NOTE: The following is a surface-level discussion. I'm well aware that many variants exist. Feel free to complain in the comments and we'll discuss your specific view at that point.
I am not a deconstructionist. I believe that words have meanings that can be conveyed from the writer to the reader. While the message is subject to a degree of distortion by our individual experiences, cultures and beliefs, the essential intent may be communicated successfully, even though clarification may be needed at times and the reader's response may not always reflect authorial intent.
Although there are variants of deconstruction and its cousins in literary criticism, I believe that the overall concept is self-defeating. If there's a lack of author-embedded intrinsic meaning in the text, and readers merely construct their own virtual texts, there's really no point to writing books about deconstruction. After all, if deconstruction is a valid theory, you can't use words to make an airtight case for deconstruction. The readers might come to the opposite conclusion, and their views would have to be construed as valid.
Derrida claimed that justice could not be deconstructed, but I fail to see how he can demand that justice be spared (along with his writings) while everything else must be deconstructed. He was inconsistent because no one can really be a consistent deconstructionist.
If you claim to be a deconstructionist, share your views and I'll happily deconstruct your protests as being glowing endorsements of my view.
I believe in the the correspondence theory of truth. That simply means that truth is that which really is. If something conforms to reality, it is true. If not, it is false.
Truth is not merely cultural. A sunny clear sky at noon on earth is blue no matter what your culture teaches and no matter what word is used to mean "blue" in your language. Asserting that you believe the sky is yellow just indicates that you are wrong. It is not open-minded for me to claim that you have your truth and I have mine about the color of the sky--rather, it is merely empty-headed.
Although common sense should point to the correspondence theory of truth as the only realistic possibility, many seemingly intelligent people oppose it. Somehow they must support views which can only be self-defeating, since you can't get very far promoting a concept of truth that does not comport with reality.
Rational discourse is impossible without the Law of Non-Contradiction (somewhat ironically, it's sometimes called the Law of Contradiction). This concept asserts that A cannot equal non-A, where A represents any proposition (propositions are statements that are either true or false). This is typically classified as part of Aristotelian logic, since Aristotle stated, "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time."
For example, if it is true that 2 + 2 = 4, it is not true that 2 + 2 = 22. You can write down a "2" and add one more "2" on the paper to make a "22" but this is not adding 2 + 2 in the same respect as adding 2 + 2 in proper numeric fashion.
The Law of Non-Contradiction is the enemy of relativism and the ally of absolute truth. Opposing it is self-defeating. If you say, "The Law of Non-Contradiction is invalid," you are asserting that your view is true and that therefore your view is not false. Of course, you are using the Law of Non-Contradiction in your attempt to disavow it. If your statement was correct, it would be equally valid to say that your view is false and the Law is indeed accurate, so you have gained nothing.
