writing

Focusing on Heidegger's and Derrida's interpretations of Plato, this paper highlights a line of interpretation in which Plato is seen as the origin of a philosophical understanding that dismisses the hidden aspect of Being and truth. Against this line, Foucault's interpretation of Plato and Greek philosophical practices is elaborated. Considering this interpretation, it becomes clear that we are dealing with two distinct descriptions of Greek philosophical practices and their relation to the rise of modernity: one that views modernity as an extension of the deepest meanings embedded in Greek metaphysics and another that interprets the foundations of modern philosophy in opposition to the basis of Platonic thought, seeing Plato and the ancient philosophical approaches influenced by him as an avenue for resisting modern domination. Although Foucault's project on the art of living owes much to Heidegger's ideas about care of the self and the work of art, it allows Foucault to offer a different interpretation of Plato. We show the methodological considerations that enable Foucault to present this distinct interpretation. To achieve such an interpretation, Foucault focuses on the practices of writing, logos, and truth as parrhesia in Plato's thought and Greek philosophy. Following Foucault's path, we offer an analysis of forms, Agathon, and dialogue that emphasizes their living, engaging, aesthetic, and political aspects. This conceptual and methodological toolkit helps us to introduce and develop an alternative interpretive line of Plato's thought.

Language, the most important tool for communication among human beings is generally used in spoken and written form. Speech and writing have different features to convey a meaning; we intend to define these features and find out, generally in philosophy, what kind of priority speech and writing might have had. we are going to review the status of speech-writing and their characteristics in conveying meaning, in certain modern and contemporary thinkers. since Plato was the initiator of Logocentrism, firstly we are going to discuss the characteristics of speech and writing from his point of view. Then we discuss the matter in Rousseau, Saussure and Halliday; they, assigned a higher status to speech. After that we will discuss Derrida’s point of view; by his theory the metaphysics of presence, Derrida criticized logocentrism and by his deconstruction method he took step into the decentralization path. He disproved priority in dualities like speech-writing.

The age of the sign is essentially theological. The system that is based on a basic concept, a concept that shapes the circulation of signs, is essentially theological. This central concept has named in each thought differently: the reality, essence, existence, truth, God, Logos, Nous, End etc. In This logocentric system(s), there is a transcendental signified that means and proves the chain of signification. Deconstructive reading of Derrida showed that there is no signified outside of the chain of signification that makes language to have bound. This revolutionary idea collapses hierarchical significative oppositions, and thus makes signifiers to be rank and homologous.
By erasing the oppositions of signifiers, it is nonsense to talk about death of God; there is no death, and no life. Were always in the middle of an eternal play. Word (Logos), yet constantly erased and written and rewritten. A/theology is the absurdity of this claims that theology has terminated; a new a/system for those who lives in borders.

This article tries to show how the philosophy of difference comes out of the dialectical philosophy at the time of "writing" when Bataille's reading of Hegel comes complete with some Derridean meditations. The importance of the move from dialectic to difference is realized well when serious critics of Hegel, such as Michel Foucault, assert the difficulties of releasing ourselves of the dialectical thinking. Bringing in the concepts of negation and death to the philosophical discourse has given Hegel an outstanding place in the history of philosophy. These crucial issues could even attract the contemporary critical thinkers. Even though Hegel's treatment of negation and death is considered as the distinct merit of his thought, his approach in this regard has provoked some severe criticisms. Both Hegel and Derrida aim at "affirmation" in their encounter with the negation, however, it seems that in attaining affirmative thinking, Hegel could not remain faithful to his own insight regarding the significance of negation and death. Bataille and Derrida are not satisfied with Hegelian determinate negation at all. That is why they seek another kind of affirmation. Taking some of Hegelian achievements much seriously, which leads to Hegelianism without reserve according to Derrida, can provide us with a new mode of thinking which is non-dialectical. Referring to the Derridean description of Hegel as "the last philosopher of the book and the first thinker of the writing", we start our article and then try to show what it is meant by Hegelianism without reserve in details. We demonstrate how Hegelianism without reserve is accomplished through placing Nietzsche at the hub of dialectic. Inspired by Nietzsche, Bataille challenges Hegelian tragedy, seriousness, systematic thinking and conceptualization with comedy, play, chance and poetry or myth in his encounter with death and negativity. However, Bataille has faced some problems in accomplishing his non-dialectical project. Indeed, it is difficult to criticize conceptual thinking without conceptualization. Derrida's reorganization of Bataille's reading of Hegel according to his conception of writing and difference can overcome the problems of Bataille's approach to Hegel and pave the way for the move from dialectic to difference. Derrida's difference is an influential attempt in overcoming dialectic and introducing a non-dialectical mode of thinking that eventually breaks with Hegelian dialectic.

Derrida wants to challenge western’s philosophical basis by deconstruction method, althouth the deconstruction does not mean concrete and not an independent entity. In Derrida's words, it is like a dead virus with the host body that is in motion. He believes foundations of western’s thought is based on double concepts, so that always rely on concept of presence; decent, honest, good, man, speech.... the deep bond with each other, means the central figure of the Logos sweep paradigm. One of this double and powerful concepts is speech /writing that speech, on Derrida‘s viewpoint, dominate writing. Derrida’s works are stage that writing wants to speak. But Nasir Khosrow has seen relation of writing and speech with epistemological perspective. He believes that speech and writing are the successive and necessary of knowledge process. He notes that speech and writing connect together with dialectical way.