Abstract

The question concerning the difference between Gadamer's hermeneutics and Derrida's deconstruction, is a legitimate question since they are philosophies that have grown from common soil. Both philosophers, albeit via different paths, go back to Greek philosophy and continually compare themselves with it. Philosophical hermeneutics has often been misunderstood in its attempt to raise the question of understanding within philosophy. According to hermeneutics, understanding would be an appropriation of the other. Animated by a “fury of understanding”, hermeneutics seems to claim that it could and should understand all in a complete and perfect way. The distance between hermeneutics and deconstruction does not lie in the goodwill to understand, but in understanding itself, in the way in which understanding follows from either the unity of the uninterrupted dialogue or from the difference of the interruption. Unity and difference, difference and unity, reassert the secret of their bond, of their elusive cross‐reference.