ABSTRACT The essay situates and dissects Derrida’s two catalytic interventions into Heidegger’s thought on time and history—the seminar Heidegger: The Question of Being & History (1964-5) and the essay Ousia and Grammē (1968). The first aim is to explicate the relation of history to time in Heidegger’s seemingly untroubled passage from a textured and striated temporality into historicity, understood as structured, inscribed, and in a privileged sense, human time. Sustaining the difference of the inseparably intertwined notions of time and history is paramount for Heidegger, yet the place and function accorded to history will mark for Derrida, nothing less than the ultimate impasse of the project of Being and Time. Accordingly, the second aim of the essay is to present and question the productive elision of time and history that Derrida effects through narrative. On the one hand, this elision offers the ground of a forceful critique of the project of Being and Time. On the other hand, this pivotal gesture of deconstruction will always be compelled to seek, through a proliferation of names, those a-temporal and a-historical vanishing points for time and history that undercut the mutual conditioning of the two that it has laboured to effect.

中文翻译：

---

历史之后的时间：德里达对海德格尔的两次解读

摘要 本文定位并剖析了德里达对海德格尔时间和历史思想的两次催化介入——研讨会海德格尔：存在与历史的问题 (1964-5) 和论文 Ousia and Grammē (1968)。第一个目的是在海德格尔从纹理化和条纹化的时间性到历史性（被理解为结构化的、铭刻的和在特权意义上的人类时间）的看似无忧无虑的过渡中，阐释历史与时间的关系。维持时间和历史不可分割的交织概念的差异对海德格尔来说是最重要的，但赋予历史的位置和功能将标志着德里达，这无异于存在与时间计划的最终僵局。因此，这篇文章的第二个目的是呈现和质疑德里达通过叙事对时间和历史进行的富有成效的省略。一方面，这种省略提供了对存在与时间计划的有力批判的基础。另一方面，这种解构的关键姿态将总是被迫通过名称的扩散寻找时间和历史的那些非时间性和非历史性的消失点，这些消失点削弱了两者的相互制约。影响。