Derrida makes no sense to me at all if he's not saying that, whether there be truth or not, we can't communicate it (nor could we, by like logic, disclose it to ourselves). I mean, whatever truth is, to define it as any and all of an infinite spectrum of theoretically possible secondary signifiers is effectively to deny it, no?
And I'm not sure anybody knows what Baudrillard is ever on about (and bark your denials at me with impunity, I shan't be reading him again to check), but doesn't he reckon we don't exist? As I remember that cute little shrug of his on 'The End of the Social' tells us the social is at once constructed and dissolved by the media; that we accordingly absorb our dissolution through our maker. The media clearly exists for B., as does he, but society does not. Just the autonomous media and its multi-million one-to-one relations with each of us, each wholly a product of/for the media's self-validation.
That's not a destruction of all truth in the formal sense, perhaps, but it is a destruction of the only place truth can reside or be generated or be negotiated (depending on what you mean by truth).
Perhaps B reckons he has the truth - but as artist and author, he is media - for he can be nought else sans the social, eh?
Bollocks.
Love, Rob.