@article {12220,
	title = {Aporie podpisu: opakov{\'a}n{\'\i} neopakovateln{\'e}ho u Derridy a Deleuze},
	journal = {Filozofia},
	volume = {71},
	number = {6},
	year = {2016},
	pages = {450-461},
	type = {State},
	abstract = {The paper questions the possibility of keeping the legal conception of <em>signature</em> as a constant and repeatable style of handwriting. By comparing double  Derrida{\textquoteright}s and Deleuze{\textquoteright}s  ontological semiotics, the author observes that while both thinkers agree that no writer is able to reach identity by repeating his/her traces, they disagree on the reason of this claim. In Derrida, signature is just an aporetical request of the law: in order to confirm our civil identity, we are obliged to repeat manually a trace that can{\textquoteright}t be repeated manually. In Deleuze, repetition doesn{\textquoteright}t produce identity, but difference: in every signing, the writer is becoming a signature. His/her handwriting is every time shaped by a singular affect, which alternates his/her previous traces. Contrary to Derrida, Deleuze admits a consistence of the author{\textquoteright}s style, which is a sign of his continuous <em>affective becoming, becoming-a-name, becoming-a-line</em>.},
	keywords = {Difference, Event, Gilles Deleuze, Identity, Jacques Derrida, Repetition, Signature},
	url = {http://www.klemens.sav.sk/fiusav/doc/filozofia/2016/6/450-461.pdf},
	author = {Fi{\v s}erov{\'a}, Michaela}
}
