Coming out of the Heideggerean tradition of confusing wannabe academics into thinking you know more than they can grasp, Derrida has been stringing his following along for decades, getting into innumerable literary criticism and philosophy and language study classrooms and scaring kids away from what can truly be rewarding fields of study. Certainly his ideas on "differance" and the de-centered center are neat and they are developed out of a broader philosophical tradition. But Derrida's work is the perfect example of why so many people are turned away from philosophical study. Certainly, I am not advocating that everyone break their works down into catch-phrases and self-help books, but there should be a recognition that if the concepts cannot be elucidated in plain language, if the arguments cannot be followed without a strong background in phenomenology and structuralism, then they are of little use. Hume wrote his Enquiry, Kant the "Prolegomena", Sartre delivered his Existentialism & Humanism talk, etc... these were all attempts to make somewhat clear, the ideas entrenched in their dense treatises. That attempt needs to be made. If the work remains solely in the hands of the elite, who have made their way through all of the academic hoops, it grows stale. I think we can already see that happening. Or is it all just a game? A bunch of intellectual posturing? I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt and believe that's not the case. But I'm still waiting for someone to prove it.