Tracing Dao: A comparison of Dao 道 in the Daoist classics and Derridean “Trace”
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...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2020
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research/3118 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/soss_research/article/4375/viewcontent/Tracing_Dao_sv.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | 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.” |
|---|