the self and its morality. For Derrida, there is no particular dis-
tinction between one Western religion or culture and another:
all are colored by metaphysics and logocentric prejudice. He
therefore fails to grasp the point of the Übermensch’s striving.
In Derrida the only strife is the impossible effort to cross over
to the outside of an all-encompassing system that has “always
already” existed. Nietzsche, by contrast, has a firm sense of
historical possibility, of how one god replaces another. He
therefore understands the political role of the philosopher as
Derrida does not. He also underlines the character of the
philosopher, who reacts in a personal, motivated way to earlier
epochs.
Nietzsche wants a new world in which artistry can take
up its rightful place. But this world can only be the work of a
philosophical lawgiver with a harsh message: a prophet of
order. Such prophecy is very different from Derrida’s pro-
phetic tone (in, for example, “Structure, Sign and Play,” which,
as we saw last chapter, draws on Nietzsche’s pronouncements).
Derrida delivers a liberating or messianic message, generously
(or vaguely) defined. Nietzsche, by contrast, wants a new
political order, a world governed by a reimagined system of
values.
Nietzsche is, ultimately, interested in imposing meaning,
rather than merely following the scattershot, exhilarating
sweep of it. To suggest, as Derrida does, that “I have forgotten
my umbrella” might occupy the same status in Nietzsche’s
oeuvre as Thus Spake Zarathustrais to fly in the face of the au-
thor’s own strong will, his intended vision. Uncomfortable
with a regime of values that exacts suffering from us by mak-
ing us deny our own natures, Nietzsche wants a new world that
will serve life. Mere dispersal of meaning is not enough.
When he considers Nietzsche’s view of women, Derrida
170 Plato, Austin, Nietzsche, Freud