Titlebook: Deconstruction: A Critique; Rajnath (Professor of English) Book 1989 Rajnath 1989 critique.Hans-Georg Gadamer.Jacques Derrida.literary the

拋棄的貨物

The Marxism Deconstruction Debate in Literary Theory,cs or unmediated objectivity, when in fact it is in keeping with a Marxist interest in the way practice mediates both ideality and materiality. I will first review the debate between Marxists and deconstructionists; then I will say why I think a deconstructionist like de Man can be useful to Marxist

吼叫

biopsy

The Anxiety of American Deconstruction, a normal once again, well and truly able to carry out business as usual. And if that turns out to be the case — so runs the argument of this paper — it will be a new and serious occasion for anxiety.

analogous

and ,: Notes on Paul de Man,e ordinary ritual, ceremonial and conventional uses of language. Since the exclusion of everything ‘which falls under the etiolations of language’, as Austin most forcefully expressed himself, is constitutive of the very object of speech act theory — ordinary language — as well as of the content of

悠然

嚙齒動(dòng)物

Tidious

Construing and Deconstructing,a very diverse and lively time. Never have the presuppositions and procedures of literary criticism been put so drastically into question, and never have we been presented with such radical alternatives for conceiving and making sense of literary texts. Among the competing theories of the last few d

女歌星

定點(diǎn)

Samuel Johnson among the Deconstructionists,the precursor might have returned the ephebe’s compliment. Such bold fancying leads on to heady ambition. Could it possibly enlighten or amuse us to extend the enquiry beyond Bloom to Geoffrey Hartman (like Bloom, ‘barely a deconstructionist’) and then to Jacques Derrida, Paul de Man and Hillis Mill

不舒服

,Philosophy, Theory and the ‘Contest of Faculties’: Saving Deconstruction from the Pragmatists, practice. Some of them very actively resist the idea that such theories can be found, or that bringing them to light could serve any useful purpose. At its most obscurantist this attitude takes the Leavisian form of a downright refusal to engage in such discussion. Elsewhere distinctions are drawn