On Thu, 29 Jun 1995 PhilMill@xxxxxxx wrote:
> I am trying to work out some thoughts on the relationship between
> language and discourse in Heidegger and Derrida, and I would like to get
> some comments and suggestion on the line I'm pursuing.
> But what about Derrida: is he more Saussurian or more Heideggerian
> in his view of the relation between language and discourse? To me he
> seems more Saussurian. Of course he criticizes Saussure (and Heidegger
> too) for his "phonocentrism," i.e. for making speech prior to writing.
> But this has to do with what is prior within the realm of discourse; it
> does not challenge Saussure's more basic thesis that language as the
> system of differences is prior to all discourse, spoken or written.
> Indeed, it seems to me that Derrida's "differance" is simply a
> radicalization of Saussure's notion of difference: if meaning is created
> by playing on an underlying system of differences, Derrida argues, then
> meaning must always be deferred. The meaning of what is said is never
> fully present to the speaker, and thus all speech is "writing" (as it
> has traditionally been conceived).
Try reading "Language" by Heidegger. The basic claim of the work is "die
Sprache spricht" - language speaks. It's speaking precedes and underlies
all normal language use. Not only that, but it is plural, ambiguous
(vieldeutig), and resists all attempts to capture it in concepts. If
that isn't the basis for Derrida and differance (writing), I don't know
what is.
A criticism of Derrida Gadamer has advocated is that he is too much stuck
in this Saussurian system of signs. I'm not certain how much that
sticks. Deconstructionism is deliberately parasitic, which means it
draws its resources from that text it is reading as it gives its double
reading. To state it more simply, Derrida chose the leading science of
language from the 60's and showed that it could be made to sound like
Heidegger despite its own claims. If he began with the sign, that does
not mean he is bound to it.
If Derrida has an advantage over Heidegger, it is that he begins with a
concept of language we are all familiar with, whereas Heidegger rejects
it as inadequate without stating how he (or we) get to this other language.
> But if I'm right that Derrida is simply working out the
> implications of a Saussurian view of language, isn't his apparent
> radicalism really only apparent? Isn't he implicitly accepting the
> authority of linguistic science, rather than questioning its
> presuppositions? Doesn't Heidegger give us a more philoscphically
> nuanced treament of discourse precisely because he starts with the
> everday phenomenon (discourse) rather than with the scientific construct
> (language)?
I think you need to be careful with what you mean by "begin." Heidegger
might begin there, but he does not end up there, nor is this beginning
the foundation for further principles. Having just plowed through a text
in which he rants over everyday speech (which he calls the
"americanization" of language), I'm dubious of any claim that Heidegger
is a philosopher of "everyday discourse."
Chris
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------