Intersections with Derridean Deconstruction

  • Makoto Katsumori
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 286)


In the recent and contemporary currents of thought commonly called postmodernism and poststructuralism, quantum theory has often been cited as an example of a new form of knowledge that supposedly goes beyond the conceptual framework of modern philosophy and science. Until fairly lately, however, this line of characterization and invocation of quantum theory was in many cases hardly sustained by solid conceptual analysis of the subject. It is only since the closing years of the twentieth century that quantum theory and, linked with it, Bohr’s complementarity have become systematically explored with reference to the thematic of postmodernism, poststructuralism, or deconstruction. These studies, including Michel Bitbol’s and Karen Barad’s inquiries, from their respective viewpoints shed new light on the philosophical problems of quantum theory, which hitherto have not been adequately treated within the conventional frames of the history and philosophy of science. In particular, as far as Bohr’s complementarity in relation to Derridean deconstruction is concerned, arguably the most elaborate work to date has been developed by Arkady Plotnitsky.


Dynamic Conception Binary Opposition Radical Alterity Hermeneutic Philosophy Metaphysical Tradition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Barad, Karen. 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bataille, George. 1967. La part maudite, précédé de La notion de dépense. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit. Eng. trans. Robert Hurley. The Accursed Share, Vol. 1. New York: Zone Books, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. Bertram, Georg W. 2002. Hermeneutik und Dekonstruktion. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. Bitbol, Michel. 1996. Schrödinger’s Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. Vol. 188 of Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Bohr, Niels. 1991. Physique quantique et connaissance humaine, Translated by Edmond Bauer and Roland Omnès. Paris : Éditions Gallimard.Google Scholar
  6. Caputo, John D. 1987. Radical Hermeneutics: Repetition, Deconstruction, and the Hermeneutic Project. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Critchley, Simon. 1992. The Ethics of Deconstruction: Derrida and Levinas. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Culler, Jonathan. 1982. On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism After Structuralism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Derrida, Jacques. 1962. “Introduction” to Edmund Husserl’s L’origine de la géométrie, 3–171. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Eng. trans. John P. Leavy, Jr. Edmund Husserl’s Origin of Geometry: An Introduction, 23–153. New York: Nicolas Hays, 1978.Google Scholar
  10. Derrida, Jacques. 1967a. L’écriture et la différence. Paris: Éditions du Seuil. Eng. trans. Alan Bass. Writing and Difference. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  11. Derrida, Jacques. 1967b. De la grammatologie. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit. Eng. trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Of Grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  12. Derrida, Jacques. 1967c. La voix et le phénomène. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Eng. trans. David B. Allison. Speech and Phenomena and Other Essays on Husserl’s Theory of Signs. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  13. Derrida, Jacques. 1972b. Marges de la philosophie. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit. Eng. trans. Alan Bass. Margins of Philosophy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  14. Derrida, Jacques. 1972c. Positions. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit. Eng. trans. Alan Bass. Positions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  15. Derrida, Jacques. 1990. Limited Inc. Paris: Éditions Galilée. Eng. trans. Samuel Weber and Jeffrey Mehlman. Limited Inc. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  16. Derrida, Jacques, and Hans-Georg Gadamer. 2004. Der ununterbrochene Dialog. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
  17. Evans, J. Claude. 1991. Strategies of Deconstruction: Derrida and the Myth of the Voice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  18. Faye, Jan, and Henry J. Folse, eds. 1994. Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy. Vol. 153 Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Forget, Philippe, ed. 1984. Text und Interpretation. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.Google Scholar
  20. Froula, Christine. 1985. “Quantum Physics/Postmodern Metaphysics: The Nature of Jacques Derrida.” Western Humanities Review 39:289–313.Google Scholar
  21. Gasché, Rodolphe. 1986. The Tain of the Mirror: Derrida and the Philosophy of Reflection. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Husserl, Edmund. 1913. Logische Untersuchungen, Vol. 2: Untersuchungen zur Phänomenologie und Theorie der Erkenntnis, Part 1. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
  23. Kanamori, Osamu. 2000. Science Wars. Tokyo: Tokyo- daigaku-shuppankai.Google Scholar
  24. Katsumori, Makoto. 2010. “Derridean Deconstruction and the Question of Nature.” Derrida Today 3 (1):56–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lawlor, Leonard. 1992. Imagination and Chance: The Difference Between the Thought of Ricoeur and Derrida. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  26. Llewelyn, John. 1986. Derrida on the Threshold of Sense. Houndmills: Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
  27. Murdoch, Dugald. 1987. Niels Bohr’s Philosophy of Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Plotnitsky, Arkady. 1993a. Reconfigurations: Critical Theory and General Economy. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.Google Scholar
  29. Plotnitsky, Arkady. 1993b. In the Shadow of Hegel: Complementarity, History, and the Unconscious. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.Google Scholar
  30. Plotnitsky, Arkady. 1994. Complementarity: Anti-Epistemology After Bohr and Derrida. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Plotnitsky, Arkady. 1997. “‘But It Is Above All Not True’: Derrida, Relativity, and the ‘Science Wars.’” Postmodern Culture 7 (2).
  32. Plotnitsky, Arkady. 2001b. “Reading Bohr: Complementarity, Epistemology, Entanglement, and Decoherence.” In Decoherence and Its Implications in Quantum Computation and Information Transfer, edited by Tony Gonis and Patrice E. A. Turchi, 3–37. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  33. Plotnitsky, Arkady. 2002. The Knowable and the Unknowable: Modern Science, Nonclassical Thought, and the “Two Cultures.” Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  34. Ross, Andrew, ed. 1996. Science Wars. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Édition critique préparée par Tullio de Mauro. Paris: Editions Payot, 1972. Eng. trans. Roy Harris. Course in General Linguistics. La Salle, IL: Open Court Publishing Company, 1983.Google Scholar
  36. Sokal, Alan. 1996a. “Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.” Social Text 46/47:217–52. Reprinted in Sokal and Bricmont, Intellectual Impostures: Postmodern Philosophers’ Abuse of Science, 199–240. London: Profile Books, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Takahashi, Tetsuya. 1992. Gyakkō no logos [Logos in Backlight]. Tokyo: Miraisha.Google Scholar
  38. Takahashi, Tetsuya. 1998. Derrida: Datsukōchiku [Derrida: Deconstruction]. Tokyo: Kōdansha.Google Scholar
  39. von Weizsäcker, Carl Friedrich. 1983. Wahrnehmung der Neuzeit. München: Carl Hanser Verlag.Google Scholar
  40. Wheeler, John Archibald, and Wojciech Hubert Zurek, eds. 1983. Quantum Theory and Measurement. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Wheeler III, Samuel C. 2000. Deconstruction as Analytic Philosophy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Žižek, Slavoy. 1996. The Indivisible Remainder: An Essay on Schelling and Related Matters. London: Verso.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Education and Human StudiesAkita UniversityAkitaJapan

Personalised recommendations