Groys- Introd to Antiphilosophy

8/10/2019 Groys- Introd to Antiphilosophy

1/270

l r du tic n t

n p ilo o hR() f Is I YS


2/270

INTRODUCTION TO

ANTIPHILOSOPHY

BORIS GROYS

v F

o o o


3/270

-L puh i; cd hr Ve so 201< V

f 1 ' I'c ha 1! at i 1 :b. n M ri C rlson

f \ Linf h g d e A t -P losop e Verl g 9

( ublis d i E glis i N tz c e d / w p lis d i E glis s A G logy of' y i B G o s ! T t o P t c pat o

um I') t Now Lo o : T m d H dso 08C i g U iv rsity Pr ss 994

A l ig ts r s

o l ig ts of t t o s t

3 5 7 9 6 4

V rsoUK: 6 M r Str t o o W F OEG

US J Str t S it Brookl NY www so oo o

V rso is t i ri of N w ft Books

ISBN 3: 978- 467 756 6

British ibrary Catalogui g in Publication DataA t o r or or t i oo is il l fro t B iti i r y

L b a o Cong e Ca a g g- n-Pub a o a aA log or for t is ook is il l ro t i o Co

t w r xt UK t i rgPri t t S M l V il


4/270

CONTENTS

P E -L E :A p p y P p R y vu

P xv

1. Soren Kie kegaard 12. Le Shest v 333 Mar n He degge 514. Jacq es Derrida 69

5. Wal er Benjam n 916. The d Less ng 1057. E nst J nger's Techn gies f Imm tal ty 131

Three E ds f H s y: Hegel, S vy v K ve 1459. N e zs he s In en e the N -Of a

C lt e f the 1930s 16910. A Ge ea gy f Par c pa y A 19711. Less ng Greenbe g, Mc han 219

I x 243


5/270

PREFACE TO THEENGLISH-LANGUAGE EDITION:

Antiphilosophy, or PhilosophicalReadymades

T s s ort pre ce to u A lserves t e go o de n ng more prec se y my use o t eterm nt p losop y . T s term d lre dy been used byL c n nd more recently s been t ken up by Al nB diou. However I d d not ve psyc o n ys s n m nds I dec ded to use t e word nt p losop y n t e t tle o

t s book. Unfortun tely t t t t me I w s un w re oft e book by B d ou W g A l T etexts t t re collected n t s book were wr tten t d f erent t mes for d f erent purposes n d fferent ngu gesnd n t ly t ey were not intended to be re d toget er.However s I prep red t e book or publ c t on n 008,I re l zed t t l t ese texts commented on ut ors w o,n s m l r w ys broug t p losop c l pr ct ce s sucnto quest on.

T e r discurs ve str teg es be ng, o course, veryeterogeneous rem nded me n mely o cer n rt st c

pr ct ces t t since t e ppe r nce o t e book by H nsR c ter : A A A 1964) ve often beenc r cter zed s nt rt . T e most mous ex mple o


6/270


7/270

P X

lo o ca t t t t o t ot d p o p v io v d c o t t o lo p l o

up o d to t lity d p d t o t al acto n t i adit o l p lo op yu ct o i d d m la ly to t adit o al a t t a lity o div dual a t or to rat ma atrradiat t a st tic xp ri c rally a so

r ard d as a c of t ow i struc r i dp d t o its r latio o t xt r al orld

Now di cours t at a a l o at a ff ctof lf v d c ar ot rar But as a rul t d scours sr ly o t commo cu tural xp r c t a u t tsp a r o wri r wit is or r audi c us o casay t at t majority of s lf vid t di co r s r masi a d i sid t co t x s of lim d cul ral d iti sa d l f orizo s ow v r p i osop y pr ds toproduc u v rsal y s lf vid discours s t a ra -sc d limi s of a y particular cultura l id y tru y p i osop ica discour as to ot o y s lf-vid t u a so u iv rsa y f v d t poss ili yof produci suc a u iv rsa m a discou s s ms or uir a p osop r o ak a m a posi o r a io -

s ip to is or r ow cul ural d ity a d if i a iois r ir m was v ry pow rfu y formu a d byuss r ccordi o u r o b com a p i osop ra subj c a o ov com by a ac of p om -olo ical duc io is o r ordi ary a ura at udt a s domi a d by will o s f pr s rva o a d oak a o p om olo ical truly p i osop ical a ti-ud b yo a i r i o s ow survival world

W av r a s cu ar fo m of an a rad cac a of m d rou w ic a sub ct r j c s v ry-i a co c d s subj c o o d ord ary

lim d if p r p c iv a d op s i s lf up to a wu iv sal i i p r p c iv of p i osop ical vid c


8/270

x t JC s t h os o is is o r o o

p o oph o o op s o r r s h v r o h

p h a hor r hab n o h h a of ph o oph al meta a

ow o v o ha u h a h o ac of s lf r uon an a o p h o b xc p ona sup r or

p r ona - so c r a ' h ason for h s pl ph o oph a meta a fo ows o pl c t ru

a has no p o s w n a fur h anao w ph osoph an ar r s n u cr at sw ou a b on r l s ha s wh h ar wor s haar cr a b an ar c us sh n b h r own l hth losoph cal scour s also rra a v c b caush ar pro uc n a wa tha (unl sc c h or scannot b for al an r pro uc h r st ofan n s r uc h r to th rol of cons rs of ph l

osoph cal t xts wr tt b r a ph losoph rf cours , th s xc pt onal s of ph losoph an

ph losoph rs was of cr c z ur n th p r o ofo rn h losoph cal meta ia an th ta pos onw r procla to b ll s onar or v n consc o slc p v h ph losoph cal pr t ns on was scr b as

la habl o a , w t n to b l v hat an n v ualcannot susp n a w ll h s or h r c lt ral nt t an l fhor zon hat a h subj ct v for s of s lf v ncr a n sp c c o par cular c lt ral p rsp ct v s, antha no n v rsal s lf v nc s ar poss bl h s sc ptc s towar s tra onal ph losoph cal cla s l a s owo ff r nt th or cal op ons n of h r sults n acul ra r la v s that s bas on th b l f n h poss b l t of scap fro o s c l ural nt t - thposs b l t of chan on 's , of meta ia H r ,

th poss b l of sub c v v nc s not n at tan part c lar v nc s suppos d to b t r n b


9/270

m r r r

r b r r ma o w r s s a ra w r v o o r

o op o r s a os p o rwor s a r a a p osop t at a r b v rsap osop a va o rta a r a s g or arpra t sa wa w p a o tar s r a ma as r b ar st va to o arob o a v goa , t a p oso r ooksor or ar p r s a pra s t a a b t rpr t as b g v rsa as tra s g o 's ow

ra t s, o a s ow t a mo ro o tra s s a t ra bor rs (Mar t at

t r s o g v g a r t r g t g ar s ar orr r s Ma ss t at w to v (or to

ov s v r bo t sa a r t s , t ata gst ( k gaar or bor om (H gg r ar ab tor v a s b t ro a t ra t r at o s t atw a s ar t ars a a g t r (Bata Bak t at at w a ar t b t tro a ( M L aI a t s as s a t oro g or ar pra t s bstt t s or tra t o a s v p osop a pra t s

k og , at at s a k g g ra aop s t s bj t p o a poss b t o v rsa sv s (o a gst bor o s r ss a so ow t o t a ob gat o to st to t t a gs o po a p rso a t s q a p osop rs As t as o

r a ma art, r a a (a p osop sp s sw t t ro p osop a a a s bs t t s bas r b g p osop a g t to t pra t s o orar A ost por a t a p osopsso a s t pro o o v rom t pro

t o o p osop a s o rs s A or g tpro t o o v a s a p r pra


10/270

o o o u o o o e o s ev nc

o r r o e s e c

s c o c c s o s cym c o y oss e ob cs n lo y n r s c n oso c y

m es ecom s es ly c r c s of K r e rAs v e o s ow n my c r on K r e r s s of C r s s ro o r ym e n o e

wor s e ss r s e re of C r s c nno be v suy reco n z s v ne ure or r r s re

o d n ec us e u e of C r s s o o yor n ry ur oes no m n fes ny v s l s

e y o e s s ns of v ne su sw n s rol fe on of ms n le s n so ono eove e e of C r s c nno be remembe eby n c of oso l n mnes s nscen n nycul u l onven ons s w s ecommen e by P oC s s son of Go n be en e ne er by n o er

on of ve on no by e r on l y un ers ooex e en e of self ev en e f e u e of C s be omess e n e c on ex of s me en on o K e e e e s no n n s ure

woul fferen e from e or n ry ure of ew n er n e c er w s y c l of e me T eure of C r s qu res s ower of se f ev ence only f s l e n feren on ex n e con ex of m er

son ons of e v ne T en be omes e r sure s n ee exce on e sely bec se of s o

n ry c r c er n nnoun es n s w y new er n

e evelo men of rel ous ons ousness Here en lo y o Duc m s Fo n n be omes obv ous eFoun n' loo s l e om le e y or n ry ur n l n eon ex of ubl c o le bu be ns o loo exceon l s lo e w n e on ex of r s ory

e ex e ence of self ev en e emer es e e no


11/270

P t

t o i o t o t t oduct o o t t tut as a o t t a at o A o t

o t t a t t t o te t o t tu a

eld ic t wa o a y oduc d s t atBut t ca a so be tak o t of t is t d co t t a dp aced i t u iv rsal co t t of p i osop ical ora tistic compariso ot t ia o id cear at ork traditio a p ilosop er s l k a traditio al artist a artisa produci g texts a tip iloso er is like a co tem orary art curator eco te tualizes ob cts a d texts stead of p oduc gt em Product o of p ilosop y ca be terp ted asa e traordi ary mysterious po tic p ocess t at isaccessibl o y to a c ose fe tip losop y doesot abolis p ilosop ica an a b t rat er democatizes it vide ce eco s a effect ot of productiobut of post prod ctio t i adiates o lo ger t rougt e ork b t e erges as a effect of differe t co tex-tualizatio s of t is ork

e democ atizatio of an a produced i sommi ds a certai ki d of ostalgia to a ds t e good o ddays i ic great p i osop ers a d artists ivedcreated a d ere recog ized a d admired by t eir

commu ities us o e ofte te ds to t i k t ata tip ilosop y is o ly a tempo ary ill ess of p ilosop yt at ill be overcome by t e future retur of greatrobust vital p ilosop ical productio o ever itseems to e t at t is ope is doo ed to remai foreverfutile because a tip ilosop y is t e al absolute stageof p ilosop y I deed o e ca speak e e about abso-lute p ilosop y i t e same se se i ic Kierkegaardspoke about abso ute re igio Kierkegaard believedt at C ristia ity is a absolute religio because as asalready bee oted C ristia ity is ot based o a y actof recog itio or co pariso veri catio or evide ce a d t ere ore ca ot be relativized by suc a act


12/270

TRODUC ! N A PHIL S Y

s a p s y i a s i p ymp a a if c t n r i ary ahi os ph a t t o a y an phi s phia prac s such s o c o ma h ma s

th ontra y ra it na ph osophy is h a ilyp nt on the cultura y co i e a i ity of its rea ers

t iffer ntiate et een phi osophical an on philosophica te ts isre ar in any xperience of e i encen ee philosophical texts are not al ays ritten byreat phi osophers ho are able o pro uce an effect ofe i nce throu h the r is ourses s any otherultural el th a ority of philosophical texts are of

a era e quality, but they are still easi y reco nizable byrea ers as philosophical texts on the ere roun s oftheir external appearance hus, the suspicion e er esthat all philosophical iscourses, i clu in the iscoursesof the reat philosophers are purely con entional textsthat o ot nee any a o a or experience of e i encean truth in or er to be successfully pro uce anconsu e he con e tional character of the stan arphilosophical iscourses hich un er ine theirclai s of self e i ence was fro the beginning theain target of antiphilosophical critique nti philosophyoes not pro uce any con entionally i enti able philosophical texts, but instructs us how to chan e our inin such a way that certain practices, iscourses anexperiences woul beco e uni ersally e i ent r inother wor s, antiphilosophy pro uces not the uni ersally self e i ent texts an objects but uni er al e i enceas such hat is why anti philosophy li e anti art notonly oes not estroy philosophy as an institution but,rather, offers the only possible path for its sur i al


13/270

PR GUE

Ph phy genera y under t d a a earch f r truthTh g ve r e t tw rea n why t e d pract edn ur day F r t y tudy ng the h t ry f ph phy

genera y ead t the c nc u n that the truth unreachab e t n t very en ble t et ut n earchf t Sec nd y we have the fee ng that f there wereuch a th ng a truth nd ng t w u d n y take u ha f-

way It w u d be far re d f cu t t e the truth thathad been d c vered n rder t ve by t n re r eecure c nd t n a ta k that e per ence h w cann tbe gn red The arket f r truth t day ee t be rethan aturated The p tent a c n u er f truth facedw th the a e uper u ty a the c n u er n therect r f the arket We are be eged n a de by

advert e ent f r truth Truth are t be f und every-where and n a ed a, whe her c en c ruthre g u truth p t ca truth r truth f r pract cafe The per n eek ng truth thu ee l tt e pr pect n

har ng the trea ure they ght nd w th ther pe p eand, n due c ur e g ve up the que t A far a truth


14/270

X\ I I f RODUCT :

s n e ne pe e e cc n eu n s w s n ns e e s

n n ere s ese

nvic ns see c n c ne n r e e e s e nc si n e se c f isn us ness.

w s s ene w ic we c n esc e s e scenef e ques f s ls e i n l scenef p l s p y We c n se ve in ni u e in eGree ag ra w en rs p yp c l uc ns me S c es e n e ne e ffe s fru n e m r e me I w s e s p s sw in ine ey f un u s; eyffe e ese ru s f s e. S c es wever s is

well wn i n e ne i self s s p s ur er s p il s e s s me ne w l ve ru(wis m kn wle e sop ia) u i n p ssess i ;

pu i n er w y s me ne w s n ruf r s le u w ul e l cqu re if e c ule c nvince s re lly w s ru n n simplyn ppe r nce f u T e c n e fr m e p si i nf e s p is f e p il s p e is e c n e

fr m e pr uc i n f u e c nsump i n f

ru . T e p il s p e is n pr ucer f ru . is e see e f r u in e sense ere e seeers f r e sure r r w m e ls T e il s p e is simple m n in e s ree w s w n e e in el l supe m r e f u s n s n w seek n n s e in s e e le s n ex s n

I is f en men e p l s p y s n evel

pe in e c urse f i s s ry i s uny resul s s wn ny pr ress I w u in ee equi e m zin if p il s p y i evel p is ic lly f rf e si u n f e u pr cer c n es wi mee s u n f e ru c ns mer lw ys em ns e

s me I is nly e supply f ru c n es n e


15/270

O J XY

t d t aut t p y t t t t ua i i a t d

t l v a t cu at d a d a dt l W y a t u t ai l tI fac , Socrat ffe t e ima l ady am iar o

u , of a l favour d a d c ro ca y d o t t dco um r co ta tly a ad mood a d ea r fordi pute Ev ry t m Soc at ar t ord of eo t , d troy t e ood m od y d omd of log ca d fec a d u a factor i t r

ord , c ould ot i ot tere t a yo , lalo d tur em W our lv of me t uc peopi v ryday l fe u e , i ot a d taura tey ar al ay d co t ted t y lov to uarr l i

t taff a d t y rea ly get o e rve of ot erco um r Fac d t t e e uarrel om a d rverac g gure t o ur r g t a people year for

e good old day d of per o could u c ly pac d t elp o a cup o emloc

O op o a l cr tical argum Socrat ca ee m o be ex rem ly amb vale t W e l e oSocrat o comple e y c ar r e pre e

m elf a a cr t ca co umer o cr c z e off r oftru at ere pre day a d ag bu doe og ve up ope a e m g at ome po com up aga tg u e ru or e er e fu dame ta ly rejec reag ru a a commod y a d a g o mar e re

are ma y d ca o a t a er a umpt o morplau bl Socrat a t ac ual ve tor of mar cr t-

c m mer fac t a a part cu ar o fer of rufu c o a a commod y e co ex of a mareco omy ba cally uf c e for Socrat o r j c offer Br g g to l g a e ot r uf c e c a dco rad c o at Socra e goe o o d cov r eacpar cu ar offer o rut may b ruc v a d xc g


16/270


17/270

b cau a on o b a o o a omanc a o an o u na o k o bn a u a o and r u ona rec

b cau y anno a n r o r makucc fu r o u on S nc n ow w aknown a ca cu a d fai u can a o be a c m od yand ndeed And in der no a e e c cad agn i inco p e e i d agn i e doe noe cape e co mod y for

P i o op ca cri c eref e a ed a ua-ion in w ic e y ru i den ed a a co od yand acc rd ng y a di cred ed T e u we era w a d fferen u p c on e rge: I no p o-p y e f a ran f r e ery ru n a c d y?And nde d e p p ca a ude a pac n e p a e cr ca a ud and u in e a ana -y a c n u ng ne In e g f a udee ery ng pre en appear a a c d y n ffer,w e ui ab y a be c ecked a gp b y be b ug Le u a u e a a per n nnger pend i e g ng r ug pr c dure f

c eck ng bu ra er p y ake w a c e n e rand by c ance acqua n ance e b k c n er-a n e e e g n au r e and ru In ca e u e c d y f a n ngec ecked u bu ra er prac ed ju a y u p ac ebrea ng by ak ng n e a r a ur und y u Incer a n c cu ance e a r a y u b ea e ayac ua y be dead y; bu n b ea ng f c ur e adead y In b ca e e ef e p b e deve p a d anced c n e p a e cr ca c n u ngbe av ur wa d brea ng y u a ry n b ea ngeven w e y u a e buy ng a new a c nd ner.

T under and ng ed a new b anc f pp y w c can be de c bed a an p p y by

ana gy w an ar T u n w c began w


18/270

J ! C

1\ e o pe e -ntwl< 1b c ue

n e e n e e n t e e

n c n n o ; t sf r one wn b y b u ns nin r i c l y nste f lly. Al t ese

c n s e sue n er bo is p il s p y sul i e urce f e c nsu in cr c l itu e nin is w y l be e t u fr s o i r cer F f ll n c n r efus n t s , iss e in qui e er n ccep i r re ec in o r ne o ru s e resul of i ves i on

T e b s c ssu p ion f c n issuin ( n p sp y n er w r s, is ru nly s ws i self ife n s f l e : e w l us rs ben e , t en will s w i s ue n u e e le p in

f i us be e, en e u f e i ion n fes si self. Or in, e u n P y u s ve e e e f e c ve n en y u see e u Ws inv lve e e is i e bef e s n : e is n ine pre e es ny p ssib e ri i is , sin e e

b e of s ri i is nly s ows i se f s esul fe i in o fol w e o n A ecision efuse

e o n , on e o er n , e ves you for ll i ein t e r you nn even be i i l, sin e you n now w you re lly s oul cri i e n is y,

e e sion be ween ful llin e n n refusn i s r e ize bo by s ines p bil y n by

i s ur en y, w i le ve no i e o ul iv e l rii l n onsu n i u e n er wo s, w is

inv lve is no purely p ilosop i l e is on, bur er life e isi n w i nn be pos ponebe use l fe is oo brief.

T is n ip losop ic l urn wi in p ilos p y i selfs no re ine wi ou onsequen es nyone we es p ilosop y y, or wri es bou , n ws


19/270

PROLOGUE xxi

at e ve an a e c an t cal a t t de n ea m o po t s a o n o mp y

tate t e and ejected almost a e le

a t on e ea o o t , of co rse oes not l e nt e fact t a in ecent t mes t e af mat ve att t e tot world, nner ag eement it e genera cond tionof lindness a n r V rb ndun zu a n anin dorno s term or accep ance o e preva ngcondi ions, ave s ddenly ac ired n allengedegemony in p l consciousness oday s readers do

not elieve w at is s ated e t er in e ts or n any ot emed a, and do not even t n o elieving in it and,fo is very ea on t e also ave no o casion to c iti-ize su sta ements ns ead ey ei e do w at t eyare told or simp y do not do it e ts today are noanalyzed perceived as ins u tions for a tion t atcan e used diffe ently in p ac i e if one de ides to doso ex s t at ontain e pli it ins ru ons are pa ti ularly popular: oo s wit ulinary e ipes gardeningand de o ating tips oo s on good mar e ing stra e-gies advi e on om a ing e meri an empire wit

e elp of e multi ude on es a s ing on emporary images of a lef or rig t wing a ivis and so on

u o er boo s oo w i do no offer su learins ru ions are in reasingly read as ndi ating ae ain e aviour e r readers w o follow e orre-sponding ins ru ions feel personally affe ted y anyri i ism of ese oo s and reje any ri i al a i udeowards em nd ey also reje any ri i ism ofex s a ey do no emselves follow pre isely on

grounds of decen y and oleran e so as no o upseunne essar ly e people w o do follow ose ex s no ases e pu li feel a any ri i ism of a ex is

unfair sin e i misses e poin s poin in o erwords is no e ex i self u ra er w a indiv dualsave made and ma e of i in e r own lives J s as


20/270

f e ff o s o t eke r s f t e ss

s r sts o , t or r t e r r s e Yo ma t a up t eor u a oo u e of a for

r a o el v n an wou rat r not n oan or of our r t If e t a u oon r ee a e p a w re ru appear an off rt f o r a r a r, u pl a a u ofn tru t on for a rea r w o u on to a t rat r

t an o t n t n t e on t n t at r l vant t eanner n w t e r a er tran la t e tru

t on n ver a o u t But t annot r t a t now l fe t lf t at tart to fun t ona t e upr e ju e

e r a er of t e a oll te n t oo w llnot e ow t r eroe are all o er o an v naut or t e are a of t e ant p lo op But t ee a t elve o not offe a n tru t on - an anonl e appo nt n n t ontext of t e po ant plo op t at p vale t to a At t a t e,owever t e o not a e an r u n to t e tra t on ofp lo op al t e r aut or' att tu n ta e at er a en volent e pt ve one att tu ea t oot n t e p e o enolo of u e l, w o relat vel arl o a e t e qu t on of ow on trea t to t e new o an v n tone p lo opw t out t lea n to repet t o of t e ol ta ofr t al p lo op u rl t er fo e off re t follown o a : Before even tart to t n tp no enolo al r u t on a to e arr out p no no o al re u t on on t n t e u je tta n a ental tan f o own l f nt r t - ev nt e nte e t n own u v val - a n t wa op n nup a per p t ve on r n t worl t at o lon eron ne t e n of e p r al e o B wa of t


21/270

R

broa nom no ogica s c on ob a s ab o o s c o a co ma s b s a ng o

im n r bo n ob ing an s ng h m sam sub c of p no no og ca r cion nds s f no ong r r qu o ransfor com ands r c iv s in o s cond c of if , or,conv rs , o oppos , sinc p no no og cago in s as f i w r no i ing In t is wa on acquir s

for on 's p no no ogica go a r a of as if an

i ag nar p rsp ctiv of i it ss f , in w ic a d cisions of if os t r u g nc , so t a t oppos tionb tw n carr ing o and r j c ing a co mand isso v sn in n p a of if possibi it s


22/270


23/270

S0RE KIERKEGAARD

Wr g a rodu o o e oug o K erkegaardprese s d ul es o a u e par ular k d eu derly g reaso or ese d ul es s o way aK erkegaard s p losop y s par ularly ompl a edor obs ure or aga e a a s u ders a d gwou d re u re a spe al pro ess o al p losop alra g O e o rary K erkegaard always s s so e pr va e d le a s a d u pre e ous ara er

o s p losop z g K erkegaard wr es or everyo ea d per aps leas o all or a readers p o lear edspe al s s a er ese d ul es resul rom e aa K erkegaard s p losop y sel as e ara er

o a rodu oK erkegaard s p losop z g as a rodu ory

e a ve a prepara ory ara er be ause K erkegaardre e s e r g o a y p losop al ex eve s owo asser s val d y as a bearer o ru H s elebra edormula o a sub e v y ward ess s e ru

1. T s s t e t tle of C apte 2 of e kegaa Co l gUns e t Po s p to h l s ph cal F agments.


24/270

m o p p lo o t m op o no o r tor m o tr t n t t o b om tr tr t of r t v c v ty o o

t roc a t ma r of th r m or th rpart, c n o ly b cr b n a t xt n an ntro cto ya prov on f on - an K r aar t xtpr c ly att pt ch an ntro uctory cr t on

ct of a r nt, how v r for K r aaro th n utonomou an r a cannot b r

y fro cr pt on A ph o o h ca t t r tan for o t a th n an ob ct amon ny ot rob ct , wh ch by virtu of t ob ct vity r ainparat fro th b ct v ty of th r a r - an li

i fro th ub ct vity of t author by anunbr abl ulf h r a r ha to l ap ov r th ulfin or r to i nt fy hi lf with th t xt, but no onan nothin can forc hi to a uch a l ap hl ap acco pl h in th nal analy i , by th frwill of th r a r, of which only a liv n xi tin , n tub ct vity - in oth r wor , on that actua y xi tout i of th t xt - i capabl , an not th ab tract,pur ly tho olo ically quipp ub ctivity that i

crib within th philo oph cal t xt Philo ophyalway pict th livin , xi t n ub ct a th u oft xt , y t an tho that ar xt rnal to it Aphilo ophica t xt can n v r radiat that pontan ou ,i iat y conv nc n , ov rwh l in forc of truthwh ch o any phi o oph r hav r a of, anwhich woul uppo ly co p l th r a r by th ract of r a n n or r to ap to an nt cat on w thth t xt, th r a r u t a a corr pon n c

on, wh ch pr uppo a c rta n ov rco n of fh act of r a n parat fro th act of a rnt by a t , no att r how br f, of n c on an


25/270

s n as fo n t as au onomo s n and as no d s bab and con o ab b

osop s u o s n a a ak s p a n n na i f am of su c y isc n ra fo K k aa d s wor w i r for oconsid r his ur or c os y

incipa u s ion h is why K k gaards ou d ha any n d of his r of is n ia

ap Pr vious i osop y ana d p rf c y w wou i . o Ki rk aard h in roduc ion of hxis n ia a m ans ua y h a ou of h whoi nnia ra i ion of W s rn hi osophy. his isin w y h on of h s wri in s is of n so nsan unqui

Th basic gur of h Europ an phi osophica ra iion was rig fro h s ar rus in i ias f vi nc inc u ing h s f vi nc of h ru phi o-sophica wor Sinc Socra s phi osophy had dis rus d

y hs a s au hori i s, hand down opinions andr v a ions; bu his an ha h ru phi osoph r was

h or r ady o b v uncondi iona y whapr s n d s f o hi as co p y s f vid n ThusP a o rus d in h Id as ha pr s n d h s v s s fvid n y o his inn r sou af r h had r c d a

opinions abou h hin s of h ou r or d as no s f-vid n scar s, who a h s ar of h od rn ag

r n w d h rad ion of phi osoph ca sc p icis wi h apr vious y unkno n radica is by a so sub c ing oradica doub a s nsory da a ha had h ir ori in in hou sid wo onc again rus d h inn r s f vid ncof h g g m This rus in s f vid nc or opu i ano h r way in r ason was c bra d by h phi o-sophica radi ion as h high s fr do . By fo owinghis own r ason rus ing wha was s f vid n anfr d hi s f fro h x rna pow r of au hori y,


26/270

4 l R U N N

t t on n so instit t s n o e e neove eig ty

s p e se y t s fo t o p i osop l e ief

t t Kie eg s je te to e n mo e o t Fo ber tio fro e tern o st nts ne essities o y serve in t e p i osop t itio ,t e nner logi of s bmitting oneself on it on l y oinner ne essi y, inne self ev e e, one's o n re son,i s m sin e p ete s e ut en i expression of

one's subje tivity n tru e in v u l subje teimse f to i is se s logi l ons r in t tem ine extern l sin e one r s e t e self ev en e ofr ion l emonstr t on s ere e nto system ofobje tive' logi l on lusions ue f ee om no me n

l ber ion no only from ex e n l ons r ints, bu lsofrom e intern l logi l ons r in s of re son. Selfev en e t erefore to lose s millen m gi . We

to le rn o m s rus even presen e i self to ss omple ely self evi en . I s no longe possibleowever, o u e ny logi l re son for su mis us ,for if we were to o so, we woul ereby onfess rusin e self evi en power of is re son we u e , nbe ereby elivere g in o e fo e o logi l self

evi en e. We erefore ve o le rn o mis rus wi our ion l groun s, o reserve e rig of free e isionn el y e of our ssen in se we e un on iion l y inf u e wi e logi l self evi en e of ei e . T is is w ere e ne essi y of e exis en i l le prises, presen ing i self s n effe of is el y n

pos ponemen w i Kie keg r w n s o e usbe use i frees us from t e inne bon ge of e rule ofself evi en e. T e exis en i l le p, in o er wo sbe omes ne ess y w en imme i e self evi en e losesi s powe bu espi e is op ing pos on ow r s

u li y rem ins un voi ble is er inly no i en is Kierkeg r i n


27/270

s o e se i s eA e el losop y e e e a ost

te te e t do t o A d e e i p i os

op w s o o t a t e e do sl ef ie ta e fo e e te a o st a s o te allo a o str i ts e reade o e e i p ilosop yas s pposed o ders a d as omp e ely se f ev de tat eve yt i t at o s a ed from ou si e as

a obje ed form of er a logi a rat o al e es-si y i e must ot o tradi t f e as to be a oodp ilosop er e e e ia p i osop i al arrat ves ides fro o e s pe sessio o t e e f om o eo l s ve sel ev de e to t e ext u til t e al self-ev de e prese ts tself o ludi e ole arra ivea d i i e ole of ma isto y a is graspedby is arra ive For e perso o still as to arryo livi g i r a e al s o usive se fevide e e ole of ex er al rea ity prese s itself as

e image of o i ally self evide i e al e essi yis a be see as e al vi ory of p ilosop y Bu

i a also be see as a parody of p i osop y ially be rays s origi al strivi g for sovereig y

P ilosop y as deed predisposed from i s very

origi o a be ayal of is i d p e ise y be ause it aseady a a y i e o aba do i s doubt i favour of se f-evide s Free a d sovereig subje vi y o everis o sti u ed by ay of doub O e doub is aba -do ed subje ivi y is los eve if e basis for isaba do me is a i ter al a d subje ive o e Car esiadoub t erefore is s ill i s f ie is doub mayell ave o s i u ed e subje ivity of t e mode ageby libe a g it from ex er al o s rai s o ougBu at e same ime Des ar es eake ed is subje -tivi y a d o dem ed i o failure by i rodu i g doubas i e provisio al a d met odo ogi al so a isdoub ould supposedly ead o self evide e by v r ue


28/270


29/270

'

gaa a n a a n a n a an and a n

s rfa f n n a a im n m an a d n

assab dOf s ass n a m ing O r

i s idd n b nd t f vid nt and mm np aced es n t pr vid suf ent f nda i n f r su an inn t d ubt. It as t be s wn n t p f t is w andw y t e e f ev dent can c ncea t e Ot er b ind it. Int artic ati n f t is new ind f s sp c n tc ncept f e new p ays a de sive r e f r K er egaard.In is P s l gm s ub s ed nder tpse d nym J ann s C ma us Kie egaard s wsw ever since S crates se f vidence as been under-

st d as t e eff ct f r c ct n f r t e s u can n ydentify as se f evident w at it as a ready seen bef res was he reas n t at S crates met d c s sted n t

in teac ng pe p e s met ng n w, but s mp y n returnng t em t t emse ves s t at t y c u d d sc ve t etr t wit n t emse ves, as a eady present n ei s u s.us, S crates negates s status as a teac e , s c ncern

b ng t nd t trut n s d sc p es. S c ates t e ebymade mse f vi tua y n nex stent; e d ss ved isiving e stenc in t e se f evidence t w c e ed sst dents. e time f s wn fe, f r S crates, wass mp y t e t ans ti n t tern ty, and t us ad n aut nm us ex stentia va ue

Acc d ng t P at , S crates d sc p e, t e s ur c gn zes t e eterna Ideas as se f ev dent because tas a ready seen t ese Ideas bef e it was b rn int t

w r d S f ev dence t us a ways f ws f m a eturnt t e r g n, t t e past, t ec ect n. F r Hege ,t , t e gure f rec ect n p ays a key r e: undestand ng t e at na ity f exte na ea ity a ses byc mpa is n wit t e ist ca f rms t at t e abs ute


30/270

e e e e ce e ou e e e w t

e e l re e e e e e

e e o e e e e m e ef e f e e e e r e e e per e ce t e n re t c re n e em e e es e c f he He e s te

t t e c ec he u eu r ch e f e h t e u u ee s o er e pe

e ce he w rl s el e e s e s ep e e e ne we e e hi c m t e He el te ee s r he supple e

e w l e c ht up with n t s em f r ehe re c c ry s y e w n e s ri

c y pos p ne s i is f r e p e r s .I his w y r i ph soph c u ers i

e c u es f self evi e ce e r ic y ew An t eew for Kierke r i imp y w ic s e s c e i en e o e s s o comp ris

wi he p s Bu se evi ence re s l ic o nw e ew e hey t ere y ev lue in v u l e s

e ce. I ru h is se evi e ce sel evi e ce isrecollec s me ns t e in iv u lives i v

i new c ppe in is li e i re ly imp r. W Kierke r n ro uces is is eeci ve his r c ex mple o C ris ity.

Chris i ni y s e eve ime A i is even hc no e e e y reco ec i n. Go s s ow

mself in um n or w s commo pl ce sime e h m orm o w er pre c er. sorm o e ver, coul e e sily i e i e . C ris sc emp r ries us rec iz le r u fock owle i C r s s G or e v e i s wi sel i he ex er ppe r ce o C s i w y coul e e e s sel ev e r ou si e. herew s ex er l is i c i e wee m o


31/270

h n h h b n nh l b h n Ch i n h b n s mp y h h matt r

h e t y , hern n h b l t mm p ss of t ro h t K rk aa d d d t y n n ha ay h t t o s no s lay any rna ara t r st s o its pa t ular ty a d s t s ot o twa dlyd ff r t from t ommo pla If su a a t r st sw r pr s t t w ould b z or oiz d as s w would m a t at it was ot al yw ad ally w s t i t r al o al d d sti -on n h rnal y d t a or f you l k t

absolut ly ommo plaommo pla a b d d as a u ssary

sup uous m ltip i atio o pa ti u a ima s a dforms b yo d t ir imm diat s f vid For xampl w a Ni tzs would al t yp of wa d ripr a r was always alr ady am l a oo ma ywa d ri pr a rs r o w ommo pla a dsup r uo s: i was alr ady ou at t orr spo d-i yp was pr s t i t a l ry o uma yp ssup s d d i spiritual s ory xis o a y o

dividual wa d r pr a r at t m o C rist ooday ad o b lost x s b i ompl yommo pla s xist ow v r r ai s i ssi i a i t a b said t a o ly wa d rip a r amo all ot rs w o s m sim larly ommo -pla is tru od d t is mor ov r mak s allsu s m y ommo pla wa d ri pr a rsua ly i r s i si y all t a uir u d r t sw assump io a it mpor a or a l ast

p rso al aFo Ki k aa d r or radi ally w is a d -

s o ot ou d d o a y addi o al vid i avouro i dividual w o s r by s l t d from mass o


32/270

Z 10:

heco ea e

s t w i a o l ger be ec gmze as t oesnot d sp ay a y outwar s g , c esp g a

e t a be o n o eas . T s reovepe s t e p ss b t o tak g a pa t la g e, et at te s o sp r t al h sto y s a ea y s pe se e ,to t e ar h ve o t e sp t or a se e th s

g re as a ea y bee a epte o t e a h ve t abe a epte a se on t e s e so et g Other sposs b on eale beh t

K er egaar s ve e he o pla e he s r at at w h epro es tsel as on ea g wh es apest e p osoph al s o rse t e sel ev ent s ew at s nvolve e e s a see ngly se seless lt pl at on o the a ea y sto ally a l a I howeve , t es sp on ar ses t at t s o onpla e ep o t velt pl at on on eals beh t a a al st t o

p e sely by way o ts o onpla e ess a see ngent ty, t en t e o o p a e be o es te est g as

t e e o t e a a ly ew K e egaa ea tsst a ore ost n h s s o se to t e o onpla e

ness o o e n ty, w h be a e obv o s to al as ares t o t e new s p e a y o n st a p o t onp e sely t e n neteenth e t y A o onpla e,s pe l o s, se al type o e n e ste e a q res, byt e new K e egaa a s sp on, ew j st at on ast e s te o an nv s ble, non sel ev ent e en e ano a new o bt that annot be e e by any selev en e he t e o th s o bt o eove , s o longean h sto a t e, s n e t o lo ge splays a y oo sto al- ale t al e le t o he potent allyn te lt pl at on o t e o o pla e beyon

a y sto a ale t o respon s to t e l teo bt o a s bje t v ty t at as also be o e nl teh s o bt a o ly be nte pte by a leap, a e s on,


33/270

K K

oug even s d es not n y ab ish t: self-e idencede e, bu dec s ns c n e re s d. s

n a d n pu d to d ub , ut onan f sts t

h s susp on o th d f r n on a n ho onpla op ns up th poss b l ty o a strat gy thato t an o p nsat s for t l brat d loss of au

t at Wa t B nja n d agnos d n s t s th r sultof t c n cal produc b l ty It s no acc d nt t a Arthuranto s ould b g n h s d scuss on of t r ady adproc dur , n w t art st d clar s an obj ct fro aass produc d s r s to b an nd v dua artw rk w th ar f r nc to K r gaard Th d c s on to s ct p c s lyth s obj ct as an a twor s unfoundabl n just th saway as t at of s l ct ng a an as God f a v s bl d st nc-t on f o t r obj cts o p op s ss ng Inst ad ofr act ng w th r s gnat on to th app aranc of tc nplac l k H g l, r c nt pt, as N tzsch d dlat r, rk gaard att pt d to d th th or t ca ansfo val r z g t co o p ac as a g t at obj ct ofph l s ph cal r ct on

It s pr c s ly th qu st of t r lat nsh p t thc nplac n ss of d rn f that al ady stands atth c nt f K rk gaard s rst aj r t t, E /OH r an pp s t n s nst uct d b tw n tw rad callync pat bl p s t ons an a st t c and an cal on

Th a st t s ks t scap th c nplac n ss fh s st nc H c nstantly chang s cu tural asks andd nt t s H t ansf s s l f nt a t atr , n wh c h s lf assu s all t ro s that t h sto y f sup

s d d t rary and v sua f s f cultu puts at h sd sp sal. K k gaard d sc b s th gu of t a st tw th bv us sy pat y d s r t scap t n tny f l f n a s all p nc al c ty as p n ag n

2 Ar hur Da to Die Verkla ung des Gewohnlichen. EinePhil phie der Kunst,Fran fur 984, 7ff


34/270

as a b t anund s andab d h n h ch t s

ss b e e s at o ' wn a nat n

p a ed as s e u e n c e en s ee t be a s na ng tt e ver e open en t en

Kierke r owe er sco ere eep esp ir st e true inner cons itut on o t e est ete w c eesc ibe bot n Di ps n t en in s il mo euri colours in e r men e Un ppies One' e

po en i y n ni e n mber o it es ro es n en ities e es ete c n ssu e c e r y o erspil s eimi e ime t e es e e ike nyone e se s ib e or is li e T e es e e isco e s is own exis ence

in t e wor s imi ion ck n e e T is es iseto esp r wit onese w one's own ni u e w c isexper ence s t e b sic moo o t e es e ic Kierke r escr bes s sel in eb e esp i o ees e e wi cer in tr ce o sc ad fr ud e noneeless ues e es e e's i u e s e rs n

in ispens ble step tow s se sco ery - e en i in i yin ne i e orm e es e e isco ers imse s sown im n esp rs imsel is isco e y opens up

e s me ime t e poss b li y o er posi i e uon A s il more r c esp , in o er wor s e s oe e ic l itu e - in o e wo s, to e ecision occep one's own ex s ence in s ul commonp ceness

Kierke r seems o be o ow n ere e rus eHe e i n ec ic me o : r ic i e ne ioncol pses in o posi i y T e ery i ec ion o e t eo

re ic rus seems o be e s me K erke r r uesins t e om n ic be u i u sou ' oses se inc on n ni ies n c s on n y o cknow e en ccep re ity e i erence w He e seems rs to be minim

is i erence owe er subsequen ly pro es o be


35/270

c th t h h wi t th e t e t

t ce t w w c

h t o ho c ot o it e o i h th e r He ther choo e h e y othe he te t ce betw hi nw

e hi exter l, co o l ce ethic ex tencere n br e b e t i not bro ght to y the i by

y i w r el evi e ce One c r the int th tthe ethici t by hi choice t h el t til gre teri t ce ro h e th the e thete e er oe

hi conte tio force to i q re ore c o e yto the con tit tio of the ex te i choice he

choice of one el hi choice oe ot n ny c ee n ch nge the co i o i which he choo erlw y lre y h elf i hi were he ch ge

i volve the choice wo l lw y till be e theticR her the exi te ti l choice e reno ncin theq e or ter ion cho ce o thi k n obvio lyoe no e o t o the inw r e of e ir bher r ic e thi e ir n ch one

beco e c ble of co i er g choo i g o e elf ki of e iece wor hy o re erv tio

n hi w y, he ver ge ex te ce of rr eo e t c e ci ize beh v g i rog tic llyco on l ce w y K erkeg r e cribe hi e hiciB e owe w h i i e ignity i i ev l e o he r ic lly new by the ertion h t beh nthe k o thi co o l ce exi ence lie co ce lethe ee e t o ble e ir the whole o worhi to y which e erve to be cce te i to worlhi ory other wor , K erkeg r little co cer e

botto w h ex e n l e li y nlike Hegel e t of ll when he choo e hi e li y g o hir c e e io or Kierkeg r ll h t tter icre ing he o ib l ty or hi e n l o for hi


36/270

O S P H )

s i o w s s s oo

r e a d w s u lw e e s s a lace he er al s a es of e s o c rs n wi al l os e os an e a as waso us y n h ng s ecia Wh ha o e h sen rh s con e orary there ore, was wha ay concea e

wi in nd f ou w rd y he was no d st n ishedy any ng n ar icu ar, he h d heref re haveevery hing h dden n hi se f

The ch ce f oneself, f r K er egaa d, w s husc leted y an in er al distance that ade an identicat n with neself i ssi e: the ch ice of oneself

in no way ean an acce tance f oneself r ana roval of oneself t is art cularly instructive in thisc nnec on that, in the cha ter f Either/Or dev ted tthe ethica attitude, the si u tion of he ethicist , whoakes and descri es the choice of hi self, is descri ed

as the o osite of the si ua ion n which Kierkegaardfound hi self a he i e tha he drafted this extKierkegaard nished his anusc i in erlin, direc lyaf er he had roken off his engage en wi h ReginaOlsen without giving any ausi le reason The decisi n tha Kierke aard had ade here cer ainly see ed

have he for of an ar itrary and unfounded choiceu at the sa e ti e it re resented he o osi e of he

exis ential choice as this is descri ed in the a ers ofthe ethicist Wha was at issue here was in no waysi ly a self ironiz ng on he art f he author, whichre ained accessi e only t hi The reak wi h ReginaOlsen raised a grea sensation recisely in the s c alcircles f the s a l own of o enhagen in whichKierkegaard us have assu ed he readers f his tex

live The oo was hus de i era ely addressed toreaders who knew nly o well that he gure of the


37/270

k

an os g s o a no a o r

spon o a g o gaa so a so o on s o no su rs oo as a

r on a on o gaar i h o sopr s rib r i K r gaa 's pub i n uc rr sp n ns a g r a s h his s rib in E O as a c nsci n ss s u rh p ays i h h f ings f h nai y ung gir .his is Ki r gaa pr s n s f R g na

O s n ur ng h par ng s n f an rus h in ica ns abou his ha a b f n n his s.

h r a r as ns f r r gaa s cision br aff his ngag n i h R gina O s n a b n hbj c f uch p ing. Bu ha v r h cas ay

hav b n h s cisi n s s hav b n c nc vas an a ti na h p f r h r a r s ha h canb r und rs and h basic n f h ugh f E !O h visib discr pancy b n K k gaard sh r tica d cisi n in fav ur f th thica ch ic anh s d c s n a h sa ti in his n if sh s thath cisi ns r p ay u a q it diff r nt

v s hich ar s parat d fr n an h r by anunbri g ab g f

his ans tha th r p ach s that hav sinc b nrais d ti and again against Ki r gaard ar s -ha sh tsight d h ch ic f n s n xist ncand h xis n ia ap hav fr u nt y b n int rpr d as gur s f c nc iati n i h a bad r a ityhich it u d b b t r inst ad t chang . S v raxa p s f s ch u g n s can b giv n. F r d rnIn ardn ss pr s nts i s f as th r s ric i n f hu anxist nc a priva sph r fr fr th p r f

r i cati n . By d nying th s cia qu sti n K r gaard

3 Lette to Em Boesen of 1 anua y 1842, n K e ke aa d,Briefe,D sse do f 19 , 82.


38/270

lG [

cy o o n o on o e e e n r o e y '4 S r n o ce co ce o au a o

n c o c o n e n b e y ro ve s bo e o v o o

K er e n e very c o c oos n o n rey lly es e re es poss ble nner s nce

rom mos r ly esp rs o n pro s snon eemen mo on s en y K er e r

u lly s r e s re ons p e n Olsen

o e be er un ers n n o s boo e onc s onmus be r n rom re n some o s r s s r e s n v nT e u es on ron e re er of K er e r

resul mon o er n s from e n sques or poss ble y o o beyon e He el n

le l os re of e orl s ory of e sp rK er e r m e no omprom ses. oul ve beenf e s er for m for ex mp e o em ze s o nD n s en y oun no p ul r ons eron n e He e n sys em v e o smu ns p r ul r en y n o e n ern l museum o

o s ory p ac u n y s s l su essf ly p se o y. Bu K er e r no oose

s s so m ny o ers ve one. He oo e D n sfe of s me n s r l ommonpl eness n

no m l y n en n s e ve s o s l zep e se y s pos s or l ommonpl eness T eques on rem ns o ever of e po er s

K e e r bel eve e o l rry rou s

s r l z on.e b l y o spe perfo m vely s bu e by p ul r of e o ns u on. n n p onoun e

4. Th odor Adorno rk rd C ns ruc n A s cM nn apo s 8 pp 47 8.

5 J an a Sartre B n nd n n s Londo pp 47ff


39/270

S 0 R E K J R K G A D 7

aw g v n ent a an a nt nt n gth b t t c c t th th w th actua hat t t t a z b t n w a t

ha a way a eady eva e n act B t the d uais t an n t t tio he w ds the ind v d a candes ribe rea ty they annot create it And the niteind vid a s ir t doe not have the ower to a e ts

onoun e ents revai Kierkegaa d thu oundhi sel n a s t at on that was erta nly no nove oProtestant the logy but had never be ore been re e ted

on and described w th s ch radi a is n o de or theinner s a es o the s r t be o ened aga n to o t-histori al a tuality the indiv dua had to onceive ohi sel a an institution that o ld s ea erfor a-tively But n te s b e t v ty is then fa ed with thearadox of se f institutionali ation or one ght say

of self authori ation The ossibility of the ho e ofoneself ust be grounded in the a ability of akingsu h a hoi e But this a ability is aradoxi alKierkegaard does not atte t to reso ve this aradoxso as to ground the ossibil ty of hoi e in ter s oationa understanding nstead he intends to show that

any see ingly rational understanding has the sa e

a adoxi a o osition interna ly as the existentialhoi e n h s later writings Kierkegaa d ra tisedwith g owing radi alis this strategy of dis losure ofa on ealed aradox behind the s ooth sur a e of aational de onstration

This hel s to ex lai the a e bi so eti es deliber-ately insu ting tone that Kierkegaard gradua ly ado ted

He sought to rovo e the invi ible o onent therationally th nking hiloso her or theo ogian to bringhi onto the stage n o der to ext a t ro hi theonfession that his hiloso hy o theology ould never

6 J. L A st n, H w t D Th ngs W th W s, Oxford 1962


40/270

[ {

ac b e w el -ev de ce ma e e e w a C a d a

e e e mse a dhe s ha a eg e e h g esse a ss de a s had g e a s h se

what way he ld ta e he i e wisd f hew rld sp r d r g h s w i e hu a ife lessir ca y d d Kier egaard reac he c e i thatChr s a it had ee u ersa ly es a shed h s i e a der Chr st a were ra sp r ed he i e

wh ch Chr s ed, he w uld have he sa e er difc t es ack w edgi g Chr s as G d as did the pe plef tha t e Wh ch ea t i r hat he derChris ia was be e a si ua i rela i hisbe ief tha were he rst Chr stia s

egel c u d t ai ai ha he had ear ed heru h i such a de ive way hat w uld be suf cief r s bseque ge era i s t rec l ec his ph l s phy irder t ake c tac with the truth, a y re ha heap s es c u d rec g ize G d Christ such a ev de tway that it was e ugh si ply t repeat later theiract f faith rder af r the se ves as Christia sf, his h s h a Fragme ts Kierkegaard had

sh w that the e t f sub ec ve decisi as alreadyexp ai ed ca t be rep aced by a gure f rec lectif the rig a , s he s ught his subseque tC cludi g scie ti c P stscript' t de strate ha

eve the rec llecti g re ur t phil s phical r rel gi ushist ry is t a p si i t d pe se wi h i dividualch ice r subjectivity as such here is h st ry, pr gress, accu u ati f k wledge Subject vityives i ts w u hist ric i e f u e di g d ubt fsub ec ivi y e erges fr h s i er ti e by the act fch ice r the exis e t a eap, this is its free dec si ,which evide ce, l gic a d trad ti ca c pelThe i er ti e is ever the ti e rec llecti - it s the


41/270

m f t wh n d h und f doptmg h n w n fu

nf sh s d s r f a i n r s u ss

to f r by way f d al u f y h g nh pas a ha scap s h h s o y of ason ndn wh ch sub c y an fr y d c d o r s l ad

a d p pr ss on on any h n rs a r K rk gaardIn H d gg r's Be g a me n par u ar h r ad rcan r ad y r ogn h bas c onc p s ha K r gaardd ploy d for d sc ng h s tua on n wh ch a su c

y plac d n h world nds s f: car an yd c s on, b ng un o d a h Many o h r of H d gg r sana ys s, for a pl th d sco ry of h go n abs n -nd dn ss and bor do ' show h r s lar y w h

K rk gaard's ana ys s n s cas , w h h s ana ys sn C e ea H d gg r or o r n r

pr ts h nward of subj c ty as a of d c s onas a t of b ng un o d a h as a n of nddual s nc a wh ch n contrast w th th

suppos dly n n t and h nc d c p ofun rsal ty, of th anony ous on ', s a tru andpart cular hat r a s h tru on o og cal cond -

on of h nd dual or K rk gaard th nn r t ofsub ct ty s l k w s a of nd dual d c s on; butas such as s nt al cond t on for th poss b l y of ad c s on t s s u an ously th t of n n nd c -s on that ransc nds th n ud of h s or calsup rs ss ons Th d c s on or cho c tha K rk gaardsp aks of s pr c s ly h cho c b w n what you ghtcall th nd dua and h non ind dual nt rpr ta-

ons of on 's own s nc or K rk gaard how rth s cho c r a ns op n h author K rk gaardconstant y sw ngs b tw n corr spond ng alt rnat s,

7 a t n H d gge A I r du i Me phy c , B m ngt n1995,pp. 35


42/270

(

d c m k t n pos 1blth w y K g d o t u l r t t m f

hi x t . F H degg o th t e d

the c of c -u t -de th e e en b gu us th e o c rrec c c w ic eca see e cape y p ope ly Dread un o dea ,owev , rc s t e ndivid al, even w t t s w l ,

t is o re ce, eve is d v dua ubjective yver o s p bi i y of s dea He degger ereby

essen a y agrees wi Kier egaard s et i s B n sana ysis of is ow e s en e w t in omm np a em de n y, us eso v ng e ens n f Ei r/Or by ade e, eve if ense nsig t, so a he me of subjev y aga be mes it

Wi h K erkegaard, o t e t er and e e i aoi e doe no put an e d o he i ite time of e

aes e i i ude Ra er, t s t me be omes, one migsay, st l more in nite, sin e e epe toi e of play ngwi the masks of rea y s ex ended by a fu e mask:

e mas of ommo pla e ess It s parti ar y s ikingin t is onne ion a K erkegaa d o lo ger spea s, inis analyses o t e eap or e oi e t at e offered

a er Ei r/Or, about t e oi e o onese - o f e

does so e speaks of t e se f as t e pe son w o oosesa other he C istian, e efore is t e person whoooses C rist as God n w i onne ion is o e

is just as paradoxi a as t e o e o nesel hedist tion, owever, is t a t e oi e o onesel as aCh ist an ould only appea mm n a e in theontext o nineteent en ury Cope agen so iety But

sin e Kier egaard insists that e de ision orChris ani y remained eve i the nineteen h en uryjust as exot as was t e oi e of he rst C r stians eon edes at subje vity an also make unusual, nonommon la e non individual de s ons n avou o

par i lar is or al orms - yet only on he basis o


43/270


44/270

wa r sts rah ith Agan e r m1s a g er e ia rde e a e

e a w and s s h w a a d a as a tr gi er wh sa r es is a e fee i gs

t s d y t wa ds he gene a ity A aha ra hell ws his nner s v i e wh c he ce a n y re g

n es as the ce f G d u r which he cannlearn any reas s r he sacri ce de ande f h

Once again as n he cases the e hicis an hers h is ians, we a e c nfr n ed wi h a c ice hacann appea t any ec lecti n and e jus i ed nthat asis, s nce here s n isi le difference etween acri e c itted f a dreadful indi idual d andan ac pie y A aha s ac s n c n en i nallyragic i has n its u ward appearance he anality evil As always w h ier egaa d he ef e, what isinv l ed here s nce again s e hing c nplacehat c nceals the decisive d fe ence eh nd it ut in

Fea a d Trembli g his al eady fa ilia gure anact ey nd any a i nal ca cula i n acqui es a newdi ens n as in his case he ac rea s wi h all cusary ethical c n en i ns A aha prepa es t i achild with u exp aining h s ac i n t her pe plewith u eing a le give any unders anda le eas nf he decis ve difference etween dina y infan cideand sacred sacri ce This i p ssi ility c unicai n with hers is n si p y a re usal n A raha s

pa t t tal a ut his decisi n It is rathe that an acti n this ind cann t e c unicated since speech

w r s nly with visi e di ferences, y a ticu at nghe The invisi le dif erence is at the sa e ti e inar

ticula le The ethic st always s ught t explainhi self, and there e t e a n wi hin s cietyA aha steps utside s ciety y his s lence, f rs cia li e is li e in c unica i n A raha s act ishere re a n n c un ca ve ne It was n t y


45/270

re1 l7 t . e e egaar e a e e e en ng u ess y e gn g he r m a a ens

he sacred: a he e a w d ater assu a en rar e f r Bata e and hers An n er re at cr eas renunc at n f s c e y f ang age and e den e as

g a u wh c d s ays he a a ence f the crna and he sac e s used he e n rder end heu ward y bana cr na acts and wa s f de n adee er nd h dden d ens n. Prec se y a t s nh weve K erkegaa s s ad ca k ffers annd cat n as h w s au h s rec nc a n w hrea ty was be effec ed. F r K e kegaard c ear y dent es h se f nward y far re w th Abraha thanw th the e h c st B f /O . I g es w h usay ng that K erkegaard sees h se f as a c t zen fC enhagen wh essen a y eads the sa e c n-ace festy e as h s c nte a es. And s f r h s

eas n hat he wan s b a n b th f r h se f and f rther e e a ace n he w r d h st ry f the s r t, nrder t esca e he fee ng f hav ng ed n va n Bueth c s B c ncea s beh nd the su face f n a ty ann n e d stance fr h se f and s n th s sense he

furthes e ved f a rec nc a n w th ea y w thth s nner d s ance re a n ng n s b e fr s de and

ss b e t d sc se. Abraha n the her hand,c ea es a v s b e d s ance between h se f and a hersrec se y by the bv us ne cab y f h s ac . t s

es ec a y by h s nward y enf rced s ence ha hee c udes h se f e c t y fr he s c e y f the s.Abraha thus an fes s n a way hat thers can a se er ence the nner d stance hat se a ates h fh se f and f thers The a a e s w th K erkegaard s

tua n are a aren . By h s ne cab e breach w th


46/270

24 ! " R 0 U l 0 A N P H L H Y

eg a en K e egaa e m e as gay o ay e e pre a gg s can

ove oo e K e egaa d ac ce eg a s a

A ra am e ed o a c s By sac cew c ema s nexpl ca e K e eg a d oun mselfn a pe mane t s a e of soc a o a on a e nevera emp ed o overcome e er by a ew mar age, norby a u ng a rm soc al pos on He ra er fol owed

cou se ever furt er outs de of soc e y by prac s ga ascet and so ated fes yle a was compre ensb e to o ers, a d co ng o w e ompre e s bleboo s K er egaard demo s ra ed a d ema edcreas gly openly for t e res of s fe t e er

d s ance t a d v ded m from mself a d from ot ersAnd yet t s pa d d not lead o a omplete obje t ca

on of s er d s anceIf K erkegaard spea s of t ree att udes o l fe t at e

a so understands as s ages of l fe - e aes et e etal and e rel g ous e rel g ous a t tude s not ng

more t a a ew erpre a o of t e aest et a udejust as e e ca att ude represe s a new n erpre at on of so a normal y e paradox of e re g ousman plays e ro e of a nner just ca on of t e ex raor

d nary a role t a e aes et c a ude alo e cannoful l Jus as e ommonp a e ac u res a dde d mens on by way of e e al so at can no longer appearn a o e d mens ona form so t e aes e l kew seac u res n e rel g ous man a deeper and dden s gn fcance e s ng for t e ex raord nary t e g t

from t e commonplaceness of a ual y s a ord nglyd ta ed on y ex ernally by e uest for d ers on graa on and forb dde joys Inwardly e same ues

for e ex raord nary an follow from an aut en and ence nexpl ab e rel g ous mpu se As t ease of e e al owever t s d fference be ween t e

aes e and e rel g ous rema ns dden If Reg na


47/270

at a a aa a ac c t s a n n

F T l an at e aa d n v d c y s a t

ana a aa d av a R i a as a y indir ly r ant d B t a va and nde idab l y a s ns ast d e d f b r iv s

s ard t day av d s n t a t sfa s br a r is ar f Ki r aard

a si y a ary a t at al d i t ar rit A re v le a ddlas a naiv y n ir l v s , s ri

be raya t a e a er b tt rly r re ed f a s at n t at ar s e f ni e eent nt ryli ra r , and d b d s rib d i t exa ra ias y f ni en n ry Re ea i t isyt ave t e ri er a el e rt y tavin t exert i s lf i s ar f r a n s bja d r by div rt is wn and reader s a e i nfr e ess ntia t rn re isely s esse ia : nner i s i al re i ns f t e r n isassi ns d s and i W kn w a t is r ed rewas sed x ensiv y by s yevsky w k s bje ts f trivial l ra re in rd r t bri is er esra idly nt a si a i n i t a way t in w i ey

d n a y i s ize ab ir si a i n f ra f r er 300 a es N r is Ki rk aard a dissi ilarfr s yevsky in ara er f is il s izin : t sa e val rizin f n la eness by an

intern l tensi n e vades i e sa e q asi r e lendse e a s iri a dT is aral el alr ady s ws w dee ly Kierke aard s

wri in is an red in e i era y i a ina i f is

8 R g na Ols n, le er Hen k Lun f 0 Se emb r 856 nK rk g a B e e 278


48/270

n n f n a a gaa no on k o on

o a o e enag h se T s ar a cer a n o e on yn con x of a s a l own s ch as o e agen was

a ha a d of a y era r suc as wasDen a k's S c he read rs of erkegaard's r ngswere fa l ar h s l fe s ory and could s rela e h sri g o h s su ec er egaard was a le o sparehi self e welco e ro le of ecessarily repeang s ec r gs us eca e e e o

of is novel ns ead of ei g i s au orT is s ra egy also explains w y ierkegaard eeded

so a y pseudo y s os of is ooks were pu lis edu der e and e also co s a ly played rs wd s a ci g i self fro is ooks and e aki ghi self know agai as heir rea au hor s ead ofnven i g a hero and i self func io ing as e au hor,Kierkegaard inven ed e au ors who descri e i aseir ero All ese pseudo y o s a ors rea ed is

life s ory fro differe perspec ives a d gave issu jec differen in erpre a ions is way Kierkegaarduil a s age for se f ou of diverse i erpre a io sand descrip io s of si ua io s, i order o appear on iss age w ic is dense y popu a ed y inven ed au hors,eroes inve ed y ese inve ed au ors is orical

c arac er inve ed i r y hese inven ed heroes,a d so on as i pe e ra le exis e ial ero n isco ec o , e reserves i self he rig of al asseno all ese in erpre a io s a d descr p io s - and in facnever redee s is righ

Kierkegaard never direc ly con des i h s a ors a deir readers, fro his ow posi ion as hero w e herey are rig or no i eir in erp e a io s of is i er

reasons n s way Kierkegaard reverses e cus o aryrela io s p e ween he o sc e au hor a d is


49/270

R R R

ans a n h If a Ba n a a has sk n h s n e s s ug a anc w n s ns f au and h e e gaa d s agese u h f he e au e d s

w h se e a se d ny us a s b ng a le a n a n a h y guessed s nne a ns hea al f e e e by a ns a b nd s n w le e a y s ag ng f s bjec y T e ac n f helay e a ns unc ncluded

If e kegaa d s e s s s n nsu assable d bas w e e n e c n ace eal y ww c s c nf n d has a g e d ne an ng, eeq ally uses s d b ake self ene ab e an e e nal s ec a e k gaa d s e cann ejudged c nde ned, s nce s es e a n unde n-able We ha n c e a, as s ec a s f s deeds andhea e s f s w ds by wh c we c uld dge w e ehe s led by l we , aes e c es g e , sac ednes. Ne he e e h self n any ne else can se les ques n by c nclus e e dence Bu s ha s

unce a n y c uld a se, he w le ense l e a yw k a e kegaa d c le ed s used u h selfn h s s ua n f undec dab l y

T s fac e e , f ces us a ce a n cau n ne alua ng la e l s cal d sc u se ha a ealsd ec y nd ec ly e kegaa d. W he la eHe degge af e s celeb a ed u n, a s ll e s gncan s f n e ece n f he e kegaa d an egacywas ann unced T e n n e d ub ha w h e kegaa df und s lace n e subjec y f e nd dual,ece ed w He degge , af e he ad nal y g as ed end d a as n e an n g cal anc agebe ng s h dden beh nd e s ble su face f he e s enAnd s whe e e e s en sh ws self s e l c ly

9. k l Bak t n Pr bl ms fD st y vsky's P ti s, nne p l s984


50/270

t t dd t T o te i d n h t st s tKie k g a d ' I s p t a K k g dt g p t w t g g s j cty e he wh d es t k w whet er re ns

t e estheti surf ce f thi gs r f ws the sum inv i e G d is rticul r l ter ry g e th tKierkeg rd des ribes in v r us seud ym s te tsfte u der d s r te nd mutu l y ntr dic yssum i ns his her is very e l d di sy

ti even f he de i ts nd refle ts h s wn ife ist rys trivi l s bje tIt w uld be ver h sty t gener li e the des ri ti n f

this her sim ly s h m n being , s Heidegger d es ihis l te w iti g whe he des ribes the m n being s hewh is l med by self n e ling being By me ns f t iskind f gener li ti n the initi tive sses in t fr m theindividu l t being s su h, t wh se c l m n n d m re th n re t he i ite d ubt s t the essibilityf being th t nstit tes the subje tivity the individu l

be mes with Heidegger the nt l gi l h teristi fbeing s s h, with whi h the nite h m s i usnessis m ls rily nf nted the nly thing h t rem i sf this ns i usness is t re t insightf ly t the ntl gi l n e lment f being In Heidegger s w rk, ther di l ed s b e tivi y f the Kierkeg rdi n her re eives

u ex e ted dem r ti ti n Wh t f r Kierkeg d isfreely h sen d ef lly st ged is f r He degger ntl gi lly n h ed nd m ulsive

eve l f the m st interesting intelle tu l hes

0. [O)n wha a read s an r al e a c p sh d Bu wha " sab v all s e n . Th nk n acc pl shes h re a n f b n hessen e f he hu an be n . d s n ake r ause h r la n .Th nk n n n ras le s self cla ed n s ha an sahe ru f be n . Mar n He de er Le er n Hu an s nhm ks, Ca br d e 8 p. 23


51/270

S 0 R N I F R K A A D

nd he o c n d h d recon in io o h r g He egg r Wh nD rr or e le e k ho n h ookCounterf it Mon y h o le under h condion o er ry onven ion h ch r o he cond ion

o ri ing in gener o e b i h whe her oin h ide ribed in e in hi r i l r e le byB udel ire i genuine or l e errid eviden ly hre o r e o K erkeg rd gure o he o ibil y o

king n un biguou el eviden nd r ion de i-

ion bou he in ern l o o i ion o he O her Bu i h Heidegger h i i ue or Derrid i no de i ion o ubje ivi y o u i e in i u ion inhi h h n i o ibi i y rev il r her hi i o -ibil y i de ribed he unde lying ondi ion o

li e ure nd ri ing u h hi h on r n he indi-vidu l nd hi h he n do no ore h n in igh ullye e B ud ill rd l o he ize i e nd g in hei o ibili y o gue ing he e ning or re li y behindhe ur e o hing ex li i ly e h izing h hi

i o ibili y i he on e uen e o r egy o heo ld o he i , o he ob e i el i h ubje -ivi y n do no o e h n o rehend

Unde he ho k o he Kie keg rdi n n ly e oion l el eviden e, he e o e hilo o hi l di our e

h ve i en h de loy he exi en i l dox i el orhe u o e o y e building He e i i no n h ihe i e o doub her, Being doub i el , l ngu gedoub e o ri ing doub i el nd ll o he edoub n ho on e uen ly i endo ed i h n n on-

io h i odu ed by hi doub n n no longe

cqu s D d C unte eit M ney Ch c go 992, . 52 On th ho on of s mul t on not onl h s the wo ld d s e ed

b t t e v q est on of ts ex stence c n no longe be os d. But th s se h s use of the wo ld tself n B udr ll d The e ect C ime,ondon 996 5


52/270

th o o o m t mo c he e ore o

h e e o o on en el dou l y now i nnex h

o ec i e do o t s s e s to e f or h s sysdou is concei ed s in n e s the in ni e wo ofdiff ra e in nite si n y, in ni e desire, d so on ,i he f ce of whic he su ec i y of he indi id lre ins ni e

The re ly r doxic si ion h s rises i resend y hiloso hic l disco rse n which su ec i i y isindeed confron ed with descri ion of the situ tionth t essenti lly ste s fro Kier e rd, nd yet hiss u ion is resented in e el n f shion s systede er inin necessi y th t he indi idu l c n onlycce The whole difference consists si y in he f ctth t su ecti ity w s re iously su osed to cle e tothe in nite inner self e idence of the syste - to theA solute S irit - where s t now h s to cce t the noless in nite nd solute inner dou t of the syste outitself Kier e rd s hiloso hic l writin s, therefore,re re d tod y with ixed feelin s On the one h nd hisn lyses see hi hly conte or ry On the other h nd,howe er, the re der who h s intern li ed the in uist ccusto s of tod y nds the l n u e of su ect hilosohy th t Kier e rd uses ntiqu ted, nd l ostuto tic ly tries to tr nsl te it into the l n u e ofoststructur list discourse, rticu rly since such

tr nsl tion su ests tself nd is lre dy frequently r ctised n this ers ecti e, Kier e rd cquires rticul r historic l l ce s so eone who, ro isionlly still in the l n u e of su ect hiloso hy, tte ted r nsition fro the construction of self e idence to itsdeconstruction

This le ds, howe er, to the o erloo in of so ethinth t w s of decisi e i ort nce for Kier e rd his


53/270

ugg e ag n e o ng o e n ua attem o ope u o u e t an e ape o t

o c a e o K er egaard own ough anh wn dou e e no n a i a e and ou noe o e ed n he o m of a y t en hi wn

na e rea n the of hi wr ng a one more p eud nym in a who e er e K er egaard tage the ecreof hi own ub e i ity a o e a l h we er, n he waha he create he a bi a ence be ween hi r le a

au h r an a hero in hi own ex T i new kind oferar on tructi n cer ainly educe u n o in erpret

ing t a a ra ical y new de cript on of the w r d Buuch an interpre a i n f rget ha Kierkegaard' i erary c n truc ion functi n independent y of theparticular de cripti n o the world that i her ic nf nted wi h The nite ubjecti ity of the indi idualnd it elf in he a e ituation, whether it accept

Hegel in nite c n tructi n r their no le in nitedec n tructi n

t i true that Kierkegaard hi elf in the nal yearf h life acknowledged an actua po iti n in theactual w rld, in far a he e barked on an pen

di pute with f cial ani h Chri tianity, and that thitruggle directly r indirectly d inate hi la t writ-ing In thi way Kierkegaard ee to ha e aband nedthe theatre f ubject ity and put hi el in the actuaity f faith But Kierkegaard did n t in any way gfurther here He hi elf ir nize ab ut uch an inter-pretati n in ne f hi letter [E] erything derncertainly g e further Pe p e g further" thanfaith ri ing t a y te ! They go further than theindi idual ri ing to the c unity! They go further"than ubjecti ity ri ing t bjecti ity! And n and

f rth If Kierkegaard igned hi t i p rtant

3 L t Rasmus N ls f 4 August 849 K k gaa dBriefe p 218


54/270

N Y

i p ic e t Ph o o h a agme nC nc ding Un cienti c t c ipt wi t e p e ny

anne C mac e s gned he k e oDea h A Chr ia P ho ogi a o io orE a o a Awake i g wit e pseu onym AntiClimacus, w ic t e reader can interp et eit er as anascen ng or a de cending movement But K er egaardc mmented furt er in t e same ette Climacus =Anti C imacus I see t is as a appy epig am. Hereagain, an identity arise at concea s t e differenceetween ig est and lowest, and ma es it un nowa le

Kie egaa s w iting t us emains an int o u tioninto t e in nity of su jective ou t, w ich wa ractised to t e end y its aut or as provisional, never asdescri tive and conclusive


55/270


56/270

fR D ! ) t

e d e H e bove ub o y ou ok e k o o e F e p b e e expo e o eb ke o u t s

be w t n y f k of S e o ' c ncern i s f wi s h s on at tho s s

sserl or Ber son n e t ed, h wever hestovcon in ed to aintain hat sserl was he greatestliving hiloso he e o ani ed sserl s visi o Parisand his lec res a the or onne in 1929 whi h veise o sserl s fa o s Carte a Med tat hest vwas eq al y fascin ed with the early wor s of eide gero which sserl in rod ced hi e lso ade effor sto rin Mar in eidegge o rance as well as Maxcheler and Mar in B er, w th oth of who hestovwas si ilarly on good ersonal erms ite ar iclarly, however hes ov co itted hi self to s readinghe na e and ideas of en Kier e aa d in rance,

where he was co letely n nown at his ti e e wasone of the rst to recogni e the new act al ty of Plot n shiloso hy, and the inter e ations of Tolstoy s andDos oyevs y's wor that he offered in several of hisessays and lec es were also of cons dera e i ortancefor the hiloso hical rece tion o these two w ite s inE o e We can th s say that hes ov ade an essentialcontri tion to creating an intellect al at os here inrance that la e ade ossi le the rise of rench

ex stentialisAnd yet hestov's own tho ght elongs far less o the

existentialis a adig than his ight s ggest Altho ghhe fel hi self close in any es ects not only to sserl

t also to Kier egaard, iet sche and Dostoyevs y,these a tho s were i ortant to hi chie ly eca sethey ost consistently e odied the nde lying hi oso hica a tit de that hestov hi self co ated

1. D e Memo en von B. Fondane S N. Ba anova S stova Z nSestova La P esse Lib e a 1983 vol 2 132.


57/270


58/270

e a n p u a s e v s p nwant b een a e the a ew a t n n e ena a p p er a that n e e ed h wa he

pe na fate f an nd v d a a e p e ed n t e reg n and the ph phy In e at n t a e a tthat he d u ed n h w t ng e t v t e and aga nra ed n y ne ngle ue t n What wa t n the r l fethat au ed them t dev te them e ve mp etely tph l phy he ntent f any part ar ph l ph ad ur e, f r he t v wa ntere t ng n y n far a tp ved relevant t an wer ng th ue t n At the amet me h wever he t v d d n t pur ue any y h gyh ea h wa f r a pr mary event, f r the rea l fe tr gger f the ret a ntere t n genera , n lud ng ntere t np y h l gy h alm t traumat n entrat n n ape pr mary even f r e the reader f he t v

wr t ng t eek u h an event n he t v wn b g aphy H hara ter t m n man a, h wever, d e n tat r t ght nd any explanat n n the r um tan e fh wn l fe

A relat vely bera fam y atm phere, n mater almf rt w th a arge r e f fr end and relat ve ,

all wed he t v even n h ear y year t pur ue h

n l na n n tudy, and t travel w de y In everydaypra t al l fe he wa alm, m derate, well behaved, andby and large u e ful When h father bu neventure met w th d f ulty, even bef re the Rev lut n,he t v returned t K ev and managed t re t re the

fam ly affa r n nly a h rt t me very ne wh knewhe t v remembered h m a a l veable, plea ant and

pen m nded man, w th a g d pra al en e hp ture al rre p nd t the lang age n wh hhe t v b k were wr tten ear, l, mewhatr n never tra n ng t have a p et e evated r

pr f und effe t let al ne a my t al ne At the amet me, th language n tantly rev lved ar und an


59/270


60/270

" R D L r : A N I H S

a a e e n en n n e

T e n e on to n ed e re i l ng e n e e l nd e yer onal e en e t o e de r e t e e n

tra c ter he taneo y do e ticates e ytrans o in t e o t o t e l ng t rea int t ereal of life, ch can ee ingly e descr ed itthe ean of everyday l v ng lang age S esto s odeof roced re ere essential y follows t at deve o edy Nietzsche in his Ge ea gy f M a : a t eoreti

cal, loso h ca or scienti c osition is nvest gatednot in ter s of its o ective' validity, t rat er of itsorigin in life or Nietzsche, a we now, an a stract'state ent, a ealing si ly to its own su osednowledge val e, only ever functions a co ensation

for a real defeat: t e erson who is victorious in lifedoes not need any o jective ri ci les On t e otherand, t e su u ated see to rescue t e selves sy ol

ically fro t eir actual unsuccessful situation wit theel of such rinci les S estov ta es over this strat

e y of Nietzsc e s, ut at the a e ti e radicalizes itand uses it a ainst Nietzsche hi self or Shestov, thelife' that Nietzsche s ea s of is a no less a stract

conce t than reason', science , freedo , and so on:asically, all these conce ts a e even synony ous

When Nietzsc e aises victorious life, reaches amfat and identi es hi self wit forces of nature thatare ound to destroy hi , he si ly see s to diverthi self and others fro t e fact t at he i self is sic ,oor, wea and unha y The actual ersonal role of Nietzsc e - na ely, the sic ness that wassteadily illing hi - rings out in Nietzsche the sa eresent ent that he denounces i all others, and forceshi to ado t t e ose of so eone s ea ing in thena e of life, which is a si ilar ose to t at with which


61/270

n e n e e nmo o c e ce

s o oses e s m t o enee s o a s t o s

or t s g ts t he ob a ned ro s s ononto o he s s ob ec e r t For es th s straeg is si taneo s he ain s r teg of hi oso h oso her beco es a hi oso her b derstand

i g, describing and rais g to the n of ni ersatr th is ow nd d a an irred cib e s at on nthis wa howe e , the hi oso her co its woista es F rst of a , he nderstands h s sit atio aso e t at ca not e o e co e in rea it Nietzsche th sdoes not be e e i the ossibi it o act a hea ingand o erco i g his sic ess a d this isbe ief ise ressed in his m his readi ess o s bjecthi se f to the forces of at re d second , thehi oso he tra sfers his ow situatio o to othereo e who a we be i a co ete differe t situ-atio Other eo e are erha s ot i curab i i eNietzsche, a d therefore do ot ercei e a ecessitfor m i stead being co ete read to strug-g e with fate Wh the co e these others toNietzschea is as a true doctri e'?

hese two errors the rst of whic he saw as b farthe ore i orta t Shesto identi es in a the hi os-o hers wit who he co er ed hi se f For ratio a istsa d ora ists, such as o sto P ato or S i oza, fore a e, t e sa e critique as in the case of Nietzschea ies But hesto does ot a e a e ce tio e efor e iste tia ists' He ds the sa e strateg e en iier egaard ier egaard cou d not arr Regi aO se so hesto estab ishes after a brief a a s s ofier egaard's diaries, be ause he was otent Thiserso a ob e , howe er, ier egaard ge era ized

a d ade i to a u i ersa , e istentia , ge era hu a


62/270

H L H Y

l w y w ls s ve t y

m t d ssv y e ist t al r s t l

S es v a s e ds t s r t sm He r, w si g a d Ti d a s s as simply a p ap ras f

Ki rkeg ard s ki by t r mea s H id g r pr vese b t vi t f a isu de s a d g u appy

af a r be we Ki rke aard d R a Olse s depi d

by He de g r as a u iversal tru f um Da i re b d b t a S s v w uld a s ave s bj edFre e ist t a sm, w m d s a sse tia

r buti t wards reati g, t e same r ti ism, f re ste ia sts a ways speak just f subje vity as su ,t e limit situati as s t e existe tial i e as suexperie e as s , a d s It is ly appeara eere at e lassi al reas rie ed il s p i al attiude is ver me tragedy, e stasy r despa r are just asmu e era i ed a d made i t abstra epts asreas a d m ral ty were rev usly Basi a y, ere, t edes ript f t e c di i u ai is give t e samege e a va idity as bef e: i s des ibed rat a isti a y

But S est v p e ise y pp ses a eutral, spe ides ipti f t e c di u ai F im, ape s al, p ysi ally de e m ed situati is t a

ete ase f e u ive sal di i . A l t atKierkegaa d eally wa ted was t slee wi Regi aOlse , a d t e eby be appy I e ad bee able t ds , t e a di g t es v e w ld immediately

ave f g te is w le e ste ial sm, a d wi itp i s y i ge eral: e c di i u ai f allt er pe e w u d eve ave dis e ted im ledim t p il s p i a ideas. A e f is imp e e

2. L Sh s i rk g rd i k is n si ln l s , M s w1 2 37 8.


63/270

T

w h e g hhy i w dh e b e m h hy A ly g

i k g d w d, d g he wa ly u p l p y,a di gly, wa a ig h i a o he ou ageo u ei ow , pu ely p al g a L k

W g e he w h l phy a di a e haaff b dy f la guag U like Wi ge eiow e , he d d bel e i e ab l y of

la guage o e c m hi d ea by i w weal e b dy f e ake i w i e al k a d e d f u g ome h g hala guage a effe

e o a ego i ally e e ed al a ia of ublima-o me amo ho i , of u al ea ive

ra forma i or of im ly ymboli ful lme

ve y hi g a eemed o e eo le rodu iveoe i o ea ive u k him a im ly di ulou Hei i ed rigo ou ly o he li e a exa hi ided oymboli eal za io of i d idua bodily huma wi hea d wa fu dame ally u e ared o a ep a u u alub i u e fo i e wha e had i mi d ere wao u o iou exual de i e i e reudia e e: he

wi e ha he ov eak of are e of w i h heirbearer are o iou a d hey are o e e ari yexual Abo e a l owe e hei realiza i i oreve ed by ul ure o ie y morali y or o e iobu a her by a ure i elf ve if al wi e we eo ially edeemed eve if he u o iou a d he hy

i al were a e ed Kierkegaard w uld ill o be able ee wi Regi a Ol e a d Nie z he w uld remaii k If he e de re have a y ki d of ge eral form i ihe dema d o o quer a u e a d above all ime omake wha ha ha e ed o a e o re o gure ea For he i k Do yev ky Nie z he or Kie kegaa d


64/270

s m n ss p c c n c is c

g ns s ci t ts s t s g s ets pe e p Shes he sp c th phi s

p d sc nc w s s ng s en w edge s lute y h nscended hi i s n t e q i sic nd everyd eq ire ent

w s en gh t r ns rt pe s n e nd he w rldt i nd in et h sics

The s e c i n t s ch de nd is qui e vi sits e liz i n is i p ssi l nd it is quite se se ss t

y insis n it u his sp nt n s y risingresp nse is p ecisely wh t Shest v se s t se isgu en he e f ll ws c nsis en s tegy The di fe

ence etween ssi le nd i ssi le is hi s hic ldiff renc T is difference is l id d wn y e s n uthil s phy nd hil s phic l re s n re in rn lw ys

the r d cts f ers n l c st phe, n nre izedde nd phi s hy nd e s n ise fter this c str he, nd n t ef re it ut this e ns th t thecce t nce f this c t str phe nd the decisi n t

nd n the ers n l st uggle f ne s wish precedethe c nsti uti n f hil s hy nd e s n Accept ncf ctu defe t the ef re, is n t the result f ny

re ecti n n the p ssi le nd the i ssi , ec usethe e s n th t c u d c nduct such re ecti n h s n tyet een c ns ituted Re s n is r ther itself the p ductf this ccept nce Shest v, he hist ry f Eu pe nre s n egins t the ent when Pl t ccepted thede th f S cr tes the est ng en , nd c nceivedt s the exp essi n f univ s l f te inste d f pr test

ing g inst this de hThis is where Shest v se s he essenti l difference

etween phil s hy nd rel gi n, , s he puts it,etween Athens nd Je us le The elieve d es n tccept th unch nge le l ws f n u e r hi , the


65/270

w o o n o o o o n o on n o ng o n a

and a h c c anc o aw o na rwh ch how no rc o r p op r hun a py o o h o c o n ng on h ownp r ona w h w ch g p hap ad o h r a a

on In ad o h h y ar o ph o oph z and ah n rr d ab o H r Sh o c ar r p a n achang d or h c b a argu n o Pa ca whou d b n God nc h r no God w aro n any ca b h do h n w ha aa h chanc o a a on and hou d no po h by

our d b f Pa ca how r app a d o r a onw h h argu n Sh o on h o h hand wano d n h pr c o n a wh ch r a on r arr a on ha con r c n and a rr d a-b n ad of r ng for cu

n th n t nc on c r aga n t an contrar na u-ra d nc Sh o a o ua h f n ha n a of h R an r g ou r na anc of h

o a r pr n a of o n hadb gun h r ph o oph ca car r a Mar or a aa f oc a Sh o h f wro h r ajorwo k on C W k g Cl Ruwh ch wa r j c d b h un r on accoun of r o u onar nd nc B d a a ud n Sh o

wa n o d n a nu b of oppo ona and o u-onar ac cau ng h a good d a of roub

fro h au hor How h r a oon oh f w ng r o u onar b

Th n c ua ba for h wa h a a w han o h r Ru an h nk r of g n ra on Thb f n r a on c nc and oc a progr wh chRu a had por d fro h W and appropr a do r h gh n h and n n n h c n ur a ocon a n d th pro of a b r o gan za on of oc a


66/270


67/270

s s de n t s d n s s ns en s s S d nded uss n

p s n s p n qu iess n ro e s y uss n view t esi ers s i si eive d re i e s

o d ro e t tr s orm o o o y so iety, u o e w e u iver e, si e e i os yo t e Wes d re y st i s origi owers y its

e e o e exis ing orderI i re di y u ders d e w y ese e s i dre ms

o u iver v io i y i ed o rou e y i tere t wit e tov. riv te y i orre po de e ew xed iro i out t em. He ert i y did ot t e yo it o ere t t lowed i to de te u i ly wit

t eir e rer . U der ir um t e owever e tovrem i ed true to im el e w ex u ive y i tere tedi t e te o t e i dividu . e u e o um ity

ture or i tory w o e e t im om ete y diere t Hi ro est g i st t e evide e o re o or t ew o ture w uttered im y rom er o l

er e tive; e ou d i deed im gi e very we l mw o d o o io to ew i t e l w o ture or t e

su rem y o ie e e im i it re u o itio oe tov' ti i o o y i t t t e m ori y o eo edo ot eed y i d o i o o y i e t ey e ievew et er rig t y or wro g y t t t ey re e t y p y

d o te t wit out it. O y very ew eed i o oy t o e or w om t i g re goi g rti ul r y b d yw i me t t o y t e te o t e e ew i re ev t

i e bor ti g t e i o o i o e tie re der o e tov s writi g , owever ote re

tively oo t t oug it ut or re e ted y i di ted origi ex erie e e ow ere tu y de ribed it.e tov o t tly i i ts t t o e ou d s e ex uive y ou o e el yet e o y e er e k bout


68/270

J (

r e e mme t e r ex e en i he

im h we e e e ea i l w

We n w at w en Shes v w s we e yea ld hewas idna ed y a gr f re i ary anarch s s,wh a e ed lac ai hi father he fatherh we er refused t ay, and af er a few days he nwas released Shes ne er descri ed is e is de uhere are i g a hica y ausi le reas n f r n eeing as the riginal ex er ence ha is s gh n hi Kieve i d hes v ex erienced a ng w his fa i y anan i ewish r - ut his again cann e seen asthe igge ing ex erience

he e ir certain friends f Shest v, ite erges hat he did in fac have an ex e ience f a su e des air in 895 the reas n f r which re ainsun n wn One friend w e ha s e hing ar icularlydreadf had ha ened t hi And a w an e iristen i ned a c licated and unus al res nsi ility

that urdened his c nscience' hest v, f r his a t, nlyex ressed hi self n this n ne ccasi n, when hewr te in his diary in 920: In his year i is twen y veyears since he i e was ut f j in " write hisd wn s as n t t f rget it the st i r ant ex e iences in life, which n ne a ar fr y u kn ws, areeasily f rg t en

This entry is interes ing in any res ects t sh ws thatShest v f cused n n f rgetting a ve y de nite event, ns ay ng with i and n urning away fr i The dangerf f rge ting h wever, lies in he fact that ther e le

did n kn w a ut this even In his writings, acc rdingly, Shest v crea ed a s a l s cie y f ther auth rs,each f wh has his wn secret, and this serves as

3. N. Ba anova Se tova n Se tova 22.


69/270

7

a o an a a t m a oS ov I a o o g o an

t o a on om a o o S ov con an r o o oll con o t g l or g n

Groys- Introd to Antiphilosophy

Documents

Transcript of Groys- Introd to Antiphilosophy