I never said everything is linguistic and we're enclosed in language. In fact, I say the opposite, and the deconstruction of logocentrism was conceived to dismantle precisely this philosophy for which everything is language. Anyone who reads my work with attention understands that I insist on affirmation and faith, and that I'm full of respect for the texts I read.I first read Derrida in grad school with the idea that he was the latest "bad guy", the newest nihilist and most recent relativist, whose thought I would expose as false with the true philosophy that I had in my possession. I had heard from many sources that Derrida was an enemy of truth. I soon discovered, however, that Derrida was neither a relativist nor a nihilist; he did not wish to tear down tradition and truth. He was not an enemy to be defeated, but a humble lover of truth who didn't think in the same concepts, categories, and frameworks to which I was accustom and with which I was comfortable. I even learned a thing or two from him, particularly that we not only use language to speak about our perceptions and interpretations, but language allows us to have the perceptions in the first place. When ever we perceive a thing, we perceive it as something. Derrida, among other projects, drew out what he saw were the ramifications of what he called the play of language that allows for and shapes our perceptions.
I better learned from reading him that truth was not something I could possess, something that could be encapsulated and exhausted by my pet philosophical systems. And I learned from him that the constructs by which I understand things are in need of deconstruction, are already in a sense deconstructing before the "undeconstructable," which Derrida also called the name of God.
Is this nihilism? I call it humility. If truth is ultimately infinite, and our language is finite, then we will always be revising our formulas--if the pursuit of truth is really our aim.