Derrida "differance" Relief

The text of Differance reveals an area in which the research of sign and presence made Derrida become the middle term between the Continental philosophy and the Analytical philosophy. This dissertation contains four parts. Differance first appeared in the analysis to Antonin Artaud’s Cruel Theatre. Meanwhile in Speech and Phenomena Differance was proposed formally. Derrida raised his systematic critic through his analysis to Husserl’s theory of sign. His point is that the primary phenomena is contaminated by the sign. The authentic presence of Husserl is already the supplement as the effect of the play of Differance. Derrida insists that the play of the sign, the supplement, the writing and the trace is older than Husserl’s "thing itself. Then the question is:what sort of relation happens between the sign and the significant as presence? This question also penetrates into the confrontation between Derrida and Heidegger.The second part is the elucidation of the text of Differance. There are two questions in this chapter:one is the problem of presence, the second is the temporization and spacing of the Differance. These two problems will pervade in the analysis to the text and the engagement of Derrida and Heidegger from which we can find the complex parallel between Derrida and Heidegger and the different choice when they meet the crossroad. Derrida’s chain of concepts from his early to his late always has a deep engagement with Heidegger’s Be-ing historical research. Two problems locate in the central of the controversy:How does the presence presencing itself? When "Es gibt", is the Es Nicht(nothing) or is there the trace, the play of Differance, which already contaminate this origin? Heidegger thought that the saying of Being have to be kept in the words and naming. This thought stirs the problem of the possibility of the Be-ing and the relationship between this possibility and the word and naming. Heidegger’s choice is that he insists there is nothing before the word towers itself but the dawn of the word, the tune of the word comes from the En-owning, in which the last god appears. Then the silence of the Be-ing is the calling from the last god or like Derrida said, this silence is already the playing area of the differenting system of writing as Differance? Can we say that there is the trace inside this silence? Is this limit be penetrated like Derrida or can we just keep silence before it? How is there something from this Nicht? Differance, in Derrida’s view, is simultaneously the temporization and spacing, providing that we take the presence as the effect of the Differance, and the time and space become plurality. It is also interesting that Heidegger think that there will be no temporization without language. Then is Derrida’s leap out of the silence the unfolding of Heidegger’s unthought or an illegally arrogation? What does Derrida’s penetration to the limit of Be-ing mean?In the third chapter, first of all we need to refer to further illuminations about the question of the relationship between the sign and the significance which determines the grammatical position of Derrida’s Differance. The further reference to Heidegger is about Heidegger’s thinking about language, word, and mark in his lectures of middle period, in this period we can see Heidegger’s choices and experiments in the question of word and presence. Heidegger took word as the law-giver and the revealing-giver, he also thought that the muthos is older than logos. His further question is:is it possible to obtain the presence without the mark? What is the relationship between the word and presence? And how does the mark which is different from the signifier involve in the process of revealing? Heidegger made a different choice from Derrida.In the last chapter, we need do a further research on the question of the concept of general sign. The theory we refer to is Madhyamika, the middle way in Buddhism. They took that the every beings is the illusionary of the play of the Name and Discourse, we cannot find a reality beyond the Name. Some masters also think that we can just say the word and the significant appear together, we can not say which is earlier than the other. In the deconstructive reading of Husserl and Heidegger the problem of sign become the focus which is that the play of Differance makes the presence visible or vis-a-vis the presence employ the sign. The other philosopher we refer to is Wittgenstein. The point of his private language argument is that we cannot use the language without grammar, and the grammar is public. From this line of argument the question becomes clearer:is the pure presence the effect of the structure of the grammar as the Differance? The irreducibility of the presence vanished.The last part contains the problem of the naming and transcendence. We find that we are located in the aporias of this limit of Being, should we follow the steps of the reason to continue our naming and analysis or should we just stop there and just listen? Then, what is the essence of the philosophizing movement? Derrida’s thinking renews our horizon of problem and opens new dimension. And just the craziness keeps watching the thinking.