But because me and myself, as you no doubt are well aware, we are going to die, my relation—and yours too—to the event of this text, which otherwise never quite makes it, our relation is that of a structurally posthumous necessity. Suppose, in that case, that I am not alone in my claim to know the idiomatic code (whose notion itself is already contradictory) of this event. What if somewhere, here or there, there are shares in this non-secret’s secret? Even so the scene would not be changed. The accomplices, as you are once again well aware, are also bound to die.

Derrida will prefer to follow the more "fruitful paths (formalization)" of a general semiotics without falling in what he considered "a hierarchizing teleology" privileging linguistics and speak of 'mark' rather than of language not as something restricted to mankind but as prelinguistic as the pure possibility of language working every where there is a relation to something else. And instead of thinking that we are living at the end of writing I think that in another sense we are living in the extension – the overwhelming extension – of writing. Derrida once explained that this assertion "which for some has become a sort of slogan in general so badly understood of deconstruction (.

His work influenced various activists and political movements. Particularly in his later writings he frequently addressed ethical and political themes. : /ʒɑːk ˈdɛrɨdə/; French: [ʒak dɛʁida]; July 15 1930 – October 9 2004) was a French philosopher born in French Algeria.