References
- A brief survey of reactions to Speech and Phenomena can be found in my Strategies of Deconstruction. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1991. pp. xi–xiii.
- Leonard Lawlor, “Phenomenology and Metaphysics: Deconstruction in La voix et le phénomène.” JBSp.
- Cf. Lawlor's review of Strategies of Deconstruction: “Navigating a Passage: Deconstruction as Phenomenology.” Diacritics 23.2, 1993. pp. 3–15.
- Leonard Lawlor. “The Relation as the Fundamental Issue in Derrida.” Phenomenology and Deconstruction. Edited byWilliam McKenna and J. Claude Evans. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1995.
- The list would, of course, have to be extended to include Nietzsche, Heidegger, Saussure, and others.
- Leonard Lawlor. “Distorting Phenomenology: Derrida's Interpretation of Husserl.” To be published in Philosophy Today.
- In “Distorting Phenomenology,” Lawlor writes that “…he [Evans] still does not, or perhaps cannot or will not, recognize the most basic issue that animates Speech and Phenomena.”
- Ibid.
- Lawlor. “Navigating a Passage…” p. 10.
- Cf. Lawlor's additional comments on this question in his letter of 3/21/95, to be published in Philosophy Today.
- SP, pp. 67/60.
- Ibid., pp. 68–9/61.
- Hua X, pp. 47/70; SP, pp. 68–9/61.
- Hua X, pp. 39/40, quoted at SD, p. 98; cf. also Hua X, p. 168, quoted at SD, p. 103.
- One could, of course, argue that Husserl is simply wrong in speaking of anything like a “punctual phase” or a “source-point.” This is Heidegger's position in Being and Time. But this is very different indeed from a deconstructive reading of Husserl's commitments.
- “Navigating a Passage…” p. 10.
- Ibid.
- For some, this result will tend to justify Richard Rorty's claim that the early Derrida is just a mistake.