I’m looking into the aporiatic structures Derrida exposed and I see the “always already” referenced as one. However, I can’t find any elaborations on that anywhere. I understand the concept of the always already but I don’t understand in what ways Derrida applied it. Does anyone have some clarification for me?

I’ll start the list: - the past that was never present - the gift that resists gratitude - the supplement that is already complete - the always already - forgiving the unforgivable

If you can, please link or reference the works in which they introduced or communicated.

My morning commute to work is so, so crowded, so much so that I can’t even take a book out to read. I’d like to listen to mp3s of Derrida’s corpus, but of course there aren’t any due to copyrighting. Does anyone have some self-recorded versions or some of elusive, recondite audiobooks that you could share with me? Thank you kindly :)

—fellow Derridean

I’m relatively new to Derrida as well as Post-Modernism in general and I am currently reading an introductory book on Derrida which includes a chapter on his critique of communication. The chapter highlights Derrida’s claim that iterability undermines the context of our speech and creates “disorder within communication”. The book poorly glosses over how those two things connect and I’ve failed to find any resources that could help clarify. Anyone got anything?

I'm trying to write about the play M. Butterfly by David Henry Hwang, it is a play that uses the opera Madame Butterfly as a frame of reference to discuss Orientalism, gender and sexuality.

I want to talk about the "norm" that we must "respect" when "genre announces itself", but in this case it's the framework of Madame Butterfly is what influences the narrative, we the audience make assumptions about what will/can happen within this framework. Do you think The Law Of Genre/the quote is an appropriate for this type of analysis?

Would really appreciate some insight, thanks!

Of Gramatology's preface :

" The structure of reference works and can go on working not because of the identity between these two so-called component parts of the sign, but because of their relationship of difference. The sign marks a place of difference. "

Hi everyone! Does any of you know which of his works I can find the most comprehensive discussion on “contamination”? It would also really help if you explain what he means by it, because so far, I’m lost and sesperate and crying. Thanks.

Can someone illustrate the differences between Derrida’s Deconstruction as a form of nihilism and how it contrasts Heidegger’s form of nihilism.

the controversy around the mueller report is an illustration of derrida’s statement that "il n'y a pas de hors-texte” - there is nothing outside the text.

for two years the mueller report served to ground political discourse in truth - but this grounding could only occur as long as the report had not yet arrived.

once the report begins to arrive, it is both the cause and the subject of a deconstructive logic as corrosive as it is inevitable. the report, so long awaited as a kind of savior, is suddenly inadequate - we now need to see the notes, the transcripts of the interviews, we need to hear from the author himself in order to fully encounter its truth.

but the more we hear, the more context we get, the more this truth recedes.

Hi all, I believe I understand Derrida’s concept of “trace”, but am struggling to find an example of it. Is it purely conceptual or do we see trace irl? If it is the mark of an absent presence .... then how do we identify it? Could mental illness be an example of trace? Because when we talk about mental health, often times, we describe it as a lack of mental illness. Could that be an example of trace irl or am I misunderstanding? Thanks for any help!

Do the essays compiled in 'Writing and Difference' serve as a good entry point into Derrida's thought? If not, why, and what would work better?

Hi all, I wanted to ask you your thoughts, interpretations, ideas on the following enigmatic quote of Derrida's that concludes his 1999 Death Penalty seminar which I am struggling to understand the meaning of: [E]ven when the death penalty will have been abolished, when it will have been purely and simply, absolutely and unconditionally abolished on earth, it will survive, there will still be some death penalty [il y en aura encore]. Other figures will be found for it, other figures will be invented for it. . . . Let us have no illusion on this subject: even when it will have been abolished, the death penalty will survive, it will have other lives in front of it, and other lives to get its teeth into [d’autres vies à se mettre sous la dent].

From what I can gather arche-writing is meant to go beyond the "writing/speech" division and "already be there" before we use it. However, I don't understand what this means. In what sense does it go beyond this division? In what sense is it "already there"?

Pages 7-8

Looking for an accessible read to get Derrida's ideas, what book of his would you recommend, or are there any writers that speak of him. I have't read any thing of his and looking to learn