Sgt. Pepper, Derrida

I'm not positive that "Differance" is the article Dr. Casey warned us about, but if not, then I'm terrified for the rest of the semester. I found Derrida's "Differance" to be a very difficult read, but I think I was able to catch a few points he was trying to make. First of all, Derrida's notions on language, specifically on words, reminded me a lot of some of the other authors we've studied. The basic structure of Derrida's text is him dissecting the word 'differance,' which is a term that he coined to explain a few theories of his on writing and speech. In Derrida's analysis of the word 'differance,' one conclusion he reaches is that writing and speech are equally important. He also points out that his word 'differance' is not, or it's nonexistent. His definition of the word 'differance' comes from two root words: first is differ, which signifies non-identity, and second is the -ance part of the word, which refers to something between active and passive. One of the points he tries to make with his idea of 'differance' is to show that the presence of a word's meaning isn't there in speech. Rather, we rely on an authoritative power to make up for its lack of spoken meaning, which brings me to another concept. A word cannot simply mean what it means. To reach the meaning of a word one must consider everything it does not mean. This directly connects to another author we've studied (who Derrida even mentions in his article) named de Saussure. de Saussure also follows the idea that in language, there are only differences (that might even be a direct quote). Both authors would agree that to find the true meaning of a word, or concept, the only way to reach an answer is to narrow it down. To first consider everything it does not mean.