Abstract

Against a hermeneutic reading of deconstruction, this essay attempts to prove how, on the contrary, Derrida’s thought opposes itself to the primacy of interpretation. In these terms it revalues Nietzsche’s thesis, according to which there are only interpretations and no facts, and Derrida’s one about nothing existing out of the text, just because this essay reads them as the specific ways both the philosophers use in their attempt to deny the existence of a single interpretation to act as a canon, and to reaffirm text’s independence from any attempt of metaphysical closure.