Derridas Critique Of Metaphysics example essay topic

Derridas critique of metaphysics together with the analysis of feminism reveals the rejection of the idea that women or men have any special or different kind of essence. Derrida shows that women should be equal with men in every aspect, because there is not certain space for them, consequently not special role to fill. Despite this outward rejection of essences, the very idea of sexual difference seems to carry some metaphysical connotations, for in order to have actual sexual difference, there must be some underlying difference in the essences of men and women. Derridas rejection of metaphysical opposition between men and women is mainly because of concept of reaching the first stage of deconstruction when this opposition is not being applicable anymore. The clear distinction between the concept of difference and opposition that was made by Derrida is remains unclear whether the notion of difference in gender is metaphysical or maybe just some construction that should be deconstructed. In my opinion, the notion of difference should not be metaphysical, because there is no relationship with immutable essence, which determines sexual difference.

It could be possible for indefinite number of sexes to exist, but still sexual difference should not be bases on just biological differences. However, Derrida has metaphysical problems in the account of sexual difference. Derrida seems to resolve any tension by humanistically asserting that gender identity is created and by making Aristotelian distinctions, while Irigaray resolves the tension by simply renouncing any claim to truth, and taking a more pragmatic approach to the issue of sexual difference, which still is not a solution. Perhaps these difficulties only further buttress the thrust of Derrida's critique of Heidegger in "The Ends of Man", namely that we can never fully escape metaphysical thinking. Derrida's method of avoiding metaphysics by making a distinction between opposition and difference seems to be a return to metaphysics. After all, making these sorts of distinctions in order to resolve apparent contradictions is at the heart of the methodology of Aristotelian metaphysics, and so it seems self-defeating for Derrida to adopt a strategy of avoiding metaphysics that is itself metaphysical.

The relationship between metaphor and philosophy is the main theme of Derridas work. Two separately identifiable, but strictly interconnected, thematic directions are closely explored. First, is the theory of metaphor; second the theory of philosophical discourse. The works of these Derrida are examined for a number of reasons: first, they attract questions that inevitably concern the meaning of philosophy itself. Besides, they make fundamental points concerning metaphor and its relationship to philosophy.

Actually, the particular quality of the language is closely related to poetic discourse; and the relationship of text to metaphor gives Derridas works an essential quality and makes it different from the works of other philosophers. The result is an idea of philosophy as essentially imperfect and self-destructive, and yet indispensable in the economy of the modes of discourse. Jacques Derrida is undoubtedly one of the foremost figures in the development of twentieth-century literary theory. The school of deconstruction that has grown out of his work has been either absorbed into the corpus of modern literary theory, or more recently criticized for its departures from the original texts of Derrida in whose name it is practiced.

Several books trace Derrida's practice of literature as a form of philosophical thinking in the work of Heidegger and Blanc hot. Derridas work offers a welcome stylistic clarity in a field beleaguered by its philosophical and linguistic difficulty.