Two Can Play at this Game

An uncharitable reading of J.D.'s refusal to define his terms is that he's bluffing. A charitable reading is to say that he's doing it on purpose because he's thinks making precise philosophical definitions is a fool's game. No one can actually do it, so why pretend–it's more honest to just start using a technical term like "trace" and let it accrue whatever meaning it's going to accrue. (More honest in the way that writing Being is more honest.) Maybe this is a valid point about philosophical nomenclature, except the definition-by-ostension strategy seems parasitic on someone else's definition-by-describing-what-you-mean strategy. For example, the whole hullabaloo about "traces" falls flat unless we already have the clearly delineated Saussurian distinction between /b/ and /p/ in mind.

Hey, can I push this a little further and deconstruct Derrida? Let's try.

1. Tacit dichotomy...J.D.'s definition-by-ostension differs from other philosophers' definition-by-description.
2. Privileged member of dichotomous pair...Definition-by-description is for chumps. The only way to introduce a philosophical term is to just start using it.
3. Self-undermining nature of dichotomous privileging...Definition-by-ostention only works if there are definition-by-description terms to play off of.

And...gotcha! That was kinda fun, but ultimately unsatisfying.

Of course another possibility is that J.D. isn't doing anything particularly tricky here and I'm simply failing to follow his argument.