在德希達對形上學的解構任務中，「隱喻」這個問題，同時以兩個方式進行，一面呈顯與亞理斯多德哲學傳統下鉤連的定義關係，這呈顯是為了討論形上學內部對於隱喻的規定，同時也說明了海德格企圖解構形上學的未竟之功。另一方面則是隱喻如何突破被概念定義的問題，從而恢復其多義的語言效果。在以「隱喻」為解構的線索中，本文也將分為兩部分討論德希達對此問題的拆解：首先，討論西方形上學中，隱喻與概念的推移過程，即說明隱喻的邊緣位置與依賴概念才能被瞭解，始於概念的形成與概念位置被鞏固。第二部分則在說明隱喻與存有之間的關係，此二者關係在於相互定義，也都同樣受制於概念而遭到遺忘；但顯然海德格在喚起存有之時，卻將隱喻再次遺忘於概念之中，這也是德希達認為其仍停留在形上學之中的原因。

In the task of Derrida, the question of metaphor is proceeded by two ways: one is the definition related to the tradition of Aristotle’s philosophy, in which the metaphor is ruled and is explicated for Heidegger’s the unfinished task: the deconstruction of metaphysics. The other consists in how the metaphor doesn’t depend any more on the concept and retrieve the effect of language. By the metaphor as thread of deconstruction in the thinking of Derrida, this text is divides two parts: first, I’ll discuss the movement of transformation between the metaphor and the concept; that is to say, the metaphor is sited on the edge of philosophy and is understood by the concept, because of the concept’s formation. Secondly, I’ll explicate the relation between the metaphor and the Being, in which they are defined and understood each other; because of concept, they are forgot too. Evidently, Heidegger remind of the Being, but forgets the other, that’s why Derrida think that Heidegger stay still in the metaphysics.