Thread by @wokal_distance

This is the philosophical equivalent of a biologist examining every tree, leaf, and branch, and then proclaiming he had not seen a forrest...just some leaves, branches, trunks and seeds.

https://twitter.com/protodoxa/status/1318629096813924353?s=19

This is common :
"that isn't what Derrida meant by trace."

I could talk about how every experience must point beyond itself, or about oresence and absence and differance and meaning is always endlessly differed and all the rest...

Or .....

I could say "this is the bit about what Derrida said that people took and ran with, and here is what they did with it"

I'm not getting bogged down in a discussion of Greman Phenomenology.
I'd read the Crisis of the European sciences if I was.

How Derrida thinks about metaphysics, arche-writing differance and deconstruction is relevant, but is how those things actually got used.

IE: Derrida was asked about deconstruction is Seinfeld and he said "deconstruction, as I understand it, does not produce any sitcom."

But Rorty thought irony and parody were cites of Deconstruction and so deconstruction does prduce sitcoms, amd Seinfeld is one.

How Dereida uses andnunderstand deconstruction, trace, and arche-writing matters...but so does how it was used.

And because Derrida was wrong...

We need to look at what the effects of that were.