Cookies Policy
Cookie Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Where to Cut: Boucherie and Delikatessen

MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.

Buy this article

$30.00+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites

image of Research in Phenomenology

Matthew Calarco refers to Derrida’s apparently dogmatic “insistence on maintaining the human-animal distinction.” What would it mean to “overcome” this distinction? Can we simply let it go? Derrida’s stance is compared with a certain dogma of Heidegger’s and the bêtise of frontal endorsement or denial of it. Perhaps the distinction between mention and use makes possible a relocation of Derrida’s apparent dogmatism. His reservations over the distinction between mention and use do not prevent his mentioning animals (animaux) in the neologism animot. What does it mean to say that the human-animal distinction is abyssal? United by a common concern, the parties to the debate focused on in this essay (Derrida, Calarco, Har-away, Smuts, Llewelyn) follow different procedures that, however, complement one another.

Affiliations: 1: University of Edinburgh


Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Create email alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    Research in Phenomenology — Recommend this title to your library

    Thank you

    Your recommendation has been sent to your librarian.

  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation