Agamben the Thing Itself

7/29/2019 Agamben the Thing Itself

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/agamben-the-thing-itself 1/12

The Thing ItselfAuthor(s): Giorgio Agamben and Juliana SchiesariReviewed work(s):Source: SubStance, Vol. 16, No. 2, Issue 53: Contemporary Italian Thought (1987), pp. 18-28Published by: University of Wisconsin Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3685158 .

Accessed: 20/02/2013 15:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Wisconsin Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

SubStance.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:49:47 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uwisc

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3685158?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/3685158?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uwisc



TheThingtself

GIORGIO GAMBEN

ToJacqueserridand othememoryfGiorgioPasquali

The expression thething tself"To'TpdyLa oti,

r6)appearsat thebeginningftheso-called hilosophic igressionnPlato's eventhet-ter-a textwhosemportanceor hehistoryfWesternhilosophysstillfarfrom eing ompletelystablished. fter entley ad cast suspicionoffalsification

ponllancient

pistolaries,irst einersn1783 nd then

Karsten ndAstdeclared lato's ettersnauthentic.hese etters, hichhadformerlyeenconsidered nintegralart f hiswork,were ittle ylittle eleted rom hilosophicalistoriographyttheverymoment henphilosophical istoriographyasmostfervid nd active.When, n ourcentury,his endency egantoreversetself,nd morenumerous ndbetter ualifiedriticsssertedhe uthenticityf the ettersat east heauthenticityf theoneweare interestednhere), hephilosophersndscholars hohadbegun oconcern hemselvesithhem ad totakento

accountthe isolationn which he letters ad been for more than acentury.Whathad been ostwasthe iving onnection etween hetextandthe uccessivehilosophicradition:he eventhetter,or xample,with tsdensephilosophicxcursus,owpresentedtself s an isolatedpeakwhosearduousascentwascomplicatedy nearlynsurmountableobstacles.twasalsotrue,naturally,hatong-termsolation adtrans-formed he etter-as thesea inAriel's onghas transformedlonso'sbody-intosomethingich ndstrange.t wasthuspossible oconfront

the letterwith freshness hattheothergreatPlatonic extswouldperhapsnot havepermitted.The scenario fthe etterswellknown: lato, ynow n oldman-he

is seventy-fiveearsold-recalls forthebenefit f Dion's friends isencounters ithDionysiusnd the adventurousailure fhispoliticaleffortsnSicily.At thepointthat nterests s,Plato stellingDion's friendsabout his thirdtripto Sicily.Having been enticed to Syracuse by theinsistentpressuresof the tyrant, lato decided immediatelyupon hisarrivaltotest hesincerityfDionysius' tateddesire tobecome a philos-

Substance N0 53, 1987 18








TheThing tself 19

opher. "There is a wayfordetermining he truth n such caseswhich,farfrombeing vulgar,"he writes, is truly ppropriatetodespots,especially

thosestuffedwith econd-hand

opinions,which

perceived,s soon as I

arrived,was muchthecasewithDionysius." 340b 3-7).' Withmen such asthese,he continues, ne ought mmediatelyo show whatthe entire hingmightbe, no matterhowtaxing.Thus, if he who listens s truly philos-opher and isequal tothething,he willthink hathe hasheard speakofamarvelouspath,whichought to be traveled withoutdelay,and he willthink t mpossibletoliveany differently.s forthose,however,whoarenotreallyphilosophersbut have onlya superficial eneer ofphilosophy,like the coat of tan people get in the sun,as soon as they ee how much

commitmenthethingrequires,they hink hatthetask s toodifficult,fnot impossible, and so persuade themselves that theyknow enoughalready and have no need of further tudy."Thus," writesPlato,

I toldDionysius hat toldhim, ut certainlyidnot et orthohim llmydoctrines,ordidDionysiusskmeto, or epretendedoknowmanyf hemost mportantoints lready nd tobe adequately roundednthem ymeans f econd-handnterpretationsehadgottenromthers.hear, oo,that e has sincewrittennsubjectsnwhich instructedim t that ime,s

ifhehadnotheard hem romme and as if heywerehisowndoctrine. fthis knownothing. do know, owever,hat ome thers avewrittennthese amesubjects,ut whothey re,they o notknow hemselves.nestatement,tanyrate, can make nregard oallwhohavewrittenrwhomaywritewith claim oknowledgefthe ubjectsowhich devotemythoughtsn'epi 6v /y (orrov8rr6w),o matter owtheypretend o haveacquired t,whether rommy nstructionr from thers rbytheir wndiscovery.uch writersave, nmy pinion, nderstoodothingbout hething"341a 7-c4).

It is at thispoint thatthe expression,"the thing tself" 76rp&-YL(atur6) ppears: a formulation hatremained so determinate s the ndica-

tion ofthe taskofphilosophy tself,hatone finds tagainmorethantwothousandyears ater, ike a watchwordpassed frommouthtomouth, nKant, in Hegel, in Husserl, in Heidegger. "On thissubject, certainlyhave written owork,norshall everdo so inthefuture. t isnot, nfact,in any way sayable,as in otherdisciplines(l6lf4ar),

but,aftermuchclose attendance to the thingitself(rrsp 6rrp&-yac oar6) and much

companionshipwith t, uddenly, ike parks hotout from fire,t s bornin the soul and by now nourishes itself(oVrbtra6 'irl

'"TpE(PEL) (341c

4-d2).This passage has been quoted innumerabletimes,both to sustain

esoteric interpretations f Plato's thoughtand also as an irrefutabledocumentfor heexistence funwritten latonicdoctrines: heDialogues,whichour culturehas passed on forcenturies s a venerable nheritance,would, in thissense, have little o do withwhat Plato cared about; his

concern would have been reserved fora uniquelyoral tradition.Ourinteresthere is not so much to take issue withthismatter, ertainly n








20 Agamben

importantone, as to try o ask ourselveswhatmightthe thing tselfbewhichoccupies Plato'sthoughts nd whichDionysiuspresumedwronglyto haveunderstood.What s the

thingf hinking?An answerto this uestioncan onlycomefrom n attentive eadingofthe subsequent passage, which Plato defines as "a tale and a diversion"

(p6o, KcXLrkXvo-344d3) and, at the same time, s "a truediscourse,

which I have often statedbefore,but which it now seems needs to be

repeated"(342a 3-7). Therefore, thinkingwhichwants o come totermswith tsown"thing"must lwaysmeasureitself gainstthe nterpretationof this"extravagantmyth."Let us try, hen,to read it.

"For everyentity",writesPlato,

there re three hingshroughwhichknowledgebout t must ome;theknowledgetselfsa fourth,nd wemust ut s a fifthhatwhichs knowableand truly xists. he firsts the name(ovoCLa),hesecond, hedefiningdiscourseA6yos),hethird,he mage e')sokov),nd thefourth,cience.Take a particularase fyouwant ounderstandhemeaningfwhat havejustsaid,then pply hetheoryoevery bject n thesameway.Thereissomething,or nstance,alled ircle,henameof which s theverywordjustnowuttered.n the econdplace, heres ts ogos, omposed fnouns

and verbal xpressions.orexample,hedefinitionf thatwhich s namedround nd circumferencend circlewouldrun s follows:he hingwhichhaseverywherequaldistance etweentsextremitiesnd its enter. hethirds thatwhich s drawn nd erasedand turned n the athe nd de-stroyed-processeshich onot ffecthe ircle tself(aoTbrbKVjKhOq,ereanexample f the hingtself)-towhich ll these ther hingsrerelated,because t sdifferentromhem. hefourthsknowledgendvobsndtrueopinion oncerninghem; llofwhichwe must etdown sonethingmore,that s not found n sounds v

wvaodq)or n theshapesofbodies 9v

aorpXTWV rXLacaLv),ut nsouls

6v uXaotS); herebytevidentlyiffers n

itsnature rom hecircletself nd from he forementionedhree.Of allthese our, henous pproaches earestnaffinityndlikeness o thefifth,while heothersre more emote romt.The sameholds rue nregard oshapes ndsurfaces,oth traightndcurved,nregardo llbodies rtificialandnatural,nregard ofire ndwaterndthe ike,nd nregardo ll ivingthings nd for llquality f character nd for llcreations

(ro1p cxaro)and in

respecto allpassions ~o'61UwLraO).or f nthe aseofany fthese, man

doesnot somehow rothergethold ofthefirstour, ewillnevergaina

completenderstandingfthe ifth.urthermore,hefirstour oas much

to illustrateheparticularualityToroC6v TL) ofanyobject s they o toillustratetsbeing yv),because of theweaknessof anguage 8&'Tbr ov 6ywv&u&ev~s).Hence no intelligent an willever be so bold as to put intolanguage hose hings hich easonhascontemplated,speciallyot nto nunalterable iscourse,whichmustbe the case withwhat s expressednwrittenymbols"342a 8-343a 3).

Let us stop,foran instant, o catch our breath. Before this xtraordi-

naryexcursus, hich constitutes he last and mostexplicitexpositionofPlato'stheory f deas,we can measure thedamage caused tophilosophic








TheThingtself 21

historiographyn the ast enturyythe uspicion ffalsificationhichhadbeencastontoPlato's etters.t is notmyntention ereto scalethis

formidableeak. t s,however,oubtless ossible o ttempt,ornow, oinstall firstncampmentn the lopes n order o measure hedifficultyoftheclimb nd inorder osituatetaccordingoneighboringeights.

Afirstonsiderationhatwecan make andonethat asalready eenmadebyPasquali mongstthers)oncerns he tatus funsayabilityhatthe eventhetter,ccordingoesotericeadingsfPlato,would ttributetothethingtself. hisclaimought o be all themoremoderate otheextent hatfrom hecontexttclearly esultshat hethingtselfs notsomethinghat bsolutelyranscendsanguage nd hasnothing odo

with t. Plato affirms ost xplicitlyhat ifone does notsomehow rothergetholdof thefirstour"whichnclude,et us remember,ameand ogos)onewillnever e abletogain complete nderstandingfthefifth."n anothermportant assage nthe etter, e writes hatknowl-edgeof the hingtselfights p suddenlyafterubbingneagainst heothernames, ogoi, isual nd other enseperceptions,nd scrutinizingthemnbenevolentisputationy heuseofquestionndanswerwithoutjealousy" 344b4-7).

Theseunequivocalffirmationsurn ut obe,furthermore,erfectlyin keepingwith hetight elationshiphatPlato'sdialoguesestablishbetween dea and language.WhenSocrates nPhaedo xpounds n thegenesis f thetheoryfideas,he says: So I decidedthat musthaverecourse o ogoi,nd use themntryingodiscoverhe ruthfthings"(99e 4-6); elsewhere,epresentshedislike fwords-misology-as heworst f evils 89d 2) and thedisappearance f anguage s the oss ofphilosophytselfSoph.260a 6-7), while, n theParmenides,deas aredefined s "thatwhich an be

maximallyaken

y ogos"135e 3).Anddid

notAristotleffirm,nhishistoricaleconstructionfPlatonichoughttthebeginningftheMetaphysics,hat he heoryf deaswasbornfromcrKLqSv S OEY

o 6OLS, froman inquiry ntodiscourses? 987b 33).The thingtself as,therefore,ts minent lace n anguage, ven f

languagesundoubtedlyotperfectlyuited o t, ecause,s Platoputs t,of itsweakness.t could be said,with n apparentparadox, hat venwhile ranscendinganguagensomeway, he hingtselfspossible nlyinlanguage ndbyvirtue f anguage-the thingf anguage,s itwere.

WhenPlato ays hat hethingwhich ccupieshisthoughtsnot nanywaysayable,as it s withother

aq41paTra,itwould thusbe advantageous

toputthe ccent nthe astwords: t s not ayablenthe ameway s inotherdisciplines,ut t snot,for hat eason, horoughlynsayable.

As Plato never tiresof repeating,the reasons whichadvise againstentrusting hething tself o thewrittenword are ethical nd notmerelylogical. Plato's mysticism-ifsuch a thingexists-is, like any authenticmysticism, rofoundly mplicated n language, in logoi.

Having made thispreliminaryonsideration,etus pass on to a closeexaminationofthe listcontained n thedigression.The identificationf








22 Agamben

thefirst our oes notpresentxcessive ifficulty:hename, hedefiningdiscourse,he mage whichhere ndicatesheperceivablebject) nd,

finally,he

understandinghat s realized

throughhem.Onoma, he

name, nmodern ermswhichre, fterll, he ame s in Stoic ogic),sthe ignifier;he ogoss the ignifiedr thevirtualeferent.2he image sthe denotativer the actualreferent.

Theseterms refamiliarous, houghneought ot oforgethatt s

onlywith heSophists nd withPlato that uch reflectionn languagebegan,which edto thepreciseogicalgrammaticalonstructionsf theStoa nd oftheHellenisticchools. ust s in BookX of The aws ndthelastpart fthe ophist,lato,n our etter,xpounds theoryf inguistic

significationn ts elationshipoknowledge.hedifficultyegins, atu-rally,with hefifthntity, hich ntroducesnto hetheoryfsignifica-tion, swe understandt, new lement. et us reread hepassage: For

every ntity,here re three hings hroughwhichknowledgebout tmust ome, heknowledgetselfsa fourth,nd wemust ut s a fifthhatwhichsknowablendtrulyxists."tseems hat ere he ifthught obeunderstood s thesameentityromwhich he discourse riginatesysaying,Foreveryntityhere re three.. ." Thethingtself ould hen

simplyethe hingwhichs the bject fknowledge.onsequently,hatwould nsuewouldbe thevalorizationfthatnterpretationfPlatonism(already perativenAristotle) hich eesinthe dea a kindofuseless

duplication f theobject.Moreover,he enumeration urns ut to becircularecausewhat s istednfifthlace s ctually hatwasfirst amedas point fdeparture or heentire iscourse.

Whatcan perhapscome to- ur aid here is attention aid to the

philologicaletailswherein,sWarburg sedtosay, hegoodLord ovesto hide himself. he Greektext,whichwe read in modern ditions

(Burnett'sditionsexemplaryf all that ollow,ut oisSouilh6'smorerecent dition), aysat thispoint, wemustputas fifth hatwhich sknowableand truly xists"(TrFLxL'rrov'01ir6 TLveaL ~e 8ilVcrTO6v re

KaMirTp')h (TLcr'rv). Butthe womain odicesuponwhich oth cholarsbased theireditions, he ParisinusGraecus1807 and the VaticanusGraecus1,present differenteading: nstead f8e6 d,we have&86,

"throughwhich".Returningo thereadingof thecodices, r better,writingMo,the translationecomes: wemustputas fifthhat hrough

whicheachone of the ntities)s knowable ndtrue."3nthemarginsfthereading, scribe f the welfthenturyadnoted, s a correctionr,rather, s a variant,hat -Edi,whichmodern ditorshave chosentomaintain.he codexthatMarsilio icinohad before is yeswhen rans-latingPlato'sworksntoLatinstillhad thereading&6; in fact, icinotranslates:Quintum erooportet psumponere uo quidestcognosci-bile, d estquod agnoscipotest,tquevereexsistit."

Whatchanges?Whatdoes thisrestoring f theoriginalreadingofthecodices

bringto us anew?

Essentiallyhis: the

thingtself s no

longersimply n entityn itsobscurity,n objectpresupposedby anguage and








TheThingtself 23

bythecognitive rocess, ut t s insteadaifr6C60yvoarr6vcrTrv,hatthroughhicht is knowable,tsownknowabilitynd truth.he marginal

variant ollowed ymoderneditors, hough tgoes astray,s noter-roneous.The hand whichwrote t andwehavereason obelieve hat twas not anunexperienced and)wasmost pparentlyoncerned boutthe risk hatknowabilitytself-thedea-mightbe, nits urn, resup-posed and hypostasizeds an other hing, s a duplicate fthethingbehind rbeyond he hing. he thingtselfsnot,nfact,notherhing,but t sthe amehingandthat'swhyhe ermut6 ervessthe echnicaldesignation f theidea). It is, however, o longerpre-supposedy,orplacedbeneath,hename rthe ogos,ike nobscure,ealpresupposition(an rTOKLItevov,subject,nthe tymologicaleaningfthatwhichiesbeneath);but s replaced n the medium f itsownknowability,n thepure ight f tsrevelationnd its nnouncingf tselfoknowledge.

The "weakness",herefore,f ogosonsistsn ts nabilityobring oexpressionhisknowabilitynd this ameness;he anguage ushes ack,like presuppositioninthe tymologicalense fthe ermhypothesis","thatwhich splacedunder"), hevery nowabilityfthe ntity hich srevealed n it.

This sthe ense f hedistinctionetween n ndpoion,etweeneingand its ualification,hichsthedistinctionhat lato nsistspon everaltimes nhis etter.Language--ouranguage-isnecessarilyresupposingandobjectifying,nthe ense hatanguage,n ts omingbout, plitshethingtself hichnnouncestselfnlyn anguage,nto thingnwhichonecanspeak, nd nto rotoov,qualitynd a determinationhichs aidabout t.Language up-posesndhides hatwhich tbrings o ightnthevery ct of bringingt to light.Languageis, therefore,ccording oAristotle'sefinition,he

ayingfsomething

nomething.anguage

salways re-sup-posingndobjectifying.resuppositions theformtselfof inguisticignification:hesaying a&' WVrOKELyJvVOV,na subject.

The warning lato attaches o the dea is,then, hat ayabilitytselfremainsnsaidnwhat ne aysbout hatnwhichne peaks;hat nowabilityitselfetsostnwhat neknowsboutwhatheres tobeknown.

The specific roblemwhich s in questionn the etter-butwhichnecessarilys theproblemwith veryhumandiscourse hatdesires omanifesthefifth,hatwishesothematize hat annot ethematized-is

this: how is it possible o speakwithout resupposing, ithout ypo-thesizingndsubjectivizingrsubjecting hat nespeaks bout?How sitpossible o peaknot n hepresuppositionf thing,ut o ay hehingitself? nd, incenames re,for heGreeks,ssentiallyhatwhichssaidfor tself,Ka' awrr6)an language aywhat tnames? an language aywhat the name has called?

The mostancientcommentators ad alreadyunderstoodthata con-tradictionwas implicitn thisproblem.We have a glossbya latePlatonic

scholar which aysmore orless thefollowing: Why s tthat heMaster nthe Phaedrusdevalues writing nd yet,fromthe momentthat he has








24 Agamben

written,ehas, n someway, etained iswritten ork s praiseworthy?Evenin thishe has wanted o follow he truth:ustas thedivinityascreated oth hose

hingswhich re nvisiblend those

hingshich re

visible,otoo has he eft ome hings nwrittennd otherswritten."hisquestions alsoapplicable o the eventhetter. erePlato,writingboutwhathe is thinkingnd aboutwhat houldremain nwritten,eems ochallengeheweakness f ogosnd tobetray imselfnsomeway.And tis certainlyot on behalf f some vain oke that,n anotheretter, edeclines aternityf thedialogueswhich ad circulated nderhisnameinorderto affirmhat heywerethework fa "Socrates ecomemorebeautifulnd moreyouthful"Ep. II, 314c3-4). Here theparadoxical

nature fPlato'swritingsumpsmomentarilyefore ureyes: na let-ter-whichmodern cholars ave oftenmaintained obe apocryphal-Plato tates hat isdialogues re nauthenticnorder oattributehem oan impossibleuthor: ocrates,heir wnprotagonist,hobythenhadbeendead and buried ormany ears. hecharacterbout homespeaksinthetextheretakes heplaceoftheauthor fthedialogueswhereheappears.Themost cute ncientritics,amely emetriusndDiogenes,had observedhowPlato's tyle,which s limpid n the first ialogues,

becomes more obscure, swollen (6<0pos), nd paratactic ('nTEppir7mTLaXX7JXoL'sT KWX~aP'TpO c'Tepov, sentences ile up over achother"writes emetrius) henhe confrontshethemeswhich etakesmost oheart.

Through curious oincidence,heweaknessf anguage hat sherecalled intoquestionbythe father f Westernmetaphysics,eems toprophesy ytwothousandyears hatdifficultyhichs implicitn themetaphysicalharacter four language, ndwhichweighs n the atewritingfHeideggerike n obstinatenger nd almostike n intimate

obstacle. uttheweakness f the ogoss notgrounded,nPlato,withinanymysticaltatus fthe dea. On the ontrary,he dea makespossiblethat oming, hroughanguage,nsupport f anguage(X6y/poqi~EIv)which, ccording oPhaedrus278c 6), is the mark fauthentic hilo-sophical xposition. ere therisk sthat henon-thematizability,hich sinquestionnthethingtself,ecomesnturn hematizedndpresup-posed still n the form of a kyeLV TL KCTc' TLv6O, ike a speakingabout

something hich ne cannot peak bout.The thingtselfsnot simple

hypostasisf thename,somethingneffable hichmustremainun-spoken nd beguarded nlynthiswaynthe anguage fmen.Asimilarconception-implicitlyefutedtthe ndofThaetetus-stillypothesizesand supposes hethingtself. his-the thing f anguage-isnot quidwhich an be looked for ike an extreme ypothesis eyond ll otherhypotheses, last and absolute subject beyond all othersubjects,atro-ciouslyor beautifically unk into its obscurity. uch a thingwithoutrelationshipto language, such a nonlinguistic,e can thinkof, in truth,

onlyn

language, throughthe idea of a language withno relationship othings.This idea is a chimera ntheSpinoziansense oftheterm, hat s, t








TheThingtself 25

issomething urely erbal. he thingtselfs not thing-it s theverysayability,hevery peningwhich s in questionn language,which s

language,ndwhichn

languagewe

constantlyresupposend

forget,perhapsbecause thething tselfs, n its ntimacy,othingmorethanforgetfulnessndself-abandonment.n thewords fthePhaedo76d 8),thethingtselfs whatwearealways ivulging hilewespeak,whatwecannothelpbut ay ndcommunicate,utwhichweneverthelesslwayslose sight f.The presupposingtructureflanguage s thestructureitself ftradition: e pre-supposendbetrayboth ntheetymologicaland in thecommon ense of the Latinverb:tradere)hethingtselfnlanguage o that anguagemaybearuponsomethingKTr&TLv6S). The

sinkingfthethingtselfs thefoundationponwhich-andonly ponwhich-somethingike a traditionan constitutetself.

Thetask f hilosophicalxpositionsto ome o he idof hewordwith hewordnorderhat hewordtselfoes ot emainup-posedyheword,ut omesas thewordo heword.t is at thispoint hat hepresupposingower flanguage ouchests imit nd its nd: anguage ays hepresuppositionsas presuppositionsnd, nthisway, eaches hatnon-presupposingndnon-presupposedrinciple&pKi vu"'r6T ro),which nly yremaining

such, onstitutesuthenticommunitynd human ommunication.sPlatowritesn a decisive assage fa dialoguewhich resentsmore hanonepointn commonwith he extravagant yth"f the eventhetter:"Learnwhat sayabout theother ection f the ntelligible,hichan-guage itself(ori6T0s6 6yos)touchesthrough tspowerofdialogue,takinghypothesesot as absolute eginnings,ut iterallys hypotheses,oot-ings, ndspringboards,othat, oing owardsnon-hypotheticaltartingpoint fallthings,ouchingt nd, gain,holding nto he hings ear t,itmay eturn owards he nd,making ouseofany bject fsense, utstartingromdeas,goingthroughdeas, tfinishes ith deas" (Resp.511b3-c 2).

I realize hat haveperhaps onebeyond he bjective hich hadsetout formyselfndthat have, nsomeway, ecome esponsibleor hatmadness hatsnotdivine, uthuman(344d1-2), gainstwhichhemythoftheseventh etter ried oforewarn:hat fcareless onsigningoawrittenext ne'sown houghtsbout he hingtself.twill e,therefore,

opportune ormetostophere n order oturnmorecautiouslyothepreliminaryistoriographicaskwhich hadproposed omyself.

The digressionfthe eventhetterontains,s wehave een, shorttreatisenthe dea n ts elation o anguage. hedefinitionfthe hingitselfs led into strictelationship ith theoryf inguisticignifica-tionwhich onstitutes,erhaps, hefirst,ven fextremely bndensed,organic expositionof the subject.If this s true,we oughtto be able totrace this exposition in the Greek reflection n language which im-

mediatelyfollows.

Thought here runs straightaway o the textwhichdeterminedforcenturies, n theancientworld,everyreflection n lan-








26 Agamben

guage,that s to say,the Aristoteliane interpretatione.ere Aristotlepresentsheprocess flinguisticignificationn a way hat pparentlyseems o havenorelationshipo Plato's igression:Thatwhich s nthe

voice(Tr v T woviq?)ssymbolf affectionsn the oul 6vTT-Ouxi), ndwritten arks,ymbolsfthatwhichs nthevoice.Andust s thewrittenmarks renot he amefor llmen,neitherrespoken ounds.Butwhatthese re signs f n thefirst lace the ffectionsf the ouls), rethesame for ll; and what hese ffectionsre likenesses f-actual things(qrpd&ypamTa)-arelsothe same" I6a 3-7).4

Amore ttentivexaminationhows, nthe ontrary,n exact orre-spondencewith he textof the Platonic xcursus.n pointof fact, he

tripartitionn whichAristotlerticulateshemovementfsignification(eyvrTi xovq, vT7J W ,, rpaYLara) followsxactlyhePlatonic istinc-tionbetweenwhat s knowledgend opinion evtOuxq)nd what s theperceptiblebject Fv op16rwovXCr1C~oW

v) (342c 6). Evenmore note-worthysthedisappearancefthe hingtself.WithAristotle,nfact,hethingtselfecomes eleted rom ermeneia,rom he inguisticrocess fsignification.venwhen tfleetinglyeappearsas in Stoic ogic) twillhavebecome, y hen,oestrangedromhe riginal latonicntentionsto be

practicallynrecognizable.The Aristotelianeterminationfthehermeneiasthusdeveloped scounterpointothePlatonicistnthe eventhetterndconstitutesothrenewal nd a refutationf t.Thedecisive roof f his olemicounter-point s, nfact,he ppearance,ntheAristotelianext, fthegrammata,ofthe etters. he ancientommentatorsere lreadyskinghemselvestowhatwasowedthe ppearance,tfirstightncongruous,fthis ourthinterpreterext othe ther hreevoices,oncepts,hings).fone thinksthat hePlatonicxcursuswasreally irectedtprovinghe mpossibility

ofwritingboutthething tself nd, in general, heunreliabilityorthoughtf nywritteniscourse,hen hentimateounterpointetweenthe two extss evenmore vident.

Expunginghethingtself romhetheoryfsignification,ristotleabsolveswritingrom tsweakness. n placeofthethingtself,hefirstsubstancethe

TrpTrriqioicra)akes ver nAristotle'sategories.ristotle

definesthe first ubstance s thatwhich s not said on a subject(Ka1&VroKELVjxVOv,on a presupposition)or s n subject.What oesthisdefinition ean?The firstubstances not

aidon a presupposition,thasno presuppositionsecause t sitselfhe bsolute resuppositionponwhicheverydiscourse nd all knowledges grounded. t alone-as

name--issaid upon itself,Ka6o'r6j), italone,notbeing n a subject,shows tselfn theevidence.But, n itself,s individuum,t s ineffable(individuumneffabile,ccordingto themedievalScholasticformulation)and does not enter nto inguistic ignificationwhich sgroundedon it),exceptbyrenouncing tsdeictic ctuality or universalpredication.TherL,whichwas in questionin thename, is assumed in thediscourseas theKOLaTTLVS,theon-whichne speaks.These-the whatand theon-which--are,therefore, hesame thing,which an be graspednoetically s Tr i v








TheThing tself 27

eLvaL, thebeing-the-Tr-that-was.n thisogico-temporalrocess,hePla-tonic hingtself s removed nd conserved,nd conserved nly s re-moved:e-liminated.

This is why, n De intepretatione,hegramma,he letter,makes tsappearance.A closeexaminationhows,nfact,hat,nthehermeneuticcircle f De interpretatione,he etter,s interpreterf thevoice,has noneedofanyothernterpreter.t isthe asthermeneutes,eyondwhich ootherhermeneias possible: t is its imit.For thisreason theancientgrammarians,hen nalyzingeinterpretatione,sedto ay hat he etter,which sthesignofthevoice, s lso

(YToLXeov7 q f

(POVS,its lement. n as

much s it s an element fthat fwhich t sthe ign, he etter as the

privileged tatus f ndexui,of selfdisplay; ustas the1Trpt ) oicrcot,hoselinguisticiphert s, he etter howstself,ut nlyn ofar s twas nthevoice, hat s,as always lready thing fthepast.

Thegrammas, herefore,heformtselffpresuppositionnd noth-ingelse. As such, toccupies central lace neverymysticismnd,assuch, thas a decisive elevance ven ntoday's hought, hichs muchmoreAristotelianndmuchmoremysticalhen nemightuppose. nthis ense-and onlyn this ense-Aristotlend notPlato s thefounderofWestern

mysticism.t s nthis

wayhat

Neoplatonismas bleto rrive

at that greementetween lato ndAristotlehat onstitutedhebasis fthe school's eaching.

On this oundation,nasmuchs language arriesnscribed ithinttheontologicaltructurefpresupposition,houghtanmake tselfm-mediatelyver ntowriting, ithout aving omeasure tselfgainst hething tself nd without aving obetraytsownpresupposition.hephilosophers, ndeed, he cribe fthought,ndthroughhought eisthe cribe fthingsnd ofbeing.The lateByzantineexicographerho

goesby henameofSuda writesnhis exicon nder he ntryAristotle":`APLcr7oT6`X'qqT-; 4M~rEPWI.LI tR)W 1V TV K XCLJ.LovTO0pg)IW ELS

voov,Aristotle asthe cribe fnaturewhodippedhispen nthought."Manycenturiesater,HOlderlin nexpectedlyuotesSuda's state-

ment ta decisivemomentnhisAnmerkungothe ranslationfSopho-cles'Oedipus yrannus,henhe attemptso explain hesense and thenature ftragic arstellung,ftragic xposition.he quotationontains,however,nemendation hichven hemost igoroushilologicaltud-

ies on Ho1derlin ave not beenabletoexplicate.H61derlin rites:T19i<po-qessypapwesiaS v 76V KKhapLov &aioNppiXVEvovv (instead f eLsvoov) He wasthe cribe fnaturewhodippedhisbenevolenten."Herethere s no onger dipping f hepen nto hought:hepen-thissimplematerial ool fwriting--islone, rmed nlywithts enevolence,nthefaceof ts ask.To rendertothething tself tsplace in anguage and at thesame time to give back to writing ts difficulty,ts poetic task in theDarstellung,s the task of the philosophyto come.

Translated by JulianaSchiesariMiamiUniversity








28 Agamben

NOTES

1. Letter II inPlato: he ollectedialogues,d. EdithHamiltonndHuntingtonairns

(Princeton:rincetonniversityress, 969), 40b3-7. Furthereferenceso hisetter,swell s topassages ited rom heDialogues,will ppear nthe ext yparagraph umber.Translationsavebeenmodifiednaccordance ith gamben'swn eading f heGreek.

2. The distinctionetweennomand ogos, hich he ncientseld obe so mportantthat heyttributedts iscoveryoPlatohimself,ad, nreality,lready een laboratedyAnthistenes,homaintainedhat hefirstlementsthe imple ubstances)o nothavelogos,ut nly name cfr. heat.01 -202b:"The firstlements o nothave logos. achone, tself n itself,anonly enamed, ut t snotpossible oaddanythinglse to t.").

3. Amongmodern cholars,nlyAndreae n his 1923study n the Platonicetters(Philologus,8,p. 34 sq.) brought ack hereading fthecodices.

4. CategoriesndDe nterpretatione,r. .L. AckrillOxford: he Clarendon ress, 963),p.42,16a3-7.Translationsavebeenmodifiedn ccordance ith gamben'swn eadingof theGreek.

Agamben the Thing Itself

Documents

Transcript of Agamben the Thing Itself