Publication Type
Journal Article
Version
submittedVersion
Publication Date
1-2020
Abstract
This paper attempts to draw a comparison between Derrida’s idea of “trace” (in connection to his more famous ideas of différance, supplement, and deconstruction) and the idea of dao in classical Daoism (Laozi and Zhuangzi). I explore the viability of applying Derrida’s thoughts with regard to “trace” to Daoism. It is argued that if dao is read in a non-metaphysical way, then the Derridean idea of “trace” will show large overlaps with dao. I then try to show how, despite some obvious differences, a “trace” reading of dao enables a clearer understanding of dao that would see it not as a metaphysical principle, ineffable but transcendent nonetheless, but rather as an immanent working of the patterned processes that make up both the natural and human world. I also argue that the notion of trace in classical Daoism (ji 跡, literally footprints) or other characters denoting trace, are most often used in a more traditional way (as pointing to a lost presence) and hence are not useful for understanding what Derrida means with his notion of “trace.”
Keywords
Derrida, Trace, Daoism, non-metaphysical, transformation
Discipline
East Asian Languages and Societies | Philosophy
Research Areas
Humanities
Publication
Comparative and Continental Philosophy
Volume
12
Issue
1
First Page
53
Last Page
65
ISSN
1757-0638
Identifier
10.1080/17570638.2020.1710032
Publisher
Equinox Publishing
Citation
BURIK, Steven.(2020). Tracing Dao: A comparison of Dao 道 in the Daoist classics and Derridean “Trace”. Comparative and Continental Philosophy, 12(1), 53-65.
Available at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research/3118
Copyright Owner and License
Authors
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 International License.
Additional URL
https://doi.org/10.1080/17570638.2020.1710032