The deconstructionist philosophy is a good example to show how systematic philosophy corresponds with democracy. Through criticizing egocentrism and enmity to others, deconstructionism is after relating the philosophical principles with the principle of acceptance of others and democracy. On the other hand Derrida' s discussion of socio-political democracy like democracy of the future and the challenges democracy faces, also have its roots in his philosophical thinking. So Democracy and deconstructionism are two sides of the same coin and it is not possible to understand one without understanding the other. This is a strong relation and Derrida's idea about philosophy and politics is based on it. The democracy of future as the result of this relation is the mirror of Derridean philosophy and politics. The relation between philosophy and deconstructionist democracy and their interaction and effects on each other are among the main concerns of this paper.

There have been two custom views on the relation of metaphor and philosophy. Some philosophers (esp. analytical philosophers) take metaphor dispensable, and tend to philosophical texts without metaphor, constituted on proper usage of words. Others take metaphor indispensable as the foundation of philosophical concepts. This attitude usually implies reducing philosophy to mythological discourse and inaccurate rhetoric. By embedding metaphor at the heart of language and escaping the classical opposition of metaphorical–proper, Derrida attribute philosophy and rhetoric same nature, while avoids negative evaluation of philosophy. By deconstructing metaphor, Derrida declares the death of metaphor (and so proper sense), and together with it, the death of philosophy, in the classical and historical sense of it. In this article we want to defend this claim that sense does not control language from without, rather it is the result of uniformity of well-founded metaphors, which are the essence of language.

Deconstruction is a strategy for demonstrating the contribution of philosophy to achieving the meaning of democracy in the postmodern world. It seeks to establish philosophical principles consistent with the principle of tolerating others and democracy in the post-democracy world. Meanwhile, Derrida's ideas in the field of socio-political democracy, such as future democracy and its oncoming challenges, are also rooted in his philosophy. Hence, democracy and deconstruction are the two sides of a coin, and one cannot be understood without the other. This connection is unbreakable and necessary and pivotal to Derrida's thinking about philosophy and politics. The breakthrough has come to suggest new horizons with the critique of modern systems including Western democracies that marginalized forces on the frontiers of democracy can actively participate in determining their own destinies. Contrary to positive methods, the underlying breach does not have a relative relation with the ultimate clarity of the Western society, and it is considered to be the fruits of the linear maturity of history. On the contrary, with the critique of metaphysical systems, it is a strategic breakthrough, so that the inertia of the universe becomes the instrument of successive negotiation. As far as the subject of this article is concerned, it attempts to define the Western metaphysical breakdown, then it shows how Derrida has benefited from this strategy in order to open up the political blockade of Western democratization with ongoing openings. The study of the link between deconstructive philosophy and democracy and how they interact with each other will be the cornerstone of this article.

In this paper I provide a reading of Derrida's seminal text, "White Mythology: Metaphor in the Text of Philosophy". In this text, Derrida deals with the encounter between philosophy and metaphor as an external element to philosophy. The conclusion is that Philosophy tends to internalize any external element. Philosophy considers metaphor as something ought to be subjected. Therefore, when one searches for the metaphor in philosophy, what he or she finds not the metaphor itself, but the concept of metaphor? Metaphor in the text of philosophy is the philosophical metaphor. Derrida at the end discusses the metaphor of metaphor, the tireless metaphorical movement, and unlimited metaphor as the truth of metaphor. Philosopher during its history always considers metaphors as something to be subjugated and controlled. So, metaphor in the text of philosophy is the concept of metaphor, not metaphor in itself, which according to Derrida, pure dissemination. In this sense, the origin of concepts is not conceptual.

As Derrida points out, Husserl needs the logical purity of meaning to constitute phenomenology, and he assures this by differentiating expressive and indicative signs. The realm of Platonic senses is confirmed by adopting expressive signs, wherein language expresses phenomenological ideal truths. But by refusing Husserl’s arguments and showing paradoxical faces of Husserl’s program, Derrida declares the impossibility of phenomenological project. Here we want to evaluate Derrida's analyses.

The influence of philosophy on architecture is one of the characteristics of contempo rary period, which has occurred after the destruction of architecture comprehensiveness. The relation between these two disciplines has many opponents, but in this article we just concentrated on the quality of relation between Derridas views and deconstruction in architecture. Ferdinand de Sa us sure and Claud Levi-Strauss reflections - two leaders of structuralism - have been reviewed as the first step. After explaining the formation of deconstruction in west societies, its key words such as the metaphysics of presence, logocentrism, language, writing, gramatology, undecidability, and textuality have been argued as well as the methods that is used by Derrida in order to reach his philosophy. It can help us to find out the deep meaning of deconstruction. The next part discussed about the beginning of deconstruction as a style in architecture, so it concentrate on the theoretical bases of construc tivism, dadaism, destyle, and expressionism is discussed. Searching the principles of this new movement through the deconstructivists views is a goal that is tried to reach. At last, the relation between Derridas reflections and architecture after collaboration with architects such as Eisenman and Tschumi is scrutinized.

Despite the fact that Derrida has gained a tremendous fame for his brilliant deconstruction of Aristotelian logics, it appears that he has not been able to transcend Aristotelian borders. This paper argues that Derrida with creating absolute and mutually exclusive borders has returned to his criticized Aristotelian boundary. He creates new, absolute and mutually exclusive opposite centers like difference, diversity, deferral, other, physics, relativism, uncertainty and metaphor. He rejects Aristotelian logics because of making one pole absent and making the other pole absolutely present and self-sufficient. However, Derrida himself considers a pole like "deferral" an independent truth without dependence on the other pole. He has established an absolute border between "deferral" and "presence", and considers them mutually exclusive. He also gives an absolute position to relativity and uncertainty, hence, in this way he reaches and new kind of absolutism. With his attitude, the dark and chaotic realm of matter and physics omits the metaphysics of light. Physics of darkness as a new god king causes the absence of the God of light, rationality, meaning and logos. In this way, Derrida revives a new type of metaphysics in which the god-center of meaninglessness, chaos, lack of identity, diversity and sophistry is mutually exclusive with mening, truth, unity, identity and order.

Husserl's thoughts and phenomenological method is one of conceptual resources of Derrida and the deconstruction approache. He was strong critic of Husserl and yet he is clearly deeply affected. Derrida's main critique of Husserl challenging the claim that according to it., in the realm of epistemology, all presuppositions should be suspended. The transcendental I is the subject of such an act. So Derrida claims that the phenomenology, the transcendental I remains out of suspension process. In addition, Derrida believes that Husserl is also one of the founders of the metaphysics of presence in twentieth century. Husserl's metaphysics of presence emerged mainly in discussion of signs. Regardless of critical and negative encounter with Husserl. in the development of deconstruction, Derrida both structurally and materially is benefited from phenomenology. This paper consists of two part. First section, Derrida's critique of Husserl is sought and the second section, the impact of the phenomenology and Husserl on deconstruction and Derrida will be examined.

Deconstruction, which brings to mind the name of Jacques Derrida, has a challenging relation with law and legal studies. Nevertheless, the belief in the obvious clarity of the legal text, and the concealment of the law-making violence, necessitates the deconstruction of the law, and requires consideration of this thought in legal theory. Discussions that have so far focused on the relation between deconstruction and legal studies can be divided into two general categories,The first category seeks to turn deconstruction into a technique of legal reasoning, and the other seeks to address its moral side. But merely establishing a relation between Derrida and law, if at the cost of eliminating the radical side of deconstruction and turning it into a method or moral advice, does not make much difference in status quo. Therefore, it is necessary to prevent the transformation of deconstruction in the mainstream legal theory, and to emphasize its intervening aspect. In doing so, one can seek to highlight the third and radical type of legal thinking relation with deconstruction. Accordingly, the present article, after examining the relationship between deconstruction and legal studies, seeks to critically analyze the types of legal theories influenced by Derrida's thinking with an analytical-critical method, and to emphasize the deconstruction of law as a movement which exposes and summons the hidden myths and silenced voices of law, and in this way, breaks the one and only logos of law and opens a way beyond it.

In “White Mythology”, Derrida deals with the role of metaphors in philosophy, and how philosophy defines metaphor. He believes that when philosophers define metaphor, they reduce it to the nominal metaphor, and this shows that they try to subject it under the concept. This is for Derrida an example of philosophy’s reductionist confrontation with its others. But Derrida deconstruct the distinction between the concept as the element of philosophy and the metaphor as the element of literature. For him, the concept and all philosophical concepts are basically metaphors, and the movement of metaphor is the movement of genesis of philosophical concepts. Riceour in “Metaphor and Philosophical Discourse” criticizes Derrida fiercely, and claims that the distinction between the discourses is what our tradition gave us, and Derrida neglects the important distinction between philosophical discourse and poetic discourse. The so called deconstruction of binary oppositions in Derrida mélanges the distinct discourses. Riceour himself tries to show the origin of the distinction between philosophical and poetic discourses in the work of Aristotle, especially about the concept of analogy. He finally concludes that an excact distinction takes form in the point of closeness of two discourses.