Understanding Derrida's Approach To Truth

WHEN PHILOSOPHER JACQUES DERRIDA DIED IN PARIS at the age of 74 last year, French President Chirac said "France has given the world one of its greatest contemporary philosophers, one of the major figures of intellectual life of our time." On this side of the Atlantic, Time magazine called Derrida "an intellectual demigod" whose influence on Western thought had been "immeasurable." Here in this article, I am trying to see him from a different angle. There is no denying that Derrida contributed in every sphere of intellectual meditation whether it was philosophy, religion or literature.

His theory of deconstruction became very popular, and viewed as a tool for interpretation and criticism. His contribution to literary criticism is critical; he raised it to the philosophical heights. Like his predecessors, he too read every philosopher of his tradition with his deep penetrating intelligence. He followed a systematic approach in his readings and writings, which was his own invention. In hi s philosophical writings he asked questions differently, even he questions the very questions from the outset. He says philosophers never asked questions. In his book writing and difference he says, “The question is already enclosed, it never appears immediately as such, but only through the hermetism of a proposition in which the answer has already begun to determine the question”.

Being a postmodern philosopher he never thought in the term of enlightenment which never transcended Greek way of thinking-philosophy as science, as conceived by modernists. On this ground Derrida owed much to Nietzsche and Heidegger, like both philosophers he too raised questions, searched questions-about truth, knowledge, meaning and representation. In the search of a right question, since he believed that for an answer there should be right question; was he able to ask a right question regarding truth? And did he provide any answer to those questions; still this has to be searched in Derrida’s philosophy. In the search of meaning albeit true meaning, since he considers that all experience is the experience of meaning, meaning is phenomenality of the phenomenon; did he arrive any where?

Contemporary postmodern philosophers like Derrida, Lyotard, and Deluge have contemplated mainly over the true meaning of the phenomena, questioned the modernist concept of truth, reason, and values. They have not spared any modern philosopher even they attacked on the truth of science. They call modern philosophers architects since their goal was invention of concept, a way of thinking that entails some idea of progress, enlightenment etc. These postmodernists demolished all hitherto modern cogito, but isn’t it true that they too were meditating on the same line and length? But since here I will not go to find answers of above questions rather well focus my self to find an answer of this question – what they found in their search for a meaning? Especially what Derrida found? Did he found an authentic meaning of life? Or did he found an aut hentic experience in philosophy? Far he questioned the very authenticity of truths of modern philosophers in his writings. In his writing entire history of European philosophy turned out to have been, through conceptual apparatus, which he deconstructed and stood behind those philosophers who were intuitive in their approach. But this lure to intuitive approach to philosophy and literature underlies pragmatist concept of presence.

Truth, meaning and experience are no longer at the level of eternal but from the point of ‘to be’. He agrees on what Levinas have said, ‘the being who aspires to truth is radically separated from being’. Which is why he wrote and commented on philosophers and literary geniuses like Emmannuel Levinas, Maurice Blanchot, Edmond Jobes and Artud etc. profoundly and heartedly? Derrida agrees with all these three philosophers as for as approach to the truth is concerned and in return they agree with Derrida. These three have written profoundly on each other’s writings. Derrida have c onfessed in his adieu to Levinas that friendship between Maurice Blanchot and Emmanuel Levinas was a grace, a gift; it is a benediction, a good fortune. Now this question arises that despite of different meditations they took in their works what unites them? All the three philosopher-writers deconstructed Cartesian wisdom to reach the meaning of truth, all the three are seemed as though they are in essence theologians. Levinas in his search for a language which communicates with truth became a religious man. Blanchot too have turned his face towards the death, towards nothingness.

Where Derrida took himself? He too was a firm believer in the philosophy of intuition, near to the philosophy of heart. He wrote two kinds of texts one in which he is hardcore interpreter and analyzer and another one in which he is some what poetical. Especially when he writes on Levinas or Blanchot, he is very poetical as though he had found his own thing of interest. In fact, Derrida’s intuitive mind finds its natural other in those poets and philosophers who are intuitive in their approach to truth. Those who don’t believe in phenomenology of mind are his friends; why not? Above all they have known the essence of phenomena-that thought reaches no where. When thought breaks with language only then language of truth is grasped. They have abandoned the classical notion of thought and language, and placed language in the realm of mystical. It’s not amazing that Derrida finds himself in mystic philosophers and poets, who believed that possibility of metaphysics is the possibility of language; that language which is a sacred movement in silence, a holy discourse which is ultimate in itself.

Language is raised up to the level of experience; Levinas says that only discourse is righteous. Isn’t it like philosophy of Bhakti? See what Bhakti Acharya Narada says, “ PHALARUPATVAT” ‘Bhakti (as discourse in god) is an end in itself’. This is the highest experience of the ultimate mystery realizing which Narada says; man becomes intoxica ted and fascinated, as it were, because he completely immersed in the enjoyment of the bliss of the Atman. This experience of truth is beyond the reach of language, it defies analysis, definition and descriptions. It is like the experience of joy which a dumb man has when he tests something sweet. This highest discourse in truth causes one to exist as a complete human being. Man is a man only through the discourse in truth not of truth.

As far as my own readings goes, I can say for certain that Derrida reached there where Indian metaphysicians reached thousand years back; in the realm of language which says nothing only indicates mystically. His all kinds of readings and writings revolve around the language of truth or truth of language. What is the truth of language or language of truth in Derridian sense of the word? It is poetry; not of this world but of other world, but also not about other world; it a book about nothing. In his book ‘writing and difference’ he says when this poetry is born? ‘The po int at which other is found’ Thus Truth and poetry is simultaneously born.

Although in Derrida’s philosophy truth is no other than poetry or language itself. Which is why poetry is prophetical, it is of the truth. To write poetry is to philosophies and to philosophies is the great event happens to anyone. It’s a creation, a pure point of wonder. When poetry captures the truth it becomes prophetical speech, it’s no more literature as such. When we read Nietzsche the father of postmodernism, we see him reaching gradually to the point of prophetical speech in Zarathustra. He too was contemplating on the philosophy- the highest poetry to join the infinite. In his quest for a sublime language he took risks, gone mad, rebelled, deconstructed the lies of transcendence and reached upon immanence what he called eternal return. In the search of truth Nietzsche took a theological turn for which he deconstructed all existing moral values. On the other hand Derrida’s contemplations reveal the truths of philosophies and arts but do not give us pleasure and joy of writing. If we read his master pieces we can easily recognize a mind engrossed mostly in play of words as though in words lay the key to poeticizing.