Abstract

This dissertation is concerned with a set of problems related to the so called, "end of Philosophy." Briefly stated, the problem is that it seems that there is no way to end philosophy, and thus wind up only reinstating, rather than overthrowing, philosophy. Another way of stating the problem is this: "What comes after philosophy?" Can we answer that question without doing philosophy? Derrida has suggested that the answer to this dilemma may lie in "continuing to read philosophers in a certain way."$\sp1$ ;This suggestion is explored by means of a distinction Roland Barthes$\sp2$ has drawn, that of the readerly/writerly. ;In the Introduction, a preliminary characterization of the distinction is provided. ;In Chapter I, the distinction is clarified further by means of some remarks on the philosophy of language. Specifically, two views about language are distinguished, the old view, which undergirds the readerly, and the new view, which licenses the writerly. The reader is asked to view all reading as an act of what Quine$\sp3$ calls "radical translation." The readerly translates by means of a single translation manual; the writerly proceeds with a multiplicity of such manuals. ;In Chapter II, various readerly interpretations of the text of Nietzsche are examined. The "analytic hypotheses" of the translation manual of each are scrutinized in a series of divagations. ;In Chapter III, various readings of Nietzsche's text which question the "old view" are examined. In questioning these old view assumptions, the readings threaten the readerly, and threaten, themselves, to become writerly. Yet, each fails to do so. The reasons for these failures are examined. ;In Chapter IV, I assess what has been accomplished, and what remains to be done. I conclude that I have demonstrated the readerliness of each of the readings, and that this is due, in part, to the old view of language. Although I believe that the writerly represents the best solution to the problem now available, a great deal of work remains before this can be established. I conclude by sketching four possible ways of accomplishing these tasks. ftn$\sp1$Jacques Derrida, "Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences," in Writing and Difference, trans. Alan Bass , p. 288. $\sp2$Roland Barthes, S/Z, trans. Richard Miller . $\sp3$W. V. O. Quine, Word and Object . See especially Chapter 2