The essay is the author’s personal attempt to mis/interpret or mis/read Derrida and his works. Anyone could have this feeling that the moment one proclaims to understand Derrida, it is tantamount in saying that he/she may have indeed misunderstood him. According to Derrida, there is a fixed relation of differences of meanings ascribed within the phonemic differences of utterances. Language is the primary object of deconstruction and Derrida subverts and exposes the phonocentric foundationalism of the structuralists, particularly that of Ferdinand de Saussure’s. Because of this, Derrida is oftentimes placed in the history of philosophy as part of post-structuralism. In the end, I tried to tussle my way in critiquing deconstruction. There is no promise of clarity if the paper did or fail to do it, but the contingent debacle of sustaining the language of deconstruction as it denies philosophy and other systems of thought, a place to start with, could well eat inside deconstructive approach and left fossilizing its attempt to reroute away from the metaphysics of conformity it triumphantly deconstructs. This would judge whether, as others claim, deconstruction has waned or has just started after Derrida.