The Principles Of Derridas Deconstruction

The Principles Of Derridas Deconstruction Derridas deconstruction begins identifying a disjuncture in discursive use of language. When the principle of absolute identity or fixity is sustained as a ground for any form of philosophical inquiry, made possible by the use of language, a particular discourse can present itself as necessary truths, not merely as contingent. This is done to showcase an independent, pure reality, of the presence of things, beings, the subjects of a particular discourse. . However, once a possibility of contamination and unfixity in any one element within a discourse is recognized and accepted, a paradox (aporia) will be exposed and remain within the understanding of a discursive object.- in an example of Deconstruction I will refer to the deconstruction of the speech-writing dichotomy. For Derrida, no discourse can convincingly claim the fixity of identity or consistency once we accept the fact that we are working with language and linguistic signs which functions on a linguistic system constructed differentially out of its relationship with other signs. By marking the gap and the limits of a particular limit through a deconstructive gesture such as a close reading of a text, Derrida aims to destabilize and the scope of a text and inscribe the limit of the a metaphysical mode of thinking metaphysics of presence in philosophical traditions a logocentrism within philosophy. For Derrida, philosophy has created a system of concepts centred on implicit privileging of presence, similar to what Heidegger claims of the primacy of onto-theology in philosophy. Philosophy and the theology of Being inscribed within it, grounds its enterprise on an absolute, a centre, an essence. This provides philosophical discourse an unconditional first cause God, Soul, Atman, Consciousness ,Transcendental Ego. Philosophy in the tradition of Plato right up to Heidegger, affirms this exteriority outside through a false conception of language in which a linguistic sign transparently mediates the transcendental / external world and the self.  [1]  Because of this, Derrida claims that language becomes a proxy of a philosophal discourses metaphysics of presence by affirming and signifying this essence as the external ground for itself.. (I) Differance , trace, and the play of linguistic signifiers To counter the pervasiveness of the metaphysics of presence in Western Philosophy Derrida uses the neologism Differance a playful combination of differ and to defer, to demonstrate that the meaning of a linguistic sign is the simultaneous operation of distinction and temporality. This demonstration is to show that any meaning constructed in language is not fixed but disseminated and cannot be located within a specific core or essence. Differance, also, however paradoxically, provides the conditions of the possibility of meaning of a linguistic sign possible. Differance can also be transposed, through the concept of trace. In Of Grammatology, Derrida critiques Husserls trancendental-phenomenological presupposition of a pure presence of the moment a moment which is pure and complete, independent from all other moments that appears itself in consciousness. In the idea of trace, Derrida shows that consciousness always contain things that are retained from previous moments, therefore a moment cannot consist of other moments separate or independent of itself.  [2]  Trace therefore exposes the absence of a independent, full presence that consciousness can conceive of its meaning.  [3]  As meaning is differential and also a process of referral from term to term, each linguistic signifier has its meaning only through its difference from other signifiers. Meaning is constituted by a network of traces are mutually implicated in one another. It is in this sense Derrida rejects the Sassaurean conception of language constituted of linguistic signs that corresponds to the relationship between the signifier and signified. For Derrida, language is a matter of play between identity and difference within an infinite chain of signifiers. Differance therefore precludes the stability of any linguistic referents as a result there is no external referent to language that language itself can approach for verification. Philosophy, with its medium of language, does not then, Derrida claims, represent a stable Being, presence or reality, more accurately than literature and other forms of linguistic expression. This presents the philosopher with the inescapability of prejudices, intentions and presuppositions presenting multiple ways to describe or proscribe. which cannot be subjected to an objective referent truth, or essence for the linguistic (thus, metaphysical) accuracy of any philosophical expression. Therefore, for Derrida, all attempts to refer to reality are already structured in advance by the workings of our language even ones self is constituted by the language and language-constituting discourses that preexists the self. (ii) Derridas deconstruction of speech over writing Derridas deconstructive project questions the primacy of a transparent language and a rationality that corresponds and addresses philosophical truths by denying the assumption that language conforms to a rational order (that can be apprehended by the cogito) of some external reality apart from human interpretation of various phenomena. For Saussure any linguistic expression is constituted by binary-oppositions for its meaning. Speech and writing the binary forms of language has been, in the history of Western philosophy has been marked by the hierarchy that priviledges speech over writing because speech, is always marked by the presence of the speaker. The speaker, signifying immediacy has been elevated and identified with the presence of Truth. This relation of immediacy and presence of Truth establishes the superiority of speech over writing, in which Truth is obscured in the absence of a speaker.  [4]  Derrida notices that speech/presence and writing/absence form binary opposites in which truth-seeking discourse maintains itself my suppressing writing over speech. This privileging of speech, or a metaphysics of presence accords speech a higher, more primary value as bearing truth-immediacy. In Derridas Of Grammatology, language, the mark of the social that demarcates sociality from mere constituents of nature, Rousseau, claims, language in the form of writing that destroys presence actually reveals languages inability to render absolute presence.  [5]  As Derrida understands Rousseau, writing becomes the auxillary of speech, a supplement that usurps the place of speech by forgetting its mere vicarious role (correspondence to a referent) by making itself pass for the plenitude of speech whose deficiency and infirmity it nevertheless only supplements.  [6]  Rousseau, in trying to disestablish the mediative role language plays between presence and absence, however, for Derrida, is an inescapable fact. The silent play of difference serves as the conditions of both signs and phonemes in a linguistic system, without it, language would be impossible, Derrida claims.  [7]  Writing differs from speech in that it neither presupposes the presence of Being, or of its tr ansparency towards Being. Writing becomes a interpretative exercise enmeshed in a play of interpretations that takes primacy over speech. Since the differentiation of a linguistic sign preceded speech, Derrida gives writing a certain primacy over speech. In the non-transparence of presence in language, every representation is a continual play between absence and presence and any representation does not exceed the phenomena it is purported to signify. As such, Derrida concludes that it is merely impossible to take language, as the venue and means of philosophy, in the hopes of making transparent the relationship between the linguistic signified and signifier.  [8]  Derrida takes this claim a step further to challenge the idea that linguistic signifiers can convey a picture of an extratextual reality thus shrugging of philosophys metaphysical claims that implicitly point towards an extratextual, transcendent truth.. There is nothing outside the text that linguistic signifiers point towards hence there is nothing outside the text- language constructs our world, and that there is nothing outside the text. This slogan can be read also in another way, that the locus of purview of the texts can be cast to include all manner of human actions and interventions, thus disrupting the supposed dichotomy between text and non-text. Therefore, every human action and intervention action, every social relation and differential power relation , every ethico-politcal action belongs to text. However, before embracing the inclusivism of text, one needs to consider even if the pereceived world signified by language exhibit the structure of text, the relations between objects in the world might not necessarily possess the relations of the linguistic type. (iii) What Deconstruction is not/ the limits of deconstruction Deconstruction, in pointing out that every binary opposition is already in deconstruction, cannot then point towards any binary pair that can be seen according to an absolute difference in the system of linguistic signs. A binary on which includes an implicit hierarchical relationship between respective binary-terms (p,41),  [9]  is not governed by a neutral difference inscribed in linguistic rules, but always of a violent, imposed, hierarchy.  [10]   As has been shown, deconstruction is not a general method of reading texts, or interpretation can can be implemented from outside a given text. One can, only possibly think then, perhaps, that deconstruction is somehow a modal predicate, a certain process of causation whereby deconstruction is the cause of the disruption of a binary opposition in linguistic signification. However, Deconstruction helps us illuminate the unfixity of inside/outside relations of any metaphysical limits. Perhaps, it makes sense to say that limits are already in deconstruction. This corresponds, as Derrida had said earlier, that Deconstruction takes place as an event that does not await the deliberation, consciousness, or organization of a subject, or even of modernity. It deconstructs it-self. It can be deconstructed [Ça se dà ©construit]  [11]   Perhaps, then, nothing can exist outside its contexts no existence outside it. Yet, a context itself consists of the possbility of non-closure: a context itself contains an internal logic of closure in which dictates what bounds, frames, encloses and determines any context. This trope necessarily exceeds context. Can a condition and limits of a context ever be determinable? Deconstruction acknowledges boundaries and limits, only to show the subversive ways in which they are called into question what is now taken to be marginal and supplementary now becomes central. What Deconstruction is not, then, a principled method, an ethical generality, an attitude of nonconformity. Deconstruction is not a critique in an epistemic sense, aiming to lead discourse closer to truth by aleatoric gestures, or performing a discursive operation. Again, this characterisation of deconstruction is not to affirm deconstruction of its ontological necessity by way of negative statements about it (a negative metaphysics). Deconstruction is not to question the traditional assumptions of philosophy from another more complete or accurate philosophical system an outside that can be conclusively identified, reducible to an essence. Deconstructive thinking occurs as the disruption and interruption that establishes the outside from the inside. Deconstruction to be distinguished from analysis: which presupposes reduction of entities to simple, essential elements would stand in need of deconstruction: deconstruction is not critique in the Kantian sense.  [12]  Deconstruction would affirm that any deconstructive gestures can also take a posture of metaphysical closure the double refusal of both remaining within the limits of (linguistic) tradition and of the possibility of transgressing that very limit.  [13]   This logic corresponds to the idea that Deconstruction halts every existential signifier by questioning the impossibility of positing every is, a refusal to affirm any presence of any thing that might be taken to affirm a things albeit obscure, essential quality. Deconstruction consists of deconstructing, is to put out of joint,  [14]  Derrida claims, the authority of existential quantifiers. By not actually positing existential qualifiers such as these it may thus illuminate and unsettle what has been taken as a given in logocentric discourse, an unchanging identity, fixatedness of concepts such as justice and politics, or truth itself. All affirmations of the type deconstruction is X is to miss the point that deconstruction is not reducible to any essential feature. (iv) Deconstruction and aporetic thinking As shown earlier, the binary of speech and writing can only be made understandable by a logical contradiction: an aporia. This aporetic moment can be shown only by seeing the speech and writing as opposites and takes the form of something that cannot be explained through standard syllogistic logic. What constitutes a deconstructive gesture therefore, begins with the encounter with an aporia. In this case such encounter can be deconstructive, but it does not, as binary logic does, rule out that deconstruction can be made also philosophical, political and ethical at the same time. Deconstruction becomes the impossible condition of possibility of opposition, such as the opposition of speech over writing in which Derrida, in showing that when writing comes before speech, inverting the traditional Platonic hierarchy of speech over writing, the liberates the concept of writing from the occlusion and oppression, in traditional linguistic systems, of how it can be read as the origin of speech. In accepting the dismantling of the binary distinction of speech over writing, one no longer uses the term writing in the sense of adhering to the conceptual limits that provides writing a certain meaning from within the linguistic structure of an opposition. A realization that a new concept of writing needs to be actualized, even if it is not specifically a concept in a traditional sense employed in a previous linguistic regime (that marks its limits and temporal boundaries )- an impossible condition but a condition of possibility of understanding. As Derrida states which is not really a concept at all inasmuch as the very concept of a concept depends on an idea of difference-as-presence, allowing one to say of something that it is. By means of this double, and precisely stratified, dislodged and dislodging, writing, we must also mark the interval between inversion, which brings low what was high, and the irruptive emergence of a new concept, a concept that can no longer be, and never could be, included in the previous regime .  [15]   (v) Ethical-political responsibilities of Deconstruction Derrida, in deconstruction, therefore does not reduce texts to absurdities he seeks to expose the irreducible undecidable internal tensions and aporias that can negate all certainty imposed in the quest of epistemic certitude that affirms an apprehending subject. Deconstruction opposes syllogistic logic and adopts both/and approaches, where we seek to uncover heterogeneities when there is settled synthesis. At heart of what we take to be the same, then, is already otherness and difference. Therefore, what is dominant the logic of the same, is deeply imperialistic as discursively violent since we cannot do justice to the Other, and the otherness that actually lies within the same as one cannot exhaustively establish metaphysical boundaries that separates the self and the other, internality from exteriority. Negating absoluteness and thereby positing ultimate limits to contain the purity, or essentiability of an object deconstruction questions our ability to render an absolute disti nction between logic and rhetoric, philosophy and literature, theory and practice, ethical and non-ethical actions. To side with one is an act of undecidability, without recourse to an ultimate precedent. This decision in undecidability, even constitutive of it a condition of possibility is one of many ethical aporias beings traverse. By not recognizing the internal limits immutable posited in order to secure a discourse ethics, politics and philosophy intertwine with each other, so too does subjectivity, the Other and community. Any ethical or political action thus includes the responsibility of facing up to an indeterminate other when the violence of institutional categorization (implicit in discourse) is exposed through deconstruction. Deconstruction can be seen as an openness towards an Other of discourse, disrupting any totalizing -centrisms to name a few: phonocentrism, ethnocentrism, or phallagocentrism. In fact,this amorphous responsibility to an indeterminate Other, is the ultimate ethical act when compared to dominant ethical paradigms that the right action can be merely read off a suitable ethical theory or a categorical duty legislated to oneself; as these pregiven injunctions on how to act relinquishes a certain part of moral responsibility constitutive of agency. As Derrida mentions: a decision that comes into being only in a scheme that exceeds the calculable program that would destroy all responsibility [there] can be no moral or political responsibility without this trial and passage by way of the undecidable  [16]   In the ethical implications of the play of presence and absence, there lies the question of how do we attend to our normal ethical responsiblities while not attending to the different, innumerable, Other who, perhaps, have no formal claim to ethical attention and assistance because they are not representable within discursive/linguistic means provides an irreducible aporia if we were to take an ontology of difference seriously. As expressed earlier, deconstruction acknowledges boundaries and limits, but only to show the subversive ways in which they are called into question what is now taken to be peripheral and supplementary now becomes central, giving recognition to what was previously suppressed, or that cannot be represented in any discursive or ethical order. (vi) Deconstruction and Hermeneutics By situating Derrida in dialogue with Gadamers hermeneutics, I believe that we can illuminate how hermeneutics can serve as a propaedeutic to deconstruction. The pervasiveness, then, of differance, provides the impetus of deconstruction to address a pathology: the relentless desire of the cogito or traditions in thinking that desires coherence, unity and harmony. Derrida himself, have been a critic of the metaphysics of presence, but paradoxically, he is as insistent that it is, for us, impossible to abandon, or escape from metaphysics. Deconstruction uses the very metaphysics and linguistic resources it seeks to deconstruct., not stepping out of our historical horizons. In this case Deconstruction echoes the message that Hermeneuticists have been pondering that we are always already interpreting from our own historical traditions in which differance is serves as ontological understanding that within a specific linguistic game. An implicit claim is textual meaning always suppresses alternative meanings, an Other. In Derrida, a text has many different potential meanings not brought to fore while in Gadamer, textual meanings are inexhaustible.  [17]  In understanding, Derrida seeks to find the trace of the Other embedded in the instrinsic violence of dominant meanings. This is also an iterative process Deconstruction does not stop where it has identiified an oppressed Other, in identifying any conception of justice it will always suppress other meanings. Justice contains therefore, the trace of the Other suppressed, an injustice.  [18]   In Hermeneutics, interpretation begins from ones ungrounded horizon a hermeneutic situation in which we cannot escape our metaphysics embedded in our linguitic resources. Gadamer supplants Derridas skepticism of the violence of our pre-understanding and prejudices by telling us that prejudices not only opens us to the possibility of understanding the Other embedded in our discourses bringing to fore Deconstructions normative understanding. vii) Conclusion Deconstruction, as we have seen, is not a principled method of textual analysis that disempowers discourses to mere ungrounded and unstable network of signifiers, ad infinitum. Deconstructive moments serves first to identify the binary opposites that undergird all metaphysical discourse implict in language and dismantle it; second, mark the anxiety that comes with the instability of linguistic references, and third, reveal the limits of a discouse that presupposes a certain metaphysics. In Deconstruction, one brings about the possibility of an ethical responsibility constitutive of agency in the form of identfying the Other, and the Other within oneself.

The Components of an Information System

The Components of an Information System A system is a group of components that work together to achieve a purpose. There are five components that make up an information system. The five components are Hardware, Software, Data, Procedures, and People. These five components make up every information system from the smallest system to the most complex system. The first component is the hardware, which are electronic components and related gadgetry that input, process, output, store, and communicate data according to the instructions encoded in computer programs or software.The second component is the software, which are the instructions for computers. The third component is Data, which are recorded facts or figures. The fourth components are procedures, which are instructions for humans to follow when working within an information system. The last components are the people that are involved. This includes those who operate and service the computers, those who maintain the data, those wh o support the networks, and those who use the system.All of these components make up an Information System. These five components together make up the Five Component framework, which are the five fundamental components of an information system. First you will need the hardware in order to start off your system. Then you must use the software in order to run you hardware. After you have set up your hardware and loaded up the software to run it, you will need data to input into your hardware.Once you have your data ready you will need procedures set in play to properly store your data within the system, and last you will need people in order to put in the data and keep the system up and running properly at all times. As you can see, you will need every component in order to ensure that you have a functional running information system Reference: Kroenke, D. M. (2013). Using MIS (5th ed. ). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Importance of Community Development in the Middle East Important to the U.S. Essay

The Middle East is the region which extends from southwestern Asia to northeastern Africa, though its boundaries are not very specific. It is the historic origin of some major religions that we have today. These include Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Yezidi, Bahai faith among others. The Middle East came to be recognized as a single region after the First World War, during which the Ottoman Empire was divided into countries that currently comprise the Middle East. In 1948, Israel was established and joined the group of countries that make up the Middle East. The countries that are in the Middle East include Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Yemen, Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates among others (Eur, 2002). The Middle East is however a region that has always been a centre of world affairs both on a positive and a negative note. There have been various ups and downs in the history of the Middle East; some of which recur to date. Some of these events have brought about an international outcry and eventually caused the calling forth of immediate reforms in some of the countries that comprise the Middle East. Some of the reforms brought to the attention of these countries are issues pertaining community development, which is vital for the growth of these countries. Community development in this region is aimed at mitigating the wrangles and wars that have been there in this region and make its occupants concentrate on issues that would be beneficial to their lives. Community development is the enhancement or the nurturing of some specific values within the society that bring about some positive change in the way that people in this particular society live and co-ordinate their lives. Community development is very important in any community because any improvement within any given society and mainly comes about as a result of cooperation between the members of these societies. It is through community development that acquirement, exploitation, and equal distribution of resources is accomplished. It is what enables a society to go forward and have all the amenities that are necessary for life (Bayat, 2002). The international community has been on the forefront advocating for community development in the region. This would see to it that the region develops economically and that its ties with other nations improve. The countries located in the Middle East dominate the world’s list of major oil producers. Most of the economies of these countries are highly driven by oil. The world’s economy is to some extent controlled by the prices of oil and this means that the Middle East bears a hand in whichever way that the oil prices sway. A reduction in oil production or an increment in the prices of oil per barrel would be a major blow to the economies of the world especially those of countries that do not produce oil or do not produce oil that can support their enormous populations. As a result of this, many of the world’s powers have always tried to have an edge over the countries in the Middle East in order to curb this (Wright, 1999). The United States of America is one of the countries that has always wanted there to be some stability and community development in the Middle East though most of these nations are opposed to its views. Many are even reluctant to cooperate because the United States is not mainly an Islamic state. The Middle East has always been marred by some wars and other cold wars. The United States itself was behind the 2003 Iraq invasion that saw to the total overhaul of the Iraqi government. Many local and international communities have always pointed fingers at the United States for such a miscalculation and therefore rapid community development in this region would help quench the guilt that the United States feels for doing this. Little else can be done other than trigger community development that would see Iraq have its economic prosperity back. This way, the United States can restore its sanctity too. The United States of America’s administration has therefore embarked on a plan to bring forth community development in Iraq. This is done through the providence of funds to kick off this process. Terrorism has been one of the menaces that have posed one of the greatest risks to the United States of America and its citizens. The United States government has been doing all within its means in order to eradicate terrorism and bring to book those involved. Terrorism has long been perceived as being endorsed and triggered by some Islamic extremists believed to be trained in some secret places within the Middle East. Therefore, if the United States figures that if it is able to bring forth some community development in the Middle East, they can be able to control or eventually eradicate terrorism. Some of the most wanted terrorists are believed to be harbored in the Middle East and some are even believed to be under the protection of some Middle East governments. The United States has even offered to train the Afghanistan police and military in order to control the levels of terrorism and fight drug cartels. Afghanistan is believed to be one of the world’s top producers of cocaine. The advent of nuclear weapons poses a major threat to the world’s population if these weapons are not handled with care. Countries ought to obtain approval from the United Nations before they embark on developing nuclear weapons and war-heads or any similar venture, failure to which some severe measures can be taken. Iran has some nuclear power stations which are operational though the United States and other powerful countries believe that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. The United States has taken a firm stand against this and has sought some diplomatic positions with regard to this issue. Significant community development across the Middle East would see to it that such problems are dealt with easily which would actually be an advantage to the United States on its take on global peace. The Israeli-Palestinian war has been raging for several decades. Israel is located amidst countries which are its sworn enemies. Many of the contentious issues between Israel and its neighbors have eventually resulted in wars that have left many dead and injured. The United States is Israel’s sworn ally and therefore a blow to Israel means a major blow to the United States though indirectly. As a result of this, the United States has always acted in the favor of Israel. The idea of community development would eventually lead to unity in the region and thus remove the burden of sporadic wars from Israel and promote economic growth in the region. There are various leftist terrorist groups that have been formed in opposition of Israel. These include Hamas and Hezbollah and the return of peace to the region would see to it that these groups cease to exist as they are a threat to peace in the region. This would further improve the United States’ war against terrorism (Thomas, 1998). Finally, the United States of America envisions economic allies from the Middle East, which hosts some of the fastest growing economies in the world. An alliance between the United States and the Middle East would see to the growth of the economic interests of both parties. Economic enhancement means more power and this is exactly this would translate to the United States. Economic empowerment is of paramount importance especially in this period when the world is experiencing a financial recession. Economic empowerment would therefore be a major boost to the United States and any other interested parties. The Middle East is one of the regions that the business interests of Americans are not appreciated and therefore mending this would change the equation. Countries such as the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Jordan have incorporated tourism into their economies and this is bound to improve their relationship with other countries. Egypt has been one of the key factors that have made peace-brokerage possible in the Middle East. Egypt is an Islamic state that is not hard lined towards general hatred towards the west. This gives it an edge towards dealing with the Middle East crises and dangerous wars. It is through Egypt that some international communities have voiced their concerns. It is through Egypt that some wars have been stopped through cease-fires; such as the recent Israeli-Palestinian war that was showcased along the Gaza strip. Egypt itself is strategically placed and is allied to many of the nations in the Middle East. They are therefore bound to listen to Egypt when it comes to negotiating a particular situation. As a result of this, many of the western countries ally themselves to Egypt in a bid to broker peace in the Middle East. Egypt therefore plays a very vital role when it comes to dealing with the nations of the Middle East because of its neutrality and similarity to these nations despite being an Islamic state. It is a peaceful sovereign state that is deemed reliable by many western countries when it comes to dealing with the Middle East. As a result, community development is vital as a solution to the problems that currently affect the Middle East nations. The Middle East is in a quagmire of woes at the moment and a solution that would bring about peace and stability in the region would all the same transform this region into an economic powerhouse which would be a big boost to the global financial market altogether. Community development, to say the least, is one of the keys to peace and stability in this region. References: Bayat, A. , (2002), Activism And Social Development In The Middle East, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Issue 34:1:1-28, Cambridge University Press, Retrieved on 29th April 30, 2009 from: http://journals. cambridge. org/action/displayAbstract? fromPage=online&aid=105825 Eur, (2002), The Middle East and North Africa 2003, Europa Publications Staff, ISBN 1857431324, 9781857431322, Published by Routledge, Wright J. W. , (1999), The Political Economy of Middle East Peace: The Impact of Competing Trade Agendas, ISBN 0415183952, 9780415183956, Published by Routledge Thomas R. M. , (1998), Conducting educational research: a comparative view, ISBN 0897896092, 9780897896092, Published by Greenwood Publishing Group

Diatomic Molecules Homonuclear and Heteronuclear

There are hundreds of diatomic molecules. This list includes diatomic elements and diatomic chemical compounds. Mononuclear Diatomic Molecules Some of these molecules consist of one element or are diatomic elements. Diatomic elements are examples of homonuclear molecules, where all of the atoms in the molecule are the same. The chemical bonds between the atoms are covalent and nonpolar.  The seven diatomic elements are: Hydrogen (H2)Nitrogen (N2)Oxygen (O2)Fluorine (F2)Chlorine (Cl2)Iodine (I2)Bromine (Br2) 5 or 7 Diatomic Elements? Some sources will say there are five diatomic elements, rather than seven. This is because only five elements form stable diatomic molecules at standard temperature and pressure: the gases hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, fluorine, and chlorine. Bromine and iodine form homonuclear diatomic molecules at slightly higher temperatures. Its possible that an eighth element forms a diatomic molecule. The status of astatine is unknown. Heteronuclear Diatomic Molecules Many other diatomic molecules consist of two elements. In fact, most elements form diatomic molecules, particularly at higher temperatures. Past a certain temperature, however, all molecules break into their constituent atoms. The noble gases do not form diatomic molecules. Diatomic molecules consisting of two different elements are called heteronuclear molecules. Here are some heteronuclear diatomic molecules: CONOMgOHClKBrHFSiO Binary Compounds Are Not Always Considered Diatomic There are many binary compounds consisting of a 1-to-1 ratio of two types of atoms, yet they are not always considered to be diatomic molecules. The reason is that these compounds are only gaseous diatomic molecules when they are evaporated. When they cool to room temperature, the molecules form polymers. Examples of this type of compound include silicon oxide (SiO) and magnesium oxide (MgO). Diatomic Molecule Geometry All diatomic molecules have linear geometry. There isnt any other possible geometry because connecting a pair of objects necessarily produces a line. Linear geometry is the simplest arrangement of atoms in a molecule. Other Diatomic Elements Its possible for additional elements to form homonuclear diatomic molecules. These elements are diatomic when evaporated, yet polymerize when they are cooled. Elemental phosphorus can be heated to yield diphosphorus, P2. Sulfur vapor primarily consists of disulfur, S2. Lithium forms dilithium, Li2, in the gas phase (and no, you cant run a starship on it). Unusual diatomic elements include ditungsten (W2) and dimolybdenum (Mo2), which are joined via sextuple bonds as gasses. Fun Fact About Diatomic Elements Did you realize around 99 percent of the Earths atmosphere consists of just two diatomic molecules? Nitrogen accounts for 78 percent of the atmosphere, while oxygen is 21 percent. The most abundant molecule in the universe is also a diatomic element. Hydrogen, H2, accounts for much of the mass of the universe, although it only accounts for  one  part per million  concentration in Earths atmosphere.