Derrida: Metaphysics and Epistemology

This essay shows that Derrida's discussion of "Differance," is remarkably parallel to Plato's discussion of Difference in the Parmenides. Plato's presentation of "Parmenides'" discussion of generation from a One which Is is a version of Derrida's preconceptual spacing. Derrida's implicit reference to Plato both interprets Plato and explains the obscure features of "Differance." Derrida's paradoxical remarks about Differance are very like what Plato implies about Difference. Derrida's Differance addresses the puzzle that concepts are required to construct the beings in a (...) plurality of objects, but concepts cannot differentiate unless there is already a plurality of objects. Plato's version of the same problem is a notational variant of Derrida's Husserlian dilemma. Derrida, following Davidson, is not only skeptical about the project of founding metaphysics on simple entities, but also holds that necessity has no foundation in the "world." Plato, on the other hand, retains the idea that necessity has an objective basis in the self-evident truths of mereology. (shrink)

The concept of “cultural identity” has gradually replaced such discredited concepts as “race”, “ethnicity”, even “nationality” in the conservative political discourse of recent decades which conceives, represents and performs culture as a closed system with clear-cut boundaries which must be defended from contamination.The article employs the theories of Derrida and Lotman as useful tools for deconstructing this understanding of cultural identity, which has recently become anideological justification for socio-political conflicts. In fact, their theories spring from a thorough critique of the (...) kind of internalizing self-enclosure which allowed Saussure to delimit and describe langue as the object of linguistics. The article identifies and compares the elements of this critique, focusing on Derrida’s and Lotman’s concepts of “mirror structure”, “binarism”, “numerousness”, “textuality” and “semiosphere”.An understanding of mediation emerges which is not reducible to any kind of definitive acquisition, thereby frustrating the pretences of identity, constantly dislocating and deferring any attempt at semiotic self-enclosure. My comparison suggests that Lotman’s “translation of the untranslatable” and Derrida’s differance can be considered analogous descriptions of this problematic kind of mediation. The constructive nature of culture, as described by Lotman and Derrida, challenges any attempt to view cultural formations as sources of rigid and irreducible identities or differences. (shrink)

Over the past decade there has been a burgeoning of work in philosophy of religion that has drawn upon and been oriented by “continental” sources in philosophy—associated with figures such as Martin Heidegger, Jacques Derrida, Emmanuel Levinas, Jean-Luc Marion, Gilles Deleuze, and others. This is a significant development and one that should be welcomed by the community of Christian philosophers. However, in this dialogue piece I take stock of the field of “continental philosophy of religion” and suggest that the field (...) is developing some un-healthy patterns and habits. The burden of the paper is to suggest a prescription for the future health of this important field by articulating six key practices that should characterize further scholarship in continental philosophy of religion. (shrink)

This essay considers the legacy of Kant’s philosophy of religion as appropriated by Jacques Derrida in his recent, “Foi et savoir: les deux sources de la ‘religion’ aux limites de la simple raison.” Derrida’s adoption of this Kantian framework raises the question of how one might describe this as a postmodern account of religion, which in turn raises the question of the relationship between modernity and postmodernity in general, and Derrida’s relationship to Kant in particular. Following an exposition of Derrida’s (...) notion of a formal “ethical” religion as a repetition of Kant’s critique in Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone, I offer a critique of Derrida’s “formalization” of religion and the relationship between faith and reason, arguing that a more persistent postmodernism requires a de-formalization of the modern concern for justice, appreciating its determinate prophetic origin. (shrink)

This essay shows that Derrida’s discussion of “Differance,” is remarkably parallel to Plato’s discussion of Difference in the Parmenides. Plato’s presentation of “Parmenides’” discussion of generation from a One which Is is a version of Derrida’s preconceptual spacing. Derrida’s implicit reference to Plato both interprets Plato and explains the obscure features of “Differance.” Derrida’s paradoxical remarks about Differance are very like what Plato implies about Difference.Derrida’s Differance addresses the puzzle that concepts are required to construct the beings in a plurality (...) of objects, but concepts cannot differentiate unless there is already a plurality of objects. Plato’s version of the same problem is a notational variant of Derrida’s Husserlian dilemma.Derrida, following Davidson, is not only skeptical about the project of founding metaphysics on simple entities, but also holds that necessity has no foundation in the “world.” Plato, on the other hand, retains the idea that necessity has an objective basis in the self-evident truths of mereology. (shrink)

Originally presented at Monash University, the two lectures offer a very accessible introduction to a number of the major aspects of the work of John D. Caputo, perhaps/probably the most original and consequential postmodern philosopher of religion. The first lecture contextualizes the place of Caputo’s thinking, contrasts his contribution to Mark C. Taylor’s “a/theology”, and examines Caputo’s postmodern figuration of the “Kingdom of God”. The second lecture focuses on Caputo’s philosophico-theological rendering of four key Derridean themes: justice, forgiveness, the gift, (...) and hospitality. Throughout the text, certain critical issues are raised, though the overall appraisal is one of affirmation and admiration. (shrink)

[Excerpt from first lines] In answer to a friend's query about my current pursuits, I hoisted Lakoff and Johnson's six-hundred-page magnum opus into his hands. "Reviewing this." Thoughtfully weighing the imposing book in one palm, he pronounced: " Philosophy in the Flesh? It needs to go on a diet!" I laughingly agreed, then in good philosopher's form analyzed his joke. He had conceived the book metaphorically as a person, as when we speak of books "inspiring" us or being "great company" (...) and even as being "fat" or "thin." His cleverness lay in perceiving a novel entailment of this metaphor: just as an overweight person may need to diet, a long book may need to be shortened. In addition, he used a conventional metaphor in which means are conceived as paths, thus one may "go on" a diet for the purpose of losing weight as one goes on a path toward a destination. All in the spirit of Lakoff and Johnson. "The question is clear," they say. "Do you choose empirical responsibility or a priori philosophical assumptions? Most of what you believe about philosophy and much of what you believe about life will depend on your answer". Choosing the path of empirical responsibility, we are primed to accept three central findings about the mind and language that have emerged from "second generation" cognitive science …. (shrink)

Acts of Religion, compiled in close association with Jacques Derrida, brings together for the first time a number of Derrida's writings on religion and questions of faith and their relation to philosophy and political culture. The essays discuss religious texts from Jewish, Christian, and Muslim traditions, as well as religious thinkers such as Kant, Levinas, and Gershom Scholem, and comprise pieces spanning Derrida's career. The collection includes two new essays by Derrida that appear here for the first time in any (...) language, as well as a substantial introduction by Gil Anidjar that explores Derrida's return to his own "religious" origins and his attempts to bring to light hidden religious dimensions of the social, cultural, historical, and political. (shrink)

From Nietzsche to the present, the Western philosophical tradition has been dominated by a secular thinking that has dismissed discussion of God as largely irrelevant. In recent years however, the issue of theology has returned to spark some of the most controversial debates within contemporary philosophy. Discussions of theology by key contemporary philosophers such as Derrida and Levinas have placed religion at centre stage. _Post-Secular Philosophy_ is one of the first volumes to consider how God has been approached by modern (...) philosophers and consider the links between theology and postmodern thought. Fifteen accessible essays present a clear and compelling picture of how key thinkers including Descartes, Nietzsche, Freud, Wittgenstein, Heidegger and Derrida have made God a central part of their thinking. Each philosopher and how they have approached and criticised theology is placed in a clear historical context. Placing the collection in context with Phillip Blond's outstanding introduction, _Post-Secular Philosophy_ presents a fascinating discussion of the alternatives to the relativism and nihilism that dominate Western thinking. (shrink)

Written in response to John Caputo's _The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida_, this work gathers together cutting-edge theologians and philosophers to examine the relationship between Derridan deconstruction and religion. Containing a lengthy counter-response by Caputo, as well as an interview, _Religion With/Out Religion_ will be required reading for all those involved in contemporary theological debate.

One undercurrent in contemporary philosophical thought is the suspicion that the traditional search for final and absolute answers is no longer possible. This dissertation, "A Theory of Meaning After the End of Philosophy", discusses some of the consequences of this view, specifically those which the French philosopher Jacques Derrida draws from it. The first is that any search for final and absolute answers will necessarily fall within what he calls the "metaphysics of presence". The second is that the role of (...) the context in our understanding of language is much greater than is usually believed and, as a corollary, that the role of the individual Subject in "speech acts" is much less important. These views are compared to those of John Searle, because Searle and Derrida seem to share certain important premises and because Searle's work seems to provide a theory of meaning which Derrida himself does not provide, and which does not fall within Derrida's "metaphysics of presence". ;In this context, the dissertation analyzes Derrida and Searle's writings, as well as Searle's most recent thought as presented in his lectures. The first chapter presents an explanation of Derrida's position and his terminology. The analysis of terms such as 'metaphysics', 'difference', 'writing', 'trace', and 'presence' as they are used by Derrida yields something like necessary and sufficient conditions according to which a philosophical theory could be said to fall within the "metaphysics of presence". The use of these necessary and sufficient conditions is illustrated in two examples of how Derrida deconstructs texts to show their metaphysical nature. The chapter ends with a discussion of Derrida's account of the role of the context and of the Subject in language and in intentionality in general. ;Starting with intentionality, which Searle considers to be the basis for any complete account of language, the second chapter presents his theory of meaning. Following the logical, rather than chronological, progression of his thought a full account of his view on meaning is derived, with special emphasis on the role of individual intentionality and of the context, to show more clearly where Searle agrees and disagrees with Derrida. Then, Searle's theory of meaning is compared with the traditional theories against which Derrida argues, especially with regard to truth and what Searle calls the "background". ;Given the conclusions of these two chapters, the third chapter establishes that Searle's theory of meaning does fulfill the criteria for an account of meaning which is not only compatible with Derrida's requirements but also philosophically similar to Derrida's own position. The work of Martin Heidegger provides a basis for exploring the key premises common to Derrida and Searle. Then the important issues are isolated from the incidental ones in the direct confrontation of views drawn from the "debate" between Searle and Derrida carried on in Glyph. Given the premises they share, it follows that Searle's work does not necessarily fall within the "closure of the metaphysics of presence". Moreover, the residual differences between Searle and Derrida appear to be due, at least in part, to the different intellectual contexts within which they find themselves. More importantly, however, these remaining issues seem to be based on divergent responses to a question concerning the priority of public norms and individual intentionality which neither Searle nor Derrida can consistently ask or answer. (shrink)

Straipsnyje Martino Heideggerio paskelbta „filosofijos pabaigos“ situacija nagrinëjama Freudo psichoanalizës ir Derrida différance poþiûriu. Tyrinëjimo pradþios taðkas yra nejaukumo sàvoka, kuriàFreudas analizuoja studijoje „Das Unheimliche“. Anot Freudo, nejaukumo jausmas gali bûti iðgyventas tada, kai þmogus susitinka savo antrininkà . Tokiø susitikimø situacijose ðisjausmas kyla ið to, kad èia patiriamas gyvenimo ir mirties ambivalentiðkumas. Panaðø ambivalentiðkumà galima aptikti ir tada, kai turime reikalà su Derrida minima différance, kuri yra ne þodis ir nesàvoka, bet greièiau tam tikras performatyvas. Ðiuo aktu sukuriama situacija, (...) kurioje pasireiðkia paaiðkinimo ir ið-aiðkinimo kaip dviejø skirtingø prasmës aptikimo strategijø ambivalentiðkumas, kylantisið to, kad prasmë aptinkama tekste, t. y. medijoje, kuri yra nei gyva, nei mirusi.Pagrindiniai þodþiai: Heideggeris, Freudas, Derrida, filosofijos pabaiga, psichoanalizë, tekstas,différance. (shrink)

The aim of the paper is to discuss and compare major aspects of Saussure’s linguistic theory — including his recently discovered manuscript, published as Écrits de linguistique générale — and Derrida’s philosophy, focusing on its structuralist foundations, in order to show the radical debt of Derrida to Saussure. To see Derrida as a structuralist is crucial for the understanding of his work. A major Saussurean concept, adopted by Derrida as the foundation of his deconstruction, is the concept of “value”; this (...) concept leads to the impossibility of a positive and stable delimitation of signification, which thus is shown to be a phantasmatic entity emerging from the nodes of a network of differences. In this context, I focus on three issues concerning limits, the one leading to the other: the above limitlessness of the linguistic signified, the ensuing limitlessness of linguistic semiosis, in the sense that there is no clear limit between it and the referent, and thus the limit imposed by semiosis in preventing the possibility of knowledge of material reality. I examine Saussure’s ambiguous view on this issue and argue that Derrida’s approach is contradictory, since he occasionally reintroduces the referent in the form of empirical evidence with no theoretical justification. (shrink)

" Taking as its cue Derrida's readings of German-Jewish authors and his ongoing interest in questions of Jewishness, this book pairs his philosophy with that of Franz Rosenzweig, who developed a theory of Judaism for which election is ...

A Society of the Friends of Difference would have to include Heraclitus, Nietzsche, Saussure, Freud, Adorno, Heidegger, Levinas, Deleuze, and Lyotard among its most prominent members.

In recent times the term “post-secular” has emerged to describe the age in which we are currently living. The term “post” is somewhat misleading because it is clear that the current age is strongly secular in a whole range of ways. Rather, post-secular is meant to indicate that the secularization metanarrative, the view that humanity is inevitably headed down a road that leads from a religious condition in the past to a secular age in the future, no longer holds.The post-secular (...) certainly does not mean something like the “return of religion,” or an idea that the secular age is…. (shrink)