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.

Hegel. A history of philosophy. Hypothesis, thesis, antithesis, parathesis, synthesis

A history of philosophy. Hypothesis, thesis, antithesis, parathesis, synthesis


Since a “material” actualization (sound or other) of a living being (its “action or act”), which would be neither conscious nor voluntary, can be anything one wants, except a discursive manifestation, that is to say, a discourse endowed with meaning, all philosophical discourse presupposes, as discourse, the Intention-to-speak. The “primordial” intention must be an intention to speak “as a philosopher” or to develop Philosophy discursively. From which it follows that no one can become and be a philosopher (even prosaic) without wanting it, nor therefore without first having (a priori) the intention of being or of becoming a philosopher. Before beginning to speak, and when one does not know what one is going to say, one must “know” (that is to say, be able to say) what Philosophy is and to be able to want to do it (and therefore to be able to say that he so wants to) by emitting a philosophical discourse, even any one. But since saying what Philosophy is is already part of the discursive development of this very Philosophy (not to say that all this development does nothing but say it), it is obviously impossible to intend to speak “as a philosopher” before having said anything. However and once again: it is impossible to say what Philosophy is without having previously had the intention of philosophizing and it is impossible to have this intention without having first said (if only to oneself) what it is to “philosophize”.

Now, ‘philosophizing’ can mean nothing other than discursively developing a philosophy in such a way that the completion of this development constitutes, if not the totality, at least a constitutive-element of the (developed) Philosophy. In short, one must have said what Philosophy is not only before saying it, but even before being able to want to do it or to have the intention of doing so (by conscious and voluntary definition).

At first sight, there is here an insurmountable (and even vicious, because circular) difficulty and it seems impossible not only to begin to philosophize, but even to have the intention to do so, nor therefore to realizing that there is no way to achieve such an intention (as we have just mistakenly believed). But a second view on the matter would easily allow us to see that this indisputable difficulty easily surmounts itself as soon as it allows itself to be observed. Indeed, if it is indeed impossible to say what Philosophy is without issuing (by saying it) a philosophical thesis, one can perfectly, if not easily, ask oneself WHAT THE FUCK?!

In other words, if it is impossible to philosophize before having asked oneself what Philosophy is, one can do it perfectly (and therefore do it, sooner or later, perfectly) as soon as this question has been posed. (by oneself or by another), since one already philosophizes (virtually) by posing the question in question.

Thus, the Hypothesis of the Philosophical Discourse is not (only) a simple intention to speak (which is a virtual discourse), but (again) an effective (or actual) discourse which is a Question, namely, the question of knowing what Philosophy is as such or whatever it is, even what is any philosophy whatsoever. As long as no question is posed (discursively) in the Universe, there is neither Philosophy in it, nor even the intention to philosophize, nor therefore the possibility of doing so. But as soon as a question is posed (discursively) as a Question, Philosophy becomes possible, because nothing prevents you from wanting to answer it as a philosopher (after having intended to philosophize) or from wanting to philosophize on it: to provide an effective answer is to actualize Philosophy.

However, the (discursive) answer to any question will only be specifically philosophical if it is vicious in the sense of circular. In other words, any question provokes a philosophical answer only if it is philosophical itself. Any putting into question is philosophical “in potency” because it can be “actualized” as a philosophical question. But it is only the philosophical question which is the “potential” of Philosophy, because it is only by and in the answer to such a question that it is “actualized”, this answer being the “act of Philosophy. Now, whatever the question, it is only philosophical if it (also) calls into question any answer given to it.

Conversely, any question posed can be trans-formed into a philosophical question, if, instead of supposing or even pre-supposing any answer, it re-poses itself in any answer that pro-poses (assuming that the question it answers presupposes it).

However, all the answers, whatever they may be, have (by definition) in common only the fact of being discursive. It is therefore only because it is answered discursively that a philosophical question can re-pose itself in each answer that one pro-poses to it. That is to say that the Question that is the philosophical Hypo-thesis calls into question the very fact that one speaks by answering it, whatever the meaning of what anyone else is saying about it.

Consequently, whoever poses a philosophical question (which, insofar as it is effectively emitted, certainly actualizes a discourse, but is nevertheless only a potential philosophical discourse or a simple intention, moreover conscious and voluntary, to philosophize) by this very fact bring about (among other things) the question of knowing what it means that it can be answered and therefore that it will be effectively answered sooner or later, the respondent being arbitrary and therefore able to be (also) the questioner himself. Or again, the philosophical Question that is the Hypothesis of Philosophy (or Philosophy, even Wisdom, as a hypothesis), is the intention to speak by saying (or re-saying) anything, on the sole condition of
speaking (also) of (everything) that will be said, in order to thus answer the Question posed to Philosophy by its hypothesis

If men do differ (“essentially “) from the animals, it is by the fact that they are the only ones able to talk, philosophers (humans) are even more human than the rest of mortals because they are even more verbose than the most talkative of profane speakers. Because if these are content to speak (to others or about something), the philosophers, not content with doing the same, speak in addition (to themselves and to others) of what they themselves say.

In other words, after having spoken as an individual, the philosopher continues to speak “qua” philosopher in order to answer (to himself and to others, who moreover ask him nothing) the question that he asks himself (being, moreover, the only one to ask it) with the hope of finding out what he “just” said, what he “did” when he said it and how he managed to speak correctly (or at least to be able to do so).

Now, the philosophical question (not being a “rhetorical question”) presupposes no answer and (unlike profane questions, which are answered by giving one’s “opinion” or opinion) it does not even suppose any “determined” answer. It asks what an “answer” is, whatever it is, and this whatever results in a (“determined”) question to which any answer is supposed to answer (to the exclusion, or not, of all the other answers or philosophical possibilities bearing on the meaning of “this or that answer” (by presupposing only that it has one, whatever it is) and not on its morpheme, because it is a question of discursive answer. Which means that for this Question, the meaning of a given answer can be detached from the morpheme given in this answer. Undoubtedly, a meaning detached from a given morpheme must be attached to another morpheme in order to be maintained in identity with itself as indeed a meaning. But it is obvious that the Question of any morpheme does not interest the Philosophical Question. However, it can ignore it only by admitting that the link between the meaning and the morpheme is “necessary” nowhere and never, and is everywhere and always ‘arbitrary’. For this Question, a given meaning can therefore be linked to any morpheme and this is precisely why it can speak ‘abstractly’ of the meanings of all morphemes whatever they may be.

Moreover, one and the same philosophical question arises about the meaning of any answer (meaningful, that is to say discursive in the proper sense). We can therefore say that the philosophical Question (one and unique), which is the Hypothesis of Philosophy because it obliges man to speak “as a philosopher” once he intends to answer it, is the whole of all the questions that arise about any meaning whatsoever, that is to say all the Meanings whatever they may be or about Meaning “ in general”, even as such. We can therefore also say that the Philosophical Question puts itself into questioning (with a view to a discursive answer [which will only be re-questioned if it submits itself to the question, so that any re-questioning will be nothing other than this very answer]) the one and unique Meaning, even “uni-total” Meaning of the Discourse as such, that is to say of the set of all (meaningful) discourses whatever they may be ( contradictory or not), by detaching this Meaning from the whole mass of morphemes (actual or virtual) to which it can be linked “arbitrarily” (either in its totality or in its internal negativity); then, after these two “contrary” or “contradictory” responses, a set of para-thetic responses (or, even “partial” responses, called “compromise” responses). And there will finally be a synthetic (or total, even ‘integral’ or ‘integral’) response which re-poses the primordial Question and answers it by re-giving all the answers given, so that it becomes impossible not only to give an answer other than this one, but also to re-question it other than by re-giving it as an answer to this re-posed question itself. Now, this definitive answer to the primordial philosophical Question is no longer Philosophy, but (discursive) Wisdom. For the set of philosophical answers to this Question is nothing other than the uni-total discourse that is the System of Knowledge, which completely and perfectly actualizes not only the philosophical Discourse, having as its aim and end the answer to the Question relating to the Concept, but still the Discourse as such, which realizes the intention of speaking; to say anything, provided that this has a meaning.

Having said this, it only remains for us to say briefly what can be the three dialectical “moments” of the development of Philosophy, that is to say of the discursive development of the meaning of the notion C O N C E P T , which have as their “origin” (or beginning) the questioning of the Concept as such and to a certain end (in the sense of goal and term), i.e., the definitive Answer” to this Question (re-posed then as sup-posed as pre-supposing the Answer in question). And we must, of course, begin by saying what is and can be the first of these chronological “stages” of the dialectical development of the Philosophical Discourse, which we have called


In general, the dialectical Thesis is a Discourse (by definition “coherent”, that is to say not contradicting what it says itself in such a way as to reduce itself to Silence ) which, once completely developed (in the extended duration of the World-where-one-speaks, that is to say in the Universe which exists empirically), says all that can be said without anything contradictory about it. More particularly, we can call “positive thesis” or “thesis” for short, any (“thetic”) discourse of a speaking being who, on the one hand, speaks of something (to oneself or to anyone other than him) and, on the other hand, says everything he intended to say about it without explicitly contradicting any speech whatsoever (including his own) and
in particular, no discourse (including his own) relating to what he himself speaks about. In other words, a “thetic” discourse does not refer (explicitly or in act) to any other discourse which would contradict it by saying (explicitly or implicitly) something other or contrary to what it says. For the thetic discourse, any other discourse re-says what it said, or says nothing at all (since it contradicts itself).

Either a thetic discourse can be re-said or it can say another (thetic) discourse, but it cannot contradict any discourse whatsoever. Or again, a thesis properly so called, or positive thesis, is posed and re-posed by developing discursively in the extended duration of the Universe without its own development making explicit somewhere at any moment an anti- negative or even negative thesis or thesis. We can also say that the discourse which is posed as a thesis (that is to say without being opposed to another discourse and by sup-posing the intention to speak as an intention which pre-supposes it , being the intention to say precisely what it says by posing itself) has no “contrary thesis” and is therefore not itself, for itself, a contrary thesis: if it is, in fact and for us, as for itself, only one “thesis” (among several other “theses”) which speak of something other than it or which, if they speak of the same thing, re-say what it said or are re-said by it; it cannot be, in and for itself, one of the two ‘contrary theses’, even if, for us and in fact, it says the opposite of what another ‘thesis’ says, and which contradicts thus what it says. The Thesis and the Anti-thesis are two “contrary theses” only in and for the Para-thesis or as the latter, that is to say only by and for the parathetic Discourse which develops them in as co-existing or “simultaneous”, in a “syncretic thesis” or “by way of compromise” (while the Syn-thesis re-says them (successively) as successive). As such, the Thesis is one without there being, for it, several “theses”; and it is one and the same “thesis” without there being, for it, other theses. And this even if, in fact and for us, several other “theses” are proposed “at the same time” as this one (having been posed after it), which is then for us one of the “positive theses” and the one of two “contrary theses”, the other of which is a “negative” thesis, which denies the “positive thesis” in question. This being so, it is easy to see that a Thetic Discourse cannot deny (the existence, the reality or the being of) what it speaks of. Indeed, no one speaks of what “does not exist” (for him), except to contradict those who assert that “it exists” (if only for them). I would contradict myself if I were the first to say that such a thing “does not exist at all”: for how would I know “that there is” such a “non-existent” thing or, in general, something “non-existent”? Someone else has to come and tell me that “it exists”, so that I can talk about it myself, doing so only to contradict it and say (to him, as to me- same) that what he is talking about “does not exist” (everything one can talk about, speaking like me, being something else, so that one can only talk about something other than me by speaking differently, that is to say not by affirming, but by denying what we are talking about).

If then, by hypothesis, the philosophical Thesis speaks of the Concept, it can only speak of it by affirming it and it cannot deny it either explicitly or even implicitly. In other words, the intention to speak as a philosopher is actualized at first sight as a “thesis” which affirms (without contradicting anyone, or denying anything) that “there is something in this sense that we can talk about it (without contradicting each other) in the same (“coherent”) discourse, whose (“developed”) meaning can be “summarized” in a single sense CONCEPT, common to all notions CONCEPT , whose morphemes can be as we like, so that it could very well be that they are not the same in all hics et nuncs, when, on the other hand, each of them will exist-empirically as constituent-elements of notions which will all have one and the same meaning CONCEPT .

By definition, the Thesis can talk about the Concept by affirming anything, but it must not deny anything by talking about it. It follows first of all that it must say the same thing about it everywhere and must always say it again: that is to say that it speaks about it “necessarily”. But there is still something else to follow. What we say about the Concept in the Present is not what we said in the Past, even if we only say it again; nor is it what we will say in the Future, even if we say it again. Now, by definition, what is said in the Thesis of the Concept could not imply any “negation” whatsoever. In other words, what is said about the Concept is not affected by the fact that it is said, whether what is said about it is past, present or future. And since all that is ‘past’, ‘which is ‘to come’, is not yet, one cannot say of the Concept in the Philosophical Thesis either that it is past or that it is to come, and one cannot say that it is present only if we speak of a Present without past or future. Moreover, what is said here is not what is said elsewhere, even if it is re-said there, just as what is said elsewhere is not what is re-said here. .

Now, since the thesis of the Concept cannot imply any (explicit) negation, neither can it be affected by the fact that it is placed here or elsewhere. Consequently, one could not say of the Concept of the philosophical Thesis either that it is elsewhere or that it is here. Nor that it is this or something else, insofar as something else is not this and this is not something else. In short, we must say anything and everything that we can about the Concept, on the sole condition of being able to say it again everywhere and always, without having to say somewhere at any time that the Concept is this, but not this or that, but while not this, or that, it is here and not elsewhere or elsewhere and not here, nor even that it is anything anywhere or that it is everything everywhere, but that it is no longer what it was and it not yet what it will be.

In other words, the Philosophical Thesis will say that the Concept is all (whole) everywhere and everywhere (a single) all, being always present, without being able to say that it has a past or a future, nor that there is have a future and a past where the Concept is not present. Now, the Present which is present everywhere in such a way that there is never anywhere either a Past or a Future, is called “Eternity” (Aetemitas). We can therefore say that the Thesis of Philosophy affirms that the Concept is Eternity.

For the thesis of philosophy, the meaning of the concept CONCEPT is therefore ETERNITY and not CONCEPT, even if the meaning which is its own is in fact attached (arbitrarily) by it to the morpheme CONCEPT, to which we link (just as arbitrarily) a completely different meaning than the one which it attaches to it itself. Traditionally, Eternity has been defined as Nunc stans. Which means precisely that Eternity is the eternal Present, no longer capable of changing, while everything is created and there is neither Past nor Future in it. On the other hand, the Eternal is an eternal Presence, where the Past, the Present and the Future are distinguished from each other (as to “form”), without differing among themselves (in and by their “content”). The Nunc stans of Concept or of Being-given (thetics) is therefore something quite different from the (hic et nunc of Duration-extended which exists empirically, where what is present now succeeds (immediately) to what happened and precedes (immediately) what is to come. If the nunc of Extended-Duration is itself a duration of extended presence (that is, of the hic), the Nunc stans that is Eternity has neither extension nor duration of its own. For if it were extended, it would be different from itself, while remaining identical to itself. Now, the identity of the different is precisely the duration of the identical which is different from itself as extended. If the Nunc stans were extended or a hic, it would be a Duration: with or without its own differentiated structure, depending on whether the hic itself has one or not. In the second case, the constituent elements of Duration would be just as identical to each other as are those of Extent: the Past, the Present and the Future would therefore be distinguished without differentiation. In this case, the Nunc stans would therefore be the Eternal. But by no means would it be what it is supposed to be, namely Eternity, where there is no distinction between the Present, the Past and the Future. That is to say that the Nunc stans properly speaking (that is to say, Eternity) is a punctual nunc, without extension nor duration proper: it is the instantaneous presence of a hic without extension, which means a dimensionless Point . One can also say that the Concept, which is supposed to be Eternity, is (by impossible) Spatio temporality without authentic Spatiality: it is because the Spatiality is reduced to a single Point that temporality itself is reduced to a single Instant, which one can call, if one wishes, the Nunc stans. On the contrary, the Eternal is in a way Spatio-temporality without Temporality properly speaking: insofar as, in the Eternal, the Past, the Present and the Future are distinguished only as identical, they are the constituent elements of Spatiality and do not constitute true Temporality.

However, as its very name indicates, the Eternal is a “synthesis” (or, more exactly, a “parathesis”) of Etern-ity and Temporlityl. As in the Temporal, the Present is distinguished here from the Past and the Future, but it differs from them just as little as in Eternity. Thus, the Eternal is a “step” in the trans-formation of Eternity into Spatio-temporality. For when Eternity is trans-formed into the Eternal and then being trans-formed once again into the Temporal, the latter ceases to oppose Eternity (which is the “instantaneous” Point trans-formable into “eternal” Space) and abolishes it dialectically (that is to say cancels it, by preserving it and by sublimating it) by trans-forming it into Spatio-temporality. As a result, the Concept ceases to be that of the Thesis or of the

Anti-thesis, by henceforth becoming the Concept of the Syn-thesis: it is neither eternal nor temporal and instead of being Eternity, it is Spatio-temporality.

But if the discursive development of the meaning of the notion of the Concept can only reach its “end”, that is to say its term and its goal, in and by its de-finition as Spatio temporality, this development can only begin with the definition of the Concept as Eternity, what! is precisely the meaning of the philosophical Thesis.

Any “thesis” consists in saying that S “is” P, and nothing else (that is, without saying that S “is not” Non-P or anything other than P). Which means that S “is” P is everywhere and always, even “necessarily”: as soon as we speak of S, wherever it is, we say of him that he “is” P. Now, in and for the Thesis as such (which is the “thesis” of Philosophy), P means anything; or, which is the same thing, S is arbitrary. Thus, by posing and re-posing the Thesis, one says everywhere and always the same thing: the thetic Discourse (or at least its Meaning) is identical to itself to the point of not even having parts (simultaneous or consecutive).

It must therefore be said that the (so-called) thetic “discourse” is “punctual” or that it has neither duration nor extension. We can say, if we want, that it is the Nunc stans; or even that it is Eternity. And insofar as the S (supposed to be any) is said to “be” S (moreover whatever it may be) and this S only, that is to say insofar as the (thetic) Discourse [ only speaks for itself, being thus the discursive-development of the meaning of the concept C O N C E P T , the Thesis says that this meaning is ETERNITY. (qua morpheme)] is that which comes forward; and it is thus arises (to pick other words) by sup-posing the Hypo-thesis and by op-posing the Thesis or by contradicting it as


Generally speaking, an antithetical discourse contradicts everything said by the thetical discourse to which it refers and which is, for it, a “thesis” contrary to its own and therefore a thesis which it denies. Antithetical discourse can therefore say that the thesis it supports is denied or contradicted by the thesis contained in the thetical discourse. Thus, for the antithetical discourse, the thesis that it contradicts can take on the aspect of a “negative” or even “negative” thesis, while what it says itself can seem to it to be a “positive” thesis, which negates a contrary thesis only insofar as the latter denies this “positive” thesis and because it does so. But in fact and for us, the antithetical discourse that contradicts what the thetic discourse (taken and understood in itself) is content to say and it is its thesis and not that of the thetic discourse which is negative because it negates a “position” pure and simple, that is to say occupying a place without any desire to attack or oppose, nor even with a view to defending itself against possible opposition or attack.

Undoubtedly, as soon as the position occupied by the thesis is attacked (from the position of attack taken by the antithesis), it thereby becomes a position of defense. And nothing prevents, of course, defending this attacked position by counter-attacking the attacking position. But it is then a question of a counter-attack, provoked by an aggression and not of a deliberate and unprovoked aggression. On the contrary, the position taken by the antithesis or the negating thesis is a position occupied with a view to the (unprovoked) attack of the “positive” position and it is only following a counter-attack from this that the “negative” position also becomes a position of defense.

Now, in the “particular” case of the Philosophical Discourse, the Thesis affirms (without denying anything) that the Concept is “Eternity.” Since the raison d’être of the philosophical Anti-thesis is the total negation of this positive thesis (the negative thesis being affirmed only insofar as it negates the contrary positive thesis), the negating thesis of Philosophy is to say that the Concept “is” Non-eternity. But since this second philosophical thesis is negative (Non-A) only because it denies the positive thesis (A), the Anti-thesis is posited “at the origin” [in and by its opposition to the Thesis which was posed by sup-posing the only Hypo-thesis, but which the Anti-thesis presupposes as already posed in the strong sense, that is to say in act and not in potency, even as an “intention” or as a simple “hypothesis”] as a negating thesis which contradicts everything that the positive thesis says, by saying that the Concept “is not Eternity.

However, by asserting itself by the discursive development of the meaning ETERNITY of the notion CONCEPT (which could have any morpheme, for example NOHMA) the Thesis affirmed that the Concept “is” the This ( ·which-is-not Not-that) or [which is the same thing] the That (which-is-not Not-this), that it “is” the Here (-which-is-not- not-No-elsewhere) or [which is the same thing] the Elsewhere (-which-is-not-Not-here) and that it “is” the Present (-which-is-nor -Not-past-nor-Not-future). By affirming itself by the discursive-development of its negation of the Thesis, the Anti-thesis must therefore “affirm” (by denying everything that the the Concept “is not” all this. Consequently, the philosophical Anti-thesis contradicts the Thesis of Philosophy [Thesis which it sup-poses as posed by sup-posing the Hypo-thesis, which the Anti-thesis also sup-poses, pre-supposes this Thesis or at least it alone] by saying [in a negating thesis] that the Concept “is not neither the This nor the That that it “would be” according to the words (affirmative or positive) of the Thesis. To deny that the Concept is This-tout-court would be to affirm that it is not-this, that is to say That. And to deny that it is That-tout-court would be to affirm that it is Not-that, that is to say This. If therefore the Thesis affirmed that the Concept is This or That, the Anti-thesis could not contradict it. Because by contradicting it, it would only be re-saying what the Thesis says (by reversing at most the order of its sayings, which is optional, though perhaps even “non-existent”, where there is neither Past nor Coming). To be able to contradict the Thesis by saying of this fact something else, that is to say the opposite of what it says, the Anti thesis must therefore deny not the This (the That) tout court, but the This (the That) which-is-not-Not-that (Not-this). The Anti-thesis of Philosophy thus consists in saying that the Concept is neither the This-which-is-not-Not-that, nor the That-which-is-not-Not-this. Now, insofar as to deny an affirmation is equivalent (from the discursive point of view) to “affirming” the “contrary” (which is, by definition, the negation of this affirmation), to say that the Concept is neither this That this, nor that This is equivalent to saying (thus contradicting the Thesis) that the Concept “is” the [or: a] This which-is-not-That = Not-Not-that) or rou: and] the [or: a] That which-is-not-This (=No-Not-this) . One could also say that the Concept “is” This-which-is-(= not-is-not, in the sense of: is not what it would be if it were not)-Not- that, even That-which-is-Not-this. But since “Not-that” means “This” and “This”-“Not that”, one would then say that the Concept “is” This-which-is-This, or even That-which-is-That, which would amount to posing two notions having the same meaning THIS (or THAT) and two “identical” morphemes THIS (or THAT) located in two different hic and nunc (moreover very close to each other, both like hic and like nunc). It would therefore not be a development of the (common) sense of these (two) notions. As soon as we want to develop it, we should substitute for one of the (two) “positive” notions this (or THAT) the “negative” notion (“equivalent”) N0N-that (or NoN-this) and would order it when the Concept “is” This-which-is-(a-) thus: This-which-is-not -not-That. By then replacing the split notion of the Concept (This or That) by its simple notion (That or This), one would say that the Concept “is” This-which-is-not-That, thus only re-saying what one had said while denying the Not-, instead of denying the is-not.

Consequently, in contradicting the Thesis of Philosophy, the Philosophical Discourse posits only one and the same Anti-thesis which is, as a Negated Thesis, the contrary thesis of the positive thesis (which says or affirms, if we want, the opposite of what the negating thesis says or “affirms” which denies it by contradicting it). But if the Thesis could say (“indifferently”) that the Concept “is” This-which-is-not-Not-that or That-which-is-not-Not-this, the two sayings having, in and for the Thesis, one and the same meaning, the Anti-thesis must negate this “or” without allowing it a proper meaning (or “positive”) and it must so act “in the strong sense of this word”. For the This-which-is-not-That means something other than the That-which-is-not-This. Consequently, the Anti-thesis can only contradict or deny everything that the Thesis affirms or says by saying (or, if you like, “affirming”) that the Concept “is” (“at once”), This-which-is-not-That and That-which-is-not-This Now, if the Concept “is” not only This, but also That, it is more adequate for the Anti-thesis, to say that it “is” not the This and the That, but a This and a That, taking the notion ONE not in the sense of ONE ONLY or (which is the same thing) of THIS, but in the sense of ANY-ONE and, therefore, of ALL. Thus, the Anti-thesis of Philosophy will contradict what the Philosophical Thesis says, speaking of This or That, by saying that the Concept “is” (the set of) all the This which-not- are-not-That and (of) all That-which-are-not-This. By contradicting in the same way everything that the Thesis says when speaking of the Here and the Present, the Anti-thesis discursively develops its negative (because negating) thesis in a way that is just as complete as the Thesis has discursively developed its positive thesis. And as completely developed (or fully, even perfectly actualized), the philosophical Anti-thesis will entirely contradict the Thesis of Philosophy (assuming the same hypo-thesis as the latter) by saying [or if we prefer: by “affirming” (with a view to denying what the Thesis affirms)] that the Concept “is the set of all the This-which-are-not-That and of all the That -which-are-not-This, each of which is in a Here-which-is-not-elsewhere and in an Elsewhere-which-is-not-here, all these This and That being Here and Elsewhere , as present in a Present which has and will have a Past, even when it itself will be the past, as when what presented itself in it as yet to come will be present, without there being any more Future for any Past or Present.

After having thus developed its negative thesis (at a positive pace, but with a negating effect), the Anti-thesis will be able to “summarize” its movement by saying that the Concept “is” Non-eternity. And nothing will prevent it from camouflaging the negative and negating character of what it says, by replacing the negative notion NON-ETERNITY by an “equivalent” notion with a positive allure, by attaching the meaning NON-ETERNITY to an (otherwise unspecified) morpheme that would not involve any element playing the role that the element NOT plays in the (this English here) morpheme NON-ETERNITY. It will nevertheless be able to explicitly contradict the Thesis by saying that the Concept “is not” Eternity, that is to say by denying what the latter says, but by “affirming” at the same time its own thesis which says that the Concept “is” something that we name but implicitly, thus comprising a negation of anything whatsoever. As a result, the Thesis will only be able to re-affirm what it says by denying what the Anti-thesis affirms and it will contradict it by re-saying in a negative and therefore negating form what it said positively without contradicting anything: it will deny that the Concept “is” this something that the Anti-thesis says it “is” and it will thus affirm that the Concept “is not”. In short, and quite in the end or qua the end of the whole process; it is the thesis itself that would contradict itself.

Originally, the Philosophical Thesis affirms (without denying anything) that the Concept (S) “is” Eternity (P). Which means (at least implicitly) that any S (whatever it is) “is” necessarily something (any P;, so that insofar as one says what it “is” , the same thing is said everywhere and always, whatever one says about it. Now, if a thesis says that S “is” P, the thesis contrary to the anti-thesis contradicts it by saying that S “is not” P, which means that S “is” Non-p. Now, if the anti-thesis says that Non-p is “Q, the thesis will contradict it by saying that S “is not” Q; which means, moreover, that S “is Not-q and therefore, if you will, that it “is” (P = Not-q). But if P is absolutely arbitrary (as it should be, when one only presupposes the Hypo-thesis which presupposes nothing at all), to say that S “is” Q is equivalent to asserting that S “is » P (Q = P). Now, an anti-thesis as such, even the Anti-thesis of Philosophy, can only contradict the philosophical Thesis by saying the “opposite” of what the latter says. And since this thesis affirms (at least implicitly) that S ‘is’ P necessarily, that is, everywhere and always, the Anti-thesis must deny it, by saying that S cc is not ‘everywhere and always’. always, that is to say necessarily P. Which means that S is P only at times (and in places); or, if you prefer, that S “is” P temporarily. And since, in the Philosophical Thesis, S “is” the Concept (which “is” Eternity), the Concept must be, for the Anti-thesis of Philosophy, itself temporal (and not Eternity. itself), since any S is only temporarily a P (whatever it is). Thus, when the Anti-thesis contradicts the Thesis which affirms that the Concept “is” Eternity, it denies it by saying that this same Concept “is” not ii! “is” ii Non-eternity. Now, in fact and for us, this antithetical Non-eternity is defined “positively” as the Temporal as such. And, in the Temporal, the Concept is Eternity for or in the Thesis, but in and for the Anti-thesis, it is not the case.

When the Anti-thesis posits itself by op-posing itself to the Thesis and therefore sup-posing it as already posited, Philosophy presents itself as two “contrary theses”, one of which affirms what the other denies, while the other denies what it claims. We could also say, more simply, either that each of them denies what the other affirms, or that each affirms what the other denies. Now, this-presence of two branches into which Philosophy is being divided, – this bifurcation of Discourse which sup-poses the intention of speaking “as a philosopher”, that is to say with a view to answering the question of knowing what the Concept is. , or – in other words – this co-existence in the Present of two contrary philosophical theses, is in fact and for us the presence (in the extended duration of the Universe) of Philosophy as actualizing itself (or discursively developing) as (or under the heading of)


In general, the discursive development of the Para-thesis begins as any discursive development begins, namely with an affirmation or a thesis. Except that the (positive) parathetical theses or the thetic Para thesis are content with a simple ‘preponderance’ of affirmation over negation (going little by little until the equalization of the two, with ‘primate’ or ‘cc priority” of the first). Similarly, the (negative) parathetical theses which contradict them and which constitute as a whole the antithetical Parathesis, are limited to denying the preponderance (or the primacy) of the affirmation, by affirming “the preponderance (or the primacy) of negation over position (but gradually moving towards their equality). Finally, the synthetic Parathesis develops into two contrary theses, which affirm both, and in the end balancing each other out.

Wee must see what all these discourses have in common as parathetical discourses. First of all, the “parathetic partiality” requires a “partialization” or a “dividing up”, even a “quantification” which admits the more-or-less simultaneous, that is to say purely satial. However, nouns lend themselves badly to it, not to say that they do not lend themselves to it at all: one is a nightingale or one is not, and it is just as difficult to be one a little or much, than to be only half so. On the other hand, the adjectives are, so to speak, pre-adapted to these sorts of splittings, being in a way pre-determined to the quantified mixtures of more with less or of equal with equal. Thus, it is even difficult to be red without being more or less so than another or, at least, as much as the others (who are also different). Moreover, all the paratheses have this in common that they trans-form the thetic and antithetic nouns in question into adjectives, with a view to subjecting them to the fragmentation which makes possible the double game they play with them.

Now, the Non- of the Anti-thesis cannot be adjective and therefore cannot be fragmented as such. It is not the Not itself which can be “no” more or less. The “no” cannot be attenuated and the nuance of the negation in the compromise is obtained by qualifying not the negation itself, but the adjective which is denied and which can effectively be or “mean” more or less what it is. Thus, when I want to deny that a thing is “positively” red, without wanting to say however that it is not at all, I say that it is more or less so and I can only say so. by shading this red and then choosing from a range going from the most dazzling or vivid pink (which is an almost red rose) to the most dull and faded pink (which is a white barely tinged with that same red which I deny, without denying it altogether). No- is just as little Yes as Red is Black or any other No-Red. But by transforming the “Red” into “red” I obtain something which I can say sometimes that it is Red, sometimes that it is Black and sometimes that it is in-between, located between the two more or less near or far from one or the other, even at equal distance from each of them.

In the case of the philosophical Para-thesis, this means that it is not the Non- of the antithetical Non-Eternity which must and can be attenuated in view of the Compromise, but only Eternity itself (affirmed or denied ). But to be able to do that, we have to adjectivize it. Thus, all the parathetical discourses of Philosophy whatever they are or, if one prefers, the philosophical Para thesis as such, will say that the Concept is (not Eternity, nor Non-eternity, but only) eternal. And it is by “infinitely” qualifying this “eternal” character of the Concept that the Para-thesis will finally be able to knock down its philosophical game.

Now, every adjective is a relation with its own substantive and therefore (by what does not coincide with it) with what this substantive is not [hence the more-or-less that the adjective implies and which becomes clear when one develops its meaning]. Whoever says “eternal” therefore asks (at least implicitly): “in relation to what?” And it is by varying (from this relation or from this relation, that one varies from more to less in terms of what is related to it, that is to say “the eternal” itself, as quality, not to say quiddity, of the Concept as “indefinitely”) that he Parathesis of Philosophy is speaking the language of what-so-such. For the “eternal” in the classic dentist may in fact be even shorter than the “little moment” of romantic lovers,. And how many discussions around the (relative) duration of “eternal love” or the “eternal return” that some have claimed to be able to love!

Be that as it may, if the Parathetical Discourse is, by definition, “contradictory in itself” and if the Concept is said to be eternal in and by the Parathesis of Philosophy, it is in this “eternal itself that must reside the “contradiction in the terms” that the parathetical theses discursively develop, both each for itself and all as a whole.

If there is something “eternal” on earth and in heaven, it is Eternity itself, since it is in this case the noun that has been adjectivized and to which the adjective in question relates in and by its very origin. To say that the Concept is not even “eternal” is therefore to say a priori that it is not “Eternity”. In other words, it is re-saying the Anti-thesis. However, the Para-thesis is supposed to be a compromise proposed by parties without conciliators of the Anti-thesis to the supporters of the Thesis. It must therefore be said, in view of this compromise, that if the Concept is not “Eternity”, it is at least “eternal”. It is only by saying it that one can initiate the development of the Parathesis, by “affirming” a truly parathetical thesis.

But so that the supporters of the Thesis do not simply re-say it in its original purity, by re-substantiating the adjective parathetic, it is also a question of finding among them lovers of compromise or of peaceful co-existence with the ex-party of the Anti-thesis, at the cost of abandoning thematic purity. In order to agree with the renegades of the pure Anti-thesis, the defectors of the pure Thesis, compromised in the parathetical compromise, must compromise this Thesis itself, saying that even if the Concept is “eternal”, it is however not “quite”! Eternity properly so called. In other words, all the protagonists of the Para-thesis must agree that the eternal Concept is Eternity “more or less”, but none must admit that it is “not at all”. for we would then fall back into the pure Anti-thesis, whereas it is also a question of compromising it in and by one and the same compromise, which is precisely the Para-thesis.


The “infinite” character, that is to say in-definable as to its meaning, of the pseudo-discourse of the parathetic “synthesis” is due to the fact that the eternal Concept (understood as an “adjective” [ “substantialized”], that is to say taken as a relation) is put there in relation with Time alone. Now, If the Concept is “not Eternity”(substantive), but only the Eternal (“substantive adjective”), it can only be what it “is” in and by or, better still, as a relation to… or in a relation with… But if the Concept is eternal, its relationship with Time is also with the ‘eternal’, so that, in its (eternal) relation the Concept (ie as ‘conceived’) Time is itself ‘eternal’. Which means that Time is infinite or in-definite in this sense, that it has neither “origin” or beginning, nor “end” or final term, at least insofar as the Concept keeps a relationship with it and that it itself remains in relationship with the Concept. Now, the relation of the Concept with Time is its “incarnation” in the Discourse, while the relation of Time with the Concept is nothing other than the Meaning of this same Discourse.

Therefore, as a discourse, the Synthetic Parathesis of Philosophy is meant to be an “endless” discourse, thereby having an “indefinite” and “indefinable” meaning. This is why, in fact and for us, this Parathesis is only a pseudo-speech devoid of meaning, which is therefore equivalent to Silence. Undoubtedly, this equivalence is not established here, as it was the case with the Thetical and Antithetical Paratheses, at the end of this Discourse, precisely since it has no end. But because it cannot be completed, this equivalence is established from its beginning and is maintained as long as it itself lasts, that is to say “indefinitely”, since it can never be finished anywhere. Thus, although this Parathesis can “indefinitely” appear as a discourse and call itself being without ever contradicting it (since it can re-say it “indefinitely”), it is, in fact and for we, everywhere and always a speech taken from its meaning, that is to say a (pseudo-discursive) development.

Insofar as a philosopher himself proceeds to such a “formalization” (for example mathematically) of the synthetic Parathesis of Philosophy and nevertheless maintains the philosophical Hypo-thesis which is the intention to speak (philosopher) and not to be satisfied with the “symbolic” Silence” that is the “formalized” Parathesis in question, he puts this Parathesis in question (“by hypothesis” ) as a “philosophical thesis” and observes that it is not one. It is then that, speaking “as a philosopher”, he states the “thesis” of Philosophy which is the Syn-thesis of the latter.

In fact, the so-called ‘meaning’ of the supposed ‘synthetic’ or supposedly ‘synthetic’ discourse of the Para-thesis of Philosophy, is ‘infinite’ or in-definite and in-definable, that is to say it is a pseudo-meaning (of a discourse which has been deprived of any kind of a de-finite meaning) because the Concept which has been “adjectivated” and therefore put “in relation” with what is not itself, is something other than the Concept which would be said to be Time. Now, if the relation of the eternal Concept with Time produces an in-finite pseudo-discourse having only an in-definite pseudo-meaning, the relation of this same eternal Concept with Eternity had produced a speech which, in ending, contradicted everything it said.

Consequently, if we want, in accordance with the Hypo-thesis of Philosophy, to develop discursively a single philosophical thesis (and not two, one of which will contradict the other, as is the case of “contrary theses” developed by the proponents of the philosophical Thesis and Anti-thesis, as well as of the contra-dictory Para-thesis), and if one wants to be able to do it without contradicting at the end what one would have said at the beginning, one must give up putting the Concept in connection to or in relation with anything [which would be, by definition, something other than itself, since nothing can have a connection to, or a relation (at least “immediately”) with, itself].

Now, delete all the with respect to . . . or any relation with. . . is thereby to cancel any “adjective” whatever it may be. It is in and by the adjective (“eternal”) or, better still, it is as an adjective or as a substantive adjective (the “Eternal”) that the Concept is put relation with what it is not [and therefore, by repercussion (or in a “mediated” way), with itself, as placed in relation with what is, and by this very fact, in relation with itself and therefore to what it itself is]. To remove the relation of the Concept with anything whatsoever (whether with Eternity, which makes the Discourse “contradictory”, or with Time, which makes it “indefinite”), it is therefore necessary to strip this Concept of any adjective whatsoever, taking it and understanding it as such. Now, it is precisely in this way that the Concept has been understood and taken up both by the Thesis and by the Anti-Thesis of Philosophy.

From this point of view, the Syn-thesis therefore returns to the point of view of these and re-poses the Concept (or the question of the Concept, which is the Question of Philosophy) in such a way as they had posed it, i.e., before the Para-thesis de-posed it as an autonomous noun, with a view to pre-posing it to an adjective that would put it in relation to something other than itself. For the Syn-thesis, as for the Thesis and for the Anti-thesis, the Concept does not “relate” to…, but “is”…

Now, what is it for the Syn-thesis? First of all, just like the Thesis, the Syn-thesis says that the Concept “is…” and it does not say that it “is not… “, as the Anti-thesis said. Indeed, the latter was able to say it because the Thesis re-says it again at the moment when the Syn-thesis was.is about to speak. But if the latter said its “is not…” assuming only the “is…” of the Thesis, it would only be re-saying the Anti-thesis and would not be “synthetic” at all (not even in the pseudo-parathetical sense of this term). As for the Para-thesis, it is, by definition, already reduced to silence (even to its equivalent which is the pseudo-discourse, either “contradictory” or “indefinite”) at the time of the beginnings of the Syn-thesis, at least for the beginner himself. The latter cannot therefore deny what the Para-thesis claims to “affirm” or simply “say,” since the latter no longer says anything to it. It is thus that the Synthesis of Philosophy can only be presented as the Thesis was presented (in the origin of the Philosophical Discours), and which did not contradict anything or anyone, by saying only that the Concept “is…”, without saying that it “is not…” this or that or anything else.

Moreover, the Syn-thesis sup-poses the Para-thesis as a whole (that is, as already reduced to Silence, if only symbolic or formalized). Now, the latter as “synthetic” has de-posited Eternity (both transcendent and immanent) and pro-posed Time in its place, as a unique “term of reference” for the implementation of any relation whatsoever of the Concept, that is, to anything at all. If now the Syn-thesis re-poses Eternity after having suppressed the relation of the Concept with it, it would content itself with re-saying the Thesis of Philosophy and would only have to wait for the moment when it would be at its turn contradicted by a re-saying of the Anti-thesis. If therefore the Syn-thesis does not want, by definition or intention, to re-say neither the Thesis nor the Anti-thesis, if it cannot re-say the Para-thesis (that is to say, to put the concept into relationship of with something), since the latter says nothing and if, finally, it must by the force of things say or affirm something without contradicting or denying, all that it can do, all that it can speak philosophically (without contradicting anything) is that the Concept “is” Time. No doubt we can say that Time is not Eternity.

But to say that the Concept is Time is not equivalent to re-saying the Anti·thesis which says that it is Non-eternity. Because the No is in-definite as such and its de-finition depends solely on what is to its right (or to its left, if we read upside down). Now Time is defined in itself, since it has nothing to its right, nor to its left (except, if you like, itself, as past and to come) [and it could even serve to de-fine Eternity, if the latter were defined as Non-time, that is to say, for example, as Space]. In other words, if Time is Non-eternity, this is still something other than Non-eternity-which-is-Time, while Time is only what it is and nothing else. At least it is such for the Syn-thesis.

We can also say that Time is a Non-A which is a B, of which we can say not only what it “is not” (namely A), but also (and even above all, even above all or a priori) what it “is”. In other words, the Time of which the Syn-thesis speaks is what the Anti-thesis would contradict, that is to say, in fact, without contradicting the Thesis. It is by saying in a “positive” way what the Concept is which “is” the antithetical Non-eternity, that is to say by saying it without contradicting or without making use of the Non of a negation to say it, that the Syn-thesis says that the Concept “is” Time.

ההוויה עצמה וההוויה שעליה אחד מדבר

ההוויה כשלעצמה being as such וההוויה שעליה אחד מדבר being of which one speaks —זה מובן מאליו, או, אם אתה מעדיף, זה די “ברור” שאפשר לדבר רק על זה שמדברים עליו. ליתר דיוק, די לומר שאפשר לדבר רק על זה שמדברים עליו כדי לראות שאי אפשר “לסתור” את זה בלי לסתור את עצמך על הדרך (בלי לבטל את עצם המשמעות של מה שאומר). בפרט, (או “בכלל”), אם אדם רוצה לדבר על הוויה, אותו אדם יכול לעשות זאת מבלי לסתור את עצמו (כלומר, מבלי לבטל את המשמעות של מה שהוא אומר) רק על ידי דיבור על ההוויה שעליה הוא מדבר being-of-which-one-speaks —“העובדה הברורה” הזו ((המובנת מאליה)) או “האמת הבסיסית”, שלא לומר “בנאלית”, כמובן מעולם לא זכתה להתמודדות באיזשהו מקום או על ידי איזה פילוסוף. ובכן, בחיי היום-יום, אנו נמנעים, ובצדק, מלנסח זאת במפורש. באשר לפילוסופיה, היא גם השמיטה לעשות זאת בראשיתה. כעת, כל עוד ה”מובן מאליו” הזה לא קיבל צורת ביטוי מפורשת, אי אפשר היה לפתח אותו באופן דיסקורסיבי או, כמו שאומרים, אי אפשר היה “להסיק ממנו מסקנות”. למעשה, ההתפתחות הדיסקורסיבית של “העובדה הברורה” המדוברת החלה באפלטון. אבל את המסקנות הסופיות הסיק רק הגל, כלומר בסוף האבולוציה הפילוסופית. שכן הגל היה הראשון שלחץ על ההתפתחות הדיסקורסיבית הזו עד לנקודה שבה הפך זאת לעובדה “בלתי מעורערת” שההוויה-שעליה-הוא-מדבר being-of-which-one-speaks היא “זמניות”, טמפורלייזד בעצמה (ושהיותה כזו, יכולה לרמוז על השיח “האמיתי” שמדבר עליה). —העובדה שההתפתחות הדיסקורסיבית המדוברת ארכה יותר מאלפיים שנה מראה בבירור שהיא, למרות מראית עין, קשה ביותר. אין פלא, אם כן, שהתפתחות זו הולידה (לקראת סוף האבולוציה של הפילוסופיה). , לפחות במערב, ל”טעויות” וכי לעתים האמינו שניתן להסיק מכך “מסקנות” שגויות, למעשה ומבחינתנו. ה”מסקנה השגויה” העיקרית ידועה בשם אידיאליזם. מהעובדה ה”בלתי ניתנת לערעור” שאפשר לדבר רק על מה שמדברים עליו, היו שרצו “להסיק” את הקביעה שמה שלא מדברים עליו אינו (לא קיים). למעשה, האידיאליזם פותח באופן דיסקורסיבי כדי להימנע מהניסוח ה”בוטה” ((האכזרי)) שזה עתה נכתב ומאפשר לראות “מיד” שה”הסקה” זו (או ה”הוכחה” כביכול) היא רק “טעות לוגית.” המושג דיסקורס, “ברור ומובחן”, DISCOURSE במובן הקרטזיאני של המילים הללו, הוחלף ברעיון “המעורפל ” THOUGHT. אפשר לומר אז שזה מה שאדם לא חושב הוא לא: אדם נמנע עוד לדייק מי או מה היה ה”נושא” של ה”מחשבה” הזו. כדי לא להתנגש יותר מדי עם השכל הישר, הסתפקו בדרך כלל להזהיר שזו שאלה, לא שלך או אני או כל אדם בבשר, אלא של “הסובייקט בכללותו.” בכל אופן, על מנת שלמורפמה סובייקט ככלל תהיה איזושהי משמעות ושהמשמעות – תהיה קרובה ככל האפשר למשמעות של HUMAN-SUBJECT, נאמר שכל אדם יכול לחשוב כל מה שה”הסובייקט” המדובר חושב. לפיכך, אידיאליזם יכול להיות מפורש באופן דיסקרטי. כך אידיאליזם יכול לומר שמה שלא ניתן “לחשוב” (על ידי כל אדם) הוא is אינו. —מכאן מסיקים, בין היתר, שהסתירה איננה (מבלי שניתן, כמובן, לבאר מהי סתירה או לתת דין וחשבון דיסקורסיבי על העובדה ש”יש” סתירות). —אם נחזור לנוסחה ה”מובנת” יותר שלנו, נוכל לומר שהאידיאליזם טוען שמה שאי אפשר לדבר עליו אינו. כעת, די להשלים את הקביעה כדי להפוך אותה ל”בלתי ניתנת לערעור” או “בלתי ניתנת להפרכה”. אכן, אף אדם ישר (ולכן אף פילוסוף) לא ירצה לחלוק על כך שמה שאי אפשר לדבר עליו אינו זה שמדברים עליו that of which one speaks אבל כל אדם ישר יצטרך גם להכיר בכך שעצם העובדה שאפשר לדבר רק על מה שמדברים עליו אינה מאפשרת בשום אופן את הדחיקה, כפי שנעשה על ידי האידיאליזם, של חמש המילים (המודגשות באנגלית) במשפט הקודם. —ללא ספק, אי אפשר לומר (כפי שעושה הריאליזם, ש”סותר” את האידיאליזם מבלי לבטל את הסתירה או ה”התלהבות הלוגית” שנמצאים בבסיס האחרון) שמה שלא ניתן לדבר עליו הוא (-קיים) [ או יכול להיות (-קיים)]. כי לומר כך זה לומר מה שאי אפשר לדבר עליו. הוא. לכן זה לדבר על מה שאי אפשר לדבר עליו. עכשיו, לדבר על מה שאומר שאי אפשר לדבר עליו, זה, “די ברור” סתירה עצמית. לכן, האידיאליזם נכון לבקר את הריאליזם. אבל אפשר “להפריך” את האידיאליזם עצמו על ידי שימוש באותו “היגיון”. אכן, לומר שמה שאי אפשר לדבר עליו הוא לא: זה שוב לדבר על מה שעליו אומרים שאי אפשר לדבר ובכך לסתור את עצמנו שוב. —למעשה, כל מה שאפשר להסיק (ללא סתירה עצמית) מהעובדה (בניסוח דיסקורסיבי) שאפשר לדבר רק על מה שמדברים עליו מצטמצם לקביעה (לא “אידיאליסטית” ולא “ריאליסטית”, אלא פשוט תואמת ל”שכל הישר”) שמה שעליו אי אפשר לדבר אינו זה שמדברים עליו. —ה”בנאליות” או הטאוטולוגיה הזו חולקת עם כל הטאוטולוגיות את היתרון (הפילוסופי) בלהיות “אמיתית”. אם כל האנשים ה”חושבים” היו רגישים לסתירה (ולא רק לעובדה שהיא מתבררת כ”לא יעילה”), לטאוטולוגיה המדוברת היה יתרון חוץ מזה של לקטוע באיבו כל ניסיון לדבר על הבלתי ניתן לתיאור. אבל הניסיון מלמד שהשיחים והכתבים על “נושא” זה ממשיכים לפרוח, שפעת ושפע, מה שמוכיח שהסתירה עוצרת רק פילוסופים (הראויים לשם). עוד: יש צורך שהפילוסוף יבחין בסתירה בשיח שלו. עם זאת, בתחילת הפילוסופיה (והרבה לאחר מכן) הסתירה המדוברת לא הייתה “נראית לעין”, וכמה פילוסופים אותנטיים סתרו את עצמם “במרומז”, מבלי להיות מודעים לכך. —הסיבה לכך היא שבמקרה שמעניין אותנו, הסתירה מסווה את עצמה בקלות. אדם מבחין, למשל, שאפשר להיות או להתקיים בקיום(אנושי) בזמן שאדם שותק (אפילו שותק באופן “פנימי”), ואדם “מסיק” בכך שההויה יכולה “לחשוף” את עצמה בשתיקה (אנושית) ובאמצעותה, עובדת ״הידיעה״ של ההוויה “בלתי תלויה” בעובדת הדיבור עליה (או אפילו ב”חשיבה” עליה). אפילו נטען שדווקא השתיקה היא ש”חושפת” את ההוויה “ככזו”, וכל שיח (-“מחשבה”) “חושף” רק אשליה או כלום. או שמא נטען שהשתיקה “חושפת” מה שהוא [?] “מעבר” להוויה. וכולי. —למעשה, הרהור קטן (“חסר עניין”) יכול להראות כי מדובר בכל זה בסתירה מוסווית בדרכים שונות. אכן, אומרים שאדם הוא is (=קיים) תוך כדי שתיקה. כאן שוב, זהו אפוא השיח ש”מגלה” את ההוויה (השתיקה) וה”מגלה”, כמובן, את ההוויה (השותקת) עליה מדברים. לא השתיקה עצמה אלא השיח על השתיקה “חושף” את הוויה של השתיקה (עליה מדברים) או את הוויה “בכלל” (עליה מדברים). באשר לשתיקה, בהחלט אי אפשר לומר שהיא “חושפת” את הוויה (עליה היא שותקת) או את האין (שעליו היא גם שותקת) או את ה-Beyond-Being (עליה היא בטח שותקת). אי אפשר אפילו לומר שהיא, השתיקה, “מגלה” כלום. כל מה שאפשר לומר על השתיקה (מבלי לסתור את הסלט) הוא שהיא לא “חושפת” דבר ממה שמדברים עליו. אחרת, אפשר היה לדבר על זה שעליו השתיקה שותקת, והשתיקה (עליה מדברים) לא תהיה שתיקה (עליה רוצים לדבר). ליתר דיוק, זו תהיה שאלה של שתיקה ששותקת לגבי מה שאפשר לומר. זו תהיה שתיקה “מקרית” גרידא, שלא תהיה לה “סיבת קיום” וכך היה ניתן היה “להצדיק אותה” (בדיסקורסיביות) רק כפי ש”מצדיקים” “טעות רשלנית” או שקר (בהשמטה). עכשיו, זו בהחלט לא שתיקה מהסוג שהפילוסופים שדיברו על שתיקה חשבו. —כך או כך, אם הטאוטולוגיה שאנו בוחנים (“אפשר לדבר רק על זה שמדברים עליו”) יצרה “טעות”, זה רק אומר שהיא לא “סטרילית”, בניגוד למה נאמר לעתים קרובות על טאוטולוגיות (למרות שמתמטיקה מאפשרת לבחון לפחות את ה”פוריות” של אוטולוגיות נטולות משמעות, או “symbolic”). היא גם הולידה “אמיתות” דיסקורסיביות, הידועות בפילוסופיה מראשיתה ולימים נקראות “אונטולוגיות”. —אמרנו שאפשר לדבר רק על זה שמדברים עליו. אפשר גם לומר, באותה “מובנות מאליה”, שאנו מדברים בהכרח (כלומר בכל מקום ותמיד) על כל מה שאנו מדברים עליו. ונוכל לפתח באופן דיסקורסיבי את הטאוטולוגיה האחרונה הזו בדרך הבאה. כל מה שמדברים עליו משותף לעובדה שמדברים עליו. יש אפוא משהו משותף בכל מה שאדם מדבר עליו: המשותף לכל מה שאומרים הוא שאדם אומר אותו. בהתחשב בכך שזה לא סותר לדבר על מה שאומרים, כשם שזה לא סותר לדבר על שתיקה (שעל זה מדברים באמירה שזה על שתיקה שמדברים), אחד יכול לדבר על כל מה שמשותף לכל מה שהוא אומר. כל מה שהוא common. הבה נדבר אפוא על המשותף לכל מה שאדם אומר (ולכן גם על מה שאומרים על כך). כעת, אנו יכולים לדבר רק בפיתוח דיסקורסיבי של המשמעות של מושג (המשמעות ההיא בכל מקום ותמיד קשורה למורפמה, כל מורפמה, יתר על כן). לכן עלינו לגבש את התפיסה שאנו רוצים לפתח באופן דיסקורסיבי. הבה נבחר (“באופן שרירותי”) לשם כך מורפמה: ניתן לה להיות (“ואם כדי למקד את מחשבותינו”) את התצורה הטיפוגרפית שלפנינו: BEING. הבה נקצה למורפמה את המשמעות BEING, המעניקה לנו את המושג BEING בתוך ודרך הגדרת פרויקט שאנו יכולים לפתח באופן דיסקורסיבי: כלומר, הרעיון שנוצר באומרנו שהמושג BEING מסמל (או יש לו משמעות) של המשותף לכל מה שאדם מדבר עליו. —עד כאן הכל היה קל מאוד ואיכשהו הולך בלי שנצטרך לטעון לכך. אבל, אם אנחנו רוצים ללכת רחוק יותר, אנחנו צריכים לשים לב היטב (אם אנחנו לא רוצים ללכת “בדרך הלא נכונה”, כלומר, לרדת, אם לא דרך “מבוי סתום”, לפחות בדרך שתוליך אותנו שולל” במובן שלעולם לא תוביל אותנו בחזרה לנקודת ההתחלה שלנו). לכן, נתקן תחילה את הטרמינולוגיה שלנו (על מנת שתהיה “נקודה קבועה” שתוכל לשמש כ”נקודת התייחסות” או ליתר דיוק, כ”נקודת מוצא” ולכן כ”נקודת חזרה). ” לשם כך, הבה נסביר, ברעיון עצמו, את משמעותו המרומזת, אשר פותחה על ידינו בהגדרת הפרויקט שלו. לשם כך, הבה נשנה או, מה שיותר קל, נשלים את המורפמה BEING כך שתהיה המורפמה BEING-OF-WHICH-ONE-SPEAKS ונאמר שלמושג BEING-OF-WHICH-ONE-SPEAKS יש את המשמעות ‘ההוויה-שעליה-אחד מדבר’, המסמלת, בתורה, את כל המשותף לכל מה שאדם מדבר עליו (בכל אופן, אפילו סותר, בתנאי שאחד מדבר במובן המוחלט של המילה, כלומר, שהוא עושה שימוש במושגים במובן הרחב או במורפמות שניחנו במשמעויות הניתנות להתפתחות דיסקרסיבית, סותרות או לא, הניתנות להפרדה מהמורפומות). —בשימוש, במטרה לפיתוח הדיסקורסיבי שלו, ברעיון (עם המשמעות ה”מרומזת”) BEING, אדם מסתכן בלקחת נטייה לא נכונה על ידי דיבור, לדבר כך לא על ההוויה עליה מדברים, BEING-OF-WHICH-ONE-SPEAKS אלא על ההוויה ככזו, BEING-AS-SUCH. יתרה מכך, לפעמים הדרך מעוותת מנקודת המוצא שלה, כאשר המושג ה”מרומז” BEING הופך להיות מפורש עם המשמעות של המושג BEING-AS-SUCH. שכן, למעשה ואצלנו, הרעיון הזה סותר “בלי עוררין”, אם “ככזה” מסמל (כפי שקורה בדרך כלל): “נלקח ללא תלות בעובדה שמדברים עליו”. אכן, ברגע שמדברים על משהו, אי אפשר “לקחת” אותו ללא תלות בכך שאחד מדבר על זה. אם, כמובן, אפשר לדבר על נלקח ככזה, כלומר, כהוויה, לא ייתכן שההוויה הזו לא תהיה ההוויה אשר עליה אחד מדבר. על מנת למנוע את אי ההבנות שהתרחשו בעבר, עדיף להימנע מהמושג BEING-AS-SOCH ולעשות שימוש מלכתחילה במושג BEING-OF-WHICH ONE-SPEAKS. —עם זאת, ויהיה זה רק כדי לפשט את הכתיבה, אנחנו נשתמש במורפמה GIVEN-BEING במקום המורפמה BEING-OF-WHICH-ONE SPEAKS (שזו בכל זאת המורפמה ה”מיידית” של המושג המדובר). חוץ מזה, השימוש במושג GIVEN-BEING מציג יתרון מסוים בהקשר של המבוא הנוכחי. מצד אחד, בשימוש ברעיון זה, אנו מצביעים מיד על כך שאנו מפתחים באופן דיסקורסיבי מושג פילוסופי. ואכן, כל פילוסופיה במובן המוחלט של המילה הייתה עסוקה בכל מקום ותמיד בשאלה לדעת איך זה שעליו היא מדברת הוא “נתון” (גם אם שכחה את העובדה שהיא מדברת עליו או לא שירטטה את כל ההשלכות מכך). זה הלא-פילוסוף או ה”דיוט” ((le “Profane”)) (“מדען” או אחר) שמדבר על דברים מבלי להיות מודאג ((se preoccuper)) בשאלה כיצד הם ניתנים לו. (ובכל מקרה איך זה קורה שהוא מדבר עליהם). במידה שהוא מדבר על הוויה, ההדיוט נוטה אפוא לומר שהוא מדבר על הוויה ככזו (ולבצע את כל ה”שגיאות” ש”נובעות” מכך). כדי להדגיש שאנו מדברים על ההוויה כפילוסופים, הרי שבהיותנו פילוסופים, נדבר אפוא, עם כל הפילוסופים, על הוויה נתונה GIVEN-BEING (אם כי פילוסופים מסתפקים בדרך כלל במורפמה BEING). עם זאת, בשימוש במושג GIVEN-BEING במקום המושג BEING-OF-WHICH-ONE-SPEAKS, אנו מצביעים על כך שהפילוסופיה לא זיהתה “מיד” את המשמעות GIVEN- עם המשמעות של-WHICH-ONE-SPEAKS, זיהוי זה, שאנו מקבלים מלכתחילה, לאחר שנעשה על ידי הפילוסופיה רק “בהדרגה” ((התקדמות)) במהלך האבולוציה ההיסטורית שלה. —מכיוון שהמורפמה היוונית של המושג BEING היא ON כמו שזו של המושג DISCOURSE היא LOGOS, אנחנו נכנה את השיח שלנו על Being “אונטולוגיה”, ונכנה באותו שם כל שיח פילוסופי מהסוג הזה. בפירוק המילה (או, אם תרצה, המורפמה) “אונטולוגיה” ל”אונטו-לוגיה”, אנו מציינים שהאונטו-לוגיה מדברת באופן בלעדי (אם לא תמיד במפורש, לפחות במרומז, כלומר, למעשה ולכן עבורנו) על הההווויה שעלינו אנו מדברים או, במילים אחרות, על GIVEN­-BEING. באומרה את כל שהיא יכולה לומר על הישות עליה היא מדברת, אונטו-לוגיה צריכה אפוא לדבר גם על העובדה שהיא מדברת עליה. לכן, הפילוסוף יצטרך לדבר, במוקדם או במאוחר, על השיח שלו עצמו. אם מדברים על הוויה, אונטולוגיה מדברת אפוא גם (לפחות באופן מרומז או, אם אתה מעדיף, “וירטואלי”) על עצמה. ודווקא במידה שהיא עושה זאת היא onto-logic כ-Onto-logy (או פילוסופיה). אונטו-לוגיה היא אפוא שיח “מעגלי”, במובן שלעולם אינו חורג מעצמו תוך כדי שהוא מתערב בעצמו ושבהתפתחותו, הוא אינו מתרחק מנקודת המוצא שלו אל הנקודה שממנה הוא כבר לא להיות מסוגל לחזור אליה. בהיותה ההתפתחות הדיסקורסיבית של המושג GIVEN-BEING, המסמל את התכונה המשותפת של כל מה שעליו מדברים, אונטולוגיה יכולה להסתיים רק בחזרה לנקודת המוצא שלה, שהיא עצם המקור של המושג המדובר, כלומר, של המשמעות המשותפת של כל מה שעליו אנו מדברים, והמשמעות המשותפת הזו היא המושג, הקונספט. —המילה “אונטו-לוגיה” עצמה מעידה, מלבד זאת, שהשיח “המעגלי” של אונטו-לוגיה מדבר, לא על שום דבר, אלא באופן בלעדי (ואפילו במפורש) על הוויה (נתונה). אפשר אפילו לפרט זאת בכך שהוא מדבר על הוויה ככזו, בתנאי שלא נשכח שמדובר בהוויה -ככזו- עליה-אחד- מדבר (או שעליה האונטו-לוגיה הנדונה מדברת). במילים אחרות, אונטו-לוגיה מדברת, לא על זה שמדברים עליו, אלא על ההוויה של זה שעליו מדברים. מה שאומר, למעשה ואצלנו, שהיא מדברת אך ורק על מה שמשותף לכל מה שמדברים עליו, בעוד שבשום אופן היא לא מדברת על זה שמדברים עליו, כלומר על מה שמבדיל (באופן בלתי מושכל) כל שיח אחד מבין כל השיחים האחרים. אפשר “להסיק” מכך שההוויה (הנתונה) עליה מדברת האונטו-לוגיה היא חד-טואלית, כלומר אחת בפני עצמה וייחודית מסוגה. אכן, ההוויה (הנתונה) היא אחת בפני עצמה, והיא, בהגדרה, המשותף לכל מה שמדברים עליו. אם היו ישויות שונות, היה צורך להבחין בין שני מקרים. במקרה אחד, הישויות השונות לא יהיו משותפות לכל מה שעליו מדברים; בהגדרה, אף אחד מהם לא היה צריך להיקרא, במקרה זה, “הוויה”. במקרה השני, כל אחת מהישויות השונות תהיה משותפת לכל מה שאחד מדבר עליהן; במקרה זה, אפשר “להסתיר” מה שמייחד את הישויות הללו ולדבר רק על המשותף להן; על פי הגדרה, ובאופן ייחודי זה, תכונה משותפת זו יכולה להיקרא “הוויה”. על פי כל השערה, ההוויה (הנתונה) קיימת, בהגדרה, כאחת בפני עצמה. כמו כן, היא על פי כל השערה ייחודית מסוגה או טוטאלית, שכן היא, מעצם הגדרתה, ללא כל חריגה אפשרית, משותפת לכל מה שמדברים עליה. בהגדרה, השיח האונטו-לוגי מדבר אפוא על יחידות- טוטליות. ודווקא בגלל שהשיח הזה מדבר על Uni-totality, הוא עצמו אחד בפני עצמו או ייחודי מסוגו, כלומר חד-טוטלי. החד-טוטליות הזו של האונטו-לוגי היא שמפותחת באופן דיסקרסיבי בתוך ודרך הדיסקורס האונטו-לוגי החד-טוטלי, והיא זו שמודגמת באמצעות המעגליות של אותו שיח. —אחרי מה שנאמר קודם, צריך להיות ברור שאנטו-לוגיה חד-טואלית או מעגלית, שמדברת על הוויה נתונה ואומרת עליה (לפחות במרומז או “למעשה”) כל מה שאפשר לומר עליה, אינה בכלל “אידיאליסטית”. שכן, בדיבור אך ורק על ההוויה עליה היא מדברת, אונטו-לוגיה אינה יכולה לומר דבר על ההוויה שעליה היא אינה מדברת; בפרט, היא אינה יכולה אפוא לטעון, כמו האידיאליזם, שהישות הזו אינה או שהיא האין טהור. אבל, מאותה סיבה, האונטולוגיה אינה “ריאליסטית”. שכן גם כאו אין אנו יכולים לטעון, כפי שעושה הריאליזם, שהיישות שעליה הוא אינו מדבר. לא הבנתי? אז כתבתי. הבנתי?

מה שבטוח, זה מפתה מאוד לפתח אונטו-לוגיה “ריאליסטית” על ידי דיבור על Being, ממש כפי שהדיוט מדבר על מה שהוא מדבר עליו, כלומר תוך שוכח שהוא מדבר עליו. והפיתוי הזה כל כך חזק עד שפילוסופים מסוימים (אותנטיים, יתר על כן) לפעמים “שכחו” את עצמם (כפילוסופים) עד כדי כך שהם האמינו שהם מסוגלים “להצדיק” או “להדגים” באופן דיסקורסיבי את ה”אונטולוגיה הריאליסטית” שלהם, במעשה שהוא לא פילוסופי או “דתי” (המכונה בדרך כלל, במקרה זה, “תיאולוגיה”); וזאת על ידי הנמקה כדלקמן. —ההוויה הוא רעיון. למושג, יהיה אשר יהיה, יש משמעות (במקרה שלנו, המשמעות היא הוויה) רק אם המושג הזה “מתייחס” ל”משהו” מלבד עצמו ואשר “מתאים” לו. אם לא, מדובר ב”מורפמה” מופשטת ממשמעות, כלומר, סמל ולא מושג שנקרא כך במפורש (כביכול לא סותר). כך, למשל, למורפמה (פסאודו) ABRACADABRA יש, אם תרצו ;משמעות (פסאודו) (למי ש”הכיר” אותה): עבור אלה ש”הכירו” אותה, ABRACADABRA היא למעשה משהו אחר מכל ציור פשוט באשר הוא. , למשל, –0~. אבל המשמעות (פסאודו) ABRACADABRA של המושג (פסאודו) ABRACADABRA “מתייחסת” (אם יש להשתמש במילה “התייחסות” כאן – בטעות, יתר על כן) רק למושג הזה עצמו. אפשר לומר, למען הסר ספק, ש-ABRACADABRA היא המשמעות (פסאודו) של (הפסאודו)מורפמה ABRACADABRA; אבל אם רוצים לפתח באופן דיסקרסיבי את המשמעות (הפסאודו) הזו, כל מה שאפשר לומר עליה הוא שזו המשמעות של המורפמה (הפסאודו) המדוברת. ובדיוק בגלל זה עדיף לומר של-ABRACADABRA אין משמעות הנקראת כך מעצם היותה (משמעות: בהגדרה ניתנת לפיתוח דיסקורסיבית, כלומר, שלא על ידי עצם אמירת הרעיון המשותף או על ידי היזכרות פשוטה של ​​המורפמה של האחרון) שהוא נבדל מכל ציור באשר הוא רק במידה שהוא סמל (-“מורפמה” מופשטת ממשמעות). ובכל זאת, אם BEING אינו סמל אלא המורפמה של מושג הנקרא למהדרין (לכאורה לא קונטרה). -דיקטורי), למושג BEING יש “להתייחס”, במשמעות שלו BEING ל”משהו” שאינו עצמו: רק במקרה זה תהיה לו משמעות שנקראת כך בקפדנות (בהגדרה ניתנת להתפתחות דיסקורסיבית). ה”משהו אחר” הזה מלבד המושג BEING הוא בדיוק Being as such,שהולם או מתיישב עם המושג BEING, ש”מתייחס” אליו. זה על being as such שהאונטו-לוגיה ה”ריאליסטית” (המכונה בדרך כלל “תיאולוגיה”) אמורה לדבר. אבל נוכל בקלות לחבר את ההיגיון הזה באמירה שהאונטולוגיה ה”ריאליסטית” (פסאודו) מדברת בהכרח (-בכל מקום ותמיד) על הוויה-ככזו, כך שאין לה דרך לדבר על שום דבר אחר מלבד ההוויה שעליה היא מדברת, כלומר ה-Given-Being שעליו אמורה לדבר האונטו-לוגיה הפילוסופית האוטנטית, “ריאליסטית” ו”אידיאליסטית” כאחת. —ללא ספק, אם אדם אמר רק את האמת, אם כל מה שאומר היה אמת, אפשר כבר לומר (גם בלי להגדיר או לפתח את המשמעות ה”מיידית” או המרומזת של המושג אמת) שכל מה שהוא מדבר עליו הוא הדיוק הוא, זה, כזה. אז אפשר לומר שאונטולוגיה מדברת לא רק על המשותף לכל מה שמדברים עליו, אלא יותר על כל המשותף לכל מה שיש, על המשותף לכל מה שהוא, קרי ההוויה-ככזו, שהאונטולוגיה ה”ריאליסטית” (פסאודו) מתיימרת לומר. אבל, אם כל מה שאדם אומר הוא אמת ואם, כתוצאה מכך, האונטו-לוגיה היא אמיתית בעצמה, אם, במילים אחרות, כל מה שהיא אומרת על Being הוא אמת וכל מה שהוא “ביחס” ((par rapport) ) להוויה נאמר על ידה, אין סיבה לתת לאונטו-לוגיה (האמיתית) פרשנות “ריאליסטית” ולא פרשנות “אידיאליסטית”. אכן, מדוע נניח, כפי שעושה הריאליזם, שההוויה היא “באופן בלתי תלוי” בשיח (האונטו-לוגי) שמדבר עליה, אם השיח הזה אומר על ההוויה כל מה שאפשר לומר עליה באמירת מה שהוא אמת? אפשר לטעון באותה מידה, כמו האידיאליזם, שההוויה אינה אחרת, ולכן לא יותר, ממה שאומרים כשמדברים עליה. —כתוצאה מכך, ברגע שהאונטו-לוגיה אמיתית באמת, כלומר ברגע שהיא אומרת את כל האמת ולא אומרת שום דבר מלבד האמת (על ההוויה עליה היא מדברת), אין סיבה להעדיף את הפרשנות ה”ריאליסטית” לפרשנות “אידיאליסטית” או, להיפך, להעדיף את האידיאליזם על פני המציאות. למעשה, לאונטולוגיה האמיתית ובשביל לה, שתי הפרשנויות הללו מסתכמות רק באחת, כי אין דרך להבחין ביניהן. לפיכך, האידיאליזם יכול להתנגד לריאליזם רק ביחס לאונטו-לוגיה או בתוך אונטולוגיה שהיא “יחידה” או לפחות מסוגלת להיות כזו, רק במידה שהיא לא הצליחה (עדיין) להפגין את אמיתותה. כעת, מוזר לומר, יש צורך לתת העדפה לריאליזם דווקא, בהקשר הכלללי של אונטו-לוגיה שאינה הוכחה כנכונה. —ואכן, למרות שהאונטולוגיה (הפסאודו) שניתן לתת לה רק פרשנות אידיאליסטית היא בהגדרה “טעות” (במובן הרחב של “לא הוכחה כנכונה”), היא, באותה מידה בהגדרה, אינה מסוגלת (באופן דיסקורסיבי) לתת חשבון לעצם האפשרות של טעות כלשהי ולפיכך לטעות בעולמה שלה. שכן, אם ההוויה אינה אלא דבר אחר ולא יותר ממה שאדם אומר שהוא, קשה לראות כיצד ניתן לומר משהו שקרי או שגוי, וגם לא, כתוצאה מכך, מדוע כל שיח שהוא, ובפרט השיח האונטו-לוגי עצמו, צריך להדגים את אמיתותו (במקום להסתפק בהצגה פשוטה ((הפגנה)) או “התבוננות”, או, יותר טוב, “הוכחה” מיידית. עם זאת, הניסיון מלמד שללא הדגמה (או, מה זה אותו דבר, בלי “הפרכה” של שיח “יחיד”, או בכל מקרה בלי [[כל]] הנחה מראש של אפשרות הטעות) שום שיח לא יכול להצליח לכפות את עצמו כנכון בכל מקום ותמיד, כלומר “בהכרח”. —מצד שני, האונטולוגיה ה”ריאליסטית” (הפסאודו), די “יחידה” כשלעצמה, מסבירה מיד (באופן דיסקורסיבי) את האפשרות של אונטולוגיה שגויה. אכן, אם ההוויה היא משהו יותר או אחר ממה שאומרים עליו, אפשר לומר עליו מה שהוא לא, כלומר “לטעות” (על ההוויה). באופן כללי, ריאליזם מסביר את האפשרות של טעות. כתוצאה מכך, היא מכירה (לפחות באופן מרומז) באפשרות שהיא עשויה להיות ייחודית בעצמה ולכן כל אונטולוגיה “ריאליסטית” עשויה להיות שקרית. אם האונטולוגיה ה”ריאליסטית” (פסאודו) [המכונה בדרך כלל “תיאולוגיה”] היא, למעשה ועבורנו, בהגדרה שגויה, היא, עבורנו ולמעשה, טעות, שבניגוד לטעות של ה”אידיאליסט”; שהיא “(פסאודו)אונטולוגיה [שאפשר לקרוא לה “אנתרופולוגיה” בתנאי שאנו מציינים ש”אנתרופוס” (-“סובייקט בכלל”) זהה כאן ל”תיאוס” של האונטולוגיה ה”ריאליסטית” והוא הכל מלבד האדם החי שאנו עצמנו יכולים לזהות בעצמנו], מסוגל בעצמו להפגין את עצמו כשגיאה (או, אם אתה מעדיף, “להפריך” את עצמו כהתלהבות בניסיון להוכיח את עצמו כאמת); ולהפוך את עצמו, כך, לאמת בתוך ודרך אותה הדגמה (או “הפרכה”) של טעותו. —כעת, אם פילוסוף (שבהגדרתו מחפש את האמת) צריך לבחור בין שתי שגיאות, הוא יעדיף, ללא כל ספק אפשרי, את זה שמסוגל לשנות את עצמו (על ידי התפתחות דיסקורסיבית במהלך הזמן ) לאמת; על פני זה שבהגדרה, בהרחקה מעצמו את עצם האפשרות שלו לטעות, יהיה בכל מקום ותמיד זהה לעצמו, כלומר, ייחודי (אלא אם כן הוא “מופרך”, איכשהו מבחוץ, על-ידי ה-טעות הנגלית לו על ידי זה שמתנגד והופך בינתיים לאמת). מסיבה זו אנו, כפילוסופים, ‘מצדיקים’ את הבחירה בפילוסופיה שהחלה בפיתוח האונטולוגיה על ידי מתן פרשנות “ריאליסטית” ועל ידי הצגתה כאונטו-לוגיה עצמה.

למעשה, הפרשנות הריאליסטית של האונטולוגיה קובעת את ה”תוכן” שלה לא פחות מהפרשנות האידיאליסטית שלה. זו הסיבה שהאונטולוגיה המכונה “אידיאליסטית” עולה בקנה אחד עם האונטו-לוגיה המכונה “ריאליסטית”, בדיוק כפי שמה שנקרא “שתי אונטו-לוגיות אלו חופפות לאמת, או באונטולוגיה האמיתית. —אכן, נראה שה”תוכן” של אונטו-לוגיה מורכב באופן בלעדי מהפיתוח (הדיסקורסי) של “הליבה” של הפרויקט הגדרת המושג GIVEN-BEING, “הליבה” הזו אומרת כי בהינתן- הוויה (שהאונטו-לוגיה מדברת עליה) משותפת לכל דבר, כלומר היא חד-טוטלית. כל השאר הוא רק פרשנות של אונטולוגיה ולא אונטולוגיה עצמה (או “התוכן” שלה). אכן, אם אדם מפרש את ה”גרעין” כפי שמפרש את הריאליזם (תוך הבנה לא נכונה של פרשנות זו) ואם אומרים שההוויה משותפת לכל מה שיש או אם הוא יאמץ את הפרשנות היכולה להיות מובנת לא נכון במובן של אידאליזם ואם אומרים ש ההוויה משותפת לכל מה שאדם אומר (או “חושב”), עם כל זאת, ועוד! נותרה העובדה שההוויה משותפת לכולם ולכן היא חד-טואלית. ה”תוכן” של אונטו-לוגיה הוא בדיוק הפיתוח (הדיסקורסיבי) של המשמעות של המושג UNITOTAL-BEING או UNITOTALITY-THAT-IS. באשר לפרשנויות של אונטו-לוגיה זו או של השיח המדבר על Unitotal-Being, הרי שיש להן משמעות ולכן הן יכולות להיות נכונות או שגויות או, ליתר דיוק, להצטרף או לא להידחות רק במערכת הידע ובאמצעותה. —כעת, מערכת הידע (הדיבורית) היא, בהגדרה, בעצמה חד-טואלית או “מעגלית”. לכן עליה לתת דין וחשבון (בדיסקורס) על עצמה כשיח. בתוך המערכת, האונטו-לוגיה חייבת לדבר (באופן מפורש) על ההווויה-שלה-אחד-מדבר (=הוויה נתונה). נראה אם ​​כן שהפרשנות האידיאליסטית של אונטולוגיה היא “הנכונה”, שכן היא זו שמשתלבת במערכת “נכונה” (כלומר, ללא סתירה). אבל נראה שהמערכת מוכיחה שהשיח מתייחס ((se referant)) למשהו אחר מלבד עצמו. לפיכך, זו הפרשנות הריאליסטית של השיח האונטו-לוגי שנראה שהיא מתאימה “באופן משותף” למערכת הידע, בהגדרה “מעגלית” או אמיתית. אבל ראינו שהאונטו-לוגיה שמראה את עצמה כנכונה (מה שהיא באמת יכולה לעשות רק על ידי התאמה ללא סתירה למערכת) היא לא “ריאליסטית” ולא “אידיאליסטית” – שלא לומר שהיא “ריאליסטית” ו”אידיאליסטית” בבת אחת. מכאן אנו יכולים להסיק שכפי שהיא מותאמת למערכת, אין ל- Onto-logy צורך להתפרש כלל. די להגדיר זאת כשיח על הוויה ככזו, הוויה זו עצמה מוגדרת כהוויה -שעליה- אחד- מדבר (-הוויה נתונה), כלומר כאחדות או כמשותפת לכל דבר של איזה אחד מדבר; ושזה כמו שאונטולוגיה אומרת שהיא, שכן אונטולוגיה היא בהגדרה נכונה במידה שהיא מתאימה (ללא סתירה) לתוך המערכת. —אבל, [[אונטו-לוגיה]) שעדיין לא נמצא במערכת, מכיוון שאנו רק מתכוונים להציג אותה, עלינו לפרש את אונטו-לוגיה (שאותה נפתח) ולכן לבחור בין שתי הפרשנויות ה”אפשריות”, בהתאמה. כעת, ראינו שבמידה שאנו רוצים לדבר כפילוסופים, הבחירה שלנו בפרשנות הריאליסטית כבר נעשתה באופן מסוים. ראינו גם שזאת הבחירה שעשתה הפילוסופיה בתחילתה. לכן עלינו רק לקחת את תחילת ההתפתחות ההיסטורית של האונטו-לוגי (שאותה אנו מוציאים לפועל במטרה להכניס את הזמן להוויה, על מנת לזהות את הזמן עם המושג) כהתחלה של ההתפתחות ההיסטורית של הפילוסופיה (במידה שהאחרונה מוקדשת לשיח אונטו-לוגי). לא! הבנתי כלום.

כפי שכבר אמרתי, האבולוציה ההיסטורית של האונטו-לוגיה התרחשה בשלושה שלבים מכריעים. השלב הראשוני מיוצג עבורנו על ידי פרמנידס, זה של המעבר או ההתפתחות מיוצג על ידי אפלטון, ושל הסוף על ידי הגל. —פרמנידס הוא הראשון שמדבר אלינו, לא על מה שיש, אלא על הוויה ככזו. לכן ניתן לחשוב עליו כ”אבא” של האונטולוגיה. כפילוסוף אמיתי, פרמנידס מדבר על הוויה נתונה או על הישות עליה מדברים. אבל, בחיפזון שלו להגיע לסוף השיח האונטו-לוגי, הוא שכח שהשיח הזה מדבר על ההוויה-שעליה אחד -מדבר. כתוצאה מכך, הוא הצליח לטעות ולהאמין שההוויה-שעליה-אחד-מדבר והשיח-המדבר-על-זה הם רק אחד. כתוצאה מכך, הוא זיהה את Being-One עם Etemity. —כשהיא הרהרה ארוכות ב-Onto-logy של פרמנידס, הפילוסופיה הבינה, בדמותו של אפלטון, שהנצחיות של ה-Being-One הוא, מעצם הגדרתה, בלתי ניתנת לתיאור. כדי להיות מסוגל לתת דין וחשבון על השיח האונטו-לוגי, אפלטון מצא את עצמו אפוא מחויב לטעון שהאונטו-לוגיה מדברת על Being-Two, שהוא נצחי (או נצחי יחד עם הנצחיות) מבלי להיות הנצח עצמו. עם זאת, הוא הבין שאם אפשר לדבר על ההוויה-שתיים הנצחית, אפשר לומר עליה כל דבר שהוא. על ידי עיגון השיח (האונטו-לוגי) ה”מתייחס” לנצחי, Being-Twe, בשקט שאמור “לחשוף” את הנצח הבלתי ניתן לתיאור, אפלטון האמין שהוא יכול להרדים את הנחלים, ולהצמיח אותם לנצח כאמת דיבורית, בהגדרה אחת וייחודית או בכל מקום ותמיד זהה לעצמה. אבל הוא לא הצליח בזה. —אחרי אפלטון, השיח האונטו-לוגי המשיך להתפתח עם הזמן או “להתפתח” או, יותר טוב, “להתקדם”. לפיכך, אריסטו תיקן “מיד” את האונטולוגיה האפלטונית בכך שגילה בזמן עצמו את הנצח שאליו האמין אפלטון שהוא אכן “מתייחס” כי אליו הוא חייב לייחס את השיח כדי להעמיד את השיח האונטולוגי לאמת. התגלית האריסטוטלית הזו נוצלה והתפתחה לאט במשך מאות שנים ארוכות, ורק קאנט הצליח לשאוב במפורש את כל היתרונות הפילוסופיים הכרוכים בכך. הוא עשה זאת על ידי “התייחסות” של השיח האמיתי (האונטו-לוגי), לא עוד אל הנצח הפרמנידי-אפלטוני, שגילה אריסטו בזמן, אלא לזמן עצמו. —אבל לא נדבר כאן לא על אריסטו ולא על קאנט ונעבור “ישירות” מאפלטון להגל. שכן קאנט לא היה מסוגל ולא רצה להפוך את הפילוסופיה לחוכמה או לידע ולכן נשאר, בדיוק כמו “קודמו” אריסטו, פילוסוף אפלטוני, ובכך היה, עבורנו, חבר בשלב האבולוציה האונטו-לוגית. מסומן על ידי האונטו-לוגיה של אפלטון. —הגל היה הראשון ששחרר את השיח הפילוסופי מהנוסטלגיה לשתיקה, בכך שהפגין בשיח עצמו ובאמצעותו את האמת שלו, כך שהשיח, שחדל להיות פילוסופי, הפך לידע (דיסקורסי) או לביטוי הדיסקורסי של החוכמה, שממנה ביקשה הפילוסופיה לפעול. הגל יכול היה לעשות זאת, לאחר שראה, הראה והדגים שאונטולוגיה, כשיח על הוויה, יכולה להתבצע (על ידי הוכחה כזו) רק אם ההוויה אינה שתיים, כפי שחשב אפלטון, וגם לא אחת, כפי שהאמין פרמנידס, אלא שלוש. (כפי שאמרו הנוצרים בפיתוח דיסקורסיבי ב”תיאולוגיה” שלהם אגב ההתחלות העל-לוגיות של הניאו-אפלטוניזם). על ההוויה-שלוש הזה, או על האחדות הזו, כלומר, הגל דיבר באונטו-לוגיה שלו, שהיא שלנו ולכן, עבורנו, אונטו-לוגיה בפשטות. אונטו-לוגיה הגליאנית זו היא שמדגימה שהוויה-שלוש אינו נצחיות ולא הנצחי, אלא הזמן עצמו, או ליתר דיוק, המרחב-זמניות שהוא איננו אלא המושג (המושג המתפתח באופן דיסקרסיבי ב- זמן כשיח חד-טוטלי או “מעגלי”, הכולל את האונטו-לוגיה כמרכיב ומדגים את האמת הדיסקורסיבית של האחרון, מה?! “Hoping against hope all the while that, by the light of philophosy, (and may she never folsage us!) things will begin to clear up a bit one way or another within the next quarrel of an hour”.

Kant’s critique of the philosophical discourse

Kant’s critique of the philosophical discourse


As soon as one openly declares that a particular “subject” is specifically philosophical and quite exclusively so, hence, claiming, in fact, that it should be treated by philosophers and solely by philosophers, i.e., philosophically, one finds oneself sooner or later obliged to append or annex all the other sciences to this new field, now, philosophy, thus reducing the “sciences” to silence. But instead of being silent, the advocates of the sciences are vigorously protesting. However, just as soon as the philosophers fancy to silence them by offering them a compromise, throwing at their direction some subjects-matters, which Philosophy has self-willingly chose to relinquish, it becomes quite noticeable that there is no reason to stop the train, and that the sciences should follow this style of a request to the hilt, i.e., to demand scientific independence to all the subjects with the same reason with which philosophy has admitted to justify the abandonment of one of the subjects at the beginning of this process or this later knock-on-effect.


It was by taking advantage of this history lesson that Kant was the first to give up the way of defining Philosophy by its alleged “subject”, by trying to understand it from the way or “method”) in which the philosophers spoke on the “subjects” of which they had spoken; indeed, for Kant, these “subjects” could moreover be arbitrary, when the way is first and its question of application is the very question of their “philosophy”.


It is by proceeding with the courage of despair to such a “Copernican Revolution” of the situation that Kant succeeded in saving Philosophy in extremis, by showing full awareness and giving full account for the “specifically” philosophical behaviour, which he wanted at all costs to maintain in his own philosophy and to ensure for the future. He was able to do this by explicitly giving a fully comprehensible account, and therefore an intelligible definition, of Philosophy, which justified (discursively) “forever” the traditional “universalist” behaviour of philosophers while securing for the first time an “eternal peace” with all the” particular “sciences (and the discourses (Practices), as now promising them, in effect, that no force in the world would henceforth reduce either to Silence or to Philosophy.

The non-philosophers, scientists or not, have ignored and still strong in the habit of overlooking the end-success of the Kantian world revolution, which guaranteed forever, in fact, and for all the philosophers, the universal empire “(and” homogeneous”) of Philosophy.


Thus, even nowadays, the particular sciences believe in occupying little by little the ex-philosophical domain’s, concentrating now on the very last plots. Very recently, “Logistics” believed to annex Logic, while Relative Physics insisted on removing “space and time” from Philosophy. But Kant and the philosophers who understood the Kantian definition of Philosophy and who behaved, philosophically, according to it, regained in a few years all the domains previously lost. To give another example: overcoming the “reserve” that Fichte left to ‘science”, as he was ready to be satisfied with his conquest of Judeo-Christian theology, which he observed vis-à-vis contemporary “science” (of Hellenic origin), Schelling’s work symbolises the reconquest of his predecessors by reintegrating in Philosophy (or, more precisely, in his “philosophy”) all of that which was still existed independent in terms of theoretical speech.


Without a doubt, this untimely campaign of enthusiasts of the Kantian revolution scandalised the world, and the recovery by conquest would certainly have sunk into the anarchy of a general revolt if Hegel had not put the reconquered territory more or less in order, by constituting and ensuring its indivisible unity, in and through this “unsurpassable” system and irreplaceable absolute Knowledge (Natural science (Galileo-Newton’s, that is to say also Hobbes’s) is a pseudoscience > of the working slave. The ex-slave liberated by the revolution (1789) gives it up; his science becomes the philosophy (Hegel’s) based on which man can understand himself as a man (but to that end, the transition through < the stage of > slave labour and its ideology is necessary!). Slave science > leads 1. to transcendentalism, 2. to subjective > idealism. to 3.“phrenology.” that is to say to materialism).

Since then, the universal empire if not of Philosophy, at least of Hegelian discursive Wisdom, has never been called into question again (given the impossibility of doing so, without any response to the question by the System of Knowledge itself which alone allowed it to be asked). Moreover, the “Particular sciences(unlike” practical “discourses) would not have even noticed this empire of the System of Knowledge, if certain” Hegelians had not, here and there and for some time, acted vis-à-vis these sciences, contrary to the armistice that Kant had concluded with them (without them realising it, moreover) and that Hegel could only transform into an eternal peace treaty (but provisionally remained secret).


As for the meaning and the scope of the “miracle of the Marne”, the merit which belongs to Kant alone should be known by now. By stating a fully comprehensive and fully understandable definition of philosophy for the first time, Kant did not modify the latter in any way, nor therefore did he change the (really) philosophical behaviour of (true) philosophers. In fact (and for us post-Kantians), the authentic philosophers behaved after Kant the same way they behaved before him, except that, thanks to his definition of Philosophy, this behaviour became more explicit and more self-consciously.


This “Kantian” take of a complete consciousness allowed Hegel to transform Philosophy into a System of Knowledge (which no one will be able to bring back to Philosophy any longer, given the impossibility of questioning it). It is generally said that Kant’s originality consists in the reduction of Philosophy to a “theory of knowledge” or “Gnoseology”, even to “Epistemology”. Without being false, this paraphrase of the Kantian definition lends itself to misunderstanding: On the one hand, by hearing about Kantian reduction, one does not understand the post-Kantian expansion, which, however, undoubtedly results from it. And by misunderstanding it, we tend to oppose it: “in the name of Kant”, of course. On the other hand, the words “theory” and “-logy” do not sufficiently separate the idea that this could be a “particular” or “isolated” discourse, in a way “independent” from others. In other words, one might believe that it is possible, according to Kant, to develop the “theory” of one “knowledge”, without thereby creating (if only implicitly) “knowledge”, even if one makes a “theory”, even the “knowledge” as such, that is to say, taken as a whole.


Of course, Kant never contradicted himself to the point of saying such a thing. He spoke of Philosophy as a criticism of knowledge, a criticism which implies and presupposes, of course, the whole of the knowledge criticised. On condition of being “critical” (that is to say already criticised or at least open to criticism in the future), all “knowledge” (discursive) is therefore philosophical. However, no (discursive) knowledge escapes philosophical “criticism”.As a “critical” discourse, Philosophy is, therefore indeed, a “universal” discourse (that is to say uni-total) and therefore conforms to the “universalist” behaviour shown by all the philosophers worthy of the name. But insofar as any discourse is not “critical” (at least virtually), it is outside the philosophical discourse aIt speaks and can remain there in peace as long as it wishes. In other words, the particular sciences” (by definition not philosophical) can appropriate and share all the discourses (coherent or not) insofar as they are not “criticised”; but each of these discourses is transformed into a philosophical course or, more exactly, into a constitutive or integrating element of the Philosophical Discourse (coherent, that is, completed System of Knowledge), as soon as it is criticised or put to its “criticism” (by philosophical definition) and thus makes one with it.


Briefly and clearly, Philosophy has been understood since Kant as the (coherent) set of (coherent) discourses which speak of everything (or anything) while also speaking of itself. We can also say that any “science” is philosophical, which speaks about what it speaks about and because it speaks about it and that it is the one person who is speaking about it. Conversely, any discourse which does not speak of itself (as of discourse) is therefore outside Philosophy and can therefore live indefinitely in peace with it by ignoring it completely.


So, for example, when a mathematician is no longer content to “do mathematics”, but begins to talk about what he does while doing it, he (discursively) develops what he nowadays calls a “meta-mathematics “, that is to say what was called” metaphysics “in the good old days and what the Neo-Kantians in the narrow sense of the term prefer to call this critical philosophy (of mathematics)” (sometimes forgetting that one cannot “criticise” mathematics by “disregarding it”, that is to say by excluding it, even as implicit, from the “philosophical” discourse which they would like to develop). Likewise, a physicist does physics when he says, for example, that everything he talks about must be reduced to (measurable) interactions between “electrons”, neutrons “, protons” or other entities of the same kind, but excludes from what he talks about everything he says about it himself; but as soon as he includes it, by saying that what he says must also be reduced to the interactions of which he speaks, he speaks no longer as a physicist, but as a philosopher, who integrates a (could be good) physics in a (really bad) “philosophy” (called “materialist”, which moreover eliminates itself from the System of Knowledge, since it reduces itself to silence by counter-saying it). Or again, when a theologian develops the bare tale of a “revelation” or talks about how it was given (in general and to him in particular), he makes theology. If he explains himself as speaking through revelation, then he is doing philosophy to the extent.


In short, the “philosophical sciences” are the only “Sciences” which speak for themselves, while also speaking of what they say about them, and it is precise to the extent that they do so that they are not Sciences proper (“particular” and “Exclusive”, since each of them excludes all the others and, in any case, leaves it to others to speak of itself as speaking of itself), but the same Philosophy (developable, at the limit, in one and unique Knowledge System). Therefore, we can also say that only the philosophers speak of Philosophy and speak only of it. But we must add that they can only talk about it by speaking (at least implicitly) of everything that we can say (without contradicting each other) and that they must therefore re-say it in its entirety, if not at all. to do so only in an implicit way (the complete clarification of all the implications of their philosophical discourses transforming them into this unique discourse and one that is the Hegelian System of Knowledge

Kojeve’s Hegel: Concept and Time (HISTORY)

The goal of Hegel’s philosophy is to account for the fact of history. We can conclude from this that the Time that he identifies with the Concept is historical Time, the Time in which human history unfolds, or better still, the Time which is realised (not as the movement of the stars, for example, but) as Universal History. Thus, identifying Time and Concept amounts to understanding History as the history of human Discourse, which reveals Being. And we know that indeed, for Hegel, Real-Time, that is to say, universal history, is ultimately the history of philosophy.

In PhG, Hegel is very radical. Indeed, he says (at the end of the book’s penultimate paragraph) that Nature is Space, while Time is History. In other words: there is no natural, cosmic Time; There is Time only insofar as there is History, that is to say, human existence, that is to say, human speaking existence. In History, the man reveals, Being by his Speech is the “Concept existing empirically”, and Time is nothing other than this Concept. Without it, Man, Nature would be Space, and Space only. Therefore, man alone is in Time, and Time does not exist outside Man; Man is, therefore, Time, and Time is Man, that is to say, the “Concept which is there in the spatial empirical existence” of Nature. But, in his other writings, Hegel is less radical, where he admits the existence of a Cosmic Time. But in doing so, Hegel identifies Cosmic Time and Historical Time-Concept and Time. But it does not matter for the moment. If Hegel identifies the two Times, if he admits only one Time, we can apply the human, historical time, nonetheless.

Now, curiously enough, the decisive text on Time is found in the “Philosophy of Nature”. This text was translated and commented on by A. Koyré in an article that arose from his Course on Hegel’s Youth Writings: a decisive article, which is the source and the basis of the following.

The text in question clearly shows that the Time that Hegel has in mind is historical Time (and not biological or cosmic). Indeed, this time is distinguished by the authority of the Future. As for the Time considered by pre-Hegelian Philosophy, the movement went from the Past to the Future via the Present. In the time of which Hegel speaks, on the other hand, the action is engendered in the Future and goes towards the Present while passing by the Past: Future – Past -> Present (- * Future). And this is indeed the specific structure of a proper human Time, that is to say, historical.

Indeed, let us consider the phenomenological (even anthropological) projection of this metaphysical analysis of Time.

The movement generated by the Future – is the movement, which is born from Desire; a specifically human Desire, a creative Desire, a Desire which relates to an entity that does not exist in the actual natural World and which does not exist in any other way, hence not in the given but as potential. Only then can we say that the Future generates the movement: because the Future is precisely what is not (yet) and what has not (already) been.

Indeed, Desire is the presence of an absence: I am thirsty because water is absent in me. It is, therefore, the presence of a future in the Present: of the future act of drinking. The desire to drink means the desire for something (water) to act upon the Present. According to the Future, to act according to desire is to work according to what is not (yet). Therefore, the being who acts in this way is in Time, where the Future takes precedence. And conversely, the Future can only really take precedence if there is, in the real (spatial) World, a being capable of acting in this way. Now, we know that Desire can only relate to a non-existent entity on the condition that it relates to another Desire taken as Desire. In Chapter IV of the PHG, Hegel shows that the Desire that links to another Desire is necessarily the Desire for Recognition, which – by opposing the Master to the Slave, it generates History and moves it (as long as ‘it is not permanently deleted by Satisfaction). So: by being realised, the Time where the Future takes precedence generates History, which lasts as long as this Time lasts; and this Time only lasts as long as History lasts, that is to say as long as the human acts accomplished with a view to social recognition are carried out.

If Desire is the presence of an absence, it is not – taken as such – an empirical reality: it does not exist positively in the natural Present, say spatial. On the contrary, it is like a hiatus or a “hole” in Space: – a void, a nothingness. (And it is in this “hole” that the purely temporal Future is lodged within the spatial Present). Therefore, Desire’s desire relates to nothing, “to realize” It – it is to realise nothing. Thus, by associating only to the Future, we do not arrive at reality, and therefore we are not really in motion.

On the other hand, if one affirms or accepts the Present (or even spatial) real, one does not want anything, so we do not relate to the Future, we do not go beyond the Present, and consequently, we do not move. Thus, to be realized, Desire must relate to reality; but it cannot connect to it positively. It must, therefore, correlate to it negatively.

Desire is, therefore, necessarily the Desire to negate the real or present given. And the reality of Desire comes from the negation of the given existence. Now the real denied – it is the real which has ceased to be: the real past. The Future determines the desire only appears, in the Present, as a reality (that is to say as a satisfied Desire) on condition of having denied a real, that is to say, a satisfied Desire. The Past has been (negatively) formed according to the Future that determines the real present’s quality. And it is only the Present thus determined by the Future and the Past, which is a human or historical Present.

The movement of History, then, is born from the Future and passes through the Past to be realised in the Present or as a temporal Present. Therefore, the Time that Hegel has in mind is human or historical Time: the Time of conscious and voluntary Action that realises in the Present a Project for the Future when the Project is formed from past knowledge.

Let us take as an example a “historical moment”, the famous anecdote of “Crossing the Rubicon”. What is in the Present itself, that is>>> What presents itself? A man is walking at night near a small river. In other words, something incredibly bland and nothing of “historical” consequence. Even if the man in question were Caesar, the event would have nothing to do with history if Caesar walked around only because of some insomnia. But, on the other hand, the moment is historic because the night-loving walker thinks of a coup, a civil war, Rome’s conquest, and world domination. And let us note it well: because he has the project to do it; because all this is still in the Future. The event in question would therefore not be • historical » ‘there was not a real-presence (Gegenwart) of the Future in the Real World (first of all in Caesar’s mind). Therefore, the Present is “historical” only because there is in it a relation to the Future, or more precisely because it is a function of the Future (César walking around because he thinks about the Future). And it is in this sense, we can speak of the importance, even primacy, of the Future in historical time.

But this does not end. Let us suppose that the walker is a Roman adolescent who • dreams • of world domination, or a • megalomaniac • in the clinical sense of the word who hatches a • project otherwise identical to that of Caesar. As a result, the walk ceases to be a “historical event”. It is only so because it is Caesar who thinks while walking about his project (or makes up his mind, that is to say, transforms a “hypothesis” with no precise relation to Real-Time * into a “project of concrete’ future’). Why? Because Caesar has the possibility (but not the certainty, because then there would be no future properly speaking, nor any substantial project) of carrying out his “plans.” Now, this possibility is his whole past and his past alone, which assures him of it. 

According to the project, the past,>>> that is to say, all the actions of struggle and work carried out in the present>>> that is to say, of the Future. This past distinguishes the “project” from a simple dream or a “utopia”. Consequently, there is a “historical moment” only there, where the Present is organised according to the Future, on condition that the Future enters the present not in an immediate way (unmittelbar; a case of utopia), could be mediatised (vermittelt) by the past, that is to say by an action already accomplished, which makes the imagined act a real plausibility, a calling of temptation.

עוד על הגל

%d בלוגרים אהבו את זה: