Deconstructing for Fun and No Profit

Definition of DECONSTRUCTION
1: a philosophical or critical method which asserts that meanings, metaphysical constructs, and hierarchical oppositions (as between key terms in a philosophical or literary work) are always rendered unstable by their dependence on ultimately arbitrary signifiers; also : an instance of the use of this method [a deconstruction of the nature–culture opposition in Rousseau's work]
2: the analytic examination of something (as a theory) often in order to reveal its inadequacy

I like to deconstruct arguments. I also like to deconstruct theories. Even my own. Maybe especially my own. Because if you do not deconstruct your own argument, your opponent will run rings around you.

How do we do this? First, I think, we listen (or read) the argument or theory. Then we break it down into its constituent parts. if we are honest, we retain the context as we refute the parts. If we are dishonest, we ignore the context and attack the parts. It is sometimes hard to discern if we are being honest or dishonest.  It is also difficult to discern whether a critic of one's argument is honest or dishonest. We get caught up in the emotion of argument or the passion underlying the theory.

It's easy to become defensive when someone is criticizing your argument or theory. After all, you have a bias in favor of yourself. At least, I would hope you do. I would expect you to have that bias. And I would take that into account when critiquing your argument or theory. At the same time I would have to remain aware of my own bias... if I wished to be an honest critic.

I try to be an honest critic, do you?