you da manager?

Derrida logic:
We always see language and writing together. Therefore, language is writing.
We always see Abbot and Costello together. Therefore, Abbot is Costello.
Or even:
We always see logic and fallacy together. Therefore, logic is fallacy.
That he would like that last one makes no difference to the point.
Constant co-appearance is not an index of potential reduction to identity. Exactly to the contrary.

Two non-answers

Let us suppose this to be a valid question:
“Why study literature?”

If the answer is “Because it’s literature,” that is tautological–no answer at all.

On the other hand, if the answer is “Because it’s this, that and the other,” that is incoherent–again, no answer.

If these are the only two answers we can give, it is very hard to see why there need to be literature departments.

Yet these are the two answers, in one version or another, that one hears from literary academics today.