ABSTRACT This paper draws a comparison between Derrida’s “trace” and the idea of dao in classical Daoism (Laozi and Zhuangzi). It is argued that if dao is read in a non-metaphysical way, then the Derridean idea of “trace” will show large overlaps with dao. I then show how, despite some obvious differences, a “trace” reading of dao enables a clearer understanding of dao that would see it not as a metaphysical principle, ineffable but transcendent nonetheless, but rather as an immanent working of the patterned processes that makes up both the natural and human world. I also argue that the notion of trace in classical Daoism (ji 跡, literally footprints) or other characters denoting trace, are most often used in a more traditional way (as pointing to a lost presence) and hence are not useful for understanding what Derrida means with his notion of “trace.”

中文翻译：

---

追道：道家经典中的道与德里德的“道”之比较

摘要 本文将德里达的“迹”与古典道家（老庄子）中的道观进行了比较。有人认为，如果以非形而上学的方式阅读道，那么德里德的“迹”思想将与道有很大的重叠。然后我将展示，尽管存在一些明显的差异，对道的“痕迹”阅读如何能够更清晰地理解道，而不是将其视为一种形而上学的原则，不可言喻但超然，而是将其视为模式化过程的内在运作自然和人类世界。我还认为古典道教中的痕迹概念（ji 迹，字面意思是脚印）或其他表示痕迹的字符，