Deconstruction and Certainty

Ayşe Acarer; Hülya Altunya

Article Details

Deconstruction and Certainty

Authors:

Ayşe Acarer | Hülya Altunya

Publisher:

Süleyman Demirel University

Main Topics:

Din Araştırmaları

Journal:

Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Issue 50, pp.104-118

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

6/2023

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001294851

pISSN:

2602-2346

Keywords:

Abstract:

 In deconstruction, which was developed by Jacques Derrida as a form of text analysis and reading activity, the meaning of the text, which was thought to have at first glance, is distorted and the possibility of attributing unlimited new meanings to it is created. In this understanding, the subject is not the writer, but the reader, as well as the text. The aforementioned unlimited search for new meanings makes it impossible to derive a definite meaning from the text, and it is impossible to talk about a timeless, universal truth about the text. In this case, the text, besides being the creator of its own infinite number of interpretations, directly prevents any meaning about it from being revealed with a precise characterization. On the contrary, in Aristotles logic, it is aimed to determine the method that will make it possible to reach certain and universal knowledge by necessity. Therefore, in the context of possible, necessary meanings that can be derived from the text, the assumptions of deconstruction and precision are appropriate to be evaluated in the opposite position. The universal, precise and stable knowledge demanded in the said understanding of logic can be obtained through deductive reasoning. In addition, in Aristotles logic, the fact that a knowledge is the subject of science requires that it be obtained through a method and that the obtained knowledge should be proved. Because Aristotles acceptance of knowing is only possible through proof. Proof is also syllogism, that is, deduction. The information to be obtained through proof is determined by means of other previously known information. At this point, obtaining the universal proposition, whose certainty is not in doubt, by induction, also requires the certainty of the result put forward by the universal proposition. However, throughout the history of science, it is known that many criticisms have been brought to the derivation of the universal proposition, deduction, its elements and its claims. In the context of the problem discussed in the study, one of these criticisms is the defense of definite and fixed meaning, which is rejected by the pluralistic perspective of the modern era. In this context, the aim of the study is to determine the effects of the method on the functionality of the method by evaluating the claims of deconstruction and precision, although it is not entirely correct to describe it as a method as it was designed by Derrida. Because the scientific understanding of the pluralist perspective adopted by Derrida, especially in terms of social sciences, consistently criticizes the claim of obtaining universal, mandatory and certain inferences from the knowledge obtained by the absolute method of traditional logic, namely deductive reasoning. In addition, this point of view argues that the claim of certainty in science does not contribute to its continuity in practice due to some kind of inhibition. In this research, in which Derridas understanding of deconstruction and the precision claim of Aristotles logic are compared, care will be taken not to include any method in the center, and both methods will be evaluated as objectively as possible and the points identified as deficiencies by us will be drawn attention. The possible objections that the methods will make to each other due to their own constructs and the possible answers to these objections will be tried to be determined, and at the end of the study, our opinion on the main problem will be given.

 In deconstruction, which was developed by Jacques Derrida as a form of text analysis and reading activity, the meaning of the text, which was thought to have at first glance, is distorted and the possibility of attributing unlimited new meanings to it is created. In this understanding, the subject is not the writer, but the reader, as well as the text. The aforementioned unlimited search for new meanings makes it impossible to derive a definite meaning from the text, and it is impossible to talk about a timeless, universal truth about the text. In this case, the text, besides being the creator of its own infinite number of interpretations, directly prevents any meaning about it from being revealed with a precise characterization. On the contrary, in Aristotles logic, it is aimed to determine the method that will make it possible to reach certain and universal knowledge by necessity. Therefore, in the context of possible, necessary meanings that can be derived from the text, the assumptions of deconstruction and precision are appropriate to be evaluated in the opposite position. The universal, precise and stable knowledge demanded in the said understanding of logic can be obtained through deductive reasoning. In addition, in Aristotles logic, the fact that a knowledge is the subject of science requires that it be obtained through a method and that the obtained knowledge should be proved. Because Aristotles acceptance of knowing is only possible through proof. Proof is also syllogism, that is, deduction. The information to be obtained through proof is determined by means of other previously known information. At this point, obtaining the universal proposition, whose certainty is not in doubt, by induction, also requires the certainty of the result put forward by the universal proposition. However, throughout the history of science, it is known that many criticisms have been brought to the derivation of the universal proposition, deduction, its elements and its claims. In the context of the problem discussed in the study, one of these criticisms is the defense of definite and fixed meaning, which is rejected by the pluralistic perspective of the modern era. In this context, the aim of the study is to determine the effects of the method on the functionality of the method by evaluating the claims of deconstruction and precision, although it is not entirely correct to describe it as a method as it was designed by Derrida. Because the scientific understanding of the pluralist perspective adopted by Derrida, especially in terms of social sciences, consistently criticizes the claim of obtaining universal, mandatory and certain inferences from the knowledge obtained by the absolute method of traditional logic, namely deductive reasoning. In addition, this point of view argues that the claim of certainty in science does not contribute to its continuity in practice due to some kind of inhibition. In this research, in which Derridas understanding of deconstruction and the precision claim of Aristotles logic are compared, care will be taken not to include any method in the center, and both methods will be evaluated as objectively as possible and the points identified as deficiencies by us will be drawn attention. The possible objections that the methods will make to each other due to their own constructs and the possible answers to these objections will be tried to be determined, and at the end of the study, our opinion on the main problem will be given.

 In deconstruction, which was developed by Jacques Derrida as a form of text analysis and reading activity, the meaning of the text, which was thought to have at first glance, is distorted and the possibility of attributing unlimited new meanings to it is created. In this understanding, the subject is not the writer, but the reader, as well as the text. The aforementioned unlimited search for new meanings makes it impossible to derive a definite meaning from the text, and it is impossible to talk about a timeless, universal truth about the text. In this case, the text, besides being the creator of its own infinite number of interpretations, directly prevents any meaning about it from being revealed with a precise characterization. On the contrary, in Aristotles logic, it is aimed to determine the method that will make it possible to reach certain and universal knowledge by necessity. Therefore, in the context of possible, necessary meanings that can be derived from the text, the assumptions of deconstruction and precision are appropriate to be evaluated in the opposite position. The universal, precise and stable knowledge demanded in the said understanding of logic can be obtained through deductive reasoning. In addition, in Aristotles logic, the fact that a knowledge is the subject of science requires that it be obtained through a method and that the obtained knowledge should be proved. Because Aristotles acceptance of knowing is only possible through proof. Proof is also syllogism, that is, deduction. The information to be obtained through proof is determined by means of other previously known information. At this point, obtaining the universal proposition, whose certainty is not in doubt, by induction, also requires the certainty of the result put forward by the universal proposition. However, throughout the history of science, it is known that many criticisms have been brought to the derivation of the universal proposition, deduction, its elements and its claims. In the context of the problem discussed in the study, one of these criticisms is the defense of definite and fixed meaning, which is rejected by the pluralistic perspective of the modern era. In this context, the aim of the study is to determine the effects of the method on the functionality of the method by evaluating the claims of deconstruction and precision, although it is not entirely correct to describe it as a method as it was designed by Derrida. Because the scientific understanding of the pluralist perspective adopted by Derrida, especially in terms of social sciences, consistently criticizes the claim of obtaining universal, mandatory and certain inferences from the knowledge obtained by the absolute method of traditional logic, namely deductive reasoning. In addition, this point of view argues that the claim of certainty in science does not contribute to its continuity in practice due to some kind of inhibition. In this research, in which Derridas understanding of deconstruction and the precision claim of Aristotles logic are compared, care will be taken not to include any method in the center, and both methods will be evaluated as objectively as possible and the points identified as deficiencies by us will be drawn attention. The possible objections that the methods will make to each other due to their own constructs and the possible answers to these objections will be tried to be determined, and at the end of the study, our opinion on the main problem will be given.

 Jacques Derrida tarafından bir metin analiz şekli ve okuma etkinliği olarak geliştirilen yapıbozumda, metnin ilk bakışta sahip olduğu düşünülen anlamı bozulur ve ona sınırsız yeni anlamın nispet edilmesinin imkânı yaratılır. Bu anlayışta özne yazar değil, metnin yanı sıra çoğu zaman okurdur. Bahsi geçen sınırsız yeni anlam arayışı metinden kesinlik ifade eden belirgin bir anlam çıkarılmasını imkânsız kılmakta ve metinle ilgili zamandan bağımsız evrensel bir doğruluktan da söz etmek mümkün olmamaktadır. Bu durumda metin, kendi sonsuz sayıdaki yorumunun yaratıcısı olmanın yanı sıra ona dair herhangi bir anlamın kesinlik içeren bir nitelemeyle ortaya konulmasını doğrudan kendisi engeller. Bunun karşıtı olarak Aristoteles mantığında kesin ve evrensel bilgiye zorunlulukla ulaşmayı mümkün kılacak yöntemin tespiti hedeflenmektedir. Öyleyse metinden çıkarılabilecek mümkün, zorunlu anlamlar bağlamında yapıbozum ve kesinlik kabulleri karşıt pozisyonda değerlendirilmeye uygundur. Söz konusu mantık anlayışında talep edilen evrensel, kesin ve sabit bilgi tümdengelimli akıl yürütme aracılığıyla elde edilebilir. Buna ek olarak Aristoteles mantığında bir bilginin bilime konu olması onun yöntem aracılığıyla elde edilmesini ve elde edilen bilginin de ispatlanmasını gerektirir. Çünkü Aristotelesin bilme kabulü ancak ispat vasıtasıyla olur. İspat da kıyas yani tümdengelimdir. İspat aracılığıyla elde edilecek bilgi, öncesinde bilinen başka bir bilgi vasıtasıyla tespit edilir. Bu noktada kesinliğinden şüphe duyulmayan tümel önermenin tümevarımla elde edilmesi de tümel önerme ile ortaya koyulan sonucun kesinliğini gerektirendir. Ancak bilim tarihi boyunca tümel önermenin elde edilişi, tümdengelim, unsurları ve onun iddialarına çok sayıda eleştiri getirildiği bilinmektedir. Çalışma kapsamında ele alınan problem bağlamında bu eleştirilerden biri, özellikle modern dönemin çoğulcu bakış açısıyla reddettiği kesin ve sabit anlam savunusudur. Bu bağlamda çalışmanın amacı, her ne kadar Derrida tarafından kurgulandığı şekliyle bir yöntem olarak nitelenmesi tümüyle doğru olmasa da, yapıbozum ve kesinlik iddiasının metodolojik anlamda değerlendirilmesi ile yöntemin işlevselliğine etkilerinin tespit edilmesidir. Çünkü Derridanın da benimsediği çoğulcu bakış açısının bilim anlayışı, özellikle sosyal bilimler açısından kendi içerisinde tutarlı olarak geleneksel mantığın mutlak yöntemi yani tümdengelimli akıl yürütmesi ile elde edilen bilginin evrensel, zorunlu, kesinlik değeri taşıyan çıkarımlar elde etme iddiasını eleştirir. Ayrıca bu bakış açısı, bilimde kesinlik iddiasının onun sürekliliğine bir çeşit ket vurma nedeniyle pratikte katkı sağlamadığını savunmaktadır. Derridanın yapıbozum anlayışı ile Aristoteles mantığının kesinlik iddiasının kıyaslandığı bu araştırmada herhangi bir yöntemin merkeze alınmamasına özen gösterilecek ve her iki yöntemin de mümkün olduğunca objektif değerlendirmesi yapılarak, tarafımızca eksiklik olarak tespit edilen noktalara dikkat çekilecektir. Yöntemlerin kendi kurguları sebebiyle birbirlerine yapacakları muhtemel itirazlar ve bu itirazlara verilebilir muhtemel cevaplar tespit edilmeye çalışılacak olup, çalışmanın sonunda temel problemle ilgili kanaatimize yer verilecektir.

Article Details

Deconstruction and Certainty

Authors:

Ayşe Acarer | Hülya Altunya

Publisher:

Süleyman Demirel University

Main Topics:

Din Araştırmaları

Journal:

Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Issue 50, pp.104-118

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

6/2023

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001294851

pISSN:

2602-2346

Deconstruction

Certainty

Classical Logic

Jacques Derrida

AristotleYapıbozum,

Kesinlik,

Jacques Derrida

Klasik Mantık

Aristoteles

Issues

Article Details

Authors: Ayşe Acarer | Hülya Altunya

Publisher: Süleyman Demirel University

Main Topics: Din Araştırmaları

Journal: Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Issue 50, pp.104-118

Document Type: Article

Publication Date: 6/2023

Document Language: Turkish

Document ID (Org No.): 2001294851

pISSN: 2602-2346

Issues

Authors:

Ayşe Acarer | Hülya Altunya

Publisher:

Süleyman Demirel University

Main Topics:

Din Araştırmaları

Journal:

Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Issue 50, pp.104-118

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

6/2023

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001294851

pISSN:

2602-2346