From Derrida, still talking about the analogy of father-son and origin-speech:
the father is not the generator or procreator in any “real” sense prior to or outside all relation to language. In what way, indeed, is the father/son relation distinguishable from a mere cause/effect or generator/engendered relation, if not by the instance of logos? Only a power of speech can have a father. The father is always father to a speaking/living being. In other words, it is precisely logos that enables us to perceive and investigate something like paternity.
If I’m following this, it appears to be saying that the father-son in speech relation is constituted by the instance of logos, which means that the father is no father of speech without a son. The final sentence, then, says that the appearance of the son is what enables us to perceive paternity. Here again, Derrida’s thought seems to be crying out for Trinitarian fulfillment.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Ethics of Rhetoric in Times of War
What we say matters. And the way we say it matters. This is especially true in times…
How the State Failed Noelia Castillo
On March 26, Noelia Castillo, a twenty-five-year-old Spanish woman, was killed by her doctors at her own…
The Mind’s Profane and Sacred Loves
The teachers you have make all the difference in your life. That they happened to come into…
