Why did some critics describe Jacques Derrida’s work as nihilistic or antirational?

Critics of Jacques Derrida often labeled his work as nihilistic or antirational due to his fundamental challenge to the traditions of Western philosophy. By developing deconstruction, Derrida sought to expose the "binary oppositions"—such as speech versus writing or nature versus culture—that have structured philosophical thought since the time of the ancient Greeks.12

Critics, particularly within the Anglo-American tradition, argued that this approach was an "antirational" rejection of "serious" philosophical inquiry. Because Derrida’s analysis suggested that meaning is never fully "present" but is instead endlessly "deferred" through an infinite chain of linguistic differences, some scholars viewed his work as a "nihilistic" endorsement of radical epistemic relativism. Furthermore, because deconstruction did not offer a new set of nonmetaphysical concepts to replace those it dismantled, some practitioners and critics felt the method left philosophy "empty-handed and directionless," raising questions about the purpose of continuing philosophical discourse at all. Despite these characterizations, Derrida’s work remains a highly influential force in contemporary intellectual life.132