system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Did Derrida fall victim to the same philosophical practices he criticized? Didn't he just supplement the original conception of the logos with his conception of differance/trace?

Sure he attempted to "denaturalize and demysiticize" his concepts, but it doesn't seem very different from how for example Locke used Idea to supplement Notion/Phantasm/Species etc, or the supplementations of Rousseau and so on?
gpt
Zizek argues something like this: 

>Even at the level of a naive 'immediate' reading, it is difficult to avoid
the feeling that in this post-structuralist position something is amiss -
or, more precisely, that this criticism of Lacan runs a little too smoothly. The
post-structuralist position constantly repeats that no text could be totally
non-metaphysical. On the one hand, it is not possible to get rid of the
metaphysical tradition by a simple gesture of taking distance, of placing
oneself outside it, because the language we are obliged to use is penetrated
by metaphysics. On the other hand, however, every text, however metaphysical,
always produces gaps which announce breaches in the
metaphysical circle: the points at which the textual process subverts what
its 'author' intended to say. Is such a position not just a little too convenient?
To put it more bluntly, the position from which the deconstructivist
can always make sure of the fact that 'there is no metalanguage', that no
utterance can say precisely what it intended to say, that the process of
enunciation always subverts the utterance, is the position of metalanguage
in its purest, most radical form. 

>How can one not recognize, in the passionate zeal with which the poststructuralist
insists that every text, his own included, is caught in a
fundamental ambiguity and flooded with the 'dissemination' of the intertextual
process, the signs of an obstinate denial (in the Freudian sense of
Vemeinung); a barely hidden acknowledgement of the fact that one is speaking
from a safe position, a position not menaced by the decentted textual
process? That is why post-structuralist poeticism is ultimately *affected*.
**The whole effort to write 'poetically', to make us feel how our own text
is already caught in a decentred network of plural processes and how this
textual process always subverts what we 'intended to say', the whole effort
to evade the purely theoretical form of exposing our ideas and to adopt
rhetorical devices usually reserved to literature, masks the annoying fact
that at the root of what post-structuralists are saying there is a clearly defined theoretical position which can be articulated without difficulty
in a pure and simple metalanguage.**


-*Sublime Object of Ideology*