Rousseau hates writing, civilization, and masturbation/fantasy, because they are the dangerous supplements to speech, nature and “real” sex. Derrida deconstructs this and shows how a supplement both adds on to and takes the place of the “original.” So, therefore, Rousseau pines for these “original” states (speech, nature, “real” sex), but because they are never complete, they are always marked by the absence he hates so much about the “inauthentic” sides of the binary (writing, civilization, and masturbation/fantasy), and therefore he will never attain them (“them” being what he thinks they are). Basically, everything contains absence, nothing is completely present, so therefore, we always want something we cannot (fully) have. Which makes me think of Lacanian desire—desire for the Real (which can never be attained, since we cannot go back to before we thought of things in terms of Self and Other), and desire for another’s desire, which goes back to Hegel’s master-and-slave, that desire for the Other’s desire is the only desire which is human. It is a desire that can never be sated, because how do we “have” or “own” another’s desire? Psychoanalysis and deconstruction cannot sate these desires; they can only allow us to learn to live with them better.
Feh. I need to think about this more.