EIBNIZ.docx

7/25/2019 EIBNIZ.docx

1/11

Therefore it is falsely said that a necessary being is necessary EIBNIZ: PROOF OF

A NECESSAR BEIN!

"A II 1, p585#

If a necessary being is possible, it actually exists. Maar: is per

denitie mogelij

For let $s s$%%ose it does not e&ist ' fro( that I shall arg$e li)e this:

Of *hate+er it is falsely said that it cannot not'e&ist, it is falsely said that it is

necessary-

!or necessary is t"at #"ic" cannot not exist.

$ % contradictie: nood&aelij maar an niet bestaan

-

'"is conclusion is eit"er true or false-

Ifit is true, it follo#s t"at a necessary being implies contradiction, or

is impossible, because contradictory t"ings are demonstrated of it,

namely t"at it is not necessary.

"A II 1, p58(#

If the concl$sion is false, it is necessary that so(ething is *rong *ith the

%re(ises- yet the hy%othesis can only be false beca$se of the %re(ises, na(ely

that a necessary being does not e&ist-

'"erefore #e "a)e concluded t"at a necessary being is eit"er

impossible or exists.

'"erefore if #e dene *od as ens a se+being from itself, or as a

being from #"ose essence existence follo#s, or as a necessary being, it

follo#s t"at if *od is possible "e actually exists.

!ormeel: geldig"eid

-s #aar"eid

estaan is t#eede/orde concept: )oor#aarde )oor nood&aelij"eid

'"e presence of Being and Timein Totality and Infnity


2/11

by

0acues 'aminiaux

1 '"e debate #it" 2eidegger before Totality and Infnity

.et (e foc$s on From existence to the existentin order to /nd e+idence of a

debate *ith 0eidegger aro$nd the 1$estions I 2$st (entioned- The )ey conce%t

introd$ced by .e+inas in that little boo) is 3"ypostase4: hypostasis. !or

t"ose #"o are acuainted #it" 2eideggers analytic of 6asein, t"e #ord

"ypostasis immediately e)oes an ec"o to t"e ey #ord used by

2eidegger in order to c"aracteri&e t"e mode of being called 6asein, i.e.

t"e #ord ek-stasis. According to 2eidegger, t"e o#nmost relations"ip of

an existing indi)idual to its existence is ek-static. '"is is #"at 7e)inas

critici&es. 2e #rites: 3'"e idea #"ic" seems to rule 2eideggers

interpretation of "uman existence consists in concei)ing existence as

estasis, possibility, conseuently exclusi)ely as an estasis to#ards

t"e end4194- This is %recisely the target of his critical re5ections *hich, as he

says, 3are go+erned by a %rofo$nd need to lea+e the cli(ate of that %hiloso%hy

67ibid.4-

2o#e)er 7e)inas insists t"at "is point is not at all to lea)e t"at climate

3for a p"ilosop"y t"at #ould be pre/2eideggerian4. And "e

acno#ledges at t"e beginning of "is in)estigation t"at 2eidegger is

rig"t #"en "e teac"es t"at t"e relation bet#een a being and eing in

t"e )erbal sense of t"e #ord s"ould be taen seriously in all t"e

strengt" of its relational c"aracter- Accordingly .e+inas ac)no*ledges hisdebt *ith regard to 0eidegger: 3At the beginning, o$r re5ections are in large

(eas$re ins%ired by the %hiloso%hy of 8artin 0eidegger *here *e /nd the

conce%t of ontology and of the relationshi% *hich (an s$stains *ith Being6 794-

In other *ords, .e+inas agrees *ith 0eidegger as far as the conce%t of ontology

is concerned- The tas) of ontology is not the tas) of a s$%erscience de/ning the

$lti(ate %ro%erties of all beings and characteri;ing their relations. '"e tas is

to as #"at it means to be, a uestion t"at only maes sense for t"e

"uman being, a uestion #"ic" points to a relation bet#een a being, or

an existent, and its eing or its existence.

ut it is one t"ing to agree #it" 2eidegger on t"is formal concept. It is

uite anot"er t"ing to agree #it" 2eideggers denition of t"e relation

existent/existence in estatic terms.

At close inspection, it turns out t"at t"e )ery title of 7e)inas s"ort

boo De l'existence l'existantexpresses "is disagreement- Indeed the

title, as I *as s$ggesting, indicates a re+ersal of 0eidegger


3/11

a(ong other beings and *hose (ode of being is at /rst deter(ined fro( *itho$t

and not %ro%erly his o*n ' uneigentlich' to*ards a (ode of being *hich is his

o*n(ost %ossibility, and beco(es a$thentic by facing his /nite and (ortal

te(%orality- Or, to $se the lang$age of .e+inas at that ti(e, t"e mo)e at stae

in 2eideggers ontology taes place as a transition from a condition

#"ic" is t"e condition of a substantiveto#ards apurely verbalcondition: das 6asein existiert um#illen seines,=asein

e&ists for the sa)e of its o*n e&isting- y contrast, t"e title c"osen by

7e)inas for "is boo of 19; indicates a transition from a condition

#"ic" is initially )erbal to t"e condition of a substanti)e.

B$t of co$rse in order for that re+erse transition to (a)e sense, the %oint is to

$nderstand *hat +erb and s$bstanti+e (ean in .e+inas< o*n %roble(atic- 2is

title suggests t"at t"e "uman being emerges as a substanti)e out of a

condition #"ic" is initially )erbal-It is "ere t"at t"e notion

of hypostasisplays a decisi)e role.The *ord hy%ostasis *hich is !ree)literally (eans 3staying $nder6- In the history of %hiloso%hy the *ord *as of

fre1$ent $se in neo'Platonis( and es%ecially in Christian neo'Platonis( *here it

designated t"e status of t"e created in its relation to t"e creator - The

creator, in neo'Platonis(, *as ta)en to be a %$re +erb *hose essence is to e&ist

*hereas the created, at se+eral le+els, (erely deri+es fro( that so$rce in a

li(ited (anner *hich is an hypostasisof the di+ine- The created is a s$bstanti+e

refracting the %$re +erb $nder *hich it stays-

7ie#ise t"e hypostasisin 7e)inas sense of t"e #ord is a relational

notion. ut t"e relation designated by t"e #ord does not tae place

bet#een a di)ine )erb and a substanti)e refracting it. '"e relation at

stae in 7e)inas use of t"e #ord is t"e emergence of t"e "uman

substanti)e, an existentout of a )erb #"ic" is strictly anonymous,

neutral, impersonal, called in !renc": il y a, there is.By na(ing hy%ostasis

the %ri(ary relation bet*een an e&istent and e&istence, .e+inas (eans that the

h$(an being e(erges /rst of all fro( an anony(o$s 5o* of e&istence $nder

*hich he stays, to *hich he is inti(ately s$b(itted and *hich again and again is

e&%erienced by hi( as a load, a b$rden he has to s$stain-

I belie+e that the notion *as chosen by .e+inas as a %heno(enological re%ly to

0eidegger


4/11

obser)e t"at t"ose situations "a)e no place #"atsoe)er in 2eideggers

analytic of 6asein for t"e simple reason t"at t"ey escape all intentional

project.Nobody can %ro2ect to be *eary or inso(niac- Those states are

fre1$ently considered to fall e&cl$si+ely *ithin the %ro+ince of %sychology or

%hysiology- .e+inas sho*s that they denote a basic sit$ation of the h$(an

e&istent in his relation to e&istence- Fatig$e re+eals that e&istence is a b$rden forthe e&istent- .a;iness as the i(%ossibility to start anything re+eals an inner

inhibition at the core of any beginning- Inso(nia as a state of dis%ossession of

oneself and of s$b2ection to the (ere re%etition of an e(%ty %resent re+eals that

the e&istent is innerly s$b(itted to the anony(o$s fact$ality of the there is. It is

important to notice t"at in all t"ose states t"e present is experienced as

disconnected, resisting to a projection to#ards t"e future. In ot"er

#ords t"ose situations are in no #ay estatic in 2eideggers sense. And

indeed by referring to t"ose situations, 7e)inas #ants to detect t"e

specic features of an hypostasisopposed to all ek-stasis-

Allo* (e to recall the contrast bet*een those feat$res and the feat$res of

0eidegger


5/11


6/11

The section is di+ided into three %arts:

A- etaphysicsand Transcendence

B- Se%aration and $iscourse

C- Truthand $stice

In each of these s$btitles there is at least one *ord *hich also belongs to

0eidegger


7/11

H%on close ins%ection it a%%ears that a confrontation *ith 0eidegger is in+ol+ed

in that characteri;ation of (eta%hysics and of transcendence- The confrontation

is, so to s%ea), condensed in .e+inas< strong for($la: 3Metap"ysics precedes

ontology6- 8eta%hysics has %recedence o+er ontology- y contrast,

2eidegger claims t"at metap"ysics accomplis"es itself in ontology, t"at

is in t"e visionattainable by t"e "uman 6asein of #"at it means to be. The !ree) *ord for +ision is theoria- 0eidegger again and again insists in %eing

and Timeon the %recedence of the bios theoretikos, conte(%lation as the

highest *ay of life-

In 7e)inas analysis t"e trouble #it" theoriais t"at it does not t #it"

metap"ysical desire because it does not respect t"e alterity of t"e

ot"er- To be s$re it clai(s to let *hat it conte(%lates (anifest itself for its o*n

sa)e b$t since its conte(%lation is a (atter of $nderstanding it al*ays reno$nces

the (ar+el of e&teriority by absorbing the other into the Self than)s to a third

ter( that the )no*ing s$b2ect /nds in itself- So does 0eidegger


8/11

ne$trali;es beings in order to $nderstand the(- 0ence it is not a relation to the

other 1$a other, b$t a red$ction of the other to the sa(eness of the Self- S$ch is

the de/nition of freedo(: to (aintain oneself against the other, in s%ite of all

relation *ith the other, to ens$re the a$tarchy of the Ego- Ontology as /rst

%hiloso%hy is a %hiloso%hy of %o*er67@'@>, te&te fr-4- y contrast, #"at is at

stae in ?latos motto according to 7e)inas is t"e putting into uestionof my po#er by t"e et"ical command coming from t"e ot"er@ in ot"er

#ords, it is not t"e increasement of my spontaneity but t"e in)estiture

of my freedom by t"e ot"er, t"e justication of my freedom by t"e ot"er.

. 7et me consider no# t"e second di)ision of Totality and Infnity,

#"ic" bears t"e title: eparation and Discourse.The French *ord

3disco$rs6 $sed by .e+inas and correctly translated into disco$rse, is the

e1$i+alent of the !er(an *ord 'ede*hich %lays an i(%ortant role in %eing and

Time


9/11

The %ri(ary sit$ation of disco$rse in .e+inas sense is a se%aration bet*een

(yself and the other h$(an being, a )ace-to-)acesit$ation- peaing is

primordially speaking tosomeone else.

Instead, in 2eideggers notion of it, speaing is primordially speaking

aboutentities, abo$t beings, either *ithoneself or *ith a (e(ber of the sa(es%ea)ing co(($nity-

7ets consider 7e)inas description of separation. In t"e separation

in)ol)ed t"ere are t#o terms: t"e elf and t"e Ct"er. As s$ch the Self, i-e-

the ego is sel/sh- Its (ode of being is econo(ic, searching satisfaction of needs,

en2oying *hat is oGered to it, considering *hat s$rro$nds it as a s$%%ly

corres%onding to its o*n de(and- 8oreo+er the Self is a$tono(o$s and e+en

a$tarchic i(%osing its o*n la*, enlarging its r$le- As suc" t"e self"ood is a

totali&ation, it incl$des e+erything in its real(, asserts an absol$te

inde%endence, and thoro$ghly ignores the Other- B$t there are t*o ter(s- '"e

Ct"er breas t"e 'otality of t"e elf by o)erGo#ing absolutely t"e

capacities t"at t"e elf a prioricontains.Co(ing face'to'face +is'J'+is the

Self, the Other is an In/nity installing in the Self a desire *hich is in no *ay a

need to be satis/ed, beca$se it is s$b(itted to an a%%eal, a call, an inter%ellation

*hich again and again %$ts the Self into 1$estion instead of %ro+iding an ans*er

to its *ishes-

This sit$ation of se%aration bet*een the Totality of the Self and the In/nity of the

Other is the birth%lace of disco$rse-

hat is %ri(ordial in disco$rse is the inter%ellation of the Self by the Other- S$chinter%ellation is not at all the oGering by the Other of a (eaning for *hich I /nd

in (yself a )ey- It is not the disclos$re of a the(e corres%onding to (y disclosing

%ro2ect-

Against 2eidegger, 7e)inas insists t"at in)ocation, t"is 3saying to t"e

ot"er ... precedes ontology.4 It also precedes all disclosing for t"e #ay

in #"ic" t"e ot"er presents itself, t"e face of t"e ot"er 3does not

consist in guring as a t"eme under my ga&e4- As .e+inas *rites, the face

of the other 3at each (o(ent destroys and o+er5o*s the %lastic i(age it lea+es

(e *ith6- Instead e&%ressing a the(e, the face of the other (anifests itself kat

auto, as s$ch, absol$tely, 3it e&%resses itself6, %eriod- And it is of co$rse0eidegger *ho( .e+inas has in (ind *hen he *rites: 3The face brings a notion

of tr$th *hich, in contradistinction to conte(%orary ontology, is not the

disclos$re of an i(%ersonal Ne$ter, b$t e&%ression: the e&istent brea)s thro$gh

all the en+elo%ings and generalities of Being67D94- Or: 3The absol$te e&%erience

is not $nconceal(ent b$t re+elation: coincidence of the e&%ressed and the one

*ho is e&%ressing6-

Hnconceal(ent, dK+oile(ent, these *ords translate a )ey *ord in %eing and

Time: Hn+erborgenheit *hich is 0eidegger


10/11


11/11

het )ie;en +an %ositie en +an het ;ich toeMigenen +an een (o(ent, dat *il

;eggen +an het creMren +an een eigen ti2d, als eerste ontsna%%ing aan het

*algeli2)e il-y-a- En als +er+olg daaro% %lant het ald$s ontstane *e;en, de (ens,

;i2n toe)o(st en richt o% rationele *i2;e ;i2n *ereld in- =e hy%ostase bete)ent

d$s een +er;elfstandiging ten o%;ichte +an het il-y-a-

8aar die +er;elfstandiging bli2)t broos te ;i2n- =e hy%ostase is nooit +oldoende

ster) o( het il-y-a+olledig $it te scha)elen- =e ;ee +an het il-y-abli2ft be$)en

tegen het eiland dat ;ich in haar (idden heeft ge+or(d en nee(t oo), so(s in

oors%ron)eli2)e, so(s in +ersl$ierde +or(, *eer be;it +an de +er*or+enheden

+an de hy%ostase- 0et il-y-a)leeft aan- 0et )eert ter$g in het hart +an de

rationeel ingerichte *ereld +an de (ens- =e +er*or+enheid +an de ti2d slaat o(

in een nie$* eindeloos contin$(, na(eli2) dat +an een ge%lande en gesloten

toe)o(st- =e +er*or+enheid +an een geordende en benoe(de *ereld +er*ordt

tot een +er;a(eling +an dog(aLs en re/caties, of, +an$it de *eer;in daartegen,

tot nie$*e onbeslistheid en on+erschilligheid- =e hoogste +or( +an deo+er*inning o% het il-y-a, de rationaliteit, bli2)t drager te )$nnen ;i2n +an

de;elfde )*ali2)e eigenscha%%en als die *el)e het il-y-a)en(er)ten:

bete)enisloosheid en on+erschilligheid-

0ier )o(t naar +oren *at 2e het te)ort +an de rationaliteitQ )$nt noe(en- =e

rationaliteit die ons hel%t ontsna%%en aan de *alging +an het bete)enislo;e il-y-a,

leidt tot +or(en +an geslotenheid, ;elfgenoeg;aa(heid en onbehagen die de

+erdre+en *alging doen ter$g)eren- .e+inas gaat niet in o% de +er)laring

hier+oor, (aar constateert (et nadr$) dit te)ort +an de rationaliteit ten o%;ichte

+an het il-y-aen hi2 tilt er ;*aar aan- Is er dan geen ontsna%%ing, ;o +raagt hi2

;ich af- Is de;e i(%asse het laatste *at er o+er te ;eggen +alt

.e+inas den)t +an niet- 0i2 stelt +ast dat *i2 (ensen de i(%asse intens bele+en,

(aar dat *e er oo) +aa) genoeg $it)o(en- Zi2n interesse is daaro% gericht- at

gebe$rt er %recies als *e er$it )o(en .e+inas (eent dat +oor de beschri2+ing

daar+an de feno(enologische (ethode die hi2 ;o graag gebr$i)t, te)ort schiet-

O( o+er de ontsna%%ing iets te )$nnen +ertellen (oet hi2 ;i2n toe+l$cht ne(en

tot the(aLs (et een *at hi2 noe(t (ystie) of transcendent )ara)ter- In de

confrontatie (et de dood, de ti2d, de erotie) en de ander *ordt, ald$s .e+inas,

een o%ening geboden die het il-y-a*er)eli2) o% afstand ;et, ;i2 het alti2d ti2deli2)-

Naar(ate het *er) +an .e+inas ;ich +erder ont*i))elt s%itst ;i2n aandacht ;ichsteeds (eer toe o% de ander als degene die bi2 $itste) die o%ening biedt-

EIBNIZ.docx

Documents

Transcript of EIBNIZ.docx