In it we find Derrida at work on his systematic deconstruction of Western metaphysics.
According to Derrida and taking inspiration from the work of Ferdinand de Saussure language as a system of signs and words only has meaning because of the contrast between these signs.
Derrida refers to the—in this view, mistaken—belief that there is a self-sufficient, non-deferred meaning as metaphysics of presence. One of the two terms governs the other axiologically, logically, etc.
The first task of deconstruction would be to find and overturn these oppositions inside a text or a corpus of texts; but the final objective of deconstruction is not to surpass all oppositions, because it is assumed they are structurally necessary to produce sense.
The oppositions simply cannot be suspended once and for all. The hierarchy of dual oppositions always reestablishes itself. Deconstruction only points to the necessity of an unending analysis that can make explicit the decisions and arbitrary violence intrinsic to all texts.
This explains why Derrida always proposes new terms in his deconstruction, not as a free play but as a pure necessity of analysis, to better mark the intervals.
Derrida called undecidables—that is, unities of simulacrum—"false" verbal properties nominal or semantic that can no longer be included within philosophical binary opposition, but which, however, inhabit philosophical oppositions—resisting and organizing it—without ever constituting a third term, without ever leaving room for a solution in the form of Hegelian dialectics e.
However, Derrida resisted attempts to label his work as " post-structuralist ". This foil to Platonic light was deliberately and self-consciously lauded in Daybreak, when Nietzsche announces, albeit retrospectively, "In this work you will discover a subterranean man at work", and then goes on to map the project of unreason: Does not almost every precise history of an origination impress our feelings as paradoxical and wantonly offensive?
Does the good historian not, at bottom, constantly contradict? Reason, logic, philosophy and science are no longer solely sufficient as the royal roads to truth.
And so Nietzsche decides to throw it in our faces, and uncover the truth of Plato, that he—unlike Orpheus—just happened to discover his true love in the light instead of in the dark.
This being merely one historical event amongst many, Nietzsche proposes that we revisualize the history of the West as the history of a series of political moves, that is, a manifestation of the will to power, that at bottom have no greater or lesser claim to truth in any noumenal absolute sense. By calling our attention to the fact that he has assumed the role of Orpheus, the man underground, in dialectical opposition to Plato, Nietzsche hopes to sensitize us to the political and cultural context, and the political influences that impact authorship.
For example, the political influences that led one author to choose philosophy over poetry or at least portray himself as having made such a choiceand another to make a different choice.
The problem with Nietzsche, as Derrida sees it, is that he did not go far enough. That he missed the fact that this will to power is itself but a manifestation of the operation of writing. This is so because identity is viewed in non-essentialist terms as a construct, and because constructs only produce meaning through the interplay of difference inside a "system of distinct signs".
This approach to text is influenced by the semiology of Ferdinand de Saussure. In language there are only differences. Whether we take the signified or the signifier, language has neither ideas nor sounds that existed before the linguistic system, but only conceptual and phonic differences that have issued from the system.
The idea or phonic substance that a sign contains is of less importance than the other signs that surround it. Nevertheless, in the end, as Derrida pointed out, Saussure made linguistics "the regulatory model", and "for essential, and essentially metaphysical, reasons had to privilege speech, and everything that links the sign to phone".
A desire to contribute to the re-evaluation of all Western values, a re-evaluation built on the 18th-century Kantian critique of pure reason, and carried forward to the 19th century, in its more radical implications, by Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. An assertion that texts outlive their authors, and become part of a set of cultural habits equal to, if not surpassing, the importance of authorial intent.
A re-valuation of certain classic western dialectics: To this end, Derrida follows a long line of modern philosophers, who look backwards to Plato and his influence on the Western metaphysical tradition. However, like Nietzsche, Derrida is not satisfied merely with such a political interpretation of Plato, because of the particular dilemma modern humans find themselves in.
His Platonic reflections are inseparably part of his critique of modernity, hence the attempt to be something beyond the modern, because of this Nietzschian sense that the modern has lost its way and become mired in nihilism.
Understanding language, according to Derrida, requires an understanding of both viewpoints of linguistic analysis.
The focus on diachrony has led to accusations against Derrida of engaging in the etymological fallacy. The mistranslation is often used to suggest Derrida believes that nothing exists but words.
Form of Content, that Louis Hjelmslev distinguished from Form of Expression than how the word "house" may be tied to a certain image of a traditional house i. The same can be said about verbs, in all the languages in the world: The same happens, of course, with adjectives: Thus, complete meaning is always "differential" and postponed in language; there is never a moment when meaning is complete and total.Writing and Difference First published in Writing and Difference a collection of Jacques Derrida s essays written between and has become a landmark of contemporary French thought In it we find Derrida at w.
Ò Writing and Difference - by Jacques Derrida Alan Bass. Alan Bass is the author of Interpretation and Difference ( avg rating, 6 ratings, 0 reviews, published ), Difference and Disavowal ( avg rati 4/5(). First published in , Writing and Difference, a collection of Jacques Derrida's essays written between and , has become a landmark of Get a Free 3-month Pandora Premium Subscription Favorite Paperbacks: Buy 2, Get the 3rd Free.
Writing and difference: ashio-midori.com: jacques derrida, alan bass First published in , Writing and Difference, a collection of Jacques Derrida's essays written between and .
Différance is a French term coined by Jacques Derrida. a critical outlook concerned with the relationship between text and meaning.
The term différance means "difference and deferral of meaning." and serves to further subvert the traditional privileging of speech over writing. Jacques Derrida was a professor of philosophy at the Sorbonne, the Ecole Normale Supérieure, and the University of California, Irvine, and the author of numerous books including Of Grammatology, Dissemination Of Spirit, and Limited Inc.