Present Derrida's interpretation of Western metaphysics.

As we all familiar with, one of the most important aproach of derridas philosophy in terms of western metaphysics is to deconstuct it by using particular texts and discurses. As we could understand from its etimology, the term "deconstuction" is to undermine the opositions or is to overturn the hierarchy at a given moment (Positions p.41). In this short essay, will try to emphasise how derridas attempt of deconstruction is linked with philosophical tradition and his interpretation of western metaphysics. Firstly, if we want to understand what derridas obsess about all texts which are constucted around western metaphysics, we have to look his critic about western tradition. For derrida all western culture and metaphysics and history are established on the ground of the idea of logocentrism, means that all western culture and history is a kind of tendecy that "being" (sein) and "truth" (aletheia) are always open to any rational human beings in any time. For saying this derida argues that western metaphysics has a desire for immadiate access to meaning that gorunds on the thought of presence, meanly presence is previliged from absence in western thouhgt. Thus the effort to open to debate of metaphysics of presence in this way is to debate not only all claims of thruth that are established by a humanist paradigm or the idea of there are eternal and everlasting thruths, but also the idea of the presence of meaning in addiion to the relationship with author-text-reader, the modern form of the metaphysics of precense in terms of the idea of subject that posesses of self consioncse with its all historical, culturel, economical and social aspects. Thus the term logo-centrism is an attempt to attact of wetern reasoning that grounds of these ideas that aline above in terms of its logos-previleged position. For derida logos ( coming from ancient greek term means " say", means the word or the act of speach in shifting of word, speech, account, reason ) is epistemologically superior in a system or a structure that we can only know or be in present. Therefore for derida ,in western history of metaphysics, there is an irreducible tendency to establish existence (Sein) as precence or be present in. Thus, derrida puts him self into a tradition which we could counte the names of Nietzsche Heidegger and with some points, the father of phenomenology, Husserl. What derrida shares with this philosophers is to overcome the faults of western metaphsics , like thinking with the idea of center ( as he always think with the idea of the guideing concept, a trancendntal signified, something that expalins the nature of sutructure that the way of in which the thing organized according to some sort of guiding patterns etc... ),

reducing becoming to any kind of being or for him reducing writing to meaning. In order to understand well of this idea we have to look beyond it. At first glance let us remember Nietzsches and his fellover Heideggers point of view. In his ouvre, Nietzsche critises western philosophical tradition by means of reducing becoming to exiztence. After Nietzsche , Heidegger took same mision in order to attact the heart of western philosophy. For Heidegger ,western metaphysics is reduce Being (sein) to existent (seiend) by forgetting of the ontological difference between Being and beeings. Like the founding fathers of this idea Nietzsche, Heidegger and partlially Husserl, Derrida continues this critic on western philosophy with regard to his anyliss of logo centrism. As Hidegger says that ,when he speaks about aristoles concept of time ( Aristotle defined time as "the number of movement in respect of before and after" ), Aristotle is privileging what is present at hand. In that way some sort of mettaphysical thinking , as heidegger calls onteological, is starts up. For heidegger western thought was not ontolological but ontheologcial. It alwsys thought about being rather than the meaning of being.thus for heidegger ontotheolology is the ontology of god or the theology of being which is the common reflex beyond curtain of western thought. Beyond heidegger, derrida calls for this way of thintking the metaphysics of precence. Derrida sees hideggers interpretation on western metephysics, about his critics of ontotheology, as the starting point of his own crittique. For derrida when heidegger ,with Niezsche, was sayying that the western metaphysics reduce sien into seiend, he simply desutructure it. For derrida what heidegger want to do in his ouvre is to desutructure the western metaphysics via overcoming it by seacrhing the meang of being. Yet, as he poseeses the heidegirian background and being indepted of many of his philosophical concepts to heideger, we can not say that derrida aprove heidgger and follow him with blind eyes. Yet as such point of view as we discussed above about heidegerian concept of ontotheology, derrida could be placed in a heidegerian tradition when he traces the way that how we move destructualism to deconstructualism. His aim is to trace or to decontructure of this intention in western metaphysics as heidegger wanted to do before him. For derrida this metaphysical tendency which western metaphysic posseses, is being closed to any kind of future. It is the precence of present but not the future and the question is to become open also to future and present. Derrida says about his useage about the term deconstruction is the reevlutation of the terms of destruction or abbau that heidegger used. For heidegger these terms come to mean that the general sutructure or architecture of western metaphysics and western doctrine about being are

operated. Yet destruction is not demolish or shatter but to remove the sutructurel layers as derrida says. Thus we can easyly link with derridas work with hedidger crituque of western thought. While derrida never gives us of a clear definition of his philosophy of deconstuction, we may say that is always been a kind of phlosoyhy of limit, of verge or a philosophy on the verge. Derrida wants to show us ,via critizise western philosophy with such a way, the imposibilyty of boundries, thier transparenrt nature, its punctured surface with its spotty

, as its founding father husserl and heidegger say,epistemology rather than ontology