这个时代最有想象力的哲学家——德里达

J.德里达是他所在的这个时代最富有想象力的哲学家.他的自信和知识分子的勇气使他能做真正原创性的工作.人们记住德里达不是因为他发明了解构的方法,而是因为他使人们的想象力获得了解放.     

The Gift of Memory

Based on a talk given in London at a Pax Christi mdemnce on 3 September 1989 marking the 50th annivematy of the outbreak of World War II.     

Moore,Ian Alexander: Eckhart,Heidegger, and the Imperative of Releasement

Continental Philosophy Review - In Eckhart, Heidegger, and the Imperative of Releasement, Ian Alexander Moore investigates Martin Heidegger’s use of releasement (Gelassenheit). Moore argues...     

Forgiveness,the Gift,and Ecclesiology

Abstract: This article responds to the work of George Lindbeck and John Milbank while putting forth a new position on the theology of gift and forgiveness. Saarinen constructs a rudimentary theological anthropology, focusing on God and human beings as givers. As an example of applying this “giver‐oriented perspective” he outlines a fourfold typology of forgiveness as (1) negative giving, forgetting; (2) negative and positive giving, forgetting; (3) negative giving, forgetting and remembering; (4) negative and positive giving, forgetting and remembering.     

Dialogue,Pluralism, and Change: The Intertextual Constitution of Bakhtin,Kristeva, and Derrida

In this article I show how the concept of intertextuality as developed by Mikhail Bakhtin, Julia Kristeva and Jacques Derrida can be applied to the political theory of constitutionalism. Such an approach carries with it the valuable democratic idea that all texts in society, including the political constitution, are in a dynamic relationship and reflect social pluralism. By analyzing and comparing intertextual theories, I develop the idea of the constitution as an open and emancipatory interpretative and textual category. I show how intertextual theorizing contributes significantly to the democratization of a modern liberal constitutional order, offering distinct strategies for progressive political and social transformation.     

Differentiating Derrida and Deleuze

Repetition plays a significant, productive role in the work of both Derrida and Deleuze. But the difference between these two philosophers couldn't be greater: it is the difference between negation and affirmation, between Yes and No. In Derrida, the productive energy of repetition derives from negation, from the necessary impossibility of supplementing an absence. Deleuze recognizes the kind of repetition which concerns Derrida, but insists that there is another, primary form of repetition which is fully positive and affirmative. I will argue that there is nothing in Derrida's philosophy to match the affirmative, primary form of repetition articulated by Deleuze. Moreover, it is precisely this difference that accounts for the most exciting features of Deleuze's work: the possibility of breaking through to the other side of representation, beyond authenticity and inauthenticity, becoming-becoming.     

虚无主义、语言和创造性：尼采与德里达的界限

尼采和德里达对虚无主义危机做出了不同的回应.这是因为作为主体解读活动及其结果,虚无主义危机本身表现出两可性:一方面,形而上学的真理意志已经演变为一种桎梏,带来了虚无主义的虚无化或人类创造性和历史的终结;另一方面,危机也构成主体走出形而上学的条件.德里达更注重对前者进行否定性批判,揭开了形而上学追求超验真理所带的虚无性,或追问本源所掩盖的本源缺失.尼采开启了这种批判,不过他更渴望逆转这种潮流,进行更具建设性的重构,而不只是把主体抛在丧失了意义的空场上.其目的是脱离消极的虚无主义,复兴各种冲动在主体创造性中的作用.     

Derrida and Education Today

Studies in Philosophy and Education -     

Derrida on teaching: The economy of erasure

This article explores Derrida's claim that teaching is a deconstructive process. In order to explore this claim, the Derridean concept of "erasure" is explored. Using the concept of erasure, this article examines two important aspects of teaching: the name that teachers establish for themselves, and, teaching against social power from a Derridean (erasure-oriented) perspective. Ultimately, the paper confirms Derrida's claim that teaching is indeed a deconstructive practice.

Naming the Unnameable God: Levinas, Derrida, and Marion

In this essay I present the postmodern phenomenological approach of Levinas, Derrida, and Marion to the problem of naming the unnameable God. For Levinas, God is never experienced directly but only as a third person whose infinity is testified to in the infinity of responsibility to the hungry. For Derrida, God remains the unnameable “wholly other” accessible only as the indeterminate term of pure reference in prayer. For Marion, God remains the object of “de-nomination” through praise. In all three, the problem of naming the unnameable God is necessarily linked to how we relate to fellow human beings, to the hungry in Levinas, justice in Derrida, and charity in Marion. I also reflect on the merits and adequacy of phenomenology as such for speaking of divine transcendence.