A Science of Writing for Jacques Derrida

Richard Rorty points out that while Derrida duologue a great deal about expression, he can non be considered but a philosopher of language with works that might be compared with new(prenominal) investigations of the relations between words and the world. It is also an geological fault to state that Derrida's theme about language is an attempt to rise why there should be no philosophy of language. Rorty says that for Derrida, language is the last refuge of the Kantian tradition based on the idea that there is some social occasion eternally present in the inspect of the human being which philosophy allows us to see more than(prenominal) clearly. The idea of a philosophy of language and the idea of Kantian philosophy are both illusions:

The twentieth-century attempt to purify Kant's ballparkplace theory about the relation between representations and their objects by turning it into a philosophy of language is, for Derrida, to be countered by making philosophy even more impure--more unprofessional, funnier, more allusive, sexier, and above all, more "written" (Rorty 144).

Philosophical typography, says Derrida, is an urge toward putting an end to writing:

For Derrida, writing always leads to more writing, and more, and still more--just as fib does not lead to Absolute Knowledge or the closing Struggle, but to more history, and more, and still more (Rorty 145).

Derrida's tendency to try dif

Riddel, Joseph N. "Re-Doubling the Commentary." Contemporary Literature (Spring, 1979), 237-250.

This common root, which is not a root but the concealment of business and which is not common because it does not come to the same thing except with the unmonotonous insistence of difference, the unnameable movement of difference-itself which I hold up strategically nicknamed trace, reserve, or difference, can be called writing only within the historical enclosure, that is to say within the boundaries of metaphysics (Derrida 93).

ference over simmpleness is apparent in his use of the term "writing" itself. By writing Derrida means an entire structure of investigation and not merely writing in the sense of graphic short letter on tangible material.

Indeed, for Derrida "writing" means both writing and speech. What might seem to be a simple annotation is not so simple, as Derrida indicates when he states about "writing,"

Derrida approaches his property on simplicity and difference in terms of the principal of writing and of whether a grammatology is possible. The fundamental condition for a grammatology is the undoing of logocentrism, and he says that this condition of possibility proves to be an impossibility:

Derrida tends to jumble opposites in a way that causes them to cancel each other out and to undermine one another's methods. His method is to be hideous:

Derrida states that culture should be broached at its point of origin, at which time it is not possible to establish any additive order, either logical or chronological:

He calls the prick "The Exorbitant./Question of Method," and every term is a double, since exorbitance or excess is always that which cannot be accessible to method, and method is never accountable for the fragmentation of argument. Hence exorbitance marks the peculiar economy of method, even as it does Rousseau's notion of Nature (Riddell 248).

A grammatology is possible only within the traditional norms of scientificity
Ordercustompaper.com is a professional essay writing service at which you can buy essays on any topics and disciplines! All custom essays are written by professional writers!