Derrida and Mādhyamika Buddhism : from linguistic deconstruction to criticism of onto-theologies
Document Type
Journal article
Source Publication
International Philosophy Quarterly
Publication Date
6-1-1993
Volume
33
Issue
2
First Page
183
Last Page
195
Publisher
Philosophy Documentation Center
Abstract
In the Derrida- Mādhyamika studies, there are still many other important parallels awaiting our discovery and exploration. Here, we propose to consider the relationship between linguistic deconstruction and ontotheological criticism in these two (anti) philosophical traditions. In the course of our inquiry, we will discover four important parallels in Derridean and Mādhyamika theories: (1) Both Derrida and the Mādhyamika thinkers develop deconstructive theories of meaning based on the similar ideas of différance and differentiam, and seek to nullify the logos and the Name of Non-Existence reified by Western idealists and Buddhist Essentialists; (2) both apply the same theories of meaning to deconstruct Matter and Existence, reified by Western materialists and Buddhist Realists; (3) both conceive of their double negation as an exercise of neither/nor logic and set forth their deconstructive formulas in similar terms of “tetrapharmakon” and “tetralemma” (catuskoti); and (4) both abolish their own tetrapharmakon and tetralemma, and embark on their self-deconstructive course along an aimless “supernumerary” and a linear “hexalemma”. While we examine these four parallels in the following sections, we shall also pinpoint the fundamental differences between the Derridean and the Mādhyamika theories and consider how these two deconstructive traditions lead to the end of philosophy.
DOI
10.5840/ipq19933327
Print ISSN
00190365
E-ISSN
21538077
Publisher Statement
Access to external full text or publisher's version may require subscription.
Full-text Version
Publisher’s Version
Language
English
Recommended Citation
Cai, Z.-q. (1993). Derrida and Mādhyamika Buddhism: From linguistic deconstruction to criticism of onto-theologies. International Philosophy Quarterly, 33(2), 183-195.