The Dialectic of Discourse (1)Hypothesis, Thesis, Anti-Thesis…Syn-Thesis

In order to be able to speak OF ANY discourse [having a meaning] or, what is the same thing, Of Discourse (Logos) as such, we must begin by positing a discourse [ endowed with any meaning] whatever it may be. Because putting it down ourselves is so easy that it would make no sense to wait for it to be given to us, for example by falling from the sky, or elsewhere. But to do so, we will only ask ourselves if we actually have the (conscious and voluntary) intention to do so. That is to say that before positing it, we must presuppose it (as a discourse endowed with any meaning, not yet effectively posited, but as in front of and able to be posited by us, later). In other words, we must begin by ascertaining within ourselves the intention to speak (as well as the “will,” moreover optional or “free,” to actually do so). Or, to put it still another way, let us say that at the beginning (in an arch) the Discourse (Logos) is [for all those for whom discourse has a meaning] not a position (thesis), but a sup-position or, for say it in Greek, a


The Hypo-thesis being the intention to speak in order to say anything which nevertheless makes sense, it suffices for us to act in accordance with this intention by saying anything whatsoever (which we can, of course, refrain from indefinitely, on the condition that we do not account for our voluntary silence in and through discourse, “justifying” or otherwise), to effectively posit the Discourse as any discourse whatsoever. Now, if we do so, the discourse thus posited by us will presuppose, for us, nothing other or more than the Hypothesis, which was precisely the intention of positing the discourse in question. In other words, this discourse can be posited without having been preceded by another effective discourse, although it can only be posited in the present by supposing in the past the intention (conscious and voluntary ) to do so. We can also say that the first discourse actually emitted arises, for us, in the present, by supposing in the past a “virtual” discourse (whose “power” it “actualises”), which pre-supposes it. -supposes to be put into action” in the future. This being so, we can say that the first (actual) discourse which is posited, without sup-posing (in and by its presence in the present) any (actual) discourse emitted in the past, which would presuppose it itself, and without pre-supposing (in the same present of its presence) another discourse (actual or virtual) which would be emitted in the future by sup-posing it- this being so, we can say that this first discourse is a pure and simple position (of the Discourse as such) or, to continue speaking Greek, that this discourse “first a is a


However! If, after having occupied this first discursive position and having rested there as much as we please, we re-pose the thetic discourse in question, in order to say anything about it, we will find that by understanding its meaning whatever it is, we necessarily understand, by this very meaning, the meaning of a virtual discourse, which we could take as its “contrary” or its “negation”. And by speaking about this observation as much as necessary, we will end by saying that if, by impossibility, the “negative” or “contrary” discourse had no meaning, the “positive” or thetic discourse would also not have meaning of its own; and therefore would not be effectively posited as Discourse (by definition endowed with meaning), despite the hypo-thesis, which was the intention to speak and even an intention that we had had the feeling of having achieved. In other words, if the thetic discourse posited in the first place actually has any meaning S, Non-S is also a discursive meaning, which can consequently be that of an effective discourse so-called, having a meaning contrary to that of the thetic discourse. We. we must therefore say that the positive discourse, posited as a thesis, in fact presupposed, at the very moment of its positing, “the negative discourse” which one could call “contrary thesis”; -by presupposing this discourse if not as effective, at least as virtual or as being able to be actualised after the first “actualised” thesis, and in any case as supposing the actuality of the latter in a present which will have become past when its future will be present in the act of the second thesis “or contrary”. However! If we say all this now, we must add that at the time when it was actualised, the Thesis itself did not say it. But if, assuming the past actuality of this Thesis, we actualise in the present its discursive negation, which is the contrary “thesis”, we can and must say that this supposes the first “Thesis” as already actualised in the past. And as presupposing (in fact, if not for itself), if only as virtual, the contrary “thesis” as to be actualised in a present which was yet to come when the first Thesis was the only discourse present. Or even, to put it in a perhaps simpler way: if one can emit a Thesis (by positive definition) without speaking of the contrary Thesis, which is its negation, it is rigorously impossible to discursively deny a Thesis without explicitly mentioning it. Because if it is very easy to occupy any position that no one occupies and to lose interest in other positions occupied or not, one can occupy a position by dislodging someone only by knowing in advance where this position is or, at least, by noting it at the very moment of its occupation. When you don’t take a stand against anyone, you can very well imagine being alone in the world. But who (even if his name is Don Quixote) would want to take any position against someone he says (believing) doesn’t even exist? Be that as it may, we will say that any posited discourse provokes (sooner or later) an op-posed discourse, which means that any discursive position is opposed (actually or virtually) to an op-posed discursive position or counter-position, even to speak Greek again, to an


The Anti-thesis, which opposes the Thesis, sup-poses the latter as posited or as pre-supposing it while being posited (certainly, in the second time, that is, by the anti-thesis). If, taken and understood in itself or in its isolation (that is to say in its only connection with the Hypo-thesis), the Thesis itself does not posit and does not even pre-suppose the Anti-thesis, it nevertheless presupposes it insofar as it is itself sup-posed by the latter. Now, since the Thesis is actualised before the Anti-thesis, the latter presupposes the Thesis as already actualised or posed. The Anti-thesis can therefore only be actualised (in the present) by also actualising the Thesis, as sup-posed by it and pre-supposing it. In other words, the Anti-thesis re-poses the Thesis which, by thus re-posing itself, pre-supposes the Anti-thesis which sup-poses it. Thus, the “first” or “isolated” Thesis, which is only posed, but not yet re-posed, is sup-posed by the Anti-thesis as past. But the same thesis, as re-posited in and by the Anti-thesis as pre-supposing it, is presupposed by the latter as present, that is to say as actual in the present of the actuality of the Anti-thesis itself. In other words, if the Anti-thesis can only posit itself by opposing the Thesis, it actualises, by positing itself in the present, not only itself, but also the thesis that it re-establishes. -pose by sup- posing.

Thus, if the presence of the Thesis can be isolated or soltary, that of the Anti-thesis is necessarily, that is to say, everywhere and always, a co-presence with the thesis to which it opposes. As soon as there is the Anti-thesis, there is therefore not a single discourse (endowed with meaning), but two: Anti- thesis itself, and the Thesis that it must suppose and therefore re-pose in order to be able to oppose it in action. But, for us, these two speeches are one. Indeed, if the Anti-thesis and the Thesis can isolate themselves from the Hypo-thesis (by “forgetting it”), we must consider them both as “conforming” to the latter, even as “resulting” (discursively) from it, that is, by way of “deduction” or “inference”). The Anti-thesis can (and even must) negate the Thesis as a discourse properly speaking, that is to say, as a discourse endowed with a meaning that is by definition “coherent”. It can say that the “thesis” that it re-poses in order to oppose it is a “contradiction in terms” and that it is thus equivalent to a silence (with sound or not), devoid as such of any kind of meaning, which can only be discursive, and that any true meaning can only be “common” (even “compatible”) with the meaning of “antithetical” discourse. And the re-posited Thesis can also say as much about the antithesis that it presupposes in order to oppose it in turn. But we cannot forget the Hypo-thesis without which neither Thesis nor Anti-thesis could emerge. Now, this Hypo-thesis was the intention to say anything that made any sense. We therefore have no reason to prefer the Thesis to the Antithesis or vice versa, nor to eliminate one for the sole benefit of the other. Moreover, if the Anti-thesis were, by impossibility, right to say that the Thesis has no meaning (or, what is the same thing, that it is a pseudo-discourse which contradicts itself and therefore discursively cancels everything he says), it would lose its right to say that it itself has a meaning. For if S had no meaning, the Non-S would have even less. But, conversely, the negation of S can only be absolutely devoid of any kind of meaning if S itself had none.

Therefore, we must say, without any hesitation, that the Thesis and the Anti-thesis have one and the same reason to claim the Hypothesis. In other words, it is neither one nor the other, understood and taken in isolation, but only the two taken and understood together, which completely actualise the intention to speak in order to say anything ( sensible dex”), which was their common “hypothesis”. However! Having no (discursive) reason to prefer one of the two contrary theses to the other and therefore being unable to forget either of them completely for the exclusive benefit of the other. We can therefore speak of them validly only by restating them as a single discourse, the meaning of which can only be one. But this one and unique meaning will be “at the same time”” (that is to say, in the present where the unique discourse which re-poses the Thesis and the Anti-thesis will be present) S and No-S. Now, obviously and by definition, S has nothing in common with Not-S, so that the discourse in question will have no common sense and, consequently, no sense at all. Indeed, in this “synthetic” discourse, what will be said in the “antithetical” part whose meaning is Not-S, will contradict everything that had been said in the “thetic” part, which the “anti-thetic” part supposes. Thus the so-called “synthetic” discourse will be equivalent, at least for us, to any kind of silence, by definition devoid of any discursive meaning whatsoever. In other words, we will not be able to assign to this pseudo-discourse (yet “synthetic” or “total” in the sense that it re-unites all the “parts” of any discourse) any position in the ” Universe of discourse”. Neither that of the Thesis, nor that of the Anti-thesis; because we cannot place the Whole (by definition de-finite or “finite”) in one of these parts. Nor in any other position whatsoever, since the Whole cannot be situated elsewhere than in the set of its parts. Thus, the pseudo-discourse that has presented itself to us will not be placed in any of the possible discursive positions: it will necessarily be situated, that is to say, everywhere and always, alongside or outside of all these positions. . And we can say it in Greek (Stoic, moreover), by saying that this “third” discourse, also uttered in accordance with the one and unique discursive Hypothesis, is a


It’d be tried on another occasion.



One can begin a discursive development from S only by re-beginning that which leads to S and ends there (unless it rebegins). This shows that when one has stopped speaking after having completely developed the Syn-thesis, one has hypothetically said all that one can say without repeating oneself, following through on the intention to speak/to say anything whatever (meaningful). Thus, on the one hand, the discursive actualisation of the Syn-thesis does not prevent one from continuing to speak, since one can indefinitely re-say what one has said by actualising it. On the other hand, since this same actualisation obliges either to say nothing more, or to re-say what one has said, it is indeed an actualisation of everything that one can say in the proper sense of the word, that is, without contradicting oneself by denying everything one has said and thus reducing oneself to silence.

However, there are two (discursive) reasons why this is so. On the one hand, the Syn-thesis says all that can be said because it re-says not only what the Thesis had said at the beginning, but also what the Anti-thesis said later in contradicting this. Now, by denying everything that the Thesis affirms (explicitly or implicitly), the Anti-thesis affirms everything that this Thesis denies: not explicitly, it is true, since it denies nothing in actuality, but implicitly or in Potentia. Thus, insofar as the Thesis says something (by explicitly affirming it), the Anti-thesis says (explicitly, by affirming it) all that the latter does not say (thus implicitly denying it). Consequently, the Syn-thesis, which re-says what the Thesis and the Anti-thesis say, effectively says everything that can be said. And this is in accordance with the “Principle of excluded middle”, which says that if you want to say anything of anything, you must say either S (this S being any meaning whatsoever), or Not-S . Whence it follows that nothing else can be said of them, so that having said both, one can no longer say anything at all. Which would be true, a curious thing, even if we were ready, in order to be able to say something else, to say what contradicts itself. On the contrary, it is only because of this truly universal “principle” that one can contradict oneself (when one says something), even when one does not want to. On the other hand, if by re-saying what the Thesis and the Anti-thesis say, the Syn-thesis says all that one can say, it can say it (by re-saying the two contrary theses”) in the strong sense, that is to say without finally annulling the discourse by the fact of contradicting at the end all that was said there at the beginning.

But this is only possible because the Discourse develops in time. Indeed, a “Principle of Identity” rightly tells us that if there can be a sense in saying anything about anything, the anything that is said thus has no meaning only if we say it about what we are talking about and not about something else. What remains true even if the meaning is a “misinterpretation”, or even a “suppressed” meaning (in the sense of annulled). By saying nonsense (of meaning) about something (whatever this something), one says (implicitly) that what one speaks about is what one said insofar as one says it. What one makes explicit by saying that the something one speaks of can only “correspond” to what one says of it insofar as what one speaks of remains just as “identical to itself” (it is that is to say remains one and the same thing) “identical to itself” (that is to say is the same) as the meaning of what is said about it.

Now, this indefinite maintenance in identity with itself/oneself both of everything one says and of everything one speaks about (in so far as one speaks about it), generally incites those who speak to forget that these two identities, each one in itself, and!, are, in fact, not only an instantaneous presence in the spatial expanse, but also a temporal duration. Otherwise, one could deduce from the “Principle of [supposedly ‘eternal’ or ‘timeless’, i.e. purely spatial] identity”, taken [rightly] as a presupposition necessary to the “Principle of the excluded middle” [which says quite rightly that what would be neither S, nor Non-S, cannot be said not only nowhere, but still never], a “Principle of contradiction” which would affirm [ wrongly] that nothing can be S and Not-S (whatever S), so that to say the two of anything would be to say nothing at all and would thus be equivalent to that silence to which all discourse is reduced which would have been deprived of all its meaning (by cancelling each of its meanings by an “opposite” meaning).

It is moreover by “spatializing” the discourse and by reducing everything that is spoken of in it to a single extent, that the Thesis and the Antithesis constitute as a whole the Para-thesis which, by developing completely, cancels itself as meaningful speech, contradicting itself everything it says. The Para-thesis is finally reduced to silence (in accordance with the “Principle of contradiction”) by trying to pose in the only extension (that is to say simultaneously, for lack of being able to do it outside of duration or in the ” eternity”) the meaning of the Thesis and that of the Anti-thesis; and it remains forever silent (in accordance with the “Principle of the excluded middle”), for lack of being able to pose anywhere and anytime a meaning that would be other than those of the Thesis or the Anti-thesis. Which means that it would be absolutely impossible to say anything (with meaning, or even with “sense”) if you had no time to do so. And the fact is that any discourse whatsoever has everywhere and always, that is to say necessarily, a certain duration (which is, moreover, a certain duration, in the sense of being measurable). Now, very fortunately for the Discourse, we have plenty of time to update it. And having a certain time, we can actualise it as Syn-thesis.

Provided that the formula of the “Principle of contradiction” is amended in such a way as to take account of the fact that it takes time to say anything (meaningful) and that, consequently, one can only speak of what is also in time, even if it means lasting there in such a way as to remain identical to itself (at least insofar as one speaks of it) as long as the meaning of what one says “is”. It will then be necessary (what is commonly said, without, however, always drawing all the consequences) that nothing can be such that there is a meaning in saying (without contradicting itself) that this is S and Not-S “is” at the same time. On the other hand, we never contradict ourselves anywhere (and we even sometimes say very sensible things) by saying, in the Present, that what was only S in the Past, will now only be Non-S in the future. If you have any doubts, let’s get back to coffee. Instead of saying to the boy like the other time: “Bring me beer, but don’t bring it to me”, I will say to him this time: “Bring me beer, but don’t bring it to me before half an hour”. And you will see that he will be very surprised (perhaps even furious, if he [wrongly] perceives a touch of irony on my part), but will not consider me crazy in any way and will (probably) bring the beer (maybe even “immediately”). Now, if we agree on this point, everything else flows from the source.

If the Syn-thesis says everything that can be said (without contradicting itself), this is done neither by the Thesis nor by the Anti-thesis. Because the Thesis does not say what the Anti-thesis says and the latter only re-says what the former says by contradicting it. As for the Para-thesis, it only claims to say everything, but in fact it does not do so, since, taken and understood as a whole, it says nothing at all. Thus, if one wanted to stop at the Para-thesis, all the discourse uttered until then would be reduced to silence and the intention of speaking about the Hypo-thesis would not be realised and could never be realised. By closing the discursive circuit by returning to the Hypo-thesis from the Para-thesis, one obtains a circuit that is too short, which is in fact only a short-circuit. Instead of actualising the Hypothesis, we would have its total cancellation; instead of a discursive development, there would be a permanent silence. And there would be nothing surprising there, since one can speak only in Time and since Time is introduced into Discourse only in and by Syn-thesis (although Discourse itself is always done in time, which allows it to last and only to be cancelled as meaning after the Para-thesis was developed for a long time, in opposites).

In other words, only the Syn-thesis completely realises the “primordial” intention of speaking or, in other words, perfectly actualises the Hypothesis of the Discourse whatever it is or as such. Indeed, the Thesis does not by itself exhaust the discursive possibilities, since, by not saying itself what the Anti-thesis will say, it does not say everything that can be said. Moreover, the Thesis virtually surpasses its own “thesis”, since the latter will provoke (sooner or later, but necessarily, that is to say everywhere and always) the “contrary thesis” which is the Anti -thesis. For if it didn’t, what it said didn’t have a meaning that could be denied (in a discursive or sensible way), which means that it wouldn’t have any meaning at all and therefore wouldn’t be real speech. (“consistent with the hypothesis”). But, by actualizing itself, the Anti-thesis provoked by the Thesis does not actualise by itself either the totality of the Discourse that is “in potency” qua Hypo-thesis. For by saying everything that the Thesis does not say, it re-says what the Thesis said only to contradict it or deny it, that is to say, to annul it as a discourse endowed with meaning [which it does by affirming, moreover wrongly, that which the thetic discourse said itself in the final analysis]. Moreover, the whole of the virtual Discourse that is the Hypothesis can only be actualized completely or perfectly in and by the whole of the thetic and antithetical discourses. It is this integral or integrating actualisation that begins as Para-thesis. But it fails in coming to an end, because the whole of the para-thetic discursive development effectively contradicts itself and therefore annuls its own meaning, so that the completed Para-thesis is no longer a discourse at all (not even in power). Now, we have seen that the attempt at integration or para-thetic synthesis fails because the Para-thesis, while developing itself discursively and therefore, in fact, in the extended duration of the Universe [which allows it to cancel itself out, by contradicting itself, only after a certain time, more or less long, moreover], speaks only of what, for it, extends without really lasting [being “instantaneous” or “eternal”, that is to say, situated in a stationary “instant” even spatialized (nunc stans)], or of what co-exists only, without ever preceding nor following itself anywhere. This is how the Para-thesis speaks of Thesis and Anti-thesis. And this is why, by trying to say everything “at the same time” (that is to say, at the same time), (( the Para-thesis ends by noting what it cannot say: neither what the Thesis had said, nor what the Anti-thesis said while contradicting it. Now, the Syn-thesis succeeds precisely where the Para-thesis fails. It re-says what the Thesis and the Anti-thesis had said, and it can do so without what one of the two said contradicting or discursively cancelling everything that the other had said, because it re-says the one after the other, taking into account and rendering the account discursively, by repeating them both, not without the deep “meaning” involved in the fact that the one is posterior to the other. It thus says effectively (without contradicting itself) not only all that the Anti-thesis said by contradicting all that the Thesis had said, but also all that the latter said at a time when nothing yet contradicted it. And that is why it says, while re-saying it, all that one can say without contradicting oneself, thus actualising in and by one and the same discourse which is its own, the totality of the Potential Discourse which it presupposes as a Hypothesis, or as an intention to speak in order to say anything and therefore everything that has any common sense (as meaning).

If the actualisation of the Hypo-thesis by the Thesis, the Anti-thesis and the Para-thesis introduces the Discourse into the extended duration of the Universe, it is the Syn-thesis alone which introduces this extended duration into the Discourse, insofar as the latter is actualised as this synthetic, integral or uni-total discourse that it is itself as long as it lasts and extends. It is by this “temporalisation” of the meaning of the discourse that it is itself (and which is “temporal”, as are all discourses whatever they may be) that the Syn-thesis differs essentially from the Thesis, the Antithesis and the Para-thesis. It is maintaining itself as discourse not only “for a time” (that is, during the time that a discourse is not contradicted, neither by itself nor by another discourse), but all the time that it has been, is and will be what it is, that is to say, discourse endowed with a meaning that does not contradict itself (neither by itself, nor by a counter-sense-saying). By saying (explicitly) that everything one speaks of (without contradicting oneself) is S and S only (which means, implicitly, that one cannot speak of anything as a Not-S), the Thesis, which in fact says it in a hic et nunc of the extended duration of the Universe or of the World-where-one-speaks, does not itself bind to this hic et nunc, in its own discourse, nor this speech itself, nor the meaning of what is said there. It is the same for the Anti-thesis when it says (explicitly) that, nothing of what one speaks (without contradicting oneself) being able to be S, one can say nothing, except that everything is No -S. Because in saying it, one could neither say what should not be said, nor when one said what one should. (???) Now, if neither the Thesis nor the Anti-thesis situate themselves, in the extended duration in which they are actualized (in different hic et nunc) as discourse, neither what they speak of, nor what they say about it (by contradicting one another), the Para-thesis does not do so either when it speaks of what it had said, and it does not situate itself either. -even in the extended duration in which it is actualised (in a hic et nunc distinct from the preceding ones), neither as such, nor in relation to the Thesis and the Anti-thesis of which it speaks. The Para-thesis therefore results in the Silence of the contra-diction because it can neither situate the Thesis (or the meaning of what it says) before or after the Anti-thesis (or the meaning of what it says), nor situating itself after or before them. And this is how it is inevitably led to mean all “at the same time” [and not even “at the same time”, to tell the truth, since what has neither “before” nor “after is not in “time”, nor therefore in the “present”, unless it is a question of the so-called “present” of a so-called “eternal presence”], which forces, in the end, to say nothing at all [after having vainly, but for a long time, tried to say “partially” anything].

Quite different, on the other hand, is synthetic discourse. On the one hand, the Syn-thesis situates itself, in the extended duration of the Universe where it is actualised, after the Para-thesis which, for it, is preceded by the Anti-thesis, which precedes the thesis. And the Syn-thesis thus situates itself, in the extended duration where the hic et nunc of its own discursive actualisation is situated, not only as the effective discourse that it is, but also as the meaning of this discourse. In other words, the Syn-thesis is not only, like all discourses whatever they may be, a temporal discourse, but also a “temporalised” discourse. When the Syn-thesis begins its discursive development (that is, its actualisation), it re-says everything that the Thesis had said without modifying or adding anything to it; -except the assertion that what it re-says (as Syn-thesis) has been said (by the Thesis), as not contradicted (by the Anti-thesis), only in and for the past. Having said all this, the Syn-thesis continues its development by restating all that the Anti-thesis had said, without modifying it and adding only the assertion that it is only in and for the Present of its actuality that the Anti-thesis contradicted everything that the Thesis had previously said and affirmed, therefore, becoming the opposite of everything that the latter said. Now, by the very fact that the Syn-thesis says so, everything that the Para-thesis said before it becomes “without-objects, since the latter spoke only of the (spatial) co-existence of the Thesis and of the Anti-thesis, disregarding the fact of their (temporal) succession. The Syn-thesis might not re-say the Para-thesis at all, since the latter itself says nothing at all, having previously reduced itself to silence, by not re-saying either what the Anti-thesis said before it, nor what the Thesis had said before it, only contradicting everything that it itself had said. In other words, in synthetic repetition, the Para-thesis (which has reduced itself to silence by contradicting itself) could be present only in and by what the Synthesis does not say (and this which cannot be said without contradicting itself). But the Syn-thesis could just as well re-say everything that the Para-thesis had said, without contradicting itself for all that, since it would re-say the para-thetical sayings by temporising them, that is to say, by situating them, in relation to synthetic discourse, in a past which was a future for the Antithesis which contradicted the Thesis which had preceded it in time. As for the Syn-thesis itself, it completes its own discursive development or is completely actualised as such, by adding to what it has re-said that everything it says is said in its present for any future: because what it says here and now can never be contradicted anywhere, since it does not contradict anything itself and it not only re-says everything that has been said (in the past) as being able to be contradicted (in a present yet to come), but still everything that was said (in a present already past) by contradicting it (as co-present) . The temporalisation” of the Discourse aside, the Syn-thesis only re-says what the Anti-thesis said “in its time”, which itself re-says the Thesis by contradicting it (the two thus saying together all that one can say). The Syn-thesis is therefore nothing other, nor more, but nothing less either, than the “temporalised” Anti-thesis, that is to say, the Anti-Thesis being situated in a Present (of the extended duration of the Universe) which is also the Future, because in relation to it (as well as in and for itself) the Thesis is only the Past.

This is how the Syn-thesis differs not only from the Thesis, since it re-says what the Anti-thesis had said and what the Thesis did not say, but also from the Anti-thesis, since in re-saying it, it no longer contradicts what the Thesis said as the Anti-thesis had done (but only re-says it, like a “past thesis”). And it differs finally from the Para-thesis, because the latter did not manage to re-say, neither what the Anti-thesis said, nor what the Thesis had said, while the Syn-thesis re-says itself (successively) what one and the other said. The Syn-thesis re-says everything that the authentic Thesis said, that is to say, the discourse that said everything that was not (yet) contradicted; but it re-says it as no longer being contradicted, because it has already passed. And it re-says everything that the authentic Anti-thesis said; but it re-says it without contradicting anything, because at the moment it re-says it, everything that could be contradicted by re-saying the Antithesis, is no longer said at all, having only been said in the past. In short, the Syn-thesis is the future of the Anti-thesis which is present without any Thesis other than that of a definitive past. Thus, the Syn-thesis cancels the Thesis and the Anti-thesis as co-present; but it preserves the Thesis as past and sublimates it as negated by the Anti-thesis, which is also annulled as contradicting the Thesis, but preserved in what it presently affirms and sublimated, insofar as it is henceforth alone to say it, without contradicting anything, nor being itself contradicted. And it is as annulled, preserved and sublimated by “temporalization” (even “dialectically suppressed: aufgehoben) that Thesis and Anti-thesis indefinitely maintain their discursive presence in the Present of the extended duration of the Universe where they are actualised; and this as one and the same Syn-thesis, which is the fully developed Discourse or the fully actualised Hypo-thesis.

In short, the Discourse in potency (that is to say, the Intention-to-speak, sup-posed discursively as a Hypothesis) is actualised during an effective discursive process, which lasts and extending. This process begins with the actualization of the thetic discourse, which says that everything (what we talk about) is S (whatever this S) and that nothing (what we talk about) is Not-S. For a time, no speech contradicts what this first speech says. Then comes a moment when a second discourse is actualised, which is antithetical because it contradicts everything that was said by the first: it says that nothing (of what we speak) is S and that, consequently, everything (what we talk about) is Non-S. The co-existence or co-presence of these two contrary discourses in the Present relegates to the Past the solitary presence or existence of the Thesis, while the possible presence of the Anti-thesis only is still situated in the Past. In the course of their co-presence, the contrary theses discursively cancel each other out. Thus, taken and understood as a whole, the discourses actualised until now are reduced to the purely virtual Discourse of the discursive origin: everything that is said, in the Present, by contradicting itself, is only hypothetical, and the Discourse as such de-actualises itself to re-become the virtual or potential Discourse that is the discursive Hypo-thesis or the Intention-to-speak. If this discursive-Intention or this Discourse-to-come is also actualised in the extended-duration, it CAN be presented as a re-telling of the Thesis (assuming that whoever will re-present it in the Present [with a view to the Future] will be able to completely forget the Past, which also implied what was to come when the Thesis it now re-presents presented itself for the first time). In this case, the discursive process is re-produced as it is; and it CAN re-occur in this way “indefinitely”. The Discourse as such will then remain everywhere and always hypothetical, we will speak “endlessly” according to the discursive-Intention, that is to say, the desire to say something; but, in fact, nothing will be said. For the Discourse never being finished, its meaning will always remain in-definite or not “definite”. This discourse will be constantly actualised in a present to come or already past, but it will never be in action in the present. A day MAY come, however, when the Hypo-thesis will be actualised not by a thetic discourse which does not yet deny anything, nor by an antithetical discourse which affirms only to contradict, nor even by para-thetics discourses, where all the contrary theses mutually contradict each other, thus canceling everything that can be said, but by a single discourse that says everything while contradicting nothing. This synthetic discourse can only re-say what the Anti-thesis said. But, as a result, it will also re-say the Thesis, which has already been re-spoken by the Anti-thesis, due to the fact that it was denied by the latter. Only, by relegating the Thesis to a Past without a presence to come, the synthetic discourse will not contradict it (with a view to the Future) in the Present where it will itself be present, contrary to what the Anti-thesis did when its own presence was a Present. Thus, the actuality or the effective presence of the Syn-thesis relegates to a Past (without present future) not only the Thesis without Anti-thesis, but also the latter, insofar as it contradicts by its presence the Thesis as a Thesis still present and not already past, as well as the Para-thesis, which presents itself only to re-present as co-present, to itself and between them, the Thesis and the Anti-thesis . Now, if the co-presence of the Thesis and the Anti-thesis (one of which is prior to the other, but which together exhaust all the possibilities of the Discourse as such), what is the presence of the Para-thesis (which is the set of discourses whatever they may be, reduced to the state of Virtual Discourse or Discursive Hypo-thesis, that is to say, reduced to the sole Intention-to -speak, constantly renewing itself, but never realising itself), is henceforth only a Past in relation to the Present where the Syn-thesis presents itself, & where this Present can have no other discursive Future than that of an “indefinite” re-presentation of this Syn-thesis itself. For unless we suppose that a fine day will come, when all will cease to understand in the evening not only all that had been said in the distant past, but also all that was still said on the morning of this very day, nothing can no longer be said without saying (or being able to say) that what is said, re-says what has been said, given that everything has already been said. But since we could say everything without contradicting anything, we haven’t contradicted what we said either. The Syn-thesis, which does not contradict anything, does not therefore cancel itself out as discourse, but is presented as a discourse in action. And since it re-says everything, it is any Discourse or Discourse as such that has been actualised in and by the actuality of the Syn-thesis. In other words, the Discourse ceases to be Hypo-thesis as soon as it is actualised as Syn-thesis (but not before). From now on, the Discourse in potential sup-poses the Discourse in action (which presupposes it): one can no longer have in the Present an intention to speak, in or for the Future, except with a view to re-saying ( in whole or in part) what has already been said in the Past. In a Past, moreover, where one contradicted, in a certain present, everything that one had said (in the past) in order to contradict everything that had been said before; so that all were silenced there by and for all. In the presence of such a contradictory or para-thetical universal silence, the desire was born to say in one and the same synthetic discourse all that one can say, without contradicting anything more. At the cost of great efforts, this discursive desire was one day fully and definitively satisfied. But since then, it is now enough to have it, to be able to satisfy it easily.

That said, I would like to sum up everything I previously said about the Dialectic in a single word, borrowed from Hegel’s own vocabulary. We have, in fact, said everything about “the Hegelian Dialectic” by saying that this Dialectic is an Aufhebung. Unfortunately, no translation of this common German word can render its triple meaning: suppression or cancellation, preservation and elevation or sublimation. This is why I am obliged to replace it with an artificial technical term, moreover compound, such as “dialectic-overcoming” for example. But we might find a much better solution. Be that as it may, we effectively sum up everything that can be said (without contradicting oneself) when speaking of the Dialectic (if not discovery, at least one which was definitively and completely brought to light by Hegel), if one says that the Syn-thesis dialectically suppresses the Thesis and the Anti-thesis (the Para-thesis “suppressing” itself in a non-” dialectical” manner, that is to say without “preserving” or “rising” above anything, including itself). Indeed, the Syn-thesis PRESERVES the Thesis, as one “conserves” the Past by “keeping” its memory (Er-innerung); but it REMOVES (in the sense of canceling) the Anti-thesis as a “contrary thesis”, even as a “negative” or “negative” Thesis of “Nihilism”, which does not present itself (anymore) in the actuality of the Present only to contradict what is actually said there in its very presence; it is thus that it RAISE itself above the Thesis (which it suppresses as present, but preserves, for the present to come, as past) and the Anti-thesis (which it suppresses in its negating presence, but retains for the future as re-saying everything it had said in its past, without however contradicting anything in its present), thereby RAISING the Thesis and the Anti-thesis above themselves, insofar as the Syn-thesis is itself this same ex-Antithesis, which henceforth no longer contradicts the Thesis, although it continues to suppose it in the future as having been contradicted by it in a present which is now definitively past.


For a much larger discussion, where the history of philosophy itself unfolds itself through thus scheme – a text of 15, 000 words or so, you could try to see:

הערות שהיו סתם. שיהיו.

הערות שהיו סתם. שיהיו. ״רופאים החותכים, שורפים, דוקרים ומענים חולים, דורשים על כך שכר שלא מגיע להם לקבל״. הרקליטוס על רופאי שיניים (נערך שם, שם).מילים אחרות לבדיחה המרקסיסטית: ״את זה הדיאלקטיקה כבר פתרה״: עבור הגל, התוצאה של ה”דיאלקטיקה” הקלאסית של ה”דיאלוג”, כלומר הניצחון שזכה ב”דיון” מילולי בלבד, אינה קריטריון מספיק לאמת. במילים אחרות, “דיאלקטיקה” דיסקורסיבית ככזו אינה יכולה, לדבריו, להוביל לפתרון סופי של בעיה (כלומר, פתרון שנשאר ללא שינוי לכל עת), מהסיבה הפשוטה שאם אתה משאיר את הבעיה בדיבור, אתה לעולם לא תצליח “לחסל” סופית את הסותר או, כתוצאה מכך, את הסתירה עצמה; כי להפריך מישהו זה לא בהכרח לשכנע אותו. “סתירה” או “מחלוקת” (בין אדם לטבע מחד גיסא, או מאידך גיסא, בין אדם לאדם, או אפילו בין אדם לסביבה החברתית וההיסטורית שלו) ניתן “לבטל באופן דיאלקטי to done away with dialectically (כלומר, לבטל במידה שהם “שקריים”, לשמור במידה שהם “נכונים”, ולהעלאות לרמה גבוהה יותר של “דיון”) רק במידה שהם משוחקים ומוצגים במישור ההיסטורי של חיים חברתיים פעילים שבהם “מתווכחים” על ידי פעולות של עבודה (נגד הטבע) ומאבק (נגד בני אדם אחרים). אמנם, האמת היוצאת מתוך ה”דיאלוג הפעיל” הזה, הדיאלקטיקה ההיסטורית הזו, רק ברגע שהיא הושלמה, כלומר ברגע שההיסטוריה מגיעה לשלב האחרון שלה במדינה האוניברסלית וההומוגנית, וזאת מאחר שהיא מרמזת על סיפוק האזרחים החיים בה. שהרי, “סיפוק”, שולל כל אפשרות של שלילת פעולה, ומכאן של כל שלילה באופן כללי, ומכאן, של כל “דיון” חדש על מה שכבר נקבע. אך, אפילו מבלי לרצות להניח, עם מחבר הפנומנולוגיה של הרוח, שההיסטוריה כבר כמעט “הושלמה” בזמננו, אפשר לטעון שאם ה”פתרון” לבעיה היה, למעשה, היסטורית תקף או לפחות “תקף” מבחינה חברתית לאורך כל התקופה שחלפה מאז, אם כן, בהיעדר הוכחה (היסטורית) להיפך, וכי יש זכות לראות בו “תקף” מבחינה פילוסופית, למרות “הדיון” המתמשך של הפילוסופים על הבעיה. בכל הנוגע לזה, אפשר להניח שברגע המתאים, ההיסטוריה עצמה תשים קץ ל”דיון פילוסופי”, המתמשך והאינסופי, של הבעיה שהיא למעשה “פתרה”. הדיאלקטיקה לא פותרת כלום. רק ההיסטורי ה. /// אבל למה ככה? הנה, הגל, ומהפכות ישראליות. -1. זה בהיעדר זיכרון היסטורי (או הבנה) שמתקיימת לה סכנת התמותה של ניהיליזם או ספקנות, זו שתבטל הכל בלי לשמר דבר, אפילו בצורת הזיכרון. חברה שמבלה את זמנה בהקשבה לאינטלקטואל ה”נון-קונפורמיסטי” באופן קיצוני, שמשעשע את עצמו בכך ששולל (מילולית!) כל נתון (אפילו הנתון ה”סובלימטיבי” שנשמר בזיכרון היסטורי) אך ורק משום שהוא נתון, בסופו של דבר שוקעת לתוך אנרכיה לא פעילה והיעלמות. כמו כן, המהפכן שחולם על “מהפכה קבועה” השוללת כל סוג של מסורת ואינה לוקחת בחשבון את העבר הקונקרטי, למעט ההתגברות עליו לכאורה, מסתיימת בהכרח או באין של אנרכיה חברתית או בביטול עצמי, פיזית או פוליטית. רק המהפכן שמצליח לשמר או לבסס מחדש את המסורת ההיסטורית, על ידי שימור בזיכרון החיובי את ההווה הנתון, שהוא עצמו הדחיק לעבר על ידי שלילתו, מצליח ליצור עולם היסטורי חדש המסוגל להתקיים. או: 2. אם חיה, או אדם כחיה, מגיעה לצומת המסתעפת לשני כיוונים, הרי שהיא יכולה ללכת ימינה או שמאלה: שתי האפשרויות תואמות כאפשרויות, עוד שהן אפשרויות. אבל אם החיה באמת לוקחת את הדרך ימינה, לא ייתכן שהיא גם לקחה את הדרך שמאלה, ולהפך: שתי האפשרויות אינן תואמות כמי שכבר התממשו. חיה שיצאה בדרך ימינה חייבת לחזור על עקבותיה כדי לצאת לדרך שמאלה. גם האדם כחיה חייב לעשות זאת. אבל בתור אדם – כלומר, כהוויה היסטורית (או “רוחנית” או, טוב יותר, דיאלקטית) – הוא אינו חוזר על עקבותיו. ההיסטוריה לא חוזרת לאחור, ובכל זאת היא מסתיימת על הדרך שמאלה לאחר שהיא עלתה על הדרך ימינה. זה בגלל שהייתה מהפכה, זה בגלל שהאדם שלל את עצמו כמחויב לדרך ימינה, ולאחר שהפך, כך, להיות אחר ממה שהיה, שהוא סיים בדרך שמאלה. הוא שלל את עצמו מבלי להיעלם לחלוטין ובלי להפסיק להיות אדם. אבל החיה שבו, שהייתה בדרך לימין, לא יכלה לגמור בדרך שמאלה: לכן היא נאלצה להיעלם, והאדם שאותו היא מגלמת היה צריך למות. (זה יהיה נס אם מהפכה תוכל להצליח בלי שדור אחד יחליף את השני – בצורה טבעית, או פחות ! יותר אלימה). 3. בינתיים, החיה לקחה ימינה. פאנדר, זאוס! בקראטילוס של אפלטון, הרמוגנס שואל על השמות היפים הנוגעים למידות טובות; איננו יודעים אם הוא חושד שהמידות הטובות אינן אלא שמות נאים. לפי סוקרטס, אבל, “הדברים היפים” (ta kala) היו במקור “הדברים כביכול” (ta kaloumena), ו”שם” היה “הוויה שיש אחריה חיפוש”; כך שהביטוי של הרמוגנס, “שמות יפים”, מסמל “שאלות של הוויה כביכול.” עד כאן על ההוויה, ו-! ההוויה? ״עלות השחר״ היא כבר על הזמן אחרי ה-und, היכן שהיידה!-guerre, גר, ״שוכן״—היעדר של כל ספק אפשרי נראה בבירור, אך פורש בצורה גרועה, על ידי דקארט. למעשה ואצלנו, אין הבדל עקרוני בין המושג EGO למושג VASE. ברגע שהאדם “מבין” את המושגים המדוברים, הוא בטוח ללא כל ספק אפשרי, שהמשמעות VASE של המושג VASE, בדיוק כמו המשמעות EGO של המושג EGO, היא / is (“משהו” ולא “כלום”) . ההוויה של המשמעות EGO לא מרמזת יותר או פחות על קיומו של אגו ב-hic et nunc מאשר ההוויה של המשמעות VASE מרמזת על קיומו של אגרטל ב-hic et nunc. קיומו, כאן ועכשיו, של אגרטל או אגו מתגלה רק בתפיסה ועל ידי התפיסה/ in and by Perception (ושכוללת מה שנקרא בכתובים חוש פרופריוצפטיבי / proprioceptive). עכשיו, זה כלל לא משנה. אבל אם זה בכלל משנה, אז האגרטל ולא האגו (כי-) דקארט רוצה להסיר ספק מה- / להגיע אל ה- מציאות החיצונית, אז VASE מה-EGO. אז הנה בבקשה. ו- תודה גם לך. =+ אגב ה-vase בהתחלה: בפרודיה על דקארט, וולטייר כותב (“מכתבים פילוסופיים, 13”): “אני גוף ואני חושב: אני לא יודע יותר מזה” (או “זה כל מה שאני יודע על זה [je n’en sais pas d’advantage]” ). דקארט, איך אריסטו אמר? האדם הוא החיה היחידה שצוחקת. —זה מעניין לראות כמה הבורות שלנו אחורה היא ממש על הפונדמנטליסטים שמעולם לא קראנו. התער של אוקאם, שגם אותו או אפילו עליו, אף פעם לא קראנו באמת, נשמע כמו פרפרזה של פסקה מאריסטו, מהטופיקס (ככלים וכללים כלליים למחשבה של הפילוסוף כדיאלקטיקן) – בעבר, כמובן, כולם התחילו עם זה, ואריסטו היה ״הדוקטור של הכנסייה״: It is also a fault in reasoning when a man shows something through a long chain of steps, when he might employ fewer steps and those already included in his argument: suppose him to be showing (e.g., that one opinion is more properly so called than another, and suppose him to make his postulates as follows: ‘x-in-itself is more fully x than anything else’: ‘there genuinely exists an object of opinion in itself’: therefore ‘the object-of-opinion-in-itself is more fully an object of opinion than the particular objects of opinion’. Now ‘a relative term is more fully itself when its correlate is more fully itself’: and ‘there exists a genuine opinion-in-itself, which will be “opinion” in a more accurate sense than the particular opinions’: and it has been postulated both that ‘a genuine opinion-in-itself exists’, and that ‘x-in-itself is more fully x than anything else’: therefore ‘this will be opinion in a more accurate sense’. Wherein lies the viciousness of the reasoning? Simply in that it conceals the ground on which the argument depends. אני לא יודע כלום על תערו של אוקאם. לא קראתי אותו, אעשה זאת בקרובֿ עכשיו, זה לומר, כשיש לי נקודת מוצא/עניין, ובזמן האחרון, וזה יהיה לתמיד, אני די עיקש בלהשאיר שמועות בגבולותיהן, כלומר, מקור שגוי, אך אם מפתה גם, אז אולי מקור שגוי למקור הקורא עצמו לקריאה, אבל אני יודע מהקונטקסט המתלהב של השמועות, כי העניין מאד פופולארי ב״פילוסופיה״ של כותרות- פילוסופיה עכשווית, כלומר, אקדמית, כאילו היה לעיצוב מינימליסטי של שולחן – אני לא יודע עדיין מה התער של המזדיין הזה אומר, אבל מעניין אם גם הוא מסתיים ב-caveat הבא של אריסטו: Wherein lies the viciousness of the reasoning? Simply in that it conceals the ground on which the argument depends. טוב נו. —מומחה לתקופה הכחולה של פיקאסו. לא, לא, זה לא כולל את התקופה הורודה, מה?! הייתה לו תקופה של rose, שו האדה רוז? טוב נו, כשם שאמרתי, אני מומחה בעל שם עולם לתקופה הכחולה של פיקאסו. כן, היה שם כחול, אבל זה לא מדוייק. אם אעז, אומר: התקופה הכחולה זאת התקופה שבה פיקאסו צבע את הציורים שלו בכחול. הופה! אני אצבע את השלכת בירוק?! סבבה! תודה פרופסור. היה מרתק איתך, אבל ממש. אף פעם לא חשבתי כך על התקופה הכחולה! אף אחד לא מסביר את התקופה הכחולה טוב כמוך! אני מכור לאיך שאתה מסביר את התקופה הכחולה! נכון שאף אחד לא מסביר את התקופה הכחולה טוב כמוהו? נכון?! שקט, סטודנט דביל, תהיה בשקט. [סטודנטים במדעי הרוח, איזה חנונים מגוחכים, למות]. This strange dynamics of the contradiction in religion amazes me. It is perhaps the radical opening to the Word into history, hence history, while having this combined with this radical closure to history as being implied from the Word from without history: /// From the moment that God wanted to create Man in his image, it was in a human body that he necessarily had to be incarnated (contrary to what certain theologians at the end of the Middle Ages asserted, more or less seriously, perhaps following Origen). In other words, in the “human nature” of Christ, the human essence is linked in a univocal and necessary way to the human body. This leads us to admit that this link is just as necessary in all men, whatever they may be, being the same everywhere and always, that is to say, even after death and, possibly, before birth. But the arbitrary character of the Incarnation, that is to say of the real presence of the Spirit in the World, incites us to introduce into a purely human man an element that is always “free” from the necessary link between the “human soul” (essence) and the “human animal” (body). Thus, while admitting “secular” Hellenic or scientistic anthropology, Christian Theology affirms “alongside” a “magical” anthropo-theism which contradicts this anthropology in toto and always, that is to say, even after death and possibly before birth. But the arbitrary character of the Incarnation, that is to say of the real presence of the Spirit in the World, encourages us to introduce into purely human man a “sovereign” or “free” element vis-à-vis the necessary connection between the essence “human soul” and the body “human animal”. Thus, while admitting “secular” Hellenic or scientistic anthropology, Christian Theology affirms “on the side” a “magical” anthropo-theism which contradicts this anthropology. //// Today, and as if all changes are being adjusted and accounted for, I have found a similar dynamics in Buddhism, in a sense, that is; and we have this, of course (my hand is hurting. I hit the keys like crazy)///: Theology [which implies, by definition, as a “strange body”, the “divine [?] word”, revealed by a Revelation that is certainly discursive, but not “deducible” from the set of strictly human theological discourses, which are nevertheless supposed to have and be able [?] to develop in a coherent [?] way the (discursive) meaning of the revealed notions (and the notion of Revelation); now, this is an obvious contradiction, but it is this contradiction which leads back to Revelation. Or: it is the imperfect or incomplete character of this development, even the incoherence of the development, which brings Theology to perfect itself, by ending with a return to its starting point, being interpreted as a revelation of the fact that the revealed meaning necessarily involves non-discursive or non-developable elements in and through coherent discourse] seems to have first come to light on the occasion of Christology, including the dogmas of the incarnation of the Logos. and of the crucifixion of Jesus, that is to say, of the historical event par excellence, which was this death, supposed to have been violent, but voluntary and highly conscious, not only from the beginning of the torture until its end, but still as a project or pre-vision, if not desired, at least admitted and “verified” with full knowledge of the facts. /// Okay, and this is okay: some things should be said, whatever.—2 Possible Introductory Notes to Plato’s Possible Introductions. 1. In the present state of things, it is practically impossible to justify an exposition of Platonic philosophy by quotations. We know only the Dialogues of Plato. Now, these are all or almost all polemical, and they have this particularity that the doctrine of Plato himself appears in them only between the lines. Plato conceals it on purpose, because its discovery by the reader (or the listener) is supposed to be a touchstone of his philosophical aptitudes. Often, the opinions of the adversaries whom Plato criticises are presented in such a way (especially when the dialogue is led by someone other than Socrates: Stranger of Elea, Timaeus, Critias, etc.) that one can perfectly identify these opinions, at least at first sight, with an authentic Platonic doctrine, especially if one does not take sufficient account of the Socratic “irony” and the “joke” (paidia) of Plato. We can therefore produce “quotes” in support of almost any interpretation or misinterpretation of Platonism. Under these conditions, it would be better to give up quoting Plato as long as an adequate interpretation of each of his Dialogues does not establish the authentic meaning (Platonic or not) and the scope (ironic, pleasant or “serious”) of each word in it (i.e., the great project of Leo Strauss, Jacob Klein, etc., except that there is no etc.). However, such an interpretation has barely begun. Therefore, when I quote Plato in what follows, I ask the reader to trust me with regard to the interpretation of the quoted passages. For there can be no question of justifying the proposed interpretation of the Platonic texts in the present work. Moreover, an informed reader will see that my interpretation often deviates greatly from the traditional interpretation. /// To begin with, and with respect of the dialogues, let us say the following: it could be said that each of Plato’s Dialogues is an “image” of that curious (and in no way “obvious”) way of seeing things, according to which one can speak the truth only if one is silent [as well], while being able to be “truly” [that is, humanly] silent only to the extent that one speaks [not of Silence itself (which would in no way be contra-dictory), but further of that of which one is silent (which is contra-dictory to the extent that that silence is “justified” by the assertion that it is impossible to speak of it)]. Indeed, in every true Dialogue, an explicitly discursive Thesis is opposed to an Anti-thesis, which itself also is explicitly discursive. But in a Platonic Dialogue (which is an au- thentic Dialogue), the discursive Synthesis is never made explicit. It is present only implicitly in the discourse put into dia-logue form ((dia- logué)), and it belongs to the hearer or reader of the Dialogue to make it explicit. Now, if the interlocutors of the Dialogue speak, their hearers (for the Platonic Dialogues were spoken or “played” during the lifetime of their author) are silent. It is therefore in silence or from Silence that the one, unique Truth springs forth, begotten by the clash of the two “contrary” discursive Opinions. But this Truth is Knowledge only to the extent that it is itself discursive. That is where the Contra-diction in Platonic Theology resides. / From here, to begin the discourse. To go to: dialectics-ontology. /// 2. If we only knew Plato through the texts of Aristotle, we would have the impression of dealing with a second-rate philosopher, belonging to the so-called “Pythagorean” School, but with an eclectic tendency. On the one hand, under the influence of a certain Cratylus, Plato would have tried to combine Pythagorism with Heracliteism, by way of purely terminological modifications, without even trying to solve the fundamental problems involved. Moreover, that Plato would also have been influenced by Socrates. But his orientation, both Pythagorean and Heraclitean, did not allow him to properly understand what the latter wanted: whence the absurd theory of Ideas which substantialises the Socratic Universals and situates them, one does not really know where, outside the Cosmos, like so many objects supposed to be “eternal”, but in fact modelled on the things of this world (cf. Met., 1078b, 30-10794, 3). In short, taking Aristotle literally, one might have thought that the so-called Plato distinguished himself by a verbalism which is eclectic to the point of being incoherent and which contributes nothing to the real solution of the philosophical problems. Aristotle spent twenty years with Plato and devoted so many pages to him (it is true, all “critical”) in his own works. But we would, on the other hand, understand very well why Tradition speaks to us of rather tense relations between the Pupil and the Master (which is not contradicted, incidentally, nor by the famou but dubious Elegy from Aristotle to Eudimus, nor by the famous but inconclusive testimonial of friendship found in the Nicomachean Ethics). However, all this is only pure appearance, and even without knowing the works of Plato, one could see, just by reading what Aristotle says about them, the exceptional importance of the latter for philosophical history. For, as I will try to show, the three Aristotelian texts quoted above suffice to show that Plato was the first to develop the thetical Para-thesis of Philosophy. As for the so-called “Pythagoreanism” of Plato, it is very difficult to say, since we know almost nothing of the “pre-Platonic Pythagoreanism.” In any case, what Aristotle tells us about it (with the obvious intention of diminishing Plato’s originality) is quite contradictory. On the one hand (ibid., 9875, 12), he claims that Platonic Participation is just another name for Pythagorean Imitation. But, on the other hand (ibid., 9876, 28-30), he says that for the Pythagoreans the Numbers (moreover mathematical) are constituent-elements of the sensible Things themselves, whereas, for Plato, the Numbers (both mathematical and ideals, even numbered-Ideas) are separated from Things or transcendent in relation to their whole (which is the spatio-temporal Cosmos). Now, it is precisely this transcendence which makes the set of Ideas (which is the eternal Cosmos noetos) a manifestation of the parathetico-thetic Concept and therefore, of Plato, a very great philosopher. On the other hand, we can very well speak of Pythagorean atomic-numbers or numerical-atoms without speaking at all of Concept, whatever it is, that is, to say anything truly philosophic. It is thus, for example, that “Timaeus” (- Eudoxus) constructs a Cosmos where one can do everything except talk about it and where there is no place for the Concept itself nor for Philosophy which talks about it. In other words, the so-called “Pythagoreans” contemporaries of Plato may very well have been not philosophers, but pure “Scholars of the Democritean type, who were concerned only with Physics properly speaking, that is to say, with Energo-metrie (or more exactly, given the time, of Energo-graphy). Be that as it may, we can without great damage (even “historical”) completely neglect the alleged & Pythagorean sources a of Plato and retain only the “influence” of Socrates, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, that of (direct or indirect) Heraclitus, to which must be added that of Parmenides. / That I have already done.—2 Notes. Plato’s Mathematics.1. The religious character of Platonic Theology also explains why Plato presented Mathematics, not as a simple “degeneracy” of Energo-logy, that is to say, as its trans-formation into metrics, but as something intermediate between this and Phenomenology or Phenomenometrics. In Plato, Energo-logy assures the link between Phenomeno-logy and an Onto-logy understood as a religious one, that is to say, as a transcendent “Axiology”. This is why his Energo-logy is “ideal” or “animist”, and not “atomist” or “material”. In other words, the Platonic Ideas are also religious values, that is, non-quantifiable values. Moreover, in Plato, there is only an ideal pseudometry. The notion of the Idea certainly degenerates into a symbol when it is deprived of its meaning and Plato calls these symbols “Numbers”. But he is careful to specify that these are “ideal numbers” which, precisely, cannot be divided and cannot be added together (being many ordinals). Now, Aristotle rightly remarks that such “Numbers” have nothing to do with ordinary mathematical numbers (cardinals). And Plato recognises this himself, since he inserts the mathematical Numbers between these ideal Numbers and the concrete magnitudes, which are measured phenomena. Thus, from the psychological point of view, Plato’s “systematic” errors relating to Mathematics are explained by his basic religious attitude: by understanding Onto-logy as a Theology, he necessarily had to exclude Mathematics from it and reject them in Energo-logy; but the religious (“ideal”) character of the latter did not allow the introduction of Mathematics properly so called; the latter obviously not being able to be considered as a degeneration of Phenomenology, Plato was obliged to introduce into his System a “mezzanine” in order to house there “pure” Mathematics.=2Plato’s “error” relating to the “systematic situation of Mathematics gave rise not only to the “negative criticism” of Aristotle, but also to attempts at “positive criticism”, even a reworking of the Platonist System inside the Academy. According to Aristotle, Speusippus seems to have drawn the consequence of the transcendence of the Platonic Ideal World by identifying Ideas with “mathematical” Numbers. From the point of view of Mathematics itself, it was an “improvement on Platonism.” But, from the point of view of Philosophy, it was either an “incoherence” or a relapse into the Parmendian Thesis. For if Speusippus had identified the mathematical World with the Being-given, he would have rediscovered the systematic construction “on two floors without the beautiful floor” of Parmenides (while discovering in Philosophy the “mathematical” character of the Being-given). But he didn’t. He kept the Platonic construction “on three levels, because he kept the ex-Ideas that had become Planets in the same situation that Plato assigned to his ideal World “between” the empirical Cosmos and the doubly transcendent Parmenidean One. In other words, Speusippus retained the Platonic location of the Ideal World, but he dislodged the Ideas from it or, more exactly, he suppressed them as Ideas, retaining in a way only their numbers, which thereby ceased. to be “ideal”, and became ordinary “mathematical” Numbers or, at least, were supposed to become. But, in fact, it is the whole Platonic system which thus becomes “incoherent”. No doubt we know very little about Speusippus. But judging from the Epinomis of his friend Philippe d’Opus, as well as from the falsifications carried out by the editors (?) of the Laws, the Sciences benefited very little from the so-called “mathematisation” of the Platonic Ideas by Speusippus, while Philosophy in general and Platonism in particular suffered greatly from it. The fact is that Speusippus was, it seems, the first to take Plato’s Myths literally. The “imaginary description” of the ideal World ceased to be considered as “imaginary”, even fictitious, and passed itself off as an Energogology forming an integral part of the “Platonic” philosophical System properly called. Doubtless, by suppressing the Ideas, Speusippus must have eliminated the Platonic images which relate to them. But he did so only to put in their place a “magic of numbers” and an “astral religion” which were taken up by Neo-Platonism and which there took on, in a Jambilic, a distinctly “paranoid” character. But it does not seem that the Old Academy let itself be taken in by this. Xenocrates seems to have seen the danger of the “Speusippian” suppression of the Ideas of Plato. He therefore reintroduced them into the trap (in any case, System, while merging them with Numbers, which would also be both “ideal” or “conceptual” and “able mathematics”, even “metric”). But we do not see how Xenocrates could have succeeded in such an attempt at “fusion” and we do not know, in any case, anything precise on this subject. We only know that Aristotle thought nothing good of this second attempt to “reform” Platonism; he even says that it leads to a result which is “worse” than the Platonism reformed by Speusippus and than the original Platonism of Plato himself (cf. Met., 10836, 1). Moreover, these attempts had no future within the Academy, which soon sank into “scepticism”.3 MORE, perhaps:1Plato’s continuum theory and its solution to Zeno’s “paradox”. According to Plato, the Continuum (- Heraclitean River) would be resolved into pure Nothingness if it were not consolidated by a series of fixed and stable points, which are whole numbers (odd). The Aristotle-Brouwer theory applies to everything between landmarks. But each of these must be “defined” in itself and not as an “in-between” (“Dedekind cut”). We must therefore complete the Aristotelian (or Brouwerian) “refutation” of Zeno by saying that Achilles indeed catches up with the Tortoise if the two are situated somewhere “between” 1 and 3. But if the Tortoise is in 3 and Achilles is in 1, the great warrior does not catch up with the Tortoise, for the simple reason that neither of the two could move (it is to this theory of the continuum that the passage from the Timaeus seems to allude which says that the Atlantis was formerly attached to the Continent by a series of islands allowing it to be reached without getting lost in the Sea without shores (cf. Tim., 24, e-25, a and Crit., III, b). 2If the Dyad (the indefinite) is the “principle” of Multiplicity as such (which, moreover, only becomes truly quantitative when it ceases to be qualitative), it must be said that there is a multiplicity in each Number, even odd (that is to say in each Idea). Indeed, the “reason” for the difference between these numbers of the multi-odd is two, just as it is the case of the Even Numbers, which is a “multiple” by definition (3-1=5-3=2 and 4-2=6-4=2). The Dyad is, therefore, constitutive of the multiplication of all Numbers, odd or not, and therefore of their “order”, as well as “internal multiplicity”. However, each even Number is multiple (double) also in itself, while the odd Numbers imply “duality” (multiplying) only in and by their reciprocal relations.3In dealing with the Platonic Ideo-logy, one must carefully avoid misunderstandings that can easily arise. It does not act, for Plato, to “deduce” the set of Ideas from a “combination” of the notions of the One and the Dyad-indefinite. As doubly transcendent Theos, the One is both silent and ineffable: it does not “reveal itself” (“instantly” or sense of “punctually”, i.e. as a pseudo-hic and nunc without extension, nor duration) than in and by silent Ecstasy. Now, we cannot “deduce” anything discursively from the Silence; or, which comes to the same thing, we can “deduce” anything or everything from it. This is precisely why Plato does not admit human Wisdom (that is to say, the System of Knowledge), at least during the lifetime of man. [In Aristotle, the situation is different, because if the Nous is silent, it is not ineffable, at least not as Prime mover, that is to say, insofar as it is “embodied” in Matter-“ether” as Ouranos; the “induction” which leads from the sublunar World, through the celestial World, to the Nous understood as the Immobile-Motor, can therefore (at least in principle) be “reversed into a” deduction which “deduces” from the Prime-Motor first the ‘second’ immobile-Motors and then (via the Ecliptic) the Motors ’embodied’ in ‘elementary’ Matter; it is this “deduction” which is discursive Wisdom or the System of Knowledge.] As for Plato’s indefinite Dyad, it can serve just as well as the starting point of a “deduction” as Aristotle’s Hyle. Taken by themselves, the Dyad and the Hyle are pure Nothingness, hence, once more, silent or Ineffable. As a constituent element of Discourse, the Dyad is the Negation or the No [while the Hyle is the “middle term”, logically “excluded”, between the Positive and the Negative, being one and the other ” at the same time” (although only one of the two “contraries” is in it entirely”, the other being only “in potentiality”).] Applied to One, the No becomes the Not-one or the Multiple as such (moreover discursive), the One thereby becoming the Non-multiple or the Unity, also discursive. The One being “without quality”, the Multiple (as Not-one is purely qualitative), each Unit of this Multiplicity being qualitatively different from all the others; the differentiation is that of the Identical, that is to say, of a spatialization. Taken thus, the Dyad is Spatiality [and it is then the counterpart of the Aristotelian Hyle, which is also double in itself. However, spatial Units are no longer Ideas (atomic) since…they are “both ethereal AND elementary!”………//////// זהו, לא יכול עוד…3 SHORT SPECULATIONS 1. It is precisely the absence of Mediation that characterises both the Thesis and the Anti-Thesis of Philosophy. Because as soon as it speaks of Mediation (one mediates its statements, even demonstrates what it shows discursively), it is necessarily either (- first) Para-thesis (in so far as the Mediation is spatial or partially made), or (- finally) Syn-thesis or System of Knowledge (in so far as the Mediation is temporal or “total”, that is to say insofar as Philosophy shows everything, in de-monstrating everything it showed). Moreover, the Dialectical Scheme reveals this chrono-logy to us: the middle term B supposes the extreme terms of the “first”; and A is all that it is because it is the first” (which presupposes the “second without supposing it), just as B is what it is as “the second” (which supposes the “first” without presupposing it, since it denies it / say-it to the contrary). Therefore, the first philosophy could not but be thetic or ‘Parmenidean’, while the second had to be antithetical or ‘Heraclitean’. Only a third philosophy could be para-thetical and it had to be insofar as it was a Philosophy other than the two which preceded it. If, by impossibility, the order of the three philosophies had been other than the “dialectical” or chronological order, there would have been no history of Philosophy, but a succession in time of different discourses, which would not have “meaning” in the sense that the successive discourses could not be re-said in one and the same coherent discourse or one which is endowed with a unique and “definite” meaning (so that none of its constitutive-elements, that is to say, none of the successive discourses would have any meaning either). But if one wants to explain why the three successive philosophies were elaborated in determined hic et nunc, one must appeal to the “socio-historical” explanation. Finally, only “psychology” can make it clear why, for example, the Thesis was elaborated by Parmenides rather than by Heraclitus or any other Greek, contemporary and belonging to the same social milieu. 2. Here again, the Dialectical Scheme reveals the chronology. Because the fusion (discursive in and by the System of Knowledge) of three constitutive-elements supposes their distinction (discursive in and by Philosophy, properly speaking). In other words, the first “variant of the third philosophy could only be a thetic, that is, “Platonic” Para-thesis.3. The purely logical development of the Para-thesis is all the more difficult because it is necessarily contradictory in terms”. For it is very difficult to see whether a “contradictory” development is “correct” or not (this development being, moreover, “complete” as soon as it makes explicit the contradiction implied in the fundamental notion). Personally, I don’t think that a “non-Platonic” variant of the Thetical Parat-hesis is possible. Because if it were, we would certainly have found it in the more than two millennia history of traditional Platonism. It must be said, however, that the “correct” and complete distinction between what I call Onto-logy, Energo-logy and Phenomenology goes back only to Kant and that even today it is still far from being “clear”. Now, since the “specificity of traditional Platonism comes precisely from a certain confusion between Energology and Phenomenology, one cannot be sure that there is no “virtual” Platonism which would be based on a “Kantian” distinction of the three-logies. But again, this seems unlikely to me. For if such a variant existed “in potential”, why would it not have already been actualised, for example by Schelling, who was endowed with an undeniable philosophical “genius”. Generally speaking, I have the impression that the “phenomenalist” presentation of Objective-Reality, which constitutes the “specificity” of traditional Platonism, is an integral part of the “correct” (although “contradictory”) development. ”) of the Thetical Para-thesis as such. If this were so, then authentic Platonism would not admit “non-Platonic” variants.וזה תרנגול של פיקאסו. לא כחול. אבל היה לי מלא אריסטו לאחרונה וכתבתי מלא על תרנגולות. תקופת התרנגולות. שיירשם. זאת הייתה תקופת התרנגולות שלי.

A Very Short Introduction to Hegel’s Phenomenology (Kojeve)

6 דק’

The Only Introduction One Needs For Hegel’s Phenomenology (an introduction to the trick or rather “power” of the Phenomenology as an Introduction in itself): the principal advantage of the Introduction that is phenomenologcal (in the Hegelian and non-Husserlian sense, that is, in fact the Platonic sense of the term) consists in the fact that it causes to disappear progressively and, in a way, under the reader’s eyes the particular “point of view” of “Reflection” that is indispensable in every philosophic Intrduction whatsoever to the extent that it is distinguished from the System of Knowledge that it is supposed to introduce. At the beginning and during all the discursive development of the Phenomenology, a We” reflects” from one and the same “point of view” upon a series of “phenomena” where men of different types say “I” in diverse “existential situations” or “attitudes.” These “phenomena” follow one another in an order of which the “reflecting” We can give an account in its own eyes, showing how or, if you please, de-monstrating why one of these “situations” results from another (which it presupposes in denying it). At the outset, the reader does not know what the We that “reflects” is, and he cannot say what its “point of view” is. But this “point of view” becomes clear as the sequence of “phenomena” is developed upon cach of which the We “reflects” in “justifying” it (after the event) in its out eyes (as “dialectically-overcome” ((supprimé-dialectiquement)), that is, trans-formed by an active or effective negation that conserves it while sublimating it in and through the “phenomenon” that follows it). And at the end, the We of the beginning is completely and perfectly determined by its coincidence with the I of the “situation” revealed as final “phenomenon,” which conserves, in sublimating them, all the other since it is the total negation of them. In thus finding itself in the “situation” instead of reflecting upon it, the We finally demonstrates to that the “point of view” that it had from the beginning was not among [[the others]], since this alleged “point of view” is the integral or integrating negation of all points of view possible or imaginable by the We that is itself nothing other than an “imagining” of “possible” points of view or situations.

Now, it is precisely the We become I at the end of the Phenomenology, or, what is the same thing, the I become the We of the beginning through the evolution described in that book, that fully and finally achieves self-consciousness (and is perfectly satisfied by this attaining of consciousness) in discursively developing the (“coherent,” that is, not “contra-dictory” and thus “irrefutable”) “content” of that of which it attains consciousness, that discursive development being published by Hegel under the name System of Knowledge. Thus, the reader of the Phenomenology who began by believing he “put his trust” in the author in adopting the latter’s “point of view,” ends by perceiving that in reality he has “put trust” only in himself. For in the course of his reading he will have found the I and the “point of view” that are his and have been witness to the trans-formation, “justified in his own eyes,” of this I into the We that has no exclusive “point of view” that is peculiar to it. The reader then will have either to renounce every “situation” capable of being discursively “justified” (in a “coherent” manner) or else to recognize that he finds himself in the “situation” whose (“existential” and “logical”) “meaning” is discursively developed as that System of Knowledge that Hegel wanted to introduce through his Phenomenology.

טבע. שלילה. חופש. יהודו-נוצרי. המרה. קונברסיה. הגל. נפוליאון.

קומנטרי…על הקטע הבא מהגל…:

…ההוויה האמיתית של האדם היא למעשה פעולתו או מעשהו; בעובדה זו האינדיבידואליות היא אמיתית, קיימת באופן אובייקטיבי (או אקטואלי) … האינדיבידואליות מציגה את עצמה [או מתבטאת, או מופיעה]בפעולה אפקטיבית שלילית-או-שוללת-שוללנית של המציאות המהותית, וזאת רק במידה שהיא מתגברת-דיאלקטית-על ההוויה הנתונה״.

אם נתון-הוויה עולה בקנה אחד, ברמה האונטולוגית זה לומר, עם הטבע, המעשה הוא מה שמייצג את האדם כאדם ברמה זו. האדם כאדם אינו נתון להוויה, אלא לפעולה היוצרת. אם “המציאות האובייקטיבית” של הטבע היא קיומו האמיתי, זו של האדם, כפי שנקרא, היא הפעולה האפקטיבית שלו. החיה רק חיה; אבל האדם החי פועל, ובאמצעות פעילותו היעילה הוא “מפגין” את אנושיותו ו”נראה” כבן אדם באמת. מה שבטוח, האדם הוא גם נתון-הוויה וטבע: הוא קיים גם “בתור עצמו”, כפי שקיימים חיות ודברים. אבל זה רק ב- ובאמצעות פעולה שהוא באמת אנושי באופן ספציפי, ושהוא קיים ומופיע ככזה- כלומר, כהוויה-לעצמה או כישות מודעת לעצמה.

ברמה ה”פנומנולוגית”, אם כן, השליליות אינה אלא חירות אנושית – כלומר זו שבאמצעותה שונה האדם מחיה. אבל אם חופש הוא שליליות מבחינה אונטולוגית, זה בגלל שחופש יכול להיות ולהתקיים רק כשלילה. עכשיו כדי לשלול, חייב להיות לך מה כלשהו לשלול: נתון קיים ומכאן הוויה-נתונה, זהה לעצמה. וזו הסיבה שהאדם יכול להתקיים בחופשיות-כלומר, להתקיים באופן אנושי רק בזמן שהוא חי כחיה בעולם טבעי נתון. אבל, שוה, הוא חי קיום אנושי בעולם הטבעי רק במידה שהוא שולל את הנתון הטבעי או החייתי הזה.

כעת השלילה מתממשת כפעולה שהושגה, ולא כמחשבה או כרצון פשוט. לפיכך, לא ב”רעיונות” ה”מרוממים” שלו (או בדמיונו), ולא בשאיפותיו ה”נשגבות” או ה”סובלימטיביות” פחות או יותר, האדם הוא באמת חופשי או באמת אנושי, אלא רק ב- ועל ידי פעולה אפקטיבית-כלומר, שלילה אקטיבית של הממשי הנתון.

החופש אינו מורכב מבחירה בין שני נתונים: הוא שלילת הנתון, הן של הנתון שהוא עצמו (כחיה או כ”מסורת בהתגלמותה”) והן של הנתון שאיננו (העולם הטבעי והחברתי). יתרה מכך, שתי השלילות הללו הן למעשה רק אחת. לשלול את העולם הטבעי או החברתי באופן דיאלקטי-כלומר, לשלול אותו תוך שימור-זה לשנות אותו; ואז גם אדם צריך לשנות את עצמו כדי להסתגל אליו, או לגווע. הפוך, השלילה של עצמו תוך כדי שמירה על עצמו בקיום שווה ערך לשינוי של היבט בעולם, שכן העולם הזה מרמז על מרכיב שונה. לפיכך, האדם קיים מבחינה אנושית רק במידה שהוא באמת הופך את העולם הטבעי והחברתי על ידי פעולתו השוללת והוא עצמו משתנה בגלל השינוי הזה; או, מהו אותו הדבר, האדם הוא אנושי במידה שהוא משנה את העולם כתוצאה משלילה אקטיבית של ה”טבע המולד”, החייתי או החברתי שלו.

החירות שמתממשת ומתבטאת כפעולה דיאלקטית או שלילה היא בעצם יצירה. שכן לשלול את הנתון, לשלול באופן שלא מסתיים באין nothingness, זה לייצר משהו שעדיין לא היה קיים; עכשיו, זה בדיוק מה שנקרא “יצירה”. הפוך, אפשר ליצור באמת רק על ידי שלילת הממשי הנתון. שכן הממשי הזה הוא איכשהו נוכח בכל מקום והצפיפות בוא היא רבה (פרמנידס), שכן אין שום דבר (כלום מלבד הכלום) מחוצה לו או מלבדו; מכאן שאין, כביכול, מקום לחדש בעולם; כאשר זה עולה מהאין, היצירה החדשנית יכולה לחדור לתוך ההוויה ולהתקיים רק על ידי נטילת המקום של ההוויה הנתונה, כלומר על ידי שלילתו.

בפרשנות הדיאלקטית של האדם – כלומר של חופש או פעולה – יש לקחת את המושגים “שלילה” ו”יצירה” במלוא מובןיהם. מה שכרוך בכך הוא אינו החלפת נתון אחד בנתון אחר, אלא התגברות על הנתון לטובת מה שלא קיים (עדיין), ובכך מימוש מה שמעולם לא היה ניתן. זאת אומרת שהאדם לא משנה את עצמו והופך בעצמו לעץ כדי לממש התאמה ל”אידיאל” שניתן לו (שכפה אלוהים, או פשוט “מולד”). הוא יוצר וכך יוצר את עצמו משום שהוא שולל ומבטל את עצמו “בלי רעיון מובן מאליו”: הוא הופך לאחר אך ורק משום שאינו רוצה עוד להיות אותו הדבר. ורק בגלל שהוא כבר לא רוצה להיות מה שהוא, בעוד מה שהוא יהיה או יוכל להיות הוא “אידיאל” עבורו, זה ש”מצדיק” את פעולתו השוללת או היצירתית – כלומר את השינוי שלו – באמצעות נתינת משמעות לשינוי זה.

באופן כללי, שלילה, חופש ופעולה אינם נובעים ממחשבה, וגם לא מתוך תודעה של עצמי או של דברים חיצוניים; להיפך, מחשבה ותודעה נובעות מהשליליות שמממשת את עצמה ו”חושפת” את עצמה (באמצעות מחשבה בתודעה) כפעולה חופשית יעילה. בקיצור, השליליות (או החופש) שמתממשת ומתבטאת כפעולה יצירתית של האדם אשר, בעודו חי בעולם הטבעי, ממשיך להיות עצמו ובכל זאת אינו תמיד (או “בהכרח”) זהה לעצמו. מכאן אנו יכולים לומר כי אנתרופולוגיה דיאלקטית היא המדע הפילוסופי של האדם כפי שהוא מופיע בתפיסה (הקדם-פילוסופית) היהודית-נוצרית – כלומר, של האדם שאמור להיות מסוגל להמיר את עצמו, במלוא מובן המילה, או להפוך לאחר באופן מהותי ורדיקלי.

על פי תפיסה זו, האדם שנברא מושלם יכול בכל זאת להטות באופן רדיקלי את הטבע המולד או הנתון הזה; אבל האדם המעוות בעצם יכול להתכחש ל”אדם הישן” ובכך להפוך ל”אדם החדש”, שונה מהראשון אך עדיין מושלם ממנו; האדם יכול “להתגבר” על החטא התורשתי אשר בכל זאת קובע את טבעו ובכך הוא יכול להפוך לקדוש, שהוא בכל זאת משהו אחר מאשר האדם לפני הנפילה; האדם הפגאני ש”המקום הטבעי” שלו הוא גיהנום יכול “להמיר את עצמו” לנצרות ובכך לנצח את דרכו לגן עדן; וכו’ וכו’ כעת בתפיסה ההגליאנית או הדיאלקטית של האדם, הדברים מסתדרים בדיוק באותו אופן: שלבי הדיאלקטיקה המתוארים בפנומנולוגיה אינם אלא סדרה של “המרות” עוקבות שמבצע האדם במהלך התנועה של ההיסטוריה ואשר מתוארים על ידי האדם החכם (הגל) שחי בסוף ההיסטוריה ואשר בעצמו “הומר” לאמת המוחלטת (המתגלמת באימפריה של נפוליאון).

דיירי אנטרי מה-23 בדצמבר, 202? אנחנו ב-2022 או 2023?

בסופו של דבר ומאז קאנט, הפילוסופיה טוענת שדיברה על הכל (ולו רק במרומז), בתנאי שזה גם דיבור על העובדה שהפילוסוף מדבר על זה, כמו גם על המשמעות וההיקף של מה שהפילוסוף עצמו אומר כשהוא מדבר על זה. מאידך, מאז קאנט, הפילוסופיה דוחה שיחים/דיסקורסים שאינן משלה, כאשר אלה או באלה, כל הנאמר נאמר מבלי לדבר על מה הנאמר עצמו אומר על האמור להיות ממנו. כשזה כך נאמר, בלי לדבר על עובדת הדיבור עצמה, אנו שוכחים, באופן מסוים, גם את הדובר וגם את העובדה שהוא מדבר (או, אם אחד מעדיף: הפילוסופיה דוחה את כל מה שאומרים לך מבלי להיות מודעים אל הדבר המשתמע באופן דיסקורסיבי, או כל מה שאומרים לך מבלי לתת דין וחשבון דיבורי על מה שהוא עושה באמירתו, או על מה שהוא עצמו נהיה או תופס, בה בעת ובמידה שהוא אכן אומר זאת). /// תומכי השיחים הלא-פילוסופיים הללו (במובן הקנטיאני) מודים בקלות רבה (כשאומרים להם) שהם נשללים באופן קיצוני מהיכולת המופלאה הזו, שאליה טוענים פילוסופים במובן הצר, ואשר מאפשרת לפילוסופיה, כשהיא באגם, להסתדר (לפחות באופן דיסקורסיבי) על ידי משיכת עצמה בשיער שלה (כל פילוסוף ופילוסוף ביקורתי, פוסט קאנטיאני זה לומר). וחלקם לפעמים מעריצים את הפילוסופים הטוענים שיש להם את היכולת הזאת. אבל רובם מתעלמים אפילו מקיומה, אם לא שמים את ליבם עליה כדי לשלול את עצם אפשרותה של הפילוסופיה. אחרים, לעומת זאת, שמעו על זה, אבל לא מאמינים. אבל כשהם רציניים, הם מתחילים לדבר בפילוסופיה במובן הרחב, ולו כדי להגיד לאלה הפילוסופים במובן הצר של המילה פרופר, כי הפילוסופיה היא בלתי אפשרית, בדיוק משום שהיא הייתה יכולה להתממש רק על ידי יכולת שיכולה הייתה להיות – מופלאה בהחלט כן, יכולת שלא מתקיימת ואפילו לא יכולה להתקיים, דווקא בגלל אופיה ה”מופלא”. //// אז הפילוסופים הרחבים או החוששים- הם פילוסופים כל עוד אנטי-פילוסופים – נתפסים בשיער של הפילוסופים הצרים – כל עוד הם אנטי, כלומר, כל עוד הם בסביבה דיו ומתפתים מהחלום השלילי על המופלא- וחלק מאלה שהם לא זה ולא זה מביאים מים אם לא לטחנות הרוח שבהן נלחמים השפויים האלה— השפוי הוא לא הפילוסוף. קאנט, בביקורתיות, הכניס שפיות, שיטה, ודווקא התנהגותית, ועדיין הפילוסופיה היא הניסיון לראות עם המאניה אפשרית —- אז לפחות בשביל להרגיע את עצמם. /// אבל אם אנחנו רוצים לדייק ולעשות צדק עם הדיוטות, עלינו להבחין בין פילוסופיה כאהבה (משותפת) לחוכמה דיסקרסיבית לבין החוכמה (הגליאנית) זו עצמה. למעשה, כאשר פילוסוף מגלה שהדיוט אומר משהו (למישהו) או מדבר על משהו (לכל אחד), הוא מרגיש צורך (פילוסופי ופדגוגי) לדבר (להדיוט או לכל אחד) על מה שההדיוט אומר, לרבות מעצם זה שהוא אומר את זה (מה שבורח מההדיוט). אבל קודם כל, הפילוסוף (באופן נאות, כלומר קדם-הגליאני) התעלם בדרך כלל מלדבר על כך שמה שנאמר נאמר על ידי ההדיוט המדובר (ב-hic et nunc) ולא על ידי מי שלא עושה או לא יודע מה עושים או היכן ומתי (בעוד שההיסטוריון היה מדבר על כל זה מבלי לנסות להסביר את העובדה שהדיוט המדובר מדבר; הן, שתי הגישות, כחסרות, בכך, את ההשקפה ההגליאנית הספציפית, או ליתר דיוק עמדה). מצד שני, הפילוסוף שבהגדרתו (ובניגוד לפסיכולוג), מדבר לא רק על מה שהדיוט אומר (מבלי למקם אותו, יתר על כן, ב-hic et nunc), אלא גם על מה הוא אומר בעצמו. אולם: אם הפילוסופים מדברים על זה, הם לא מדברים על השיח האחרון הזה. במילים אחרות, בסופו של דבר, הפילוסוף (הפרה-הגליאני) תמיד ובכל מקום בסופו של דבר אומר משהו שהוא לא מדבר בעצמו (אין לו עוד זמן לעשות זאת [בגלל מותו, בהגדרה, הוא בשל מראש; לפני האפשרות של הגל]). /// כך, אם הוא מושך את ההדיוט שנמצא באגם בשיער ובכך מונע ממנו לטבוע, הוא רק שומר את ראשו מעל המים כדי להגיע למצב של טביעה עצמית באותו אגם, וזאת מבלי להיות מסוגל למשוך את עצמו בשיער שלו מהמים התלסיים שבהם הוא טובע. /// זה בדיוק למה ואיך הפילוסוף אינו חכם: כי אין זה חכם לקפוץ למים כדי להוציא מישהו מהם, מבלי להיות מסוגל לצאת מזה בעצמך. עם זאת, הפילוסוף לא יכול לנוח בדד בצד בדיוק כי הוא לא (עדיין) חכם. ומכיוון שאינו חכם, צודקים ההדיוטות ללעוג לו, כשם שבת העבד האפלטוניתה לועגת ל״נפילה״ של תאלס, שהיה אחד מאלה שכונו בתור שבעת החכמים. /// פילוסוף, וזה העניין הקריטי פה!!!, יכול לדבר על כל מה שהוא אמר רק אם, בדיבור על זה, הוא רק חוזר ואומר את מה שכבר אמר. אבל זה אפשרי רק אם הוא כבר אמר את כל מה שאפשר להגיד (מבלי לסתור את עצמו). עכשיו, אם הוא אמר כך, זה בגלל שהוא כבר לא פילוסוף, אלא החכם (הגליאני). לפיכך, לא הפילוסוף הוא אשר בהכנסתו למים מושך בשערו את הפילוסוף הטובע באגם: זה החכם והוא לבדו, כשהוא באגם, אשר תוך כדי חילוץ עצמו החוצה מהמים, עם משיכת שיערו שלו, שולף גם את הפילוסופים (שאם לא כן היו טובעים בהם), וגם את אלה של ההדיוטות שנתפסו עם אלה האחרונים. רק החכם (הגליאן) מסיים אפוא את כל הסיפור: הסיפור הטרגי-קומי של כל אלה שנכנסו למים בחוסר זהירות מבלי לדעת לשחות, אך (בנס) עדיין צפים עד הסוף (שהוא, יתר על כן, שלהם). עכשיו, זה גם נכון וישים לפילוסוף עצמו, המנסה לעדכן את ההגליאני הזה בו לחוכמה עצמה, אבל האם אפשר פשוט להתחיל לפני שרואים פחות או יותר את השלם? ואיך מגיעים שם לפני שכה מתחילים? לכן שאלת ההתחלה היא כה קריטית (אריסטו) או פילוסופיה כשיחזור הטריק של הפנומנולוגיה כהקדמה?/// בכל מקרה: ״פילוסוף, וזה העניין הקריטי פה!!!, יכול לדבר על כל מה שהוא אמר רק אם, בדיבור על זה, הוא רק חוזר ואומר את מה שכבר אמר. אבל זה אפשרי רק אם הוא כבר אמר את כל מה שאפשר להגיד (מבלי לסתור את עצמו). עכשיו, אם הוא אמר כך, זה בגלל שהוא כבר לא פילוסוף, אלא החכם (הגליאני).״ ואנחנו באמצע, בבין לבין, מבלי לראות את הסוף, מבלי לגמרי להאמין שיכולים באמת לפילוסופיה, והנה אנחנו מתעכבים, לומדים עוד ועוד לפני הקפיצה לנהר, מקווים שכך כבר קפצנו או כך יראה על ידינו, לנו, לי, בדיעבד של העתיד. /// עד כאן למה אני לא עושה פילוסופיה בינתיים, בהנחה שאני בכלל יכול, ובגלל שזה אישי יותר, נוותר על ההרחבה על המומנט של קאנט, כמו על ״הטריק״ של הגל. /// שניהם נכתבו גם נכתבו ״פילוסופית״, ועדיין אני חושב על הפילוסופיה כמערכת. /// עכשיו כל זה נאמר כי רציתי לומר משהו, שאליו הגעתי עכשיו, אבל במחשבה שניה אין לי ממש זין לדבר עליו, והנה הברזתי מהסטייט אוף דה יוניון שלי עצמי. אבל איזה בילטדאפ, הא? איזה באמת? כי אני לא קראתי את זה. אבל הנה! מה שרציתי לומר: בפשטות, שיא: איי דונט נוי וואט טו דו וויפ מיי לייף. /// טוב, נמצא הזין, אבל בוא נרגע, נקצר דווקא: בלה בלה של הקשר יותר מדויק, נגיד שהיה פה, ו-! האמת רוב הלימודים שלי היו והינם מאנשים בסוף המאה ה-19, תחילת המאה ה-20. עם הכתיבה האינסופית, פלוס ההרצאות המסתובבות ב-www של ליאו שטראוס, ואלכסנדר קוז׳יב, כמובן, ואולי היום צריך לציין זאת- אני קורא את הטקסטים המקוריים עצמם, ובאמת אינסוף. אני מנסה קצת ללמוד קצת מהמזרח עכשיו, גם מההשפעה של קוז׳יב שלמד בודהיזם כל חייו ושילב אותו, עם נתינת מקום לעמדה הזאת, במערכת הידע שלו, שהובילה אותי לשם, גם מטולסטוי המשלב בודהיזם עם לא פחות מישו – הם עניינו אותי מספיק כדי לבדוק, וגם מהניסיון למערכת: אולי הלימוד של מחשבה אחרת לגמרי יכולה לשחרר אותי מגבולות הדיסקורס המערבי ולהביא אותי דרכו יותר אל מול המציאות עצמה או הדבר עצמו. מכל אלה, אני קצת יותר פתוח. עם הפתיחות הזאת עיינתי ואפילו קראתי כמה ספרים אקדמאים על העניין, שלא היו בעניין בכלל. לקח לי שבוע להגיע לאיזה צרפתי ענק מהאיפשהו של 1850, שהוא המקור לכל זה, כלומר לכל מה שזה יכול היה להיות ואיננו עוד: חוץ מהסקולרשיפ, מה שהפריע לי בכתיבה האקדמית על זה שהם לא חיים את זה כלל. להבדיל מהענק הצרפתי ובכלל העולם של לפני: איך התלמיד שלו אומר על הפגישה איתו: / ביומן שלו מ-20 במרץ 1845 תיאר פרידריך מקס מולר את פגישתו הראשונה עם המורה העתידי שלו: “הלכתי לראות את Burnouf. רוחני, חביב, צרפתי לחלוטין. הוא קיבל אותי בצורה הכי ידידותית, דיבר הרבה, וכל מה שהוא אמר היה בעל ערך, לא על נושאים רגילים אלא על מיוחדים. הצלחתי בצרפתית יותר ממה שציפיתי. “אני ברהמן, בודהיסט, זורואסטרי. אני שונא את הישועים״ – זה סוג האיש שהוא. אני מצפה להרצאות שלו.” בדיוק! אני שונא את הישועים! אני ברהמן, בודהיסט, זורואסטרי – זה בדיוק האחד הזה שאני מצפה לקרוא. הוא פאקינג חי את זה. / אז מה לעשות בחיי? בינתיים אולי יחיה גם איתו קצת. / וכן, אני כן מוטרד שלא הכנסתי את הדיון על קאנט ואת הסו קולד טריק של הגל בפנומנולוגיה – לפחות את זה, אם מתעלמים מהיתר, כמו זריקת ההערה הזאת על אריסטו. / אבל תן לזה להיות היומן שלי, דיירי אנטרי מה-23 בדצמבר, 202? אנחנו ב-2022 או 2023? [ ] [ ] [ ] [[[או: שלילת הקיום על ידי הכרתו – על ידי ידיעה שלו – כאין – God =Nirvana =Nothingness זה מה שמבחינת התפיסה הבודהיסטית מרכיב או מהווה את הטבע האבסולוטי של התודעה האנושית; האחרון מרומם את האדם מעל כל היצורים הארציים ואפילו מעל האלים, כי אלו אלים רק מטבעם, בעוד שהחכם המואר הופך לאל על ידי פעולת התודעה והרצון שלו: הוא אל באמצעות עצמו, אל היוצר את עצמו. = זה כל מה שכתבתי מהבוקר כולו וכדאי שאמחק את זה, לכן אני משתף. = אני חושב שעוד שיטה, עוד מסורת, עוד מחשבה מול המערכת המערבית עלולה לשחרר אותי יותר למציאות עצמה. = אז צריך ללמוד. =בינתיים, הנה: הזבל הזה ! שרינג איז לאבינג, שרינג איז קרינג & פאק-אוף…!]]].[ ] [ ].

פיקאסו מאחל חג חנוכה שמח. סנטה קלאוס. 1959.

%d בלוגרים אהבו את זה: