Darin Tenev<\/strong><\/p>\n Sofia University \u201cSt. Kliment Ohridski\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n https:\/\/doi.org\/10.53656\/phil2025-02-01<\/a><\/p>\n SEE MORE<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n H\u00e9ctor G. Casta\u00f1o<\/strong><\/p>\n National Sun Yat-sen University (Taiwan)<\/em><\/p>\n https:\/\/doi.org\/10.53656\/phil2025-02-02<\/a><\/p>\n Abstract. <\/strong>For over 40 years, numerous scholars have engaged in comparing the philosophies of Zhuangzi and Derrida. These comparisons can either bring the two thinkers closer together or set them apart, depending on how the authors assess four key aspects: the central concepts employed by Derrida and Zhuangzi, their relationship to metaphysics, their writing styles, and the practical and therapeutic implications of their philosophies. A meta-analysis of these comparative efforts uncovers shared yet often unexamined assumptions that underpin the various comparisons. The repetition of these assumptions contributes to the consolidation of a set of fixed ideas regarding what connects and distinguishes Zhuangzi and Derrida, including their association with cultural identities shaped by philosophical nationalism. By reflecting on the insights of both Zhuangzi and Derrida regarding the processes of institutionalization within philosophy, this article argues that they both anticipated the deconstruction of the assumptions under which they have been compared.<\/p>\n Keywords<\/em>: comparative philosophy; philosophical nationalism; philosophical institutions; deconstruction; Taoism<\/p>\n SEE MORE<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Severina Stankeva<\/strong><\/p>\n Sofia University St. Kliment Ohridski <\/em><\/p>\n https:\/\/doi.org\/10.53656\/phil2025-02-03<\/a><\/p>\n Abstract. <\/strong>In his essay „<\/em>Plato\u2019s Doctrine of Truth,“<\/em> Heidegger posits that a thinker\u2019s doctrine resides not in their explicit articulations but in what remains unsaid within the said, in the gaps and interstices of their thought. This paper examines the question of Heidegger\u2019s own doctrine through a Derridean lens, with particular attention to \u201cSending: On Representation.\u201d It argues that Heidegger\u2019s philosophy, through its various turns, remains underpinned by the conception of Being as transcending signification, which cannot be but a representational mode of thinking even if truth (\u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1) is thought of as unhiddeness. As a result, Heidegger\u2019s doctrine emerges, paradoxically, as the very concept of doctrine \u2013 a recursive matrix mirroring his critique of metaphysics.<\/p>\n Keywords:<\/em> Heidegger; Derrida; doctrine; truth;<\/p>\n SEE MORE<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Yuji Nishiyama<\/strong><\/p>\n Tokyo Metropolitan University<\/em><\/p>\n https:\/\/doi.org\/10.53656\/phil2025-02-04<\/a><\/p>\n Abstract<\/strong>: Secrecy is essential to human life, shaping personal identity and social bonds. It enables individuals to protect their inner lives and fosters intimacy and community through selective sharing. Secrecy involves ethical and political judgment, requiring decisions about what to conceal or disclose, when, and to whom. In Jacques Derrida\u2019s deconstructive philosophy, secrecy is deeply tied to responsibility. His late seminars, especially\u00a0Respond to Secrecy, explore secrecy across various domains and highlight its critical role in literature and ethics. This paper analyzes the importance of secrecy within Derrida\u2019s thought, focusing on responsibility and key works like\u00a0Passions, The Gift of Death, and\u00a0Respond to Secrecy.<\/p>\n Keywords<\/em>: Jacques Derrida; deconstruction; secrecy; responsibility<\/p>\n SEE MORE<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Darin Tenev<\/strong><\/p>\n Sofia University St. Kliment Ohridski\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n https:\/\/doi.org\/10.53656\/phil2025-02-05<\/a><\/p>\n Abstract<\/strong> The article offers a reconstruction of Derrida\u2019s concept of phantasm with a stress on the discussion of the phantasm in Glas <\/em>(1974) and his final seminar (2002 \u2013 2003). I argue that the main characteristic of the phantasm is that it is placed on both sides of a border or a frontier. In this, it produces the believe that one can stand on both sides of a divide while remaining on one of them. In this way, phantasm becomes a phantasm of power, an illusion for pure auto-affectivity. Yet, the phantasm also disrupts the illusion of mastery and opens the way to the other in an unpredictable manner, becoming an event that cannot be simply opposed to reality or truth.<\/p>\n Keywords<\/em>: Derrida; phantasm; life; death; child<\/p>\n SEE MORE<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Johan de Jong<\/strong><\/p>\n Leiden University, The Netherlands<\/em><\/p>\n https:\/\/doi.org\/10.53656\/phil2025-02-06<\/a><\/p>\n Abstract. <\/strong>In accounts of deconstruction\u2019s concern with responsibility, what is often overlooked is its commitment to specific forms of irresponsibility as not just unavoidable but necessary. This article traces that necessity, through a reading of Derrida\u2019s \u201cPassions: \u2018An Oblique Offering\u2019\u201d, in the logics governing invitation, hospitality, and literature, and how this irresponsibility is expressed performatively in the \u201coblique\u201d character of Derrida\u2019s textual experimentation. I argue for this irresponsibility as not destructively opposed to responsibility but as part and parcel of deconstruction\u2019s ethical commitment. This irresponsibility distinguishes deconstructive ethics not just from the relativism long ascribed to \u2018postmodernism\u2019, but also from an ethics of responsibility of a Levinasian type. Finally, I argue for this commitment to irresponsibility against contemporary criticisms that deem deconstruction symptomatic of a 1990\u2019s-style ironizing that one supposedly can no longer afford, given the challenges of today.<\/p>\n Keywords:<\/em> Derrida; Irresponsibility; Responsibility; Deconstruction; Commitment<\/p>\n SEE MORE<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Yusuke Miyazaki <\/strong><\/p>\n Senshu University, Japan<\/em><\/p>\n https:\/\/doi.org\/10.53656\/phil2025-02-07<\/a><\/p>\n Abstract<\/strong>. <\/strong>This paper reexamines the complex relationship between Jacques Derrida and Paul de Man by focusing on their divergent approaches to deconstruction, particularly through readings of Rousseau\u2019s Confessions<\/em>. While de Man emphasizes a \u201cphilological\u201d mode of reading grounded in the text\u2019s self-deconstructive structure, Derrida interrogates the epistemological and performative distinctions underpinning de Man\u2019s approach. By analyzing Derrida\u2019s misreading of de Man\u2019s modulation between confessional modes, the paper clarifies the implications of de Man\u2019s claim regarding the undecidability between excuse and truth-statement. It concludes that de Man\u2019s \u201cthinking of the law\u201d makes a decisive contribution to the ethico-political trajectory of Derrida\u2019s deconstruction in his later works.<\/p>\n Keywords:<\/em> Derrida; Paul de Man; deconstruction; Rousseau; excuse; blindness of reading<\/p>\n SEE MORE<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Miglena Nikolchina<\/strong><\/p>\n Sofia University \u201cSt. Kliment Ohridski\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n https:\/\/doi.org\/10.53656\/phil2025-02-08<\/a><\/p>\n Abstract<\/strong>. Jacques Derrida\u2019s influential essay \u201cDissemination\u201d (1969) offers a detailed commentary and subtle response to Philippe Sollers\u2019 novel Numbers<\/em> (1968), which he calls a \u201ctextual machine.\u201d Elaborating some of her most fascinating concepts, Julia Kristeva\u2019s essay on Numbers<\/em> \u201cEngendering the Formula\u201d appears almost simultaneously with Derrida\u2019s text. In terms of dialogical contiguities but also in terms of irreducible specificities, this unique crossing of perspectives is indicative of the 1960s intellectual efforts to surmount the technocratic pressures on the humanities. Addressing the novel and the essays as an \u201censemble\u201d \u2013 as different replays of a quasi \u201cvideo game\u201d \u2013 the present study foregrounds the performative aspects of the three authors\u2019 formidable artistic and theoretical encounter. Their employment of quotation, numerology and levels of meaning are approached through their intertextual play with each other as well as, among other things, Dante\u2019s work, Kabbalah<\/em>, and I ching, <\/em>the Chinese Book of Changes<\/em>. In the face of the unprecedented flattening and automatization of language we are facing today, the Numbers<\/em> exchange provides a powerful vindication of writing as a supernumerary and multi-dimensional non-linear process.<\/p>\n Keywords: <\/em>Intertextuality; numerology; levels of meaning; Dante; video game<\/p>\n <\/p>\n O tu che leggi, udirai nuovo ludo.<\/p>\n Dante, Inferno<\/em>, Canto XXII<\/p>\n SEE MORE<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Valentin Kanawrow<\/strong><\/p>\n South-Western University<\/em><\/p>\n https:\/\/doi.org\/10.53656\/phil2025-02-09<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n In early 2025, the prestigious German publishing house LIT published Andrzej Przy\u0142\u0119bski’s monograph Hermeneutik<\/em>. Von der Kunst der Interpretation zur Theorie und Philosophie des Verstehens<\/em> (Hermeneutics. From Art of Interpretation to Theory and Philosophy of Comprehension).<\/em><\/p>\n SEE MORE<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Nikolai Mihailov<\/strong><\/p>\n Sofia University \u201cSt. Kliment Ohridski\u201d<\/em><\/p>\nInstituting Gestures, Inescapable Ways: Derrida and Zhuangzi Compared<\/h3>\n
The Obvious Unsaid: An Inquiry into Heidegger\u2019s Doctrine via Derrida<\/h3>\n
Deconstruction as the Thinking of Secret<\/h3>\n
The Concept of Phantasm in the Work of Derrida<\/h3>\n
A Commitment to Irresponsibility: On Derrida\u2019s Passions: \u2018An Oblique Offering\u2019<\/h3>\n
Blindness and Insight of Reading Deconstruction Between Jacques Derrida and Paul de Man<\/h3>\n
Derrida and Kristeva Play Sollers\u2019 Numbers (A Gamer\u2019s Mode d\u2019emploi)<\/h3>\n
Conceptual Encyclopedia of Hermeneutics<\/h3>\n
The Problem of Religious Diversity: A Philosophical Approach<\/h3>\n