O dekonstrukcji

From general assumptions concerning the method of reading the text, a series of detailed implications, important both for philosophy and for social, and political reality are drawn by Derrida. One of the binary oppositions, which Derrida submits to deconstruction, is the opposition between literalism and a metaphor. Also, that opposition, according to the French thinker, after a closer examination turns out to be a myth. According to popular belief, the literal meaning of the expression takes precedence over all metaphorical use in the sense that it is the foundation upon which the metaphorical use is built. From this point of view, a metaphor is supposed to be at most an addition and an ornament, and if it is supposed to be used in philosophy, it is only in exceptional circumstances, and to facilitate the understanding of the content that the philosopher tries to explain in any way possible in a language devoid of metaphors. In accordance with the assumptions of deconstruction, Derrida reverses this order and the concept, traditionally considered subservient to its opposition, puts in the first place. First of all, he notices that a metaphor does not belong to the language of philosophy, but to the colloquial language. We could expect that in order to understand the meaning of a metaphor in a philosophical text, we should translate it into a natural language in which we will be able to discover its literal meaning. Derrida believes that the process of reaching that literality we can admittedly begin, i.e., for any philosophical metaphor we can indicate some other term that comes off as literal, however, the term, after a closer analysis, also turns out to be a metaphor for which we need to find another expression that comes off as literal, etc. The difference between a philosophical metaphor and a natural expression comes down to the superficial impression of literalness, while, as a matter of fact, the natural expressions turn out to be old, “worn-out”, as Derrida expresses, metaphors.