In this paper, in the first place, I aim to enquire into Bernard Stiegler’s critical appropriation of his mentor Jacques Derrida’s notion of différance, emphasizing how Stiegler’s philosophy of technology stems from an original interpretation of the main tenets of deconstruction. From this perspective, I will investigate Stiegler’s definition of technology as tertiary retention, i.e., exosomatized, artificial memory interrelating with biological memory, testing its hermeneutic strengths as well as possible weaknesses. In the second place, I aim to contrast Stiegler’s (...) understanding of technology with the concept of multistability brought forward by postphenomenological philosophies of technology such as those elaborated by Don Ihde and Peter-Paul Verbeek. This investigation will enable me to submit that Stiegler’s approach represents a peculiar and innovative way to conceive of technology. On the one hand, indeed, it does not seem to fall prey to the criticisms raised by postphenomenology against traditional philosophies of technology such as Martin Heidegger’s or Jacques Ellul’s, deemed to be overly deterministic, abstract and pessimistic in their understanding of technology. On the other, it retains important methodological precautions from deconstruction, thereby pointing at some possible blind spots of postphenomenology, especially concerning the vexed question of the empirical-transcendental divide, which Stiegler aims to develop beyond both Derrida’s and postphenomenology’s stances. (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)

This chapter undertakes a serious reflection on the question of Derrida's obscurity, based on a close reading of one of his most important texts, the 1967 essay, “La différance.” The procedure is to tease out what Derrida is saying, often paragraph by paragraph or even sentence by sentence, posing questions about how to read particular passages, with a view to seeing in what ways Derrida's essay falls into obscurity. Derrida's sometimes replaces argument with puns and other forms of linguistic (...) play, and he often assumes the reader's acquaintance with Lacan, Heidegger, and other difficult thinkers. Derrida's “semantic analysis” of différance is, quite lucid and suggests an interesting argument from the essentially differential nature of linguistic meaning to the untenability of metaphysical claims about the fundamental role of presence and subjectivity. (shrink)

It is in 1965 that, as well known, Derrida publishes in Tel Quel one of his most important writings on Antonin Artaud : La parole soufflée. In what follow, however, the deep meaning of such an essay is not immediately related to the specifically Artaudian questions it arises, but to the fact that Derrida’s most famous neologism – différance – makes between its pages (for three times) the first appearance. It is in any case important to keep in mind (...) the distinction between its two different ed... (shrink)

On its path to understanding Ricœur’s hermeneutics uses distanciation which includes exiting of the subject of understanding through reading, listening and watching from one’s self, thus necessarily looking for some difference. In that difference we can recognize Derrida’s “différance”, which in its consequences leads in a completely different direction than Ricśur’s term distanciation. We can especially compare these authors in the common field of researching metaphors. If Ricœur considers a true metaphor only that which is alive, that is that (...) which creates new meanings, and that which he infers from the contemporary theories of Black and Richards, then for Derrida in Mythologie blanche all philosophy is but a forgotten metaphoric expression, which leads foremost to its own death, and then indirectly to the death of philosophy. In an evermore globalized world, on the one hand borders and differences are being erased and on the other fundamentalisms are appearing, which are trying at any cost to show the superability of differences. In the contemporary European concept of merging, as in all maturation, upbringing and training have a great significance in the preservation of one’s own identity, willingness to understand others and common action. It seems that with the help of Ricœur’s term distanciation we could join that double demand. But, because of the fact that such a view on the field of upbringing and training could be lost again in the “new mythology”, which is considered the foundation of fundamentalistic closing, it is necessary that the process be supported with Derrida’s criticism. (shrink)

This paper intends to verify the extent and effectiveness of the transforming appropriation of the Derridean concept of ‘differance’ by Stiegler with respect to the problems that, according to Stiegler, make this creative critical operation necessary; in particular with respect to the most recent question concerning the possibility of thinking about and putting into practice a ‘neganthropological différance’ capable of facing the ecological crisis that today seems to threaten the very existence of life on earth. The paper goes back (...) to Technics and Time 1. to analyze the distinction between ‘vital difference’ and ‘noetic difference’ that constitutes the condition of possibility of the ‘neganthropological différance.’ In this perspective, the distinction proposed by Stiegler seems to re-propose the hierarchically oriented oppositional structure that characterizes metaphysical thought and in particular the opposition between man and animal, attributing to the human being the ability to free himself from the constraints of his biological-natural condition. Finally, the paper attempts to account for the repercussions of this approach on the very possibility of an effective response to the ecological crisis, concluding with a provocation regarding the role that theory can and must play with regard to such an urgent and far-reaching problem. (shrink)

To contemplate writing a comparison of aspects of the philosophical works of Śaṅkara, a major philosophical figure in India of the eight or ninth centuries, and Jacques Derrida, a so-called postmodernist thinker, gives a writer reason to pause and to consider moving forward with caution. A writer must proceed cautiously because writing is a risky endeavor, according to Derrida, who also perceives it as a violent exercise because language is more primary than writing in the sense that it is not (...) possible to inquire about the origin of language because we already exist within it, and we cannot get outside of language to examine its origin.1 From another Derridean perspective within the context of interpreting Plato .. (shrink)

This article examines Derrida's critique of Hegel. It argues that there are two key issues that Derrida misunderstands in Hegel's thought: first, Hegel's response to the concept-intuition dichotomy that plagued Kant's critical thought; second, that Hegel's notions of reason and the dialectic, when they are conceived non-metaphysically, are not tools employed to subsume differences but are, like Derrida's différance , fundamentally concerned with thought's instability. The article shows the way in which Derrida develops the notion of singularity by an (...) examination of the discussion of responsibility in his later writings. It is argued that the way that Hegel and Derrida consider the notion of singularity is a much better marker for distinguishing these two thinkers than Derrida's own interpretation of Hegel. Key Words: Jacques Derrida • dialectic • differance • G. W. F. Hegel • normativity • reason • responsibility • singularity. (shrink)

In Of Grammatology, Derrida discusses Leroi-Gourhan in relating différance to memory, the ‘program’, and the history of life. In Technics and Time, 1, Stiegler argues that Derrida failed to draw all the philosophical implications of linking différance to the questions of life and retention. Derrida returned to the life sciences in 1975, in a seminar not published in its entirety until 2019. There, Derrida attempts to deconstruct the geneticist François Jacob's account of the ‘logic of life’, but Derrida's (...) analysis of different kinds of memory and programs seems confused, suggesting that the Derridean text remains haunted by the deficiencies of his earlier reading of Leroi-Gourhan. Later in the seminar, Derrida shows foresight concerning the problems arising from seeing the genetic molecule as akin to a computer program, despite Jacob making this link via Schrödinger and Wiener's discussions of negentropy. When Derrida turns to a reading of Freud and libidinal energy, however, he ‘assumes’ a reading of Laplanche but ignores the latter's critique of Freud's own preoccupations with the second law of thermodynamics. The limitations of Derrida's attempts to bring deconstruction together with scientific understanding expose the need for the kind of ‘organological’ and ‘neganthropological’ approach that Stiegler will ultimately pursue. (shrink)

In inquiring into the nature of deconstruction in Derrida we see that it hides an opposite aspect of onto‐generative emergence as stated in the wording of the Yijing. What is hidden is the movement of difference‐making and generalizing repetition by way of certain presupposed reality. In examining Derrida's notion “différance” , his contrast between an ontology of presence and a philosophy of absence, in explaining the origin of meaning à la de Saussure, has transformed into the polaristic structure of (...) all differences, whether it be in language or in things. The Saussurian distinction between the signifier and the signified no doubt reflects this polarity but not reveals an underlying transcendent‐immanent principle called “différance,” or, the dao 道 in Chinese philosophy. This “difference” in language leads to ramification of meanings which could be self‐deconstructive such as the extended use of the word “spirit” demonstrates. (shrink)

Merleau-Ponty and Derrida articulate two overlaping but divergent ways of thinking about differentiation, écart and différance. This volume represents the viewpoints of fifteen leading North American scholars working in the fields of Continental philosophy, phenomenology, and postmodernism. These scholars, in essays written expressly for this volume, address the matrix of thought underlying contemporary responses to postmodernsim at large and deconstructionism in particular: identity and difference, community and alterity, self and other, metaphysics and its closure, language and its beyond, signification (...) and referentiality. (shrink)

This paper attempts to elucidate on Jacques Derrida’s concept of deconstruction and its difficult elements, viz., differance, dissemination, destinerrance, and geocatasthrophe. These basic ideas need elaboration for their proper understanding. Once successfully achieved, then here lies the significance of this paper.

Dans sa démarche interprétative, l’herméneutique de Ricœur se sert du concept de distanciation, qui implique la sortie de soi-męme du lecteur, de l’auditeur ou du spectateur et la recherche nécessaire d’une sorte d’altérité. On peut reconnaître dans cette altérité la « différance » de Derrida, qui conduit au final dans une direction tout ŕ fait différente que le concept ricśurien de distanciation. Ces deux auteurs peuvent ętre comparés notamment au niveau de leurs recherches respectives sur la métaphore. Si, pour (...) Ricœur, la vraie métaphore est la métaphore vivante, celle qui génčre des significations nouvelles, comme le postulent Richards et Black, pour Derrida de La mythologie blanche, toute la philosophie n’est qu’un ensemble de métaphores oubliées qui conduit d’abord ŕ sa propre mort et ensuite ŕ la mort de la philosophie. Dans ce monde de plus en plus globalisé, oů, d’une part, les frontičres et les différences s’effacent progressivement, on voit, d’autre part, émerger des fondamentalismes qui s’efforcent de montrer ŕ tout prix que les différences sont insurmontables. Dans l’actuel concept européen d’unification, comme dans tout processus de maturation humaine, l’éducation et la formation ont une grande importance pour la préservation de son identité, la compréhension d’autrui et l’action commune. Il nous semble que le concept ricśurien de distanciation pourrait aider ŕ unifier cette double exigence. Or, comme une telle approche de l’éducation et de la formation pourrait s’égarer dans une « nouvelle mythologie », génératrice de cloisonnement fondamentaliste, il est nécessaire de suivre ce processus en mettant ŕ contribution la critique de Derrida. (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)

The doctrine of eternal recurrence in Nietzsche is an essentially ecstatic doctrine. It is also strangely incommunicable. Here the ecstasy that reveals singularizes. The essential revelation closes the one to whom it is given in his own singularity ; only a singularity opens to the abysses and the Dionysian truth. Heidegger could then see in it an ontological doctrine. And an authentifying-singularizing-doctrine. Not, though, the same as his own. For Heidegger could suggest that the time horizon in which this doctrine (...) conceives Being in its Becoming-the "deep eternity"-is in fact not a deep structure of time, but the linear time of an eternity of instants. Eternity is not deep. In addition the subject of the Nietzschean ecstasy-which longs for eternity- cannot appropriate itself, cannot become a whole, cannot really achieve singular existence. Are these Heideggerian thoughts criticisms of the Nietzschean experience? Is the deep ontological truth to be then sought elsewhere? Is the wholeness of one's own life- the essence of this existence- to be then sought in another experience of the time-horizon of Being? Or else do these Heideggerian observations not rather point to another structure of the thought involved-something like a surface thought? And to another structure of the one smitten by this thought-a singularity that exists only in a circle of continuous metamorphoses? Some deconstructive work by Derrida encourages us to look in this direction. (shrink)

Through a re-articulation of Derridean différance, Bernard Stiegler claims that the human is defined by an originary default that displaces all psychic and social life onto technical supplements. His philosophy of technics re-articulates the logic of the supplement as concerning both human reflexivity and its supports, and the history of the différance of life itself. This has been criticised for reducing Derrida's work to a metaphysics of presence, and for instituting a humanism of the relation to the inorganic. (...) By refuting these claims, this article will show that Stiegler's doubling of différance enables him to articulate the human as constituted by both the individuation characteristic of ‘life’, and that of a technical, psychic, and collective individuation. Putting forward a reading of the logic of the trace in life, and emphasising the aspects of Leroi-Gourhan, Simondon, and Canguilhem that Stiegler uses in his reading of Derrida, I will demonstrate that the political stakes of adaption and adoption in his Noopolitics require this re-articulation of différance. Technics shapes the human future, arising from this differential mutation; marking the invention of the human as the site of the political. (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)

A possible relation between Derrida's deconstruction of metaphysics and connectionism is explored by considering diffeacuterance in neural nets terms. First diffeacuterance, as the crossing of Saussurian difference and Freudian deferral, is modeled and then the fuller 'sheaf of diffeacuterance is taken up. The metaphysically conceived brain has two versions: in the traditional computational version the brain processes information like a computer and in the connectionist version the brain computes input vector to output vector transformations non-symbolically. The 'deconstructed brain' neither processes (...) information nor computes functions but is spontaneously economical. (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)

"There is no purely and rigorously phonetic writing,"2 proclaims Jacques Derrida as he coins the term différance. The a in différance is not audible; the difference is purely graphic, and when expressed orally the hearer understands différence whether it is written with an e or an a. But Derrida is working in French, and while it is clear that French is not purely and rigorously phonetic in its writing, this does not necessarily hold for other languages or linguistic (...) scripts, nor does the silence of différance necessarily survive translation. Moreover, especially if one considers Derrida's more generalized definition of "writing"—not only as marks on a surface, but as a sign system—then a natural counter-example of... (shrink)

In the advent of communication, Derrida finds that meaning through signification carries with it the possibility of mis-communication in which the intended meaning behind the text becomes undecidable and inevitably polysemic in its transference. In a short, yet fecund essay “Signature Event Context,” Derrida tackles the problem of communication and the supposed claim of the classical notion of writing’s conception of virtual permanence within the text. The classical notion of writing claims that writing as a medium or a species of (...) communication implies that the transference of meaning is conducted in a homogenous fashion. In the absence, of the author who has abandoned the fleeting singular instance of inscription, the text, according to the classical notion of writing, must be able to transfer meaning within the interplay of the text itself, for if it fails to do so, writing would cease to become useful in its intention to transfer meaning. (shrink)

This experimental article claims that relatively recent trends in Western philosophy provide a much more open approach to philosophies originating in nonwestern traditions, including the Chinese, than found in most mainstream Western philosophy. More specifically, I argue that a slightly modified version of Jacques Derrida’s concept of différance offers a hermeneutic parallel to native Chinese philosophical approaches to interpretation. These converge in the view that Western and Chinese philosophies cannot be reduced to the other in conceptual terms and that (...) a finalized meaning or interpretation of each is a priori unattainable, thus providing a future opening for – and even integration of – a Chinese-Western dialogue in global philosophy and ethics.*. (shrink)

My purpose here is to compare, contrast, and critically reflect on two critiques of simple immediacy, Hegel’s and Derrida’s. The Hegelian critique occurs in the chapter on sense certainty in The Phenomenology of Spirit; the Derridean in the criticism of proper names in Glas. These texts will be my primary sources and points of reference. When necessary, however, I will use other texts as supplements. After an account of the two critiques, I will then consider similarities, differences, Hegel’s and Derrida’s (...) reflections on the differences, and reflections on all of the above. What will emerge as a result of the encounter is the notion of chastened, fallibilistic dialectic and mediation: I learn from Derrida’s philosophically significant reflection but give a qualified nod to Hegel on the basic methodological, epistemological, and metaphysical issues. Metaphysics still remains actual and possible, but it is a humble metaphysics, aware of its own limits and roots in a life world of experience and language that can never be totally thematized. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Semiotica Jahrgang: 2016 Heft: 212 Seiten: 81-96.

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.