Anamnesis_dost class dududerrida

Derrida is problematic for me not because I disagree with him, but because I need to know what he thinks the implications of his philosophy are for life. I think it is important to point out the faultiness in de Saussure's model for signifiers. I think it's right that signifers are floating and that differance exists in everything. Yes, I think Derrida is essential. But I feel somewhat unfulfilled when I read him vs Foucault, who I think is more artful and more of a humanitarian. Both philosophers are historical, but Foucault's hsitory to me is the history that matters, the history which is critical and useful. And to be honest, I just think Foucault's philosophy is more interesting.

However, an interesting point in derrida's grammatology is the idea that there is not "unqualified presence" underneath the text. structuralists beleived that if the could jsut get to a certain point with a text then there would be an area of truth. I don't see how this can be true and I tend to side with Derrida that whatever meaning is implied is subject to immediate shifts and distortions. There was never an absolute meaning from which these shifts occur... it is all perceived anyway. I think this is particularly troubling for any form of ethics because the terms that are bound up with ethics (justice, morality, ethic) are subject to the most insidious scrutiny.
Also, deconstruction poses a direct threat to philosophy itself, calling into question its function on linguistic level and blurring the lines between "empirical" realms of study, like physics, with philosophy and indeed making no distinction between them. Deconstruction is able to do this precisely because of the idea that text pervades everything and in that sense even the theoretic speculations of philosophy and the epirical "facts" of science become fictions.