Derrida's Différance
From monstrouspossibility
Derrida's Différance grapples with the question of whether there are insoluble material entities that embody autonomous essence. Derrida argues that objects are defined not by their inherent virtue of being, but in their differential relationship to other objects. Différance suggests that "things" can only exist in the context of other things. Meaning is forver indebted or deferred to various signifiers that allow for comprehension of the entity. Only through the deference of signifiers can things exist, for they cannot conjure themselves in totality. The meaning of a thing is illuminated within the space between interiority of thought and the exteriority of the sign. When meaning is deferred through the supplemental relation of other signifiers, the thing is inevitably subject to being posited within a binary. These polar entities prevent meaning from surfacing as their counterpart neutralizes the others' essence and in which both are stripped of their significance. Derrida has rendered meaning impossible as it lacks the potential to be acutalized in the referential framework of reality. The essence of any entity does not exist in itself but is reliant and composed of other parts. Difference is not palpable and cannot be materialized. No essential quality thrives outside of itself but is only a mere extension of a network of relative knowledge.
[edit] Questions
What does it mean for "meaning to be impossible"?
What's the relationship between Derrida's différance and Saussure's concept of the sign? How does Derrida's concept push thinking about meaning toward greater instability?
Clarify the function of "supplements" as an aspect of linguistic meaning.
How do the binaries dissolve essence? Was the essence there until the binary became present?
Is the essence a real possibility (is this Platonic?) or do the binaries produce the illusion of lost essences?
What are some useful critiques of Derrida & différence?
Is this a practical theory in any way — how is it "used"?
