you hate truth, so it would be a shame if the one place this silly idea takes root is in the minds of people like yourself.