Derrida – June 28 “Différance” “For I have to remind you, somewhat bluntly and simply, that my most constant interest, coming even before my philosophical interest, I would say, if this is possible, was directed toward literature, toward that writing that is called literary.” (p.116, “Punctuations) Derek Attridge, introducing Acts of Literature (collection of essays focused on lit.) put it well: “What is literature? . [a question] asked within the Western tradition of philosophy. It is, after all, a philosophical, not a literary question; it asks for a statement of the essence of literature . [and what is not literature, especially philosophy]” Being / speaks / always and everywhere / throughout / language Why does Derrida break the sentence in this way? How does the essay come together in this last paragraph? p.24 trace indicates the paradox of metaphysics (an “inversion” that takes place within it – and is concealed within it) thus, “the present becomes the sign of the sign, the trace of the trace. It is no longer what every referent refers to in the last analysis [as metaphysics would have it]. It [the present] becomes a function in a structure of generalized reference. It is a trace, and a trace of the erasure of the trace.” knotty conclusion: “thus one can think without contradiction, . what is perceptible and imperceptible in the trace” by thinking it “in the form of a text . a text without a voice . the form of the proper . only an effect of writing” [writing avant la lettre] p.25-26 “There is no essence of différance; it (is) that which not only could never be appropriated in the as such of its name or its appearing, but also that which threatens the authority of the as such in general, of the presence of the thing itself in its essence” [= as such, or the ideal form] and YET “différance remains a metaphysical name” p.27 (Derrida quoting Heidegger’s essay “The Anaximander Fragment”): “The relation to what is present that rules in the essence of presencing itself is a unique one, altogether incomparable to any other relation . Therefore, in order to name the essential nature of Being, language would have to find a single word, the unique word. [this is daring]. Nevertheless such daring is not impossible, since Being speaks always and everywhere throughout language.” References Derrida. “Freud and the Scene of Writing” in Writing and Difference [WD]. --. “From Restricted to General Economy: A Hegelianism without Reserve” in WD. --. “Punctuations: The Time of a Thesis” in Eyes of the University: Right to Philosophy 2 [orig. published as part of Du droit à philosophie, 1990, p. 281-663], tr. Jan Plug and others. Stanford UP, 2004. Heidegger, “The Anaximander Fragment” in Early Greek Thinking. For next week’s reading “The Ends of Man” – some questions to ponder: What concepts/terms does Derrida challenge in the opening section (p.111-4)? Why is he focusing on these “things”? How are they deconstructed – revealed to deconstruct themselves? Why does this serve as a preamble to the essay? What problem does Derrida identify about the study of “man”? How does anthropology relate to “man”? How does “man” relate to Being and/or beings? How does the question of “presence” fit into Derrida’s overall analysis and argument in this essay? Think about each or any of the “conclusions” (p.134-6) in relation to the body of the essay. How does Derrida draw such conclusions? How are these conclusions conclusive and/or inconclusive? I welcome and encourage advance emails (by Monday night?) with questions, comments, suggestions about the assigned reading so that I can think about these things in advance. If you are taking the class for Credit or a Grade, your first writing assignment is to compose a two- page (double-spaced and typed) response to one of the constellations of questions above. Your response should be focused (perhaps using one question as your main point of inquiry), clear, and well-written (grammatically and typographically correct). The response should be an essay, in the literal sense – a “trying out”; thus, it need not (should not) present a definitive interpretation, but rather a thoughtful engagement with the material. Each paragraph should set and meet a particular objective (an objective that can take the form of a question), and the paragraphs should work together to offer a cohesive and rigorous response to the material..