Abstract

In the era of scienticism, the objectivity and truthness of knowledge seems self-explantory. Derrida, as a post modern deconstruction master, began his deconstruction with questioning the ontology of objective knowledge.. His thought of deconstruction contains profound view about truth, science, and technology which are very different from those in traditional metaphysics of presence. .

While agreeing with Husserl and Saussure who transcend traditional metaphysics, Derrida criticized their lack of thoroughness. Husserl made an essential distinction between expression (Ausruck) and indication (Anzeichen), which are two signs. The former is the sign of an abundance of meaning, and the latter is the sign of the lack of meaning. From the essence of the general sign of differentiation, and the repetition of non-self within the time consciousness impression and retention, perception and representation of the intertwined, Derrida pointed out that Ausruck and Anzeichen are always intertwined, and there is no pure Ausruck, therefore meaning or truth  is the effect of sign’s différance. Contraposing husserl’s view of recalling (rükfrage) the generation of concept object of geometry through reducing ordinary language to single meaning language, Derrida pointed out that single meaning language is impossible. So far as he was concerned, language is the root of the inheritance and forgottenness of truth, therefore, the recalling of the generation of objective knowledge is always in delay.

From the two characteristics of sign — randomicity and difference, Saussure points out that the combination of signifier and signified is by random. But when he studied the static, synchronical system of sign, he undesignedly set a priori presence, namely, a priori truth before sign. Thoroughly putting the characteristics of randomicity and difference principle into effect, Derrida argued sign is a infinite continuation of the chain of substitute of signifier, an endless game of difference. Through the deconstruction of phenomenology and structuralism, Derrida overthrew the view that there is a priori truth before sign appearing. In a sense, he is not an enemy and opponent of truth, but a constantly questioner of truth.

As the traditional metaphysics presuppose a priori truth, scientific knowledge become representation of truth and scientific activities are those pursuing a priori truth. Concerning good words which express truth directly and bad words which doesn’t express truth directly, "good words" metaphor has influenced people from theologians in medieval until contemporary scientific researchers. However, Derrida pointed out that, as the presence of certainty must be based on the present, and present itself only be understood through the trace of sign and différance, the scientific knowledge system which concerns "what is …" only be understood through the dual movement of difference in space and delay in time. Science is neither "good words," nor representation of truth in identity logic, but the archi-writing in the movement of différance, and a way of people involving in the world. As a result, there is no absolute truth in science, and every conclusion is confronted with effacing itself and opening up new possibilities when it becomes a conclusion. Derrida’s view of science benefits to eliminate all kinds of scientism currently, especially the excessively pursuing scientificity in humanities and social sciences.

Through rethinking writing, Derrida criticized the attempt of returning to the era of the presence of truth, self-regression of human being, and perfect state of morality through belittling the technology of writing. Since Plato, because of the traditional phonocentricism, voice is close to logos infinitely, whereas writing, as the supplement of voice, the intermediary of intermediary, the signifier of signifier, is out of logos. Because the presupposition of voice as the presence of logos, significance, being, and truth, the history of writing is a humiliated history. Through the deconstruction of  Claude Levi-Strauss, Rousseau, Derrida pointed out that, archi-writing, characterized by externality embedding in internality, following a new logic of supplement, is more original and more fundamental than voice, as voice has have the otherness characteristic of writing long ago. In Derrida’s sense, archi-writing is trace, différance, and every human activity that produce significance. The original power of activity is the root of both progress and degeneration. Through correcting the status of writing, Derrida actually overthrew all nature-culture (technology) contradictory. He points out that human beings are always beings of technology and there no boundary between pre- technology era and technology era, because of human beings’ primal defects. Therefore, we never could turn back to a innocence era. Derrida's view of technology elevated technology to the height of the nature of man, from the angle of human's original defects. He transcended the optimism and pessimism of technology, both of which are based on presence metaphysics.

In spite of all the benefits, Derrida's deconstruction can’t prove itself. First of all, deconstruction can’t be consistent all the time, and there is contradiction between certainty and uncertainty. If there is a deconstruction theory, Derrida can't tell exactly what this theory is. If there is no deconstruction theory, we can’t understand what Derrida says in his works. On one hand, He said that différance, archi-writing, deconstruction are not concept; on the other hand, he accused others’ misunderstanding of him, which means that he set definite meanings for différance, archi-writing, deconstruction. He highlighted uncertainty excessively, to the extent that he neglected certainty. Furthermore, because of the predicament of deconstruction, his applying of deconstruction is often trapped in overexertion and hypercorrection. His deconstruction goes against identity logic and praises highly supplement logic. As a result, the interweaving of defense and discovery in scientific activities will orient to opposing pure defense. According his deconstruction, there is no certainty in scientific activities, and all are literature, metaphor, endless sign game. He seemingly transcended the technology optimism and pessimism of instrumentalism, but he essentially is a technology optimist to some extent, because of his excessive emphasis on change and uncertainty. Like most postmodernists, he involved himself in the carnival of technology.

Instead of choosing to use never stopping deconstruction without any law to treat human activities (including the activities of science and technology), we should choose assessing. For sure, assessing affirms something, and then criticizes it. Opposite to Derrida’s deconstruction of lost in the infinite différance game, assessing insists on the dialectical unitarity of changeness and unchangeness, certainty and uncertainty, and open up a new hope on the solid land.

Key words: deconstruction; différance; archi-writing; truth; dilemma