It’s the main concept of his thought that he defined it based on semiology perspective, in practical interpretation discourses, language became very important. Derrida prefer emphasize to written language rather oral language. He argues that all of thing that able to be claimed in written language –like it’s just derivative and only refer to other signals- actually also cold be applied in oral language. So, written is able to be seen as footstep, trace sole of foot which we have to research it continually until we find the foot master (what we call by the quested meaning). The thinking, writing, and creating process based on footstep principle is what Derrida call by differance.
“Difference” is France word that its pronunciation is exactly same with “difference”. This world derived from differer that has meaning of “different” and “delay or tow” all at once. We can’t distinguish differance and difference only with hearing oral language because they have same pronunciation. This is special treatment of written language which evidence written superiority than oral language as he believes.
He state loudly that trace precedes object. Actually trace is not effect but cause of. This concept enables to think the presence as effect of trace. Thereby the presence is no more original thing, but derivation of trace. He give an example, maybe people said a trace which is leaved by a drinking glass indicate to the glass as presence. But for Derrida, the glass must be seen as a trace also which can indicate to tea, kitchen or drinker. Then, tea, kitchen and drinker indicate to something else, and soon.
This trace network is what Derrida called by text or fabric. He return this word to its original language (Latin language) texere that mean wove. For Derrida, there are no existents out of text. Actually reality is nothing, because all of realities are constructed by culture, language or history, those are only text. Because of that, reality consists of a lot of texts by plural truth. There is no universal truth. He strips the truth claims from philosophic discursive system and metaphysic. He did all of it to release interpretation from meaning burden.
a little notes:
After all of realities were deconstructed, until there are no more identities but text that is considered as trace, and to interpret a trace, we must always epoche (tow, take caesura), finally deconstruction concept will bring us to uncertainty. A condition where an identity is not admitted by its owner because all understanding about text always circulate on a playing interpretation. Since all of text interpretations is only game, we has no right to claim something is better than other. Even though it’s possible, what we claim is not certainty acceptable. Because if what we admit is accepted by many people, will be a new logosentrisme also. The ironical consequence of deconstruction isn’t? Tweet Follow @tirtanirwana
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar