本篇文章想要探討黑格爾「棄存揚升」(Aufhebung)通過巴達耶的「僭越」(Transgression)然後到德希達「延異」(Differance)的轉變。我們先簡要地說明黑格爾思想對當代法國哲學的歷史影響後，試圖從黑格爾到德希達的轉變，顯示出德希達如何在他的解構哲學去阻斷黑格爾的否定辯證法。 首先，德希達將「棄存揚升」釋譯為「取代與揚棄」(releve)，闡釋了他對黑格爾辯證法理解為排除的過程而非保存，特別是關於黑格爾的符號學。黑格爾的符號學由存有顯現的目的論(teleology)所建立，並為黑格爾辯證法中所設定的等級制度之來源。正是從這種等級制度的建立，我們發現到這種存有顯現(being-presence)目的論所蘊含的西方邏輯中心主義(logocentrism)與語音中心主義(phonocentrism)。 再者，從德希達對巴達耶的解讀，可以視為另一種對黑格爾「棄存揚升」的阻斷，從中可以發現黑格爾的辯證綜合被取代為「非意義」(the non-meaning)，這個非意義保有了二元論活力衝突並引領我們去從新考慮哲學的限度及邊界。因此，巴達耶使用的「僭越」、「主權」(sovereignty)等字可以被視為阻斷「棄存揚升」並拒絕臣屬於主奴辯證中的理性。 最後，德希達「延異」的發明試圖去瓦解黑格爾辯證法中「時間優於空間、聲音優於形象」所建立起的等級制度。由於「延異」中的「a」在發音上無法被辯識並且與法文中「差異」。德希德試著將沈默被包含在他的哲學實驗中。由於這是個創造出來的字，因此無法指涉任何存在的事物(being-present)、亦無法回到存有(Being)的起源。透過「延異」對拼音規則的僭越，「延異」的不存在，卻顯示出對存有顯現意義的反省。「延異」的發明使得無起源的差異思考成為可能。

This article would like to investigate the transformation taking place from Hegel’s Aufheburng to Derrida’s Differance, passing by Bataille’s Transgression. We explain briefly the historical influence of Hegel’s thought on contemporary French philosophy. The subsequent transformation, from Hegel to Derrida, shows how Derrida interrupts the operation of Hegel’s negative dialectics in his deconstructive philosophy. Firstly, the translation of Aufhebung as releve, illustrates Derrida’s understanding of Hegel’s texts as process of exclusion and not of conservation, especially as regards Hegel’s semiology. The latter is established by the teleology of presence, which is the source of the hierarch in Hegelian dialectics. And exactly from the erection of this hierarchy, we find the teleology of presence implying the logocentrism and phonocentrism of Western philosophy. Secondly, in Derrida’s appreciation of Georeges Bataille, like another form of interruption of Hegel, we observe that the Hegelian dialectical synthesis is replaced by a non-meaning which conserves the dynamic conflict of dualism and leads us to reconsider the limits and boundaries of philosophy. Thus Georeges Btaille used other words: ‘transgression’ and ‘sovereignty’, etc… to interrupt the Aufhebung submitting to rationality in the master-slave dialectic. Thirdly, the invention of the word ‘differance’ attempts to crash the superiority of time over space or that of sound over figure in Hegel’s dialectics. The ‘a’ of ‘differance’ cannot be observed by pronunciation and confused with ‘difference’ with ‘e’. It is precisely that silence, as the boundary of sound, will be integrated into Derrida’s philosophical experiment. Moreover, it is impossible to refer ‘differance’ to any being-present, even to the origin of Being. Through the transgression of orthography, the non-presence of ‘difference’ is the necessary reflection of presence. The ‘differance’ makes possible the thinking of difference without origin.