Abstract:
Can the meaning of the name “deconstruction” be adequately shown? Can the notion of “name-correcting” be deconstructed? What would happen to the essay bearing a title in which “deconstruction” and “name-correcting” compete against each other without yeilding? Can such a discourse even begin? Will the ideal “simple beginning” still be possible? This essay is an enactment of these very questions. Step by step, it illustrates the necessity of giving meaning to the name “deconstruction” even though it cannot be adequately shown. It also illustrates the necessity for deconstruction to occur even though “name-correcting” is indispensible. The essay leads to an inconclusive conclusion: eventually, both deconstruction and name-correcting will move toward each other: in their response to the other, and in their responsibility toward the other. Always, the other will demand deconstruction, it will demand name-correcting, and legitimacy. Facing the other, that which desires to maintain its self-identical identity is deconstructible, should be deconstructed and is already being deconstructed. Likewise, that which desires to maintain its self-identical identity can be subjected to name correction, should be corrected, and is already being corrected by the other.
Keywords:
Deconstruction; correcting the name/the correct name; governance/government/the political/politics; Derrida; Confucius
Full Text (International Version):
Full Text (Simplified Chinese Version):
