Deconstruction on Alexander Pope´s “An Essay on Man”

Deconstruction on Alexander Pope´s “An Essay on Man”

&nbsp;&nbsp;Arthur O. Lovejoy divides the assumption of the great chain of being and man&quot;s place in nature into two: the old assumption in the Middle Ages through the 18th century and the new assumption in the 18th century. The old assumption argues that all other creatures exist for man&quot;s sake. On the other hand, the new assumption opposes an anthropo-centric teleology. It contends that, by the principle of plenitude, every creature in the chain of being exists not only for its own sake, but for any other creature, so that the universe can keep itself in order.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;However, this paper aims to dismantle the preceding two traditional assumptions through a different methodology of deconstruction.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;My first concern is to subvert the hierarchical structure of the great chain of being in the Renaissance thinking, and to introduce the leveling, horizontal structure of the infinite chain of supplements.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;My next question concerns the contrast between the reconciliation of the two opposites in concors discordia in the Renaissance thinking and supplementarity "sous rature" (under erasure). In a deconstructive reading, the border of the two opposites is infiltrated by the free play of difference, an equivalent to supplement.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;Thus, the role of reconciliation and that of supplement should be understood far differently. As for a deconstructor, supplement differs from reconciliation in that the latter means concors discordia which brings not only a conflict or difference into harmony but also preconditions the priority of the one over the other.