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

Copyright Owner and License

Authors

Additional URL

https://doi.org/10.1080/17570638.2020.1710032

Share

COinS