Nietzsche, using empiricism and the language of differential force, critiqued the docility of traditional form.
Heidegger, using temporalised ontology and the question of being; its space of inquiry; to recast and redistribute traditional categories, according to their originary source intuitions, as given by the Presocratics and etymological excavation.
Derrida, using structural critique, displacement, and deferral, displaces the centralising hegemony of traditional categories.
Laruelle, using presumptions of disciplinary sufficiency suggested by prima facie, nominal unity, critiques the category of philosophy.
It can be seen that each uses an allegedly neglected categorical perspective to disrupt and/or displace, the thetic integrities of his predecessors. Each tries to consign their predecessors to the role of being an unwitting dupe of a categorical system. Whether an unknowing emissary of the mechanisms of ‘metaphysics’, ‘philosophy’, or whatever else the predecessor is held to have proposed; the systematic nature of any semantic extension, always makes available resources not belonging to that extension, for the purposes of critique.
This seeming relay race of disciplinary discursivities, each discourse a conceptual ‘Pac-Man’ trying to gobble up all the others, is quite possibly an academic corollary to the internal sectarianism of corporate bureaucracy.
So many semantic inflations, cunningly twisting around each other, and all on the basis of an unceasing argot of positivist exploitation.