摘要
發生於2014年的318，然而，我們是否有辦法以數字為名，指稱318，抑或是318是個極其複雜的事情，以至於我們根本無法以任何可命名的方式指稱318；或者當我們用數字318指稱一場臺灣近年來發生的重大事件，它意味著什麼？不論德希達或巴迪悟皆認為，事件意味著一種現實之外，事件不在既定的理解和框架之中。也因此事件發生之際，必定是獨特的，它不同於以往所是。然而，正如同德希達所說，事件的難以理解、不可化約並不阻止我們去重新思考事件，而是必須試圖知道更多，更加緩慢地，更加不受拘束地思考「事件」。若將318視為痕跡，則它是一場既已發生卻還沒過去的事情，它所伴隨的效應正持續地發生中，於是，即便一年多了，任何對於318的描述亦僅能視為是為318留下某些刻痕，而且是與主體自身相關的刻痕。本文將從「事件」、空的本體論和無名者三個角度探討318，作為思考318的痕跡。
並列摘要
More than a year has passed after the 3/18 Student Movement (or the Sunflower Student Movement). However, can we name this movement merely by the numbers such as 3/18? Or 3/18 is a thing so complicated that we cannot designate 3/18 by any means of naming? Or does this movement signify something as we attempt to designate this big event recently occurred in Taiwan by the number of 3/18? Both Jacques Derrida and Alain Badiou bear the same contention that event signifies a beyond reality, or that event does not exist within the existing understanding and framework. Hence, as the event occurs, it must be something singular, rather than what it was. As Derrida argues, the inability of understanding and reduction cannot prevent us from rethinking this event. Instead, we must try to know more, more slowly, and think this ＂event＂ more without confinement. If we tend to regard 3/18 as trace, then it is a thing that occurred but hasn't passed yet. The effects that come after it still continue to happen. Even after a year of this movement, any description on the 3/18 movement can merely be considered traces for the 3/18 movement-traces intimately related to the subject itself. The paper attempts to discuss the 3/18 student movement from three perspectives-i.e., event, empty ontology and the anonymous-and then think the traces of the 3/18 movement.