It is striking (and somewhat embarrassing) to observe that in the now very large literature devoted to the works of Jacques Derrida very little critical attention has been paid to the strictly philosophical import of either his interpretations of other philosophers or to the ultimate content of his own philosophy. Certainly we have a great body of texts from students, admirers, and followers of Derrida, particularly in this country, who almost uncritically accept and then attempt to repeat in similar idioms the things that he has said or is interpreted as having meant. But serious philosophical comment is very sparse, whether from the side of analytical Anglo-American philosophy or from the side of phenomenology. Of course, we have the very penetrating analysis and criticism of his thought presented by John Searle, but Searle is almost unique among analytical philosophers for paying any attention to Derrida at all, unless, like Richard Rorty, they have also already given up philosophy for a sociology of communication.