ドゥルーズとデリダ：差異と差延；脱構築主義と不連続性：現前批判と
ドゥルーズとデリダ：差異と差延；脱構築主義と不連続性：現前批判と超越性の暗示
テーマ：哲学
ここでは、簡単に述べたい。
以下の引用のブルーの文字の部分に注意されたい。
結局、デリダの脱構築主義の基礎・原点は、存在の現前批判に存するのである。
現前という用語はわかりにくい。これを、PS理論から見ると、超越界ないし超越性の現象化ないし観念である。
端的に言えば、超越性の連続的観念ないし概念である。
例えば、神と言ったとき、神という言葉・観念は、それを想念する主体と連続化されているということである。
これは、また、イデアでも同じである。イデアを想念する主体において、イデアとの連続化が主体観念において生起しているのである。
ということで（今は、概略を言うに過ぎない）、デリダの脱構築主義とは、連続論の批判であり、不連続論であると言えよう。
だから、その点で、不連続的差異論に近いものであるし、PS理論にも関係するものをもっているだろう。
そう、簡単に言えば、デリダは、哲学に不連続性の切断を脱構築理論でもたらした言えるのではないだろうか。
即ち、おそらく、不連続な差異をもたらしたと言っていいように思える。
しかしである。デリダの理論の問題点は、脱構築という不連続化によって生起するものは、ロゴス中心主義を解体するから、それを言語＝ロゴスでは記述できないとしたことである。
私は、ここにはデリダの勘違いがあると考えている。
端的に、脱構築＝不連続化によって、連続的な現前が解体されて、超越性が解放される。
そして、超越性は超越的論理（超越的ロゴス）をもつのである。即非論理、即非ロゴスである。
デリダはロゴスはすべて現前＝連続的なものとして捉えてしまい、袋小路に陥ったと考えられる。
とまれ、ドゥルーズとデリダとを比較すると、前者は連続性に留まり、後者は不連続性を志向したと言えるだろう。
デリダの勘違いの一つは、フッサールの超越性が不連続性とつながることを無視したことである。フッサールを現前論で批判しただけであるように思える。
フッサールの超越論とデリダの脱構築＝不連続論が結合すれば、PS理論に近づいたはずである。
しかしながら、デリダは、単に脱構築＝不連続性のみを説いて、超越性、超越的論理、即非論理を暗示したに留まったと考えられる。
Jacques Derrida
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Work
[edit ] Introduction
Derrida began speaking and writing publicly at a time when the French intellectual scene was experiencing an increasing rift between what could broadly speaking be called "phenomenological" and "structural" approaches to understanding individual and collective life. For those with a more phenomenological bent, the goal was to understand experience by comprehending and describing its genesis, the process of its emergence from an origin or event. For the structuralists, this was precisely the false problem, and the "depth" of experience could in fact only be an effect of structures which are not themselves experiential. It is in this context that in 1959 Derrida asks the question: must not structure have a genesis, and must not the origin, the point of genesis, be already structured, in order to be the genesis of something?[1]
In other words, every structural or "synchronic" phenomenon has a history, and the structure cannot be understood without understanding its genesis.[2] At the same time, in order that there be movement, or potential, the origin cannot be some pure unity or simplicity, but must already be articulated―complex―such that from it a "diachronic" process can emerge. This originary complexity must not be understood as an original positing, but more like a default of origin, which Derrida refers to as iterability, inscription, or textuality.[3] It is this thought of originary complexity, rather than original purity, which destabilises the thought of both genesis and structure, that sets Derrida's work in motion, and from which derive all of its terms, including deconstruction.[4]
Derrida's method consisted in demonstrating all the forms and varieties of this originary complexity, and their multiple consequences in many fields. His way of achieving this was by conducting an exceedingly thorough, careful, sensitive, and yet transformational reading of philosophical and literary texts, with an ear to what in those texts runs counter to their apparent systematicity (structural unity) or intended sense (authorial genesis). By demonstrating the aporias and ellipses of thought, Derrida hoped to show the infinitely subtle ways that this originary complexity, which by definition cannot ever be completely known, works its structuring and destructuring effects.[5]
[edit ] Early works
Derrida's earliest work was a critique of the limits of phenomenology . His earliest academic manuscript for a degree was a work on Edmund Husserl , submitted in 1954, and published much later as The Problem of Genesis in Husserl's Phenomenology. In 1962 he published Edmund Husserl's Origin of Geometry: An Introduction, which contained his own translation of Husserl's essay.
Derrida first received major attention outside France with his lecture, "Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences," delivered at Johns Hopkins University in 1966 (and subsequently included in Writing and Difference). The conference at which this paper was delivered was concerned with structuralism , then at the peak of its influence in France, but only beginning to gain attention in the United States . Derrida differed from other participants by his lack of explicit commitment to structuralism, having already been critical of the movement. He praised the accomplishments of structuralism but also maintained reservations about its internal limitations, thus leading to the notion that his thought was a form of post-structuralism . Near the beginning of the essay, Derrida argued:
(...) the entire history of the concept of structure, before the rupture of which we are speaking, must be thought of as a series of substitutions of centre for centre, as a linked chain of determinations of the centre. Successively, and in a regulated fashion, the centre receives different forms or names. The history of metaphysics, like the history of the West, is the history of these metaphors and metonymies. Its matrix (...) is the determination of Being as presence in all senses of this word. It could be shown that all the names related to fundamentals, to principles, or to the centre have always designated an invariable presence – eidos, archē, telos, energeia, ousia (essence, existence, substance, subject) alētheia, transcendentality, consciousness, God, man, and so forth.
– "Structure, Sign and Play" in Writing and Difference, p. 353
The effect of Derrida's paper was such that by the time the conference proceedings were published in 1970, the title of the collection had become The Structuralist Controversy. The conference was also where he met Paul de Man , who would be a close friend and source of great controversy, as well as where he first met the French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan , with whose work Derrida enjoyed a mixed relationship.
[edit ] 1967-1972
Derrida's work demonstrated an interest in all the disciplines under discussion at the Baltimore conference, as was evinced by the subject of the three collections of work published in 1967: Of Grammatology , Writing and Difference , and Speech and Phenomena . These three books contained readings of the work of many philosophers and authors, including Husserl , linguist de Saussure , Heidegger , Rousseau , Levinas , Hegel , Foucault , Bataille , Descartes , anthropologist Lévi-Strauss , paleontologist Leroi-Gourhan , psychoanalyst Freud , and writers such as Edmond Jabès and Antonin Artaud . It was in this trinity of works that the "principles" of deconstruction were set out, not through theoretical explication but, rather, by demonstration, where he showed that the arguments promulgated by their subject-matter exceeded and contradicted the oppositional parameters in which they were situated. The next five years of lectures and essay-length work were gathered into two 1972 collections, Dissemination and Margins of Philosophy, at which time a collection of interviews (published as Positions in 1981) was also released.
During this period, Derrida was often interpreted as a "post-structuralist", and the basis of his intellectual influence was broadly seen as Husserlian, Saussurean, Heideggerian, and Nietzschean. This "basis" would later shift somewhat.
[edit ] 1972-1980
Starting in 1972, Derrida produced on average more than a book per year. He was said to have released more work in 2003 than in any other year. He was so prolific that there is no bibliography of his work that is complete. A good start is the bibliography included in Jack Reynolds' and Jonathan Roffe's (eds.) Understanding Derrida (London and New York: Continuum, 2004).
During the 1970s, his work was arguably at its most playful and most radical: his crucial works Glas, and The Post-Card: from Socrates to Freud and Beyond set the tone for his deconstructive project, particularly by emphasizing his form of close reading, his playful treatment of words, and his effort to demonstrate the potential of deconstruction.
A further crucial set of texts from this period is collected in Limited, Inc. Derrida had written Signature, Event, Context, an essay on J. L. Austin in the early 1970s; following an aggressive critique of this text by John Searle , Derrida wrote a long (and no less aggressive) defense of his earlier argument, which remains crucial to any understanding of deconstruction's involvement with language and its commonly perceived limitations.
[edit ] Of Spirit
On March 14 , 1987 , Derrida presented at the CIPH conference titled "Heidegger: Open Questions" a lecture which was published in October 1987 as Of Spirit: Heidegger and the Question. It follows the shifting role of Geist (spirit) through Heidegger's work, noting that in 1927, Spirit was one of the philosophical terms that Heidegger set his sights on dismantling. But with his Nazi political engagement in 1933, Heidegger came out as a champion of the "German Spirit," and only withdrew from an exalting interpretation of the term in 1952. Derrida's book reconnects in a number of respects with his long engagement of Heidegger (such as "The Ends of Man" in Margins of Philosophy and the essays marked under the heading Geschlecht). Derrida reconsiders three other fundamental and recurring elements of Heideggerian philosophy: the distinction between human and animal, technology, and the privilege of questioning as the essence of philosophy.
Of Spirit is a crucial contribution to the long debate on Heidegger 's Nazism and appeared at the same time as the French publication of a book by an unknown Chilean writer, Victor Farias , who charged that Heidegger's philosophy amounted to a wholehearted endorsement of the Nazi Sturmabteilung (SA) faction. Derrida responded to Farias in an interview, "Heidegger, the Philosopher's Hell" and a subsequent article, "Comment donner raison? How to Concede, with Reasons?" He noted that Farias was a weak reader of Heidegger's thought, adding that much of the evidence Farias and his supporters touted as new had long been known within the philosophical community.
But Of Spirit was also one of Derrida's first publications on the relationship between philosophy and nationalism, on which he had been teaching in the mid-1980s. This strand of questions would become increasingly important in his later work.
[edit ] Political and ethical "turns"
Two further points deserve mention: Derrida's "political turn," heralded by Specters of Marx and Politics of Friendship in 1994, saw him divert his attention to politics. Derrida and many of his supporters have argued that much of the philosophical work done in his "political turn" can be dated to earlier essays, though the change of tone and the effort granted to political issues rose.
His "ethical turn," in works such as The Gift of Death, saw Derrida applying deconstruction to the relationship between ethics and religion. In this work, Derrida reads Søren Kierkegaard 's Fear and Trembling and claims a leap of faith is required in many aspects of life, not just religion. But much more massive in importance and influence were Derrida's contemporary readings of Emmanuel Levinas , Walter Benjamin , Carl Schmitt , Jan Patočka , which came to provide a broad corpus on questions of law, responsibility, friendship, etc.
This is not to say that Derrida moved altogether away from his readings of literature; indeed, he continued to write extensively on Maurice Blanchot , Paul Celan , and others.
[edit ] Deconstruction
Main article: Deconstruction
The 1966 paper, in addition to establishing Derrida's international reputation, marked the start of Derrida's use of the concept of deconstruction. Although Derrida did not completely object to the characterization of his entire project with this one term, it was a development about which he remained ambivalent.
At its core, if it can be said to have one, deconstruction is an attempt to open a text (literary, philosophical, or otherwise) to several meanings and interpretations. Its method is usually based on binary oppositions within a text ― for example inside and outside or subject and object, or male and female. 'Deconstruction' then argues that such oppositions are culturally and historically defined, even reliant upon one another, and seeks to demonstrate that they are not as clear-cut or as stable as it would at first seem. On the basis that the two opposed concepts are fluid, this ambiguity is used to show that the text's meaning is fluid as well.
This fluidity stands against a legacy of traditional metaphysics (that is, Platonist thought) founded on oppositions, that seeks to establish a stability of meaning through conceptual absolutes where one term, for example "good," is elevated to a status that designates its opposite, in this case "evil," as its perversion, lack or inferior. These "violent hierarchies," as Derrida termed them, are taken as structurally unstable within the texts themselves, where the meaning strictly depends on this contradiction or antinomy.
Derrida insisted that deconstruction was never performed or executed but "took place" through "memory work": in this way, the task of the "deconstructor" was to show where this oppositional or dialectical stability was ultimately subverted by the text's internal logic. Meticulous readings find philosophy anew. The result of this renewal is often to find striking interpretations of texts. No "meaning" is stable: Derrida called the "metaphysics of presence " the thing that keeps the sense of unity within a text; where presence was granted the privilege of truth.
To understand this argument, one may need to explore Derrida's deconstruction of the speech/writing opposition, of which Of Grammatology is perhaps the clearest study. Derrida's critique of oppositions may be partly inspired by Nietzsche's genealogical reconsideration of "good" and "evil" (see, in particular, Beyond Good and Evil and On the Genealogy of Morals).
Derrida's practice of reading raises the question of the relationship between deconstruction and literary theory. Within literary studies, deconstruction is often treated as a particular method of reading ― in contrast to Derrida's claims that deconstruction is an "event" within a text, not a method of reading it. Despite this apparent contradiction, the literary sensibilities of Derrida cannot be ignored, as many of his deconstructions were of poems and literary texts.
Further, deconstruction's sensitivities to philosophical efforts at defining limits have been taken by some to imply a deconstructive agenda for the ultimate reversal of order. This agenda would cover: philosophy's claim to be the first of all academic disciplines; holding out hopes of uniting all; delineating what is proper to each as they remain apart; and expelling from itself non-philosophy (via judgements which irreducibly take part in violence and hinge on matters of interpretation made through language). This has been seen as the privilege of the non-serious and the literary over a humbled philosophy.
Although its influence on literary studies is probably the most well-known and well-reported effect of deconstruction, its roots are more philosophical than literary, although it is also tied to distinct but abutting academic disciplines such as linguistics , women's studies, and anthropology (called the "human sciences" in France). Derrida's examination of the latter's philosophical foundations, both conceptual and historical, and their continued reliance on philosophical argument (whether consciously or not), was an important aspect of his thought. Among his foremost influences are Edmund Husserl , Sigmund Freud , and Martin Heidegger . Heidegger in particular was a major influence on Derrida ― he claims in his "Letter to a Japanese Friend" (Derrida and différance , eds. Robert Bernasconi and David Wood ) that the word "déconstruction" was his attempt both to translate and re-appropriate for his own ends the Heideggerian terms Destruktion and Abbau via a word from the French language, the varied senses of which seemed consistent with his requirements.
This relationship with the Heideggerean term was chosen over the Nietzschean term "demolition", as Derrida shared with Heidegger an interest in renovating philosophy to allow it to treat increasingly fundamental matters. In this regard, he moves beyond Heidegger in a significant way. While Heidegger passes through Nietzsche , Kierkegaard , Hegel , Kant , Descartes , Aquinas , Aristotle , Plato , and Parmenides , and finds their work wanting where the question of Being is concerned, Derrida prefers to mine the heterogeneous nature of their works ― indeed, his reading of Plato in Dissemination is among his best-known and most important readings, in which Plato's khôra is treated.
[edit ] Aporia
Derrida received the 2001 Adorno Prize, named after Theodor Adorno . In accepting this award, Derrida noted both differences and affinities with Adorno. Their treatment of aporia was noted as an affinity. Aporia comes from the Greek απορια (from α-πορος) meaning "the impassable"( see 'Sea of Suf' ). The aporetic was a recurring structure for Derrida: Derrida strived to render as determinate as possible an interpretation, finding a series of "undecidable" decisions between a series of determinate constructions of interpretations. These passages through impossible decisions are unavoidable, according to Derrida, and potentially lead to a model of responsibility. Derrida views this as the point to which philosophy should aspire. In Derrida's view, philosophy would like to deliver its complete system, here and now: its absolute work made manifest to its reader, the end of philosophy being the end of philosophy. Derrida also shares with Adorno criticism of doctrines of immediate (unmediated) (self-)presence grounding Western philosophies: both wrote theses on Husserl critical of his philosophy for this reason.
The idea of aporia is carried over in other deconstructive readings ― particularly those of Paul de Man, whose readings of poems were known for concluding that the poems ended in an aporia.
