I Speak Only One Language, And It

All Sentences Of The Type 'deconstruction Is X' Or 'deconstruction Is Not X', A Priori Miss The Point, Which Is To Say That They Are At Least False. As You Know, One Of The Principal Things At Stake In What Is Called In My Texts 'deconstruction', Is Precisely The Delimiting Of Ontology And Above All Of The Third-person Present Indicative: S Is P.

Such A Caring For Death, An Awakening That Keeps Vigil Over Death, A Conscience That Looks Death In The Face, Is Another Name For Freedom.

I Do Not Believe In Pure Idioms. I Think There Is Naturally A Desire, For Whoever Speaks Or Writes, To Sign In An Idiomatic, Irreplaceable Manner.

In Philosophy, You Have To Reckon With The Implicit Level Of An Accumulated Reserve, And Thus With A Very Great Number Of Relays, With The Shared Responsibility Of These Relays.

The Only Attitude (the Only Politics--judicial, Medical, Pedagogical And So Forth) I Would Absolutely Condemn Is One Which, Directly Or Indirectly, Cuts Off The Possibility Of An Essentially Interminable Questioning, That Is, An Effective And Thus Transforming Questioning.