Compare and Contrast Judaism and Buddhism Essay - 647 Words

Compare and Contrast Judaism and Buddhism One of the most early religions are Judaism and Buddhism. Both Judaism and Buddhism have lots of differences beliefs and practices and only few similarities. Judaism was started in 2000 B.C.E, led by Abraham. Buddhism was started in 560 B.C.E, by Siddhartha Gautama. Both religions have different point of view. Buddhism don’t believe in deity and Judaism believe in deity. Buddhism are just followers of Gautama and Judaism believe in Yahweh (the God Abraham believed in). It is important to know all this because it tells us when the religions were started and how different they are from one another. The origin of both Judaism and Buddhism were started in different year and place and†¦show more content†¦Abrahams children brought the religion to Egypt, where they were enslaved for years. They then escaped and migrated to Israel where they live for years. Than the Jews migrated from Israel to southern Europe/North Africa became known as Sephardic (Spanish), and the Je ws who had migrated to Northern and Western Europe and Northern Asia became known as Ashkenazic (German) Jews. They spread Judaism whenever Jews migrated to different regions and reading their holy book Torah and gathered followers. Judaism was able to hold up the religion because exiles had built a distinctive religious community based on their conviction that had a special relationship with Yahweh. Their devotion to Yahweh was expressed in Torah and these enabled Jews to maintain a strong sense of their religion. Jewish monotheism, scriptures, and moral concerns also influenced development of Christianity and Islam. Jews had a really strong believe in Yahweh and Torah. Buddhism became very popular religion in Northern India, merchants who went to trade to different places spread their faith. Buddhism was very popular in China. After fall of Han empire, Buddhism received strong support from nomadic people who migrated to northern China and spread Buddhism and practiced it, and th at’s what they believed for years. In present world people that believe in Buddhism are mostly found in China. The compare and contrast between Judaism and Buddhism tells us how differently theShow MoreRelatedWorld Religions: Comparative Discussions1010 Words   |  4 PagesWorld Religions: Comparative Discussions 1.Compare and contrast Hinduism and Buddhism on the question of atman. What does each tradition have to say about whether a human being has an individual soul? What is the significance of this soul (or lack thereof) in each tradition? The concept of the self is critical to a great many religious traditions. Understanding ones own individual position within the context of the universe helps to drive ones relationship to the divine, to the pedestrian andRead MoreChristianity vs Buddhism923 Words   |  4 Pagesreligions do—they all contain truths,† said by Muhammad Ali. Religion is the belief and reverence for a supernatural power and powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe (2003). The religions I’ve chose to compare and contrast would be non denomination/ Christianity and Buddhism. Each religion would be broken down by their religious belief, religious ritual, and religious experience. The definition of these religious things are: religious belief is a statement to which members of a particularRead MoreAlexander, Han Dynasty, Roman Empire, Hinduism, Islam1179 Words   |  5 Pagesthinking -cosmopolitans belong to world -emphasized spiritual concerns of humans as individuals -pop. entertainment in theatre, public games, and secular art -high culture (sophisticated appeal)               Hide Insert Card 3 Zoom Compare and Contrast Judean, Roman, and Carthaginian responses to Hellenistic influences. How receptive was each society to Greek cultural influences?   Judean specifically? Zoom Judean-jews resisted, temple in jerusalem is focal point of jews, constant foreignRead MoreChristianity, Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, And Islam2580 Words   |  11 Pages 1. Describe, compare and contrast the concept of â€Å"self† in Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Please state the views of each tradition fully and clearly. In life, one will undertake a spiritual journey in which you will uncover the meaning of the self. Many religions, including Hinduism, Confucianism and monotheistic religions, have developed philosophies placing importance of the â€Å"self.† Emphasis on morality, virtues, honest contribute to the developmentRead Morein Ngugi’s A Grain Of Wheat, and in Silko’s Ceremony Essay1273 Words   |  6 PagesChina’s Historic Teachings of Buddhism and Confucianism Since the beginning of time the country of China, now known as the Peoples Republic of China has always been a remarkable civilization from its technologies to its philosophies. It has long been a host to a variety of fused religion/philosophical based traditions. Both the religions of Buddhism and Confucianism make up two of the three Chinese historic teachings. It is from these teachings which have had a significant role in shaping theirRead MoreHinduism And Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, And Many Religions1067 Words   |  5 PagesReligion is a very intellectual topic in the world. There are so many different types of religions such as Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Jainism, and many more. So many people in this world believe in numerous different religions. Some believe in one god, and others believe in hundreds. Hinduism and Buddhism are popular religions that are practiced around the world. The world’s oldest religion is Hinduism, it is considered a way of life. The Indus valley is where Hinduism originatedRead MoreChristian Worldview1594 Words   |  7 Pagesworldviews relate to the Biblical worldview. There are three main areas or types of worldviews, Pantheists (Hinduism, Buddhism), Secularism (naturalism), and Theism (Christianity, Islam, Judaism). I will answer 5 basic questions on just one of the non-Christian worldviews and then compare it to the Biblical worldview. Part one will be about Buddhism and part two will compare Buddhism and the Biblical worldview. The questions to be answered are: 1. The Question of Origin. 2. The Question ofRead MoreReligion : A Unified System Of Beliefs And Practices949 Words   |  4 Pagespractice a religion in other culture move to American soil. The movement of religion from other country to America has made the nation religiously diverse as compare to other nation. Religion in American culture consist of Native American traditional, Christianity (include Catholic and Protestants churches), Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and others. Even though there are non-Religious group in American culture, but religious groups dominates and have great influence in American culture. ThisRead MoreEastern Religion Philosophy of Care1740 Words   |  7 Pagesplace free of suffering, according to Buddhism). The Eastern religions and philosophies all give varying accounts of karma, samsara, moksha, and nirvana.This paper will examine Sikhism, Buddhism, and Hinduism, analyze their belief systems, and show how they compare and contrast with one another and with Christianity . Sikhism Sikhism was founded at the beginning of the 16th century in Punjab by Guru Nanak. His philosophy was similar to that of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. Nanak observed the wayRead MoreComparing Daoism and Confucianism681 Words   |  3 PagesYou can compare Daoism and Confucianism to yin and yang because they complement each other. Daoism and Confucianism coexist as complementary value classifications in East Asian societies. Unlike Jainism, Hinduism, and Buddhism, in which these religions were developed in East Asia, Daoism and Confucianism grew mainly in China. Although these religions grew from similar roots, they both still have different emphases. Daoism also known as Taoism, was a philosophical and radical text written by Laozi

Why Absolutely Everybody Is Talking About Ets Essay Samples and What You Need to Do

Why Absolutely Everybody Is Talking About Ets Essay Samples and What You Need to Do The Ets Essay Samples Trap 1 aspect where the capacity of humans may initially be regarded as an instance of deteriorating minds is the usage of web and mobile phones. When you check at two sentences, the outcome isn't ideal for the cause. There are plenty of aspects to consider and distinctive qualities to search for in the most trustworthy speech writing companies. Drawing a conclusion from examinations of unique cannabinoids, such as THC, there are a few genetic factors and individual choices that determine the period of time required for the extracts of cannabis to be eliminated from an individual's system. The Unexpected Truth About Ets Essay Samples The passages will both cover the exact same topic from various perspectives. Read both passages carefully and then compose an essay in which you determine the most crucial concerns about the problem and explain the reason why they are importan t. Each paragraph starts with a new big point that's then explained. There are normally 3 body paragraphs in a persuasive essay, and each one it used to talk about a particular point about the subject. Ets Essay Samples Explained Instead, the custom made speech writing services need to be provided at reasonable and thoroughly very affordable expenses. Our custom writing company is the most dependable company in regards to speech writing services. Even though the response may start to tackle the assigned task, it provides no development. All the customized speech papers provided on any particular field of study need to be superior quality and ready to guarantee total satisfaction. You may find that it is possible to use lots of them for many essays don't let the very first thing that springs to mind box you in. The essay is a 3 part contest on the subject of peaceful civic action and worldwide peacemaking. More creative tips on how to receive your essay graded here. A proc ess essay is considerably a simple sort of paper that you may be requested to write about from time to time. Creating a process analysis essay about Chinese food may be an intriguing project. Using persuasive essay examples is a great way to prepare to compose a successful essay. Persuasive essay topics don't always need to be of a significant nature, you can write about things that are linked in your life. There are several good persuasive essay topics to pick from. What Everybody Dislikes About Ets Essay Samples and Why Other people think that college students should base their selection of an area of study on the access to work in that area. Writing should be a process which helps students figure out their. Students should always question what they're taught rather than accepting it passively. College students should base their selection of an area of study on the access to work in that area. Remember that the sample answers are simply ideas. The test is straightforward and easy only as long as you are getting ready for it several months before. Be sure to spell out the way the answers to the questions would help to value the conclusion. Write a response in which you discuss what questions would want to get answered to be able to choose whether the recommendation will probably have the predicted outcome. The Fight Against Ets Essay Samples Below is a list of the most obvious independent competitions, their deadlines, and where you are able to find out more regarding them. Be free to use different books if my advice doesn't work for you. When you're choosing an essay topic, it's important to choose one which has lots of information and statistics to strengthen your standpoint, nor exaggerate any info that you've chosen to write about. The survey could have been 10 pages long, with 2 questions specializing in river sports. However you get ready for the essays, make sure you at least write a couple of each type before you take the actual GRE. The more information you are able to gather about the subject, the better prepared you'll be for writing your e ssay. The very first issue to do before you get started searching for GRE sample essays is to comprehend what the Analytical Writing test section is about. Not only do you have to read through GRE sample essays, but you must also look for topics on which you are able to write GRE sample essays yourself and have them evaluated. Between grammar and fashion, grammar is quite a bit simpler to improve. If writing essays isn't your forte, then you have to sit up and take stock of the sum of preparation you'll need for getting a great score in the Analytical Writing test section of the GRE. A comparative essay is among the few requirements for students to finish a training course. For more information concerning the different rubrics for the various essay tasks, read our articles about how to compose perfect-scoring GRE Issue and Argument essays.

Saussure and Derrida Free Essays

string(34) " process of aesthetic negativity\." A science that studies the life of signs within society is conceivable; . . . We will write a custom essay sample on Saussure and Derrida or any similar topic only for you Order Now I shall call it semiology (from Greek semeion ‘sign’). Semiology would show what constitutes signs, what laws govern them. Since the science does not yet exist, no one can say what it would be. . . . (Saussure, 1960:16) In this statement Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913), the twentieth-century father of the science of signs, presents his theory about language and gives a Greek name. This enterprise has considerably affected most discussions about language and of interpretation since its inauguration. Saussure presents the linguistic system as the place of the sign. Signs don’t exist apart from a system. And it is every time a system of differences. Unavoidably, the theory of signs leads Saussure to the theory of language as system. Later, Jacques Derrida (1930-2004) discovers the logocentric dynamic in Saussure’s new theory. Referring to the father of structural linguistics and semiology, Derrida leads readers beyond Saussure toward a poststructuralist future. It is this logocentrism which, limiting the internal system of language in general by a bad abstraction, prevents Saussure and the majority of his successors from determining fully and explicitly that which is called ‘the integral and concrete object of linguistics† (Cours 23). Both Ferdinand de Saussure – father of 20th-century linguistics and Jacques Derrida – founder of deconstruction made profound impact upon language theory; their ideas laid the basis for considerable development s in linguistics in the 20th century. Saussure on Language In itself, thought is like a swirling cloud, where no shape is intrinsically determinate. No ideas are established in advance, and nothing is distinct, before the introduction of linguistic structure. [†¦] Just as it is impossible to take a pair of scissors and cut one side of paper without at the same time cutting the other, so it is impossible in a language to isolate sound from thought, or thought from sound. To separate the two for theoretical purposes takes us into either pure psychology or pure phonetics, not linguistics. Linguistics, then, operates along this margin, where sound and thought meet. The contact between them gives rise to a form, not a substance (Cours 155-7). This impressive statement from the posthumously published Cours de linguistique generale of Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) introduces readers in what was later called as a ‘Copernican revolution’ in Western thought relating to language. Why ‘Copernican’? Because just as Copernicus had asserted that the Earth revolved around the Sun, instead of the Sun revolving around the Earth, Saussure asserts something similar on the subject of language. His theory claimed that languages are the instruments that give human beings opportunity to achieve a rational understanding of the world in which they live. Rather than considering words as mere addition to human comprehension of reality, Saussure considered comprehension of reality as depending substantially upon human use of the verbal signs that form the language people use. Language is not secondary but, quite the reverse, central to human life. As a result, human life is linguistically constructed life. Saussure’s theory goes far beyond the traditional theory of language as something communicated. It also goes beyond Locke’s theory of words as symbols that stand for ideas. Many linguistic philosophers had claimed that without language human reason would be lacking its principal instrument of transformation ideas into words. But Saussure’s theory goes further and deeper. Saussure indicates the phonetic and conceptual aspects of language. Linguistics was for Saussure only one subdivision of a relating to various branches science of signs that he proposed to call ‘semiology’ (semiologie). Each branch of semiology had a theory of the signs which it studied. Consequently, linguistics would need a theory of the linguistic sign, the fundamental unit of langue. Such a theory of language Saussure proceeds to offer. As his paper-cutting analogy shows, he deals with the linguistic sign as a unit determined merely by its form. Its form has two facets, or ‘opposite sides’. The Saussurean technical identifications for these two facets of the sign are signifiant and signifie (the ‘signifying’ plane and the ‘signified’ plane) (Matthews 21). Every langue includes semiological system of bi-planar signs. Each sign has its signifiant and its signifie. Despite the fact that each plane may, for convenience, be analyzed one by one, no linguistic sign can be determined without considering both planes that are equally important. The published in 1916 text of the Cours faithfully reflects Saussure’s theory about language. That text became the subsequent chapter in the history of ideas about language theory. The text became a cornerstone of modern linguistic theory, as well as the public declaration of a more general intellectual movement of the 20th century that had effect on such diverse disciplines as psychology, social anthropology and literary criticism. This all-round movement is today known as ‘structuralism’. The whole question that the Saussurean theory of linguistic structure gives rise is this: ‘If our langue is a structure, then a structure of what exactly? ‘ (Matthews 69) Saussure’s answer to this question is problematic. He identified langue as being at the same time a structure of the mental operations of the human beings, and also a structure of the communicational processes by means of which human beings perform their roles as a cultural constitution. So langue is finally supra-individual in the relation that it is placed in society and depends for its existence on cultural relations; yet it assumes in each individual the power of an internally created system of linguistic signs. More exactly, langue, Saussure claims, ‘is never complete in any single individual, but exists perfectly only in the collectivity’ (Cours 30). Derrida’s Theory of Language The theory of language to which Derrida wants to turn attention is connected with the method linguistic meaning is produced. More exactly, the method what there is of linguistic meaning and nonmeaning in their interconnection is presented. Derrida, in his theory of deconstruction, presents the same structure for both the process of nonaesthetic negativity and the process of aesthetic negativity. You read "Saussure and Derrida" in category "Papers" â€Å"Deconstruction† is connected with an analysis of the theory of language that, similar to the process of aesthetic negativity, discovers within this theory the seeds of its own downfall. Derrida presents a theory of meaning that reflects the idea of the â€Å"iterability† of signs and what he calls their â€Å"supplementary† status. Jonathan Culler summarized Derrida’s central idea in this regard in the following way: Our earlier formula, â€Å"meaning is context-bound, but context is boundless,† helps us recall why both projects fail: meaning is context-bound, so intentions do not in fact suffice to determine meaning; context must be mobilized. But context is boundless, so accounts of context never provide full determinations of meaning. Against any set of formulations, one can imagine further possibilities of context, including the expansion of context produced by reinscription within a context of the description of it (Menke 96). Considering Culler’s interpretation, Derrida’s thesis of the uncircumventable proclivity of language for crisis is based on the difference between what one expects context to offer and what it can really do, when correctly viewed. The nonetheless inevitable recourse to context in the determination of meaning thus results in a crisis for every attempt to comprehend language. What is supposed to generate definitiveness is itself unlimited and thus the source of unmanaged difference. Derrida’s general thesis thus is based on the idea that the understanding of the meaning of signs can only function in a context-bound way. At the same time that contexts cannot define the meaning of signs since they are themselves boundless. The boundlessness that meaning opens itself to in its context-boundedness is in no way eo ipso the boundlessness of a difference that is inconsistent with any identity of meaning (Menke 90). Derrida himself realizes his argument that a â€Å"thousand possibilities will always remain open even if one understands something in this phrase that makes sense† (Menke 96) in an equivocal fashion. On the one hand this idea means: every sign can function in different and boundlessly many contexts. This is precisely what determines the iterability of signs: their reusability in contexts that are not actually those in which they were first placed. The usability of signs in boundlessly many contexts in itself, though, in no way is opposite to the definitiveness of its use and meaning as determined by rules of language. Although one might note, with Derrida, that the deconstruction of logocentrism is a search for â€Å"the other of language† (Derrida 1984, 123), this does not contribute to the statement that deconstruction is originally concerned with a linguistic theory. This is first and foremost the question of the concrete instance, of â€Å"the other, which is beyond language† (Derrida 1984,123). Far, then, from being a philosophy that according to its critics, states that there is nothing beyond language and that one is confined within language, deconstruction can be considered as a response. â€Å"Deconstruction is, in itself, a positive response to an alterity which necessarily calls, summons or motivates it. Deconstruction is therefore vocation – a response to a call† (Derrida 1984,118). Derrida claims that the character of deconstruction is not solely positive, that is not merely an assertion of what already exists and is known, but that it is an assertion of what is wholly other (tout autre) (Derrida 1992, 27). Derrida claims that difference is not something that can appear in logocentric discourse: â€Å"differance is not,† Derrida explains, â€Å"preceded by the originary and indivisible unity of a present possibility that I could reserve†¦. What defers presence, on the contrary, is the very basis on which presence is announced or desired in what represents it, its sign, its trace†¦. Differance is â€Å"that which produces different things, that which differentiates, is the common root of all the oppositional concepts that mark our language†¦ † (Positions, 89). Differance is neither structure nor origin, â€Å"such an alternative itself being an ‘effect’ of differance. † Even so, studying the operations of differance requires that the writer use such concepts as structure and origin and â€Å"borrow the syntaxic and lexical resources of the language of metaphysics† even if the writer wishes to deconstruct this language ( Positions, pp. -10). Derrida indicates that differance is not an origin. Neither language nor writing springs in differance. Instead, Derrida says, differance allows the play of absence and presence, writing and thought, structure and force by means of which the question of origin comes to know itself. Saussure and Derrida Exactly at this point one is faced with one of the most problematic though fascinating dimensions of Derrida’s theory. The problem, stated above, is that, as soon as it is recognized that there are no simple, unsignified, transcendental signifiers that fix and warrant the meaning of the words, that there exist no originals to which the words can be attributed, one comes to conditions where even this acknowledgement itself seems to have become â€Å"floating† (May 125). Derrida resolves this difficult situation with the help of above discussed theory of signs and of language developed by Ferdinand de Saussure. Despite the idea that language is in a fundamental way a naming process, attaching words to things, Saussure had claimed that language is a system, or a structure. In the structure any individual element is meaningless outside the boundaries of that structure. In language, he asserts, there are only differences. But – and here the ideas of Saussure are basic for Derrida’s deconstruction of the metaphysics of presence – these differences are not differences between positive terms, that is between terms that in and by themselves are connected with objects or things outside the system. Accordingly, in language, Saussure indicates, there are only differences without positive terms (May 127). But if this is true, if there are no positive terms, then it means that one can no longer define the differential position of language itself by means of a positive term either. Difference without positive terms indicates that this dimension must itself always be left unperceived for, roughly speaking, it is unconceptualizable. It is a difference that cannot be returned into the order of the same and, through a signifier, given individual characteristics. This suggests, then, that â€Å"the play of difference, which, as Saussure reminded us, is the condition for the possibility and functioning of every sign, is in itself a silent play† (Derrida 1982, 5). If, however, one wants to articulate that – one must first of all admit that there can never be a word or a concept to correspond to this silent play. One must also admit that this play cannot merely be exposed, for â€Å"one can expose only that which at a certain moment can become present† (Derrida 1982, 5). And one must ultimately admit that there is nowhere to begin, â€Å"for what is put into question is precisely the quest for a rightful beginning, an absolute point of departure† (Derrida 1982, 6). All this, and more, is acknowledged in the new â€Å"word† or â€Å"concept† – â€Å"which is neither a word nor a concept† (Derrida 1982:7) but a â€Å"neographism† (Derrida 1982:13) – of differance. The motive why Derrida uses â€Å"what is written as difference† (Derrida 1982, 11) is not difficult to understand. For although â€Å"the play of difference† (Derrida 1982, 11) is introduced as something for the opportunity of all conceptuality, one should not make the mistaken opinion to think that one has finally discovered the real origin of conceptuality. That, expressing the same idea but differently, this play is a playful but despite that transcendental signified. Strictly speaking, in order to avoid this mistake one must acknowledge that the differences that make up the play of difference â€Å"are themselves effects† (Derrida 1982:11, original emphasis). As Derrida claims, What is written as differance, then, will be the playing movement that â€Å"produces† – by means of something that is not simply an activity – these differences, these effects of difference. This does not mean that the differance that produces differences is somehow before them, in a simple and unmodified – in-different – present. Differance is the non-full, non-simple, structured and differentiating origin of differences. Thus, the name â€Å"origin† no longer suits. (Derrida 1982, 11) Although differance is straightforwardly connected with a structuralist idea of meaning – that Derrida recognizes when he indicates that he sees no reason to question the truth of what Saussure proposes (Derrida 1976, 39), there is one important aspect in which differance is outside the scope of structuralism. The point here is that Derrida clearly refuses to accept the primary character of structure itself. Structure is not a transcendental represented (for which reason Derrida notes that he does not want to question the truth of what Saussure proposes â€Å"on the level on which he says it [original emphasis] â€Å"but does want to question the logocentric way in which Saussure says it (Derrida 1976, 39). Structure is even less the effect of an original presence coming before and causing it (Derrida 1978, 278-9). What differance tries to express is the differential character of the â€Å"origin† of structure itself. It is in this relation that one might observe that Derrida’s writing is poststructural. To some degree, surely, differance appears when Saussure’s examination of how language operates. â€Å"In language,† Saussure indicates, â€Å"there are only differences. Even more important: a difference generally implies positive terms between which the difference is set up; but in language there are only differences without positive terms† (Positions, 120). Derrida’s differance in an obvious manner is like Saussure’s differences. At the end of Positions, for instance, Derrida specifies â€Å"as differance the movement according to which language, or any other code, any system of reference in general, is constituted ‘historically’ as a tissue of differences† (Positions, 104). But Derrida makes an effort to go further. Whereas Saussure considers the differences in a semiotic system as the set of constantly changing relationships the speaker manipulates in order to produce meaning, Derrida defines differance as the boundless disappearance of either an origin of or a final place for meaning. When Derrida describes differance, he always does so by examining what it is not. Rather than considering language in the traditional way, as a set of external signs of already farmed internal thoughts (characteristic of â€Å"logocentrism†), Derrida, like Saussure and modern linguistics, thinks of users of language producing coded, that is, repeatable, marks or traces that originate from within certain unities of meaning as â€Å"effects† of the code. These traces are not fundamentally meaningful in themselves but â€Å"arbitrary† and â€Å"conventional† (Menke 96). Thus there is no difference whether one says â€Å"rex,† â€Å"rol,† or â€Å"king† so long as â€Å"we† – those who share these conventions – can tell the difference between rex and lex, roi and loi, and king and sing (Menke 96). The meaning – is a process of the difference, of the distance or the â€Å"spacing† between the traces, what is called, in an absolutely serious way, the â€Å"play† of differences or traces. By the â€Å"play of differences† Derrida defines the differential spacing, the recognized distance, the recognized (heard, seen) intervals between traces first analyzed in structural linguistics (Menke 97). Conclusion A comprehensive historical examination of deconstruction would necessarily include numerous precursors and forerunners: Freud, Hegel, Heidegger, Husserl, Lacan, Levi-Strauss, Marx, Nietzsche, Saussure. . . . However, it can be said that the history of contemporary deconstruction begins with Jacques Derrida De la grammatologie (1967) that opens with a critique of Saussure. Saussure’s theory of language is here framed within a metaphysical system that extends from Plato and Aristotle to Heidegger and Levi-Strauss. By Derrida this theory is called â€Å"logocentric. † Saussure marks a concluding stage of the long logocentric epoch. Derrida indicates that logocentrism imposed itself upon the world and controlled the theory of language. Derrida’s contributions laid ground for future epoch. In the role of prophet, Derrida concludes his â€Å"Exergue† indicating: â€Å"The future can only be anticipated in the form of an absolute danger. It is that which breaks absolutely with constituted normality and can only be proclaimed, presented, as a sort of monstrosity. For that future world and for that within it which will have put into question the values of sign, word, and writing, for that which guides our future anterior, there is as yet no exergue† (Derrida 1967). How to cite Saussure and Derrida, Papers