Future(s) of Philosophy: The Marginal Thinking of Jacques Derrida

What does Jacques Derrida mean to philosophy? Is his marginalization in the philosophic community (on grounds of «lack of seriousness») itself a philosophic issue? How shall we understand Derrida's distancing of himself from the «deconstruction industry?» Does Derrida/deconstruction have a philosophical future? Asked against the background of such thinkers as de Saussure, Peirce, Nietzsche, Adorno, Mann, Habermas and Foucault, these are the insistent questions that Future(s) of Philosophy: The Marginal Thinking of Jacques Derrida raises.

«A distinctive and valuable contribution. It addresses the impact of deconstruction on American philosophy and criticism in a way that has not been attempted elsewhere. There is, to my knowledge, nothing comparable yet published in the field. Other books take a more detailed expository line of approach; Percesepe ranges more widely and writes with a liveliness and flair not often encountered in works of this kind. Percesepe is a creative and imaginative writer who finds full scope for these qualities in his 'academic' work.» (Christopher Norris, University of Wales, Institute of Science and Technology)
«Future(s) of Philosophy culminates in an account of how Deconstruction comes to get a Proper Name and speculates on its chances of surviving this institutionalization. Its author writes wryly on authorship, wittily on truth as woman, pointedly on power, poignantly on desire. He explains why these and related questions have provoked debate inside and outside the post-Nietzschean academy. In both of these places, and at the margin between, his own lively contribution to that debate will be read with jouissance.» (John Llewelyn, University of Edinburgh)
«Percesepe in this essay achieves three goals in an exemplary manner: he discusses accurately and insightfully Derrida's relationship to his historical predecessors such as Hegel and Heidegger, he philosophizes brilliantly about these relationships using the Derridean concepts of deconstruction and différance, and he enacts in his own practice Derrida's method and literary style. The essay is what it talks about, namely a deconstruction of the history of philosophy. Moreover Percesepe achieves these ends with a clarity and cogency that may, at times, surpass the master.» (James L. Marsh, Fordham University)