Writing and difference routledge v
Jacques Derrida Bibliography. To deconstruct the opposition, first of all, is to overturn the hierarchy at a given moment. But, as phaenomena are objects of sensibility, and, as the understanding, in respect of them, must be employed empirically and not purely or transcendentally, plurality and numerical difference are given by space itself as the condition of external phaenomena.
Leibnitz [ sic ] regarded phaenomena as things in themselves, consequently as intelligibilia, that is, objects of pure understanding However, Derrida himself never claimed to have escaped from the metaphysics with what he has done.
Nevertheless, in the end, as Derrida pointed out, he made of linguistics "the regulatory model", and "for essential, and essentially metaphysical, reasons had to privilege speech, and everything that links the sign to phone": But structural difference will not be considered without him already destabilizing from the start its static, synchronictaxonomicahistoric motifs, remembering that all structure already refers to the generative movement in the play of differences: Deferred by virtue of the very principle of difference which holds that an element functions and signifies, takes on or conveys meaning, only by referring to another past or future element in an economy of traces. The former was concerned to question the prevailing view of meaning "inhering" in words, or the idea that language is a nomenclature bearing a one-to-one correspondence to the real. This is also true with all ontological oppositions and its many declensions , not only in philosophy as in human sciences in general, cultural studies, theory of Law, et cetera. For example: the intelligible and the sensible, the spontaneous and the receptive, autonomy and heteronomy, the empirical and the transcendental, immanent and transcendent, as the interior and exterior, or the founded and the founder, normal and abnormal, phonetic and writing, analysis and synthesis, the literal sense and figurative meaning in language, reason and madness in psychoanalysis, the masculine and feminine in gender theory, man and animal in ecology, the beast and the sovereign in the political field, theory and practice as distinct dominions of thought itself. The first task of deconstruction, starting with philosophy and afterwards revealing it operating in literary texts, juridical texts, etc. One of the two terms governs the other axiologically, logically, etc. Even if two objects have completely the same properties, if they are at two different places at the same time, they are numerically different: Identity and Difference. Derrida adds a third dimension, time. Saussure is considered one of the fathers of structuralism when he explained that terms get their meaning in reciprocal determination with other terms inside language: In language there are only differences. This is still the presence of what we called above the "transcendental signified. This is also true with all ontological oppositions and its many declensionsnot only in philosophy as in human sciences in general, cultural studies, theory of Law, et cetera. Derrida sees these differences as elemental oppositions working in all languages, systems of distinct signs, and codes, where terms don't have absolute meanings but instead draw meaning from reciprocal determination with other terms. In fact, he either withdrew from, or was forced out of at least two schools during his childhood simply on account of being Jewish. When can we talk about a "house" or a "mansion" or a "shed"?
When can we talk about a "house" or a "mansion" or a "shed"? The idea or phonic substance that a sign contains is of less importance than the other signs that surround it. The easiest way to understand this is to imagine Saussure's model as a two dimensional plane, where each signified is separated due to the difference in its sound image.
The same can be said about verbs, in all the world languages: The same happens, of course, with adjectives: Or "in" and "out", "here" and "there", "now" and "then", "past" and "present" and "future" and "eternal"? This misspelling highlights the fact that its written form is not heard, and serves to further subvert the traditional privileging of speech over writing see archi-writing and logocentrismas well as the distinction between the sensible and the intelligible.
But this does not obviate their need to be analyzed and criticized in all its manifestations, showing the way these oppositions, logical and axiological, are at work in all discourse for it to be able to produce meaning and values.
References and further reading A linguistic system is a series of differences of sound combined with a series of differences of ideas; but the pairing of a certain number of acoustical signs with as many cuts made from the mass thought engenders a system of values.
based on 70 review