No doubt I’ve said this before, but perhaps not so clearly:
1) Derrida makes the point that all language is fundamentally metaphorical, and that even what appears as pure dialectic is rhetoric all the way down.
2) Derrida says that because of this communication and meaning are indeterminate, deferred, etc.
3) To the extent that #2 BOTHERS Derrida, he is still operating against a horizone of “pure” and transparent communication. That is, the first two points may simply be descriptions of how creatures communicate, but if they are accurate descriptions that is simple how humans communicate, and we can register a complaint against this only if we are comparing this imperfect communication with a perfected form.
4) Derrida, as James KA Smith has pointed out, is haunted by the hopeless hope of pure communication. He knows that it doesn’t exist, but he still compares actual communication to this perfect standard, and the comparison is unfavorable to actual languages.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Dreadful Christ of Pär Lagerkvist
It’s dangerous to meet a god,” says the disgraced Pythia in Pär Lagerkvist’s The Sibyl. Her observation…
The Possibility of Possibility
"Might could” is a Southern expression meaning “maybe I could” or “I might be able to,” conveying…
The False Promise of No Contact
Around the time nineteen-year-old Alice began cutting ties with her family, she announced on social media that…
