Pagei

SystemandHistoryinPhilosophy

 Pageii

SUNYSeriesinContemporaryContinentalPhilosophy
AlphonsoLingis,Editor

 Pageiii

SystemandHistoryinPhilosophy
OntheUnityofThoughtandTime,TextandExplanation,SolitudeandDialogue,RhetoricandTruthinthePracticeof
PhilosophyanditsHistory

AdriaanTheodoorPeperzak

StateUniversityofNewYorkPress

 Pageiv

PublishedbyStateUniversityofNewYorkPress,Albany

1986StateUniversityofNewYork

Allrightsreserved

PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica

Nopartofthisbookmaybeusedorreproducedinanymannerwhatsoeverwithoutwrittenpermissionexceptinthecaseofbriefquotationsembodiedincritical
articlesandreviews.

Forinformation,addressStateUniversityofNewYorkPress,StateUniversityPlaza,Albany,N.Y.,12246

LibraryofCongressCataloginginPublicationData

Peperzak,AdriaanTheodoor,1929
Systemandhistoryinphilosophy.

(SUNYseriesincontemporarycontinentalphilosophy)
Bibliography:p.159
Includesindex.
1.Methodology.3.Philosophy.3.Philosophy
History.I.Title.II.Series.
BD241.P38 8527679
ISBN0887062733
ISBN088706275X(pbk.)

 Pagev

Contents

Acknowledgments ix

Introduction 1

ChapterI.IsThematicPhilosophyStillPossible? 3

1.Thepresentdaysituationofphilosophy 3

2.Thinkonyourown! 4

2.1Whatdoesthisincentivemean? 5

2.2Isthisagoodincentive? 17

ChapterII.PhilosophyisLearning 21

1.Pupil,teacher,text 21

2.Learning 23

3.Discussionwithexistingphilosophies 26

4."Classical"and"contemporary" 27

5.TowhichphilosophersmustIturn? 35

6.Consequencesforahistoryofphilosophy 41

6.1Why"thehistoryofphilosophy"cannotbewritten 41

6.2Everyhistoryofphilosophyisanexpressionofathematic 44
philosophy

6.3Thenecessityforacertain"positivism"inthehistoryofphilosophy 46

6.4Specificproblemsofthehistoryofphilosophy 47

6.4.1Individualphilosophers 47

Thework 48

 Pagevi

Atext 48

Anoeuvre 51

Workandlife 52

6.4.2Milieuandtime 56

6.4.3Philosophicalconstellations 59

a.Theunityofanoeuvre 61

b.Theunityofaperiod 62

c.Theunityofahistory 64

6.5Dogmatismandhermeneutics 66

ChapterIII.PhilosophyasDiscussion 71

1.Philosophyasdialogue 73

2.Conversationsinsearchoftruth 76

2.1Speaking 76

Aparentheticalremark 82

2.2Dialogue 83

2.3Topicsofconversation 85

2.4Conversation,combat,violence(or:dialogueandrhetoric) 86

2.4.1Speakingasfighting 87

2.4.2Rhetoric 88

2.4.3Polemic 89

2.4.4Anethicsofviolence 91

2.4.5Conditionsforagoodpolemic 93

2.4.6Universalpolemics? 97

2.4.7Democraticdeliberation 98

2.4.8Polemicsandrhetoric 101

2.5Thetimestructureofconversation 102

3.Isphilosophyaconversation? 103

3.1Thematicphilosophyandconversation 104

3.2Thematicphilosophyandthehistoryofphilosophy 105

3.3Theabolitionoftheindividualsubject 105

3.4Conversationandtext 107

3.5Unmaskings 110

3.6Thematicphilosophyandrhetoric 113

3.7Theindividualandthepowers 115

4.Thehistoryofphilosophyasconversation 119

4.1Textandauthor 119

 Pagevii

4.2Interpretation, 121

4.3Anethicsofinterpretation, 124

4.4Anonymousthought, 126

4.5Historyofphilosophyasatriumph, 127

4.6Thehistoryofphilosophyasdiscussion, 129

4.7Teamworkinphilosophy? 132

4.8Historiographyasapresentationofothers, 135

4.9Theatrumphilosophicum, 138

4.10Scepticismandtime, 142

4.11Solitudeandhope, 144

ChapterIV.PhilosophyandTruth 147

Notes 157

SelectedBibliography 159

IndexofProperNames 165

SubjectIndex 167

 Pageix

Acknowledgments
ThegermfromwhichthisbookdevelopedwasatalkpresentedtomycolleagueswhenIwaschairmanofthephilosophydepartmentoftheCatholicUniversityin
Nijmegen(TheNetherlands).Thesabbaticalleavefollowingmychairmanshipgavemetheopportunitytowritethebook.ThetranslationfromDutchintoEnglishwas
donebyMaryEllenPetrisko,Ph.D.thefinalrevisionandthetypingofthedefinitiveversionwasdonebyAngelaM.Licup,M.A.Bothhadahardtimewithmy
stubbornnessinrevisingrevisionsbutconquereditbytheirskillandpatience.AnsDiepgrondtypedtheDutchandthefirstEnglishmanuscript.ToallofthemIwantto
expressmysincereandprofoundgratitude.

 Page1

Introduction
Philosophydidnothavetowaitforthecurrentboominthetheoryofscienceandmethodologytoquestionitsownpresuppositions.Toagreaterorlesserextent,every
significantphilosophyhasalwaysincludedreflectiononitsownfoundations.Asaradicalformofreflection,philosophizingnecessarilydevelopsintoametaphilosophy.

Oneoftheproblemsconfrontingmetaphilosophyisthequestionofhowitisrelatedtootherphilosophiesandmetaphilosophiesthatdevelopedearlierorarestillbeing
developed.EversincethetimeofPlatoandAristotle,mostphilosophershavereflectedonthethesesandargumentsformulatedorpresupposedbyotherphilosophers.
Thus,philosophizinghasusuallyincludeda(partial)historyofphilosophizing.

Thefollowingmeditationsconcentrateontherelationbetweenphilosophyandthehistoryofphilosophy,asaproblemofmetaphilosophy.Inthisformulation,I
presupposethatphilosophyanditshistorydonotcoincide.Itis,however,acrucialquestionwhethertheycanbeclearlydifferentiatedfromeachother.Onethesisthat
Ishalldefendinthecourseofthisbookinvolvestheclaimthat,ononehand,aselfawareandthoroughphilosophizingnecessarilyimpliesa(partial)historyof
philosophy,whileontheotherhand,ahistoryofphilosophywithoutacertaindegreeofautonomousphilosophizing,hereandnow,isnotpossible.Wecan,however,
startformthecurrentoppositionofsystematic,orthematic,philosophyandthehistoryofphilosophybecause,eveniftheydoformanindissolubleunity,theystill,at
least,implytwodifferentperspectivesfromwhichtheirunitycanbeviewed.

 Page2

Inopposingsystematicorthematicphilosophyandthehistoryofphilosophy,wemean(forthetimebeing)tosaythataphilosophercannotconfinehimselftoa
commentaryonthoughtsformulatedbyothers,becausephilosophicalthinkingimpliestheresponsibilityforpersonalthoughtswhich,inaway,arealwaysnew.

Withregardtotherelationshipmentionedabove,theperspectiveofthisbookwillbethatofsystematicphilosophy,whichisipsofactoametaphilosophy.Thus,we
willreflectonhistoryfromaphilosophicalpointofviewandinaphilosophicalway.Ifourreflectionissuccessful,itwillresultinaphilosophyofthehistoryof
philosophy,which,asapartofmetaphilosophy,issimultaneouslyapartofeverygenuineandthoroughsystematicphilosophy.Thehistoryofphilosophyasapartof
thescienceofhistorywillnotbediscussedheredirectlyorassuch.Theideasdefendedherewill,however,indirectlyimplycertainconsequencesforthe''empirical"
studyofphilosophicaltheory.

 Page3

ChapterI
IsThematicPhilosophyStillPossible?

1.Thepresentdaysituationofphilosophy

Accordingtothebestbibliographyofcurrentphilosophy,1 themajorityofpublicationsdevotedtophilosophicaltopicsarehistoricalinnature.Theydealwiththe
philosophiesofParmenides,Plato,Augustine,Descartes,Kant,Heidegger,andothers,buttheylimittheirowncommentstosummariesorcriticismsattheendofthe
text.Evenmanyofthestudieslistedundersystematicphilosophyarehistoricizing,sincetheydependonearlierorcontemporaryphilosophy,whichtheyparaphraseor
workoutinanindividualstyle.Manybooksandarticlesgivetheimpressionofbeingoldfashionedbecausetheyrepeatandtranslateoldwaysofthinking.Whatisthe
relevanceofotherstudiesthat,atleastatfirstglance,seemtobeoriginalandnew?

Aconsiderablenumberofthesestudiesworkonformallylogicalandmethodologicalquestions.Theystartfromthepresuppositionthatformandcontentareclearly
distinctfromeachotherandthatonecanthinkandwritewithoutatthesametimethinkingthecontentstowhichtheformalelementsapply.Anotherprejudicethat
oftenprevailsinthiskindofstudyistheideathatphilosophicalthoughtispossiblewithouttheknowledgeofitspast.

Athirdgroupofthematicstudiesconsistsindiagnosingthecrisisinwhichphilosophyfindsitself.Oneascertainsorpresupposesavoidandmeditatesonthepossibility,
orimpossibility,ofphilosophy.

 Page4

Canwestillfindphilosopherswhodonotstopatformalanalysesorrepetitionsofthepast?Haseverythingbeensaid,sothatthereisnothingnewtosay?Hasthetime
ofactualcreationpassed?Istheeverincreasingnumberofphilosophersinthewesternworldamereassemblyoffuneralorators,aninternationalcongressofheirs
whocanspeakofnothingelsebuttherichesoftheirforefathersandthestructuresthatdominatedtheinheritedworksoftheirtestators?Arewecondemnedtorepeat
ourpastbytranslatinginheritedthoughtsintothelanguageofourcentury,byposingthemaspossiblesolutionsorexplanationstoourcurrentproblems,orbycriticizing
earlierelaborationsonthebasisofoldprinciplesandperspectives?Mostofthecontemporaryproductionsinphilosophylookbacktoalostera,whenitwasstill
possibletobeatruephilosopherandnotjustanexpertinphilosophy.2

Isourpictureofcontemporaryphilosophytoosomber?Newthingsarehappening.Itcannotbetoolateforcreation.Thedevelopmentof"modernlogic"andthe
theoryofscience,forexample,seemstoindicateanewbeginningandtolegitimateourhopesforthefuture.Or,isitcorrecttosaythatmodernlogicdoesnotinvolvea
fundamentalrenewalofoldpatternsofthinkingbuthasinfactfallenbackintoconceptionsconcerningformandcontent,realityandpossibility,thinkingandobjectivity,
andsoforththathavebeenknownandrefutedforquitesometime?Donottheseobjectorsthemselvesbelongtoanobscureandobsoletepast?Whatdothey
understandby'fundamental'?Atwhatlevelaretheyaiming?Whatdo'renewal'and'obsolete'mean?Whyisitnecessarytobenew?

2.Thinkonyourown!

Ifitistruethatphilosophyisstrandedinahistoricizingandformalisticcriticismofoldphilosophies,aninitialreactioncouldbeacallforanewbeginning.Weshouldtry
tostartphilosophyalloveragain.
Havethecouragetothinkindependentlyabouttheimportantquestionsofexistence,world,society,history!Itisashamethatphilosopherskeephidingbehindthe
pronouncementsoftheirpredecessorsbyreferringthosewhoaskthemforwisdomtocon

 Page5

ceptionsofapastinwhichwenolongerlive.Thelogicalanalysisofformalelementsisatleastaproductiveactivityandahealthytraininginskillfulthinking.Evenifitdoesnot
producenewtruthsbecauseofitsformalism,itmayturnouttobethebestpreparationforafuturephilosophy.Inreplacingthecreativeworkofthematicthinkingwithexpositions
offormersystems,weareassterileasthosewhotalkaboutmusicinsteadofmakingit.

Iwonder,firstofall,whatthisadmonitionmeans,andsecondly,ifitisagoodreaction.ByaskingthesequestionsIamfollowingatendencyofouroverreflective
times.Iwillnotletmyselfbetemptedintogivingmyapprovalorrejectionimmediately.First,Iwanttoreflectbyasortofmetaquestiononthemeaningand
valueofwhathasbeensaidinthiswayIampostponingmyreactiontothisreaction.Ofcourse,anothertendencyofourtimesistoignoreeverystatementthat,like
theencouragementquotedabove,soundsmoralizingandtolookatsuchstatementsassomethingofwhichaphilosophershouldbeashamed.Inthecourseofthis
bookIshallcomebacktothisissueanditspresuppositions.Fornow,Iwillabandonmyselftoareflectiononthesignificanceoftheabovequotedreaction.

2.1Whatdoesthisincentivemean?

Anencouragementtoindependentthinkingissuggested,asopposedtoanexclusiveconcentrationonthehistoryofphilosophy.Weoughttodedicateourenergyto
originalthoughtonphilosophicalquestionsthatareimportanthereandnow.Clarifyingthepresuppositionsimpliedinthisencouragementdemandsatreatiseonthe
essenceandmeaningofphilosophyandphilosophizing.Thefollowingpointsareparticularlyrelevanttotheproblemthatconcernsusinthisbook.

Inreflectinghereonthenatureandcharacteristicsofsystematicphilosophy,wearenotmakingachoiceforaparticularconceptionofphilosophizingthatidentifies
philosophywiththeconstructionofasystem.Justifiedarticulationsandcoherenceareofcourseessentialforeveryseriouskindofthinking,butthesecanalsoexist
withoutthefoundationsandpillarsofanencompassingconstruction.Genuinephilosophymayconsistofexplorationsthatopenanewarea,inaphoristicelucidationsof
fundamentalviewpointsorinfragmentary

 Page6

thoughtstestifyingtooneandthesame"spirit,"withoutcapturingthisspiritintheformofoneormoretheses.Anallinclusivelogicwouldhavetothematizeallpossible
mannersofcoherence.However,(a)ifphilosophyhasafuture,then"allpossiblemanners"arenevergiven,and(b)suchalogicwoulditselfbegovernedbya
coherencethatitcouldnotthink,unlessitweretotallytransparenttoitself.Butissuchaconsciousnessofthinking,suchan"understandingofunderstanding,"possible?

Inopposingsystematicorthematicphilosophytohistoricalstudies,weimplythenecessityofaskingquestionsandacquiringinsightshereandnow,withrespectto
controversialthings,situations,relations,andconstellations.Aphilosopherofearliertimesmayhavesaidmanythingsthatwecanadopt,aftertranslationand
adaptation.Inthiscase,historyhashelpedus.Thetruth,whichithasbroughttolight,wenowseeourselves.Oncewehaveseenthetruth,wenolongerneedtostudy
history.Ourthoughtmustliberateitselffromallconformitytothespeechofthepast,whichhasnotbeen,andcanneverbecome,ourownspeech.Wemustourselves
philosophize!Wecannotfleeintotherolesofmereexegetesandcommentators.

Withthiswearriveattheprincipleofautonomy,celebratedespeciallybymodernphilosophyasthefoundingprincipleofallrationalthought.Thinking
thoroughlyandindependentlyisstilltheprinciplethatmakesphilosophydifferentfromallotherformsofspeakingandthinking.Wasitnotalreadysoevenif
somewhatlessmanifestatthebeginningofthesixthcenturyB.C.?Theoppositionofindependentthoughtandphilosophicalhistoryismerelyaspecificationofthe
oppositionbetweenautonomyandauthority.The"ancients,"the"classics,"the"greatphilosophers"arenecessarymasters.Buttheirteachingsprofessadesirethatwe,
astheirpupils,check,criticize,assimilateandtransformtheirthoughtsintoourown.Theypromptustoliberateourselvesfromourdependenceonthem,makingus
strongenoughtodefendourinsightswithourownarguments.

Takingresponsibilityforaphilosophymeansthatoneisnotmerelyaknoweroracommentator,butaphilosopher.Isitpossibletobeaphilosopherwithoutfirst
enteringintoanongoingprocessofhistoricalthinking,andstrugglingwithit?Isthehistoryofphilosophynecessaryasexercise,introduction,andpreparationfor

 Page7

thosewhowanttobecomephilosophersthemselves?Orisoriginalitystrongenoughtostartfromzero?

Idonotknowofanyphilosopherwhostartedfromnothingotherthanhisownthought.IthasbeenshownextensivelybyGilsonandothersthatDescartes's
demonstrations,forexample,arefullofreminiscencesandmemoriesofprecedingphilosophies.3 Allimportantphilosophersnourishedthemselvesontextsand
thoughtsthatwereproducedbeforetheystartedtothinkthemselves.Mustthisfactnotbeexplainedbytheimpossibilityofbeginningabsolutelyfreshan
impossibilitycharacteristicnotonlyofphilosophybutalsoofmusic,painting,literature,dancing,sports,religion,language,andallculturalactivities?Attemptstocreate
somethingcompletelynewquicklydegenerateintoprimitivismsreekingwithaffectednessorincompetence.TheexhibitoftotallywhitecanvasseswithwhichtheTate
Galleryregaleditsvisitorsseveralyearsagocouldnothavebeensetupbyamonkeyithadjustenoughhumannesstoawakenderision,shame,andfury.Such,also,is
thecaseinphilosophy.Whoeverbelievesthathehassomethingcompletelynewtosayusuallydoesnotknowthatmostofhisstatementssoundfamiliartoanyonewho
knowsthehistoryofphilosophy.Originalityistheverypersonalwayinwhichsomeonerenewstheexisting,notthecreationofsomethingoutofnothingwhich
wouldbebydefinitionstrangeandincomprehensible.

Itis,however,neithernecessarynorpossibletoknowtheentirehistoryofphilosophybeforeonedarestobeathinkeroneself.Inthisregard,too,wecanbeginwith
therecognitionofafewfacts.Thelifetimegrantedtothelongestlivedpersonisstillnotsufficientforthereadingandunderstandingofallexistingtexts.Perhapsitwas
stillpossibleforAristotletostudyallthephilosophieswrittenbeforehim.Hishistoriographicalnotes,however,showthathepresentedthenotionsandargumentsofhis
predecessorsinatypicallyAristotelianway.Weseesomethingsimilarinallgreatphilosophers,rightuptothepresenttime.

WhenAquinas,Kant,Hegel,Nietzsche,andHeideggerrenderedwhatearlierthinkershadsaid,theirownviewpointsandtrainsofthoughtweresopowerfulthattheir
predecessorswouldhaveseentheirversionsasdistortionsratherthanfaithfulreproductionsoftheirthoughts.Somegreatphilosophersarecarefulenoughnotto
pretendthattheyknowthewholehistoryofphilosophy.Othersdo

 Page8

indeedmakesuchaclaim.Hegelistheircoryphaeus.AlthoughitistruethatHegel'sknowledgeofmedievalphilosophyisdeplorable,ithasoftenbeenshownthathis
treatmentofPlato,Aristotle,Spinoza,Kant,andothersdistortedtheirphilosophiesbyunderstandingthemastheeffectsofconceptualmomentsandthesesthat
possessapeculiarmeaningandcoherencewithinHegel'sownwork.Histransformationsofotherphilosophers'thoughtswerefullofinjustices,buttheywerecreative:
heproducedanewandpowerfulversionofknowledge,atthecostofanoldone.Thebattlewagedbyphilosophersintheirrenderingofoneanother'sthoughts,
however,makesthemafamilyofthinkers.Whiletheysometimesgrosslymisunderstandoneanother,theyareboundtogetherbythesamesearchfortheoneand
universaltruth.

Perhapsitisnotmerelyduetocontingentfactorssuchashasteornegligencethatindependentthinkersfailtodojusticetotheirpredecessorsandcontemporaries.
Perhapstherearemorefundamentalreasonsforthisinjustice.

ThethesisIshalldefendinthisbookisthatathinker'smostfundamentalperspectivealsodetermineshisstudyofhistory.Ifthisistrue,wecanunderstandwhyan
originalthinkerisincapableofcomprehendinganotheroriginalthoughtexactlyasitispresentedbytheotherthinker.Whenheattemptstointegratetheother's
viewpointintohisownquestioningandthinking,heinevitablytransformstheother'sperspective.Thecompleteopennessdemandedbytheabsoluteneutralityofan
"objective"historyisnotcompatiblewiththeparticularityofaphilosophical(super)perspective.Doesthisnotexcludethepossibilitythatthehistorianhimselfthinks?
Cananeutralversionofotherphilosophiesbethoughtbysomeonewhohimselfphilosophizes?

Aphilosopher'sfundamentalperspectivecanchange.Thefundamentalhistoryofthinkingtakesplaceatthelevelofthebasicperspectives,andthestruggleofa
thoroughphilosopherinvolvespreciselytheestablishmentofanalldeterminingviewpoint,whichhenevercompletelygetsinsightbuttowhichhisthoughtsbear
witness.Aphilosopher,geniusthoughhemaybe,cannotbendthebasicperspectivesfromwhichheperceives,suggests,asks,seeks,andspeakstohiswill.They
formaparticularcharacter.Withintheboundariesofthischaracter,someone'sacquaintancewithotherthoughtsandwaysofthinkingcanbefruitful.Thegreaterthe
space

 Page9

ofone'scharacter,themoreuniversalone'sphilosophyalthoughallconcreteuniversalityremainsrelativetotheindividualwhothinksit.

The"character"ofthinkingcanexplainwhyitisdifficultperhapsimpossibleforeventhegreatthinkerstodojusticetootherthinkers,greatorsmall.Perhapswe
mustdaretosaythatagenuinethinkercannotdofulljusticetoanotherthinker,becausehisbasicperspectiveisnotmerelyan(other)instanceofthesameperspective
butaradicallydifferentone.4 Thisdifficulty,however,admitsofdegrees.Somethinkersarecloserthanothers:theirproblems,approaches,andstyleshaveanaffinity
tooneanother.Suchcolleaguesunderstandeachothermoreeasilythantheydothinkerswhostrikethemasforeign.Truthfulnessanddiscovery,however,demand
journeyingbeyondone'sowncircle.Adventure,exploration,andalienationareequallynecessaryforfundamentalthought.Tomeasureoneselfbyverydifferent
mannersandstartingpoints,tofightwithgreatandgreaterenemies,toelicitcriticismalloftheseareanecessarycounterweighttothecozyfamiliarityofsmallspirits.
Whileitistruethatonecannotfightalloftheothers,everyoneneedsafewenemiesofhisown.Antipodescanbebeneficial.However,somephilosophers,influential
thoughtheymaybe,thinksodifferentlythattheydonotmeananythingtome.Theymovealongotherpaths,whichsurelyhavetheirmeaninginthecultureofwhichI
amapartbutIcanonlythink,andmustlive,alongthosepathspracticabletome.

Thegreatphilosophersdidnotbecomegreatbyreadingeverythingwrittenonacertaintopic.Theyconversedwithseveralselectedpredecessorsandcontemporaries,
intheirownindividualstyles.

Thecomprehensivestudyofexistingliteratureneededforasystematictreatmentofatopicisinmostcasesimpossible,evenfromapracticalandphysicalpointof
view.Thisisalsotrueincaseswhereacompletebibliographysuggeststhatsuchastudyhas,infact,beenachieved.Themythofacompletestudyofexistingliterature
restsonafundamentalmisconception.Comprehensivenessisnotanessentialelementofphilosophicalgenuineness.Thoroughthinkingdoesnotpresupposea
totalization.Grantedthatuniversalityischaracteristicoftruephilosophy,itmustneverthelessbeunifiablewiththefundamentalperspectivismoftheindividual.Inmost
casestheclaimedcomprehensivenessisalieinanycase,itdeniesthepointofdepartureofallthought:anindividualthinkerwhostrugglesthroughasmallsegmentof
systems,fragments,andsuggestions.

 Page10

Canwereallyidentifyphilosophy,aswehavedone,withthephilosophyofthe"greatphilosophers"?Whatare"greatphilosophers,"really?Howdoesonebecome
"great"inphilosophy?Doesitreallymakesensetospeakof"greatness''inphilosophyasonewouldofcomposers,generals,andpoliticians?

Allphilosophicalstyleseventhe"ahistorical"or"antihistorical"formsofpositivism,logicalempiricism,logicism,andphenomenologyhavetheirheroes.Evenin
thesciences,suchasmathematics,physics,chemistry,andastronomy,oneveneratesfoundersandparagons.Acharacteristicoftheirgreatnessistheiroriginality.But,
notalloriginalityisvaluable.Somethingnewisnotnecessarilytrueorfruitful.Whatkindoforiginalityis"great"?Thevalueoforiginalitymustyieldtothecriteriaoftruth
andveracity.Asidefromthis,"greatness"inthinkingseemstodemandthatathinkerofferavastthoughtspace.Thisisnotnecessarilytobetakeninthesenseofa
totalizingintegrationoracomprehensiveviewifthiswereso,Hegelwouldbethegreatestphilosopheronthisgroundalonebutratherinthesensethatone
inauguratesafreespace,necessaryforthefullandthoroughdevelopmentofsomeofthegenuineand"great"problemsofhumanexistence,oftheworld,andof
history,sothatotherthinkerscanalsoapproachtheseproblemsinanewandnewlyfruitfulway.WiththisstatementIamanticipatingwhatistofollow.Thequestionof
greatandsmallinphilosophycanonlyberesolvedwhenweknowwhatphilosophyisandoughttobe.Onceagain,thisisaquestionofmetaphilosophy.Forthetime
being,however,wecancontentourselveswithanappealtothedifference,generallyacceptedevenamongahistoriansandantihistoriansbetweengreat
philosophersononehandandepigones,commentators,andrepeatersontheother.

Thevariouscategoriesinthesecondgroupbuildonthefoundationslaiddownbythegreatanddonotrenewthegroundsofphilosophy.Asubdivisionispossible,
insofarassomeofthesefollowersdevotethemselvesprimarilytoparaphrasingandexplanation,whileothersdrawtheconsequencesofthedoctrinestheyhave
receivedandapplythemtothequestionsofeverydaylifeorscience.Bothgroupsareuseful.Theykeepthegreatphilosophiesaliveandpassalongwhat,withouttheir
help,wouldonlybeaccessiblethroughatimeconsumingexplorationofthedifficulttextsleftbehind.Theexistenceofepigonesandexegetesis,however,adanger

 Page11

aswell.Theirownmindsarenotasgreatasthethinkers'towhomtheyhavelistened.Theysubjectgreatthoughtstothelimitationsoftheirownintelligence.
Consequently,whattheypassalongarenarrowconceptionsoftheoriginal.AforbiddingexampleofthisdangeristheideathatPlatodividedrealityintoaheavenfull
ofideasaboveandanearth,consistingofreflections,below.Thesituationbecomesworsewhenasocalledcommentatorishostiletoagreatphilosopher.The
pedantryofhiscaricaturesisunbearable,especiallywhenhesetsthetoneincertainmilieus.Platohimselfhadpityforpeoplewhoinflictedsuchinjuryupontheirown
souls.

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Letusreturntothequestionsinvolvedintheencouragementgivenabove.Nexttothehistoricizingmannerinwhich"continentalphilosophy"andalargenumberof
EnglishandAmericanstudiesaccomplishtheirreflection,thereisawayofthinkingthatseemsintrinsicallyindependentofhistoricalfiguresandtraditions.Ithasleftits
teachersanduphbringingbehindandbuildsup,outofitsownforces,awholesystemofthoughtthatcanbearitsownweight.Othersclaimthatthisautarchyismerely
appearanceandthatitsdependenceonhistoricaldecisions,presuppositions,frameworks,andautomatismshassimplybeenmasked.Butevenifthosewhoclaim
emancipationfrompredecessorsandtraditionsreallythinkautonomously,theirphilosophieshaveaformalisticcharacter,withoutanycontentpeculiartothem.They
findsubstanceintheopinionsofcommonsense,inthepositivesciences,orinthesubjectiveemotionsofanyoneventuringanewopinion.Thissortofphilosophy
expressesitselfmostpurelyin"modernlogic."Althoughmanyofitspractitionersbelieveitistheonlyscientificformoflogic,itisneithertheonlypossiblenortheonly
seriousone."Modernlogic''isscientific,butisitprofoundenoughtobeaphilosophicaldiscipline?Doesitnotcomealltoospontaneouslyfromcertainpreconceived,
unanalyzed,anduncriticallytransmittednotionswithrespectto"reality,""form"and"content,"therelationbetweenthinkingandreality,betweenrulesandapplicability,
qualityandquantity?Doesitnotbeginwithnotionstypicalofaspecifictimehonoredontology,whichprecedesandfollowsthetheoryofthoughtandthinking
presupposedbythiskindoflogic?Whenoneestablishesaformallogicindepen

 Page12

dentoftherestofphilosophyanditshistory,whichpresuppositionsaremadeandwhichproblemsaresolvedwithoutbeingposed?

Itisveryimportantthatwestate,onceandforall,theusefulness,necessity,andfertilityof"modernlogic"asithasbeen,andisnow,practicedincloseconnectionwith
theprinciplesofmathematics.Theacumeninvestedinit,andthestruggleforclarificationwagedwithinit,deserveadmirationandpraise.Itis,however,justas
importanttostatethatthequestionsprecedingtheseparationofformandcontentcanneitherbeaskednoransweredbylogicalone.Inordertoaskandanswerthese
morefundamentalquestions,weneedtoconfrontformalthoughtwithrealitytowhichpurelyformalthinkingsupposedly"applies"andwithotherformsof
thought.

Logicisprecededbyanontologicthatis,simultaneously,alogicoflogic.Ifoneoftheconditionsofphilosophyisthoroughness,thenthosewhodenythatthename
formalandtranscendentallogicimpliesameaningfulproblemorthosewhoscornthebestbooksonthistopiccannotbeconsideredphilosophers.

Thenecessityandvalueofmodernlogiccannotbejustifiedbythesupposedfactthatitistheonly,orcomprehensive,theoryofcorrectthinking.Iflogicisindeedsuch
atheory,itmustprovethisbyatranscendentallogicthatisatthesametimeanontologic,orontology.Apurelyformallogiccanhoweverbeseenasanexperiment
throughwhichthepossibilitiesofacertainviewpoint,orafruitfulabstraction,arethoughtandtested.Howfarcanwego?Whatcanwediscoverifwedefine,analyze,
reasonorformhypothesesinsuchaway?Whatcomestolightwhenwepracticethissortofexactitudeandconsistency?

Asarigorousexperimentinthinking,formallogicshouldbeseenfromthebroaderperspectiveofthebasicphilosophicalquestionconcerningtheunityof,andthe
differencebetween,thinkingandreality.Modernlogiccannotbeastartingpointunlessonerealizesfromtheoutsetthatitstranscendentalandontologicalconditionsof
possibilitymustbethematizedelsewherebeforeandafterlogic.Itisnotonlynecessarytorespectitssuccesses,butalsotoqualifyitsclaims,inordertokeep
modernlogicasaphilosophicaldiscipline.Withoutqualification,formallogicdegeneratesintoasciencethatopposesitsownfoundationsandphilosophy.Thisresults
intrivializationand

 Page13

thepunishmentofdeathbyboredom.That,too,hashappenedbeforeintherealmofthought.

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Nowthatwehaveformulatedsomepreparatoryconsiderationsofthispoint,letusattemptadefinitionof'thematic'or'systematic'philosophizing,asopposedtothe
historicaltreatmentofphilosophy:itisathoughtfulconsiderationofgenuineproblemsonone'sown,hereandnow.

"Genuineproblems"containnaiveandtranscendentalquestionsofformandcontenttheydifferfromapparentproblemsinthattheycantrulyandjustifiablybetakento
heart.Problemsthatwearepersuadedtoacceptasproblemscauseustofurrowourbrows,butwedonotreallyrecognizethemasproblems.Interestingtidbits,
puzzles,riddles,factsworthknowing,trickquestions,andsoforthcanfunctionaswhetstonesforourunderstanding,buttheyremainagame.Allgenuinephilosophical
questionstouchuponthecentralquestionsofhumanlifeintheworldandinhistory,directlyorindirectly.Beingabsorbedbysuchproblemsisoneofthecharacteristics
ofphilosophy:itisalwaysrelatedtowhattrulyandultimatelymatters.Logic,thetheoryofscience,andphilosophicalmethodology,forexample,showtheir
philosophicalimportancewhentheirrelationtotheessentialquestionsofhumanexistenceismadeexplicit.

Wemustphilosophizehereandnow.Genuineproblemsarequestionsthatwe,asuniqueindividualsofthiscultureandtime,canreallyask.Theyarenotquestionsleft
overfromanothertime,nolongermeaninganythingtous,noraretheytomorrow'squestions,whichwecannotevenimagine.Theactualityofgenuinephilosophynot
onlydistinguishesitselffromwornoutproblemsanddeadtheoriesbutalsofromthederniercri,thefashion,thealleged"mattersoffact"and"historicalattainments"
celebratedbysemiintellectual,intellectual,andquasiphilosophicalgroupsandcongresses.Whetheroldorrecent,allsuchauthoritiesandprejudicesmustbe
examinedhereandnowand,ifnecessary,amendedordestroyedinordertoacquirerelevantandconcrete,butneverfinal,truth.Philosophizingalwaysmeansleaving
theapparent"mattersoffact"behind,evenwhenoneisconcernedwithextremelyrespectable"mattersoffact,''suchasPlatonic,Hegelian,Marxist,or
phenomenologicalones.Emancipationpertainstoanyserfdom,whetherthatof"the

 Page14

Ancients"orofrecentpacesetters.Incontrasttothetendencytodwellinabeautifulandrichpast,anothertendencyjustasserflikebutnotalwayssodeeply
rootedisanimatedbythenewnessoffashionsthatdowellandreceiveapproval.Reflectionimpliesthatathinkerreviewsbothwhathasbeensaidbeforeandwhat
isnowbeingsaid.Heposesthesamequestiontooldandtonewphilosophies:InviewoftheinsightIdesireandhopetowin,whatisworthwhileinthisoffer?

Thestruggle,freefromallprompting,toachievetruthisessentialtoindependentthinking,onwhichallthematicphilosophystandsorfalls.

Thethinkingofchurches,politicalfactions,fashions,andgreatphilosophers,however,haspoweroverthethoughtofanyonewhoattemptstothinkindependently.
Suchpowerisunavoidable,andnotnecessarilydestructive.Greatmastersaregreat,notonlythroughtheirbreadthofvision,depthofinsight,orsubtletyofanalysis,
butalsobecauseoftheirdesireforfollowerswhowillsurpassthemonpathwaysoftheirown.Inthefaceofoverwhelmingideasandideologies,arebelliousreason
expressesdenial."Learningbeginswithcriticism...."5 Butemancipationthroughdenialremainseitherastammeringprimitivism,whichhasyettolearneverything,ora
claimthatisignorantofitsowndependence.TochallengeThomisticscholasticismwithMarxistpartyideology,ortoreplacePlatonismwithobediencetosomeform
ofpositivism,doesnotestablishindependence.Oneserfdomismerelyreplacedbyanotherfundamentally,onehasnotadvancedbeyondchoosingthisorthat
dependence.

Theideaofemancipationinordertoattaintotalselfrelianceinphilosophy,however,isitselfnaive,atleastaccordingtomost,orall,ofthegreatphilosophersafter
Hegel.TheintentionofDescartes,whowantedtoopentheeyesof"theEgo"byunfoldingitsautonomy,hasbeencriticizedandjudgedimpossiblebyKierkegaard,
Marx,Nietzsche,Freud,Heidegger,MerleauPonty,Levinas,Derrida,andothers.Precededbysomuchobscurerealityofaphysical,psychical,sociological,cultural,
andhistoricalnature,thethinkingego,enlighteningitself,willneverbeabletounderstanditselftotally.An"It"alwaysannoys"Me,"sothatthe"Ego"cannever
completelyattainitselfinitsthought.

 Page15

Thinkingforoneselfisthereforenottobeconceivedasapracticethatcommandscompleteindependence.Betweenthetotaldenial,throughwhichanabstract
emancipationrebelsagainsttraditionsandauthorities,andtheattempttobuildanindependentsystem,philosopherstodaymoveinahorizonfullofclouds,twilight,and
darkness.EventoHegel,whoconsideredabsoluteknowledgetobepossible,greywasthecolorofthelandwherephilosophydwelt.OnecancontrasthisGerman
twilighttothebrillanceofGreekheavens.But,donotforgettheshadowsofthemountains!

Tothinkonone'sownmeanstofindathoughtfulandsoberattitudetowardsalreadyexistingphilosophiesthroughtexts,sayings,popularideas,traditions,teachers,
anddiscussionsmeanstobeinvolved,todigest,assimilate,takein,andgiveoutinotherwords,meanstobeagoodpupil,whoprudentlyusesthesupplyofallthose
prefacesandauthorities.Determiningwhichphilosophiesonemustbeschooledinisagreatpracticalproblem.Initiallyandtemporarily,apupilisdefenselessagainst
thecoryphaeipresentedbyhissurroundings.Fortunateindeedisthestudentwhocomesintocontactwithgreattextsandteachers.WhostillconsidersReinhold,
Bardili,Krause,andKeyserlingtobegreatphilosophers?CanwebesurethattheworksofScheler,Marcuse,Habermas,orAlthusserwillremainimportantinfiftyor
ahundredyears?

Asidefromthedesireforautonomy,thestruggleforanindependentphilosophyinvolvestheacceptanceoftemporaryguidance,andacriticaldistance,fromthe
leaderswhoshowustheway.Respectandcriticismarebothnecessaryforgrowinginto,andoutgrowing,one'sserfdom.Onlyagoodpupilthatis,onewhois
neitheraslavenoranallknowingstudentisonthewaytomastery.

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Isitnottoonaivetopresupposethepossibilityofthematicthinking,hereandnow?Arewestillcapableofdevelopingaphilosophyofourown?Hasphilosophy,inthis
sense,notpassedaway?

Anendlessreflectiononthecontent,meaning,andstructureofpastphilosophies,andontheconditionsforthepossibilityoffuturephilosophies,seemstobea
symptomofourtimes.Weliveinaculturethatishighlyknowledgeableaboutearlierandothercultures.

 Page16

Historyandarcheology,sociologyandculturalanthropologycollectenormousamountsofinformationoneventsofthepast,butwedonotactuallyengageinthem.
Poetryproducesversesaboutthedifficulty,theimpossibility,theemptinessofmakingpoetry.Musicreferstoearliermusic.Everythinghasbeensaidandcomposed.
DoctorFaustussuffersfromtheimpossibilityofbeingoriginalandgenuine.Weenjoyperfectlyrestoredandreproducedbeauty,butweareincapableofbridgingthe
gapseparatingusfromthelifemanifestingthisbeauty.ImprisonedinagreatanduniversalMuseum,weshrinkintoaviewpointthathasnopeculiarcontentofitsown.

Thesedays,philosophizingseemsmorelikeatourthroughthismuseumratherthanaproductionofnewthoughtsthatdeservetobecalledgreat.Haveweexhausted
thepossibilitiesofphilosophy?Istherestillhopeforthephilosophersattemptingtobreakdownthewallsoftheirmausoleums,orarewedoomedbyourtimestomere
outcriesofimpotence?Formalism,historicism,andscepticismseemtobesymptomsofanihilismthatreignsuniversally,pervadingthedeepestgroundofour
questioning.

Butisthisanirresistibleforce?Istheautonomyofthinkingtoofeebletoovercomethisfate,thisGeschick?Or,arewe,asunresistingsouls,preytoaculturalpower
thatsimplytakesourbreathawayandparalyzesourwits?Mustwewaitwithpatienceandexpectation?

Acomparisonwiththeperiodsofstandstillthatoccuronthepathoflife,asdescribedbythemystics,suggestsitself.Isphilosophygoingthroughasimilartransition,in
which,througheffortandpassion,anewfertilityisbeingnurturedoutofreflectiveignorance?Ordoesthisexplanationignorethosedomainswhereitisnotmerenight
andwasteland,butwheretherearealsopromiseandthebeginningofnewknowledge?

Whileitsexploitationofoldtextsanditsreflectionsonpastthoughtsgiveaconservativeandnostalgicimpression,thecharacteristicwayinwhichpartofcontemporary
philosophybendsbackoveritselfanditspastseemstohaveafuture.Itsselfreflectionexpressesitselfnotonlyintheparaphrasingofexistingideasbutalsointhe
attempttounderstandwhatsaying,thinking,writing,communicating,texts,books,philosophers,history,andcultureactuallyare.Areflectionofthiskindcan
nolongerbecalledpurelyformalforwhenitisdonethoroughly,itmustnecessarilyconsiderthemain

 Page17

questionsabouttheessenceandthemeaningofhumanity,society,culture,andhistory.Thoroughreflectionontheassumptionsofanyformalismleadstoaphilosophy
thatissimultaneouslyathematizationoftheconcreterealityandofitsformalelements.

Whenaformalreflectiontakesaccountoftheabstractionsfromwhichitderivesitsbeginningandasphilosophicalreflectionitcannotavoidanattemptatthisself
knowledgeitisforcedtotranscendtheseabstractions,inordertobecomeatheoryabouttherelationbetween'form'and'content'and,thereby,afundamental
philosophy.Therealizationofthisinnernecessity,throughwhichahiddencontentisrecognizedineveryformalism,isaconsiderablestepinthedirectionofanew
thematicphilosophy.Throughtheexplicationoftheanthropological,cultural,ethical,andontologicalmomentsthatthecurrentDauerreflexioncontains,newopenings
andpaths,possiblyexplorable,comeintobeing.

Explication,however,isnotsufficient.Themannerinwhichformalismandtranscendentalthinkingoccurfindsitselfinaprocessofbendingandchangingwhichfor
lackofreadymadeformulascanonlybeattemptedandexperimentedwith.Mustourlogicandlanguagebeunderminedanddisruptedbeforephilosophycan
renewitself?6 Or,doesalessdestructive,morepatientwayofthinking(andthanking)promisegreaterfruitfulness?

Thereis,perhaps,asecondreasonforjudgingcurrentwaysofphilosophizingmorepositivelythanwasdoneabove.Phenomenologywasanewbeginninginsofaras
itatleastinvotomadephilosophyveryconcreteforthefirsttime.Itsintentionwasdirectedatconcretephilosophizingabouttheliving,eating,feeling,working,
suffering,andcommunicatingofhumanindividuals,theirvariouswaysofdealingwithoneanother,andsoon.Istheconcretenessofthisandsimilarrealitiescompatible
withtheessenceofphilosophy?Mustthinkingundergoaradicalchangetoaccomplishthistask?Or,isphilosophysodeadthatitmustmakeroomforotherformsof
wisdomandscience?

2.2Isthisagoodincentive?

Theprecedingwasanattempttosaywhatthesummonstophilosophize,hereandnow,means.Atthesametime,itwasapartialanswertooursecondquestion:isthe
summonsagoodreactiontothecurrentstateofaffairsinphilosophy?

 Page18

Canthecurrentimpasseincontemporaryphilosophybedispelledbycourageandstrengthofpurpose?Ordoestheincentivebearwitnesstoanillusoryworkethic?
TotheearsofthosewhoperceiveanineluctablefateintheMuseumofourculture,allsuchsummonsestoindependentthinkingsoundmoralistic.Weareenmeshedin
storieslongknown,paraphrased,applied,criticized,andanalyzed.Themythsandsystemsthatmaketheroundsarelikeoldfairytales,whichvariationcannolonger
makemoreinteresting.Inspiteofthis,anappealtooriginalthinkingseemstobefutile.Itproduces,atthemost,anappearanceofthinkingand,thus,lies.

Thevirtueofpatiencedoesnotcomeaboutspontaneously,andwaitingaloneisnotenoughafterall,goodthoughtsdonotgrowontreesbutpresupposesearching
andhardwork.

Anexerciseinproductivewaitingcanmeanacautiousturningtowardsthehighpointsofourpast.Ahermeneuticalrelationshipwitholderphilosophiesofhighcaliber
canmakeuswellversedinphilosophicalmatters.ThroughacarefulstudyofPlato,Spinoza,Kant,andothers,akindofphilosophicalknowledgeisdevelopedwherein
onelearnstobeembarassedshouldonefallbacktoinferiorwaysofthinking.Thereturntoourpastmustbeinspiredbyafeelingforgenuinequestions,whichare
neveramonopolyofoneperiodoftime.Acertainkindofatemporality,untimeliness,Unzeitgemssheit,characterizestheproblemsthatgenuinelyandultimately
concernphilosophyand,thus,theformofhermeneuticsthathasafuture.

Perhapsformalisticandtranscendentalreflectionscanalsobepracticedinawaythatpreparesanewpossibilityforphilosophy.Areflectiveformalismcannotbe
externallyunawareofitsownontological,existential,andhistoricalpresuppositions!Athinkerwillatleastaskhimselfoccasionally:WhatamIdoing?Whatgoodismy
constantconcernwithformsinthisway?Atranscendentalreflectionthatdoesnotarbitrarilycloseoffitsreturntoitselfisconfrontedbythequestionofitsrelationto
theexistentialandhistoricalgroundfromwhichitarises.

Whateverthecasemaybe,courageandpatiencearenotsufficient.Asidefromperseveranceinworkingand(a)waiting,thereisakindofthinkingthatcancometous,
withoutourhavingtheexperienceofproducingit.Anameforthiswas"inspiration."Thecapacitytothink,too,seemstobeafatemoregratifyingthanthestagnation
wearesufferingasortofgiven(orgiving)forwhichwecanhope.

 Page19

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Thereisstillanotheranswertothequestionwhetherthesummonstoindependentthinkingisagoodone.Thisanswer,too,beginswithourimprisonmentin
"mausoleality."However,itconcentratesonourlanguage,whichsupposedlycontrolsourthinkingdowntoitsverycore.Beforewecanthinkinanewway,wemust
disruptandunderminetheexistinglanguages.Howcanwecreatepassagewaysunderandacrosstheestablishedcommonvenues,explodecommonlyaccepted
schemasandstructures,breakwithtraditionalfundamentals,andshaketheclassicalideasaboutgroundingandformalprocedures?

Fundamentalquestioninglikestoexpressitselfinrhetoricalterms.Whoeverresortstorationaljustificationnecessarilyfallsintovariationsofthetraditionalarguments.It
is,then,notsurprisingthatthemorecombativeapproachindicatedintheprecedingparagraphisaccomplishedbyareevaluationofrhetoric.Acertainviolenceis
inevitable,eveninphilosophy,andisconsidered"good"insofarasthiswordcanstillbemeaningful.

Acertainreevaluationofthelanguageofpowerpossiblyformsthemaindifferencebetweenthiscriticismandtheclassicaltradition,whichconsidersrationalitytobe
theoppositeofviolence.Revoltagainstcommonlyheldopinionsandcustoms!Isphilosophybasedonpower?Areallconceptsformsofconquest?Istruthoutof
style?Iseverythoughtpolitical?Isphilosophyaworkofartthatcanonlybeloved,celebrated,hated,anddespised,butnotjustified?

 Page21

ChapterII
PhilosophyisLearning

1.Pupil,teacher,text

Justasart,calculus,andspeechdemandacertaintraining,sodoesphilosophy.Itbeginswithalearningprocess:orientation,introduction,digestionofexisting
thoughts,practiceinthinkingforoneself,participationincontinuousandongoingphilosophicaldiscussions.7 Noonecanbecomeaphilosopherunlessheisledintoa
philosophicalactivity,whichalreadyhasahistory.Anabsolutebeginning,notprecededbyanyinstruction,seemsimpossible.Attemptslikethisproduceprimitivismsin
philosophycomparabletothegropingexperimentsofcertainpaintersandmusicians.Buteveninsuchexperiments,thehistoricalbackgroundthatonedistancesoneself
fromisnotforgotten.

Philosophicalinstructioncanoccurintwoways:first,theteachermaydevelophisownthoughtandshowhisstudentwhatheoughttothink.Second,theteachermay
present,explain,andcommentonthephilosophyofathirdparty,perhapsthatofagreaterphilosopher.Practicalconsiderationsmaynotallowthepupiltoattend
lecturesofthisthirdpartydirectly.Histeacherinterpreteris,then,asurrogate.Hiscommentarymighthoweverbemoreadvantageousthanthedirectinstructionofa
greatphilosopherforexample,bybeingeasiertounderstand.Ifthethirdpersonisdead,thecommentatorisforcedtorelyonposthumoustexts.Theclassicaltexts
ofphilosophyformacollectionofgreatphilosophiesfromwhichourhistorydevelopedandwhichwestillhonorasparadigmsofphilosophicalthought.Inart,too,past
masterpiecescannotbeduplicated,butweobservethemcarefullytoenableustoproducenewartisticexpressionsofadifferentkind.

 Page22

Thesituationisofcoursemorecomplicatedthanissuggestedhere.Theteachermayalsoshareatextthathehasproducedhimself.Inacertainsenseheinevitably
doesthiswhenhereturnstosomeofhispreviousstatements,ortoaformerargument.Inthisrespect,precedinglessonsarenodifferentfromthewrittentextsofa
remoterpast.Assoonassomeonehassaidorwrittensomething,hehasalreadyleftitbehind.Afterwards,theauthorfindsitacongealedthoughtthathasbecome,to
acertaindegree,strangeandalien.Heis"confronted"withit,amazedthathesaidit,contentwithit,oranxioustodenyit.Ifwemayallowourselvesanoverstatement,
wecouldsaythatallspeakingorwritingisakindofdying.Onceawordisspoken,andinparticularatextwritten,theauthoriscapturedandfossilized.

Ateacherseldomdarestopresenthisownthoughtsbythemselves.Heknowsthathisphilosophyisneithertheonlygoodnorthemostcomprehensiveone.Forthis
reasonhegoesbeyondhimselftothebestformsofphilosophyandtakesontheroleofguideintheexplorationofotherphilosophies.Underhisguidancetheclassical
textsreceivepreferredtreatment,becausetheyarethemostauthenticexpressionsofgreatthoughts.Whenateacherparaphrasessomeoneelse,thereareanumberof
reasonstodoubtthefidelityofhisversion.Sinceeveryepochknowsonlyasmallnumberofsummitsinphilosophicalthinking,thegreatestpartofgreatphilosophyis
embodiedinoldtexts.Theimportantphilosophersofourtimesnotnecessarilytherenownednamesareactivethroughtheirspokenwords,aswellasthrough
theirwritings.PerhapstherearestillSocrateseswalkingthestreets,buttheirinfluenceoutsidetheimmediatecircleoftheiradherentsdependsonthetextsthattheir
Platoswrite.

Intheprecedingparagraphs,thedifferencebetweentalkingandwritingwasmerelytiedtopragmaticmotives:adeadpersoncannotspeakandafarawayphilosopher
cannotbeheard,buttheycanberead.Anoralrenditionofphilosophicalthoughtsalsodiffersinamorefundamentalwayfromawrittenone.Thespeakercanassist
hisown(writtenorspoken)textwhenitpresentsdifficultytolistenersorwhenitismisunderstood.8 Hecanreplytofurtherquestions,consequences,implied
presuppositions.Inthiswayhebringsthemeaningofhistexttolife,makingit(more)fruitful,orevenchangingit.Andwithregardtoitsmeaning,thetextitselfcontains
alltheanswers.

 Page23

Adeadphilosopher'stextcanonlycometolifethroughalivingthinker'srecreation,forexample,byathoughtfulcommentary.Ontheotherhand,alivingphilosopher
hasavarietyofoptionsregardingthewordhehasleftbehind:hecanamendit,rejectit,presentitasapreparatoryexercise,qualifyit,complementit,changeit.
However,evenhecannotcompletelyfreehimselffromthewordsinwhichhehasexpressedhisthoughts.Acompletedenialofhispastwouldbreakhim.Yetheisnot
inexorablyboundtoitashistextwouldbeifitdidnotreceiveassistancefromothersorhimself.Thespeakerisnotanobjectthatcanbeanalyzedfromall
directionsinordertodiscoveritsstructure,significance,andpresuppositions.Heiswhollyabsorbedinaddressinghislistenershecanbelistenedto,buthecannotbe
objectified.Onecanadmirehiswordsorconcludethathehasnothingtosay.But,neverisheanobjectthatonecanchooseorrefusetostudy.Aphilosopherputshis
listenersinadilemma:toturntowardsorawayfromhim.Betweencondemnation,contempt,andtherefusaltolistenontheonehand,andlisteningorreplying,
contestingoragreeingwithwhathesaysontheother,itisnotpossibletoassumean"objective"attitudeinwhichthespeakerisnothingmorethanaspokentext.The
subjectivityofthespeakerforcesmetohavea"subjective"reactionofrejection,indifference,orparticipationinhisthinking:ananswertohispresence.Neitheroneof
uscanescapethenecessityofjustifyingourselvestoeachother.Rightfromthebeginning,speakingcreatesadoubleresponsibility:thelistenercannotrefuseto
respondtothethinkerwhoisjustifyinghisthoughtstohim,andarefusaltolistenisanexplicitaversionthatrequiresitsownjustification.

2.Learning

Theindividualeffortthatphilosophicalinstructionevokesisthepracticeofindependentthinking.Factsandauthoritativestatementsareunimportant.Whatisoffered
wantstobeabsorbedbyaninsightthatcanjustifyitself.Absorbingismerelyabeginning:apreparationforthedevelopmentofone'sownthinking,forwhichonemust
accepttheresponsibility.Thefunctionofinstructionistoshowweakpoints,ambiguites,mistakesandtostimulatethinkingbyexemplaryargumentsandquestions.
Pupilsmustdiscoverbetterwaysof

 Page24

thinking.Instructionisalwaysselfinstruction.Teachersareusefuliftheyencourageselfcriticism.

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Doesthelearningprocessendwiththeattainmentofacompletelyindependentandaccomplishedthinking?Isa''masterphilosopher"autarchic?Ifthisweretrue,the
idealofdoingphilosophywouldbeaselfjustifyingmonologuethatignoredanyoneelse.Inconfrontingotherphilosophers,anaccomplishedphilosopherwouldlearn,
inthiscase,nothingnew.Suchamonologuemightstillbeusefulasameansofrewardingone'sphilosophicaltriumph.Whilecuriositywouldremainpossiblefora
philosopherwhohad"arrived,"thephilosophicalpastwouldnolongerbeofanyinteresttohim.

Ifamonologuewerethefinalgoalofselfinstructioninphilosophy,theaccomplishedphilosopherwouldstepbeyondtheconcertofphilosopherstounfoldhistruth
alone.Conversationswouldonlybemeaningfulaslongashehadsomethingtocommunicate.Whoeverdisagreedwouldbeconsideredapotentialpupil.Hisspeech
wouldbeakindofgenerosityorvanity"communicativeness"wouldnotbeamatterofnecessity.

Aperiodofmonologueisnotnecessarilyanuncstans,oraneternity.Forifphilosophicalactivitywerepossibleintotalisolation,itwouldstillremainakindoflearning
processinsofarastheexperienceofthinkinginthisisolationwouldgoonviaaporiasandimpasses,searchingforbreakthroughs,evaluatingitself,makingleaps,
discoveringnewperspectives,andexperimentingwithoriginalhypotheses.Egologyimpliesa"conversationofthesoulwithitself."9 Theexperienceofthethinking
consciousnessevenintheallencompassingconceptionofHegelisanentirehistoryofhalfandwholediscoveries,reversals,transformations,anddistortions.In
thissense,philosophizingisalwayslearningsomethingnew"inadditionto...,"unlessaphilosopherissopetrifiedthathejustendlesslyrepeatshimself.

Isaphilosophythatissoturnedbackintoitself,itsentirehistorytakingplacewithintheframeworkofone"soul,"possible?Notonlydoesitseempossible,butif
appearancesarenotdeceiving,ithasactuallyhappenedinthehistoryofWesternphilosophy.Itisofcoursedifficulttofindexamplesofthinkerswhohadabsolutelyno

 Page25

pointsofcontactwithotherthinkersattheleasttheirlanguageandproblemswererelatedtothoseofothers.ButmostWesternphilosophersstoodasconfident
individualswhothoughtthemselvesexclusivelyresponsibleforthestatementstheymadeandtheinsightstheydeveloped.Whenaphilosopherquotedanother,hedid
sotociteproblems,toevaluateandamendgivensolutions,butnotbecausehefelthimselftobeonlyoneofmanyparticipantsinacollectivesearchforthetruth.The
othersexistedforhimaspossiblecontributorstohisinsight.Healonewasthesupremejudge.Somespokeofhigherjudges:God,theSpirit,History,buttheyinitiated
themselvesintothesecretsoftheMostHighandeventuallyattainedanabsoluteknowledgeoftheirown.

WhilePlatoandsomeotherphilosopherswrotedialogues,thesedialogueswereinfactveiledmonologueswhereinthewritercreatedapartneroutofhisowndoubts
andcontradictions.Tostateitsomewhatexaggeratedly:Westernphilosophyhasbeenaseriesofmonologuesconnectedtooneanotherbyfamiliarproblemsand
solutions.Althoughasimilar"spirit"holdsthemtogether,conversationisnotexplicitlyacceptedasthefoundationofthinking.

IsthisnotoneofthereasonswhysomethingessentialislackinginWesternphilosophy?Notonlyisitsegologicalcharacteraccompaniedbyaverypoorpracticeand
theoryofdialoguebutitalsosuffersfromaninabilitytoformulatetheindividualassuchphilosophically.Doesthisnotrevealaprofoundlackofselfawarenessonthe
partofthethinkingsubject?Ismonologytheillnessofourculture?

Itisbynomeanstheintentionofthisbooktoplayintothehandsofdialogicaland"democratic"glorifiersoftalkingoftalkingthroughandtalkingoutwho,in
flightfromtheirownandothers'inferiority,seekthesolutiontoeverythinginanendlessseriesofcliches,slogans,andcommonadages.Veryfewconversationsenrich
theinterlocutors'insight.Noconversationisfruitfulunlesstheparticipantscarryonthecriticalconversationfurtherwiththemselves,longsplendidlypracticedand
analyzedbytheWesternphilosophicalandreligioustraditions.Theapologygiveninthisbookfortheradicalnecessityofphilosophicalconversationisasmuchagainst
thesuperficialityofconversationtechniquesandtheories,whichonlyproduceidletalk,asitisagainstthemoreprofoundforgettingofconcretephilosophicalstarting
points,whichcanneverbeovercome.

 Page26

Thestartingpointandabidingbasisofphilosophyisnottobefoundinathinkingegoalonebutratherinaprincipallyunlimiteddiscussion.Throughdiscussiona
multitudeoffundamentallydifferentviewpointsinteractwithoneanother,suchthatarelationshipandsolidarityamongthemisuncovered,yetisestablishedinaway
thatdoesnotallowtheirtruthtobesummarizedinanewandfinalmonologue.Ifthisthesisiscorrect,thereissomethingwrongwitheverymonologicalphilosophy.
Conversation,then,ismorethanapractical,psychological,orsociohistoricalinevitability.Itbelongstotheessenceandfoundationofphilosophyitself.Philosophyis,
fundamentallyandnecessarily,anintersubjectivereality.

3.Discussionwithexistingphilosophies

Iftheessenceofphilosophyimpliesdiscussionandintersubjectivity,aphilosophercanneverannouncethefinaltruthexcathedrabutwillalwaysremaindependenton
listeningandlearning.Inrelationtootherphilosophies,everyphilosopherremainsapupil.Beforeoneentersintoadiscussionwiththem,onemustplungeintothe
contextsandconstellationsoftheirthoughts.Aphilosophercanlearnthemostfromthosesuperiortohim.Thestudyofthegreatestworkstakesanenormousamount
oftime.But,understandinglessprofoundcolleaguesdemandsagreatdealoftimeandeffortaswell.Theattempttounderstandotherphilosophiesfrequentlyfails.As
pointedoutearlier,mostofthegreatphilosophersweretooengrossedintheirownapproachesandthoughtstodojustice,intheircriticism,tootherphilosophers.
Theydidnotfullybenefitfromthefecundationofferedbyothers.CanthemonologicalstructureofWesternphilosophybeattributedtotheculturaldiscouragementof
participationbywomenthinkersattheveryhighestlevels?DoesthesterilityofWesternindividualismcomefromits"homosexuality"?

Thephilosophiesfromwhichoneallowsone'sownthinkingtobefed,shocked,criticized,supplemented,oramendedareapregivenandforethoughtrealityand,in
thatsense,areaphilosophicalpast.Thispastexistsintheformofspokenwordsandwrittentexts.Aphilosopherlearnsmostfromandyetseldomhasthechance
tospeaktothegreatestthinkers,whicharefewineveryera.Hence,writtentextsareespeciallyimportant.But,eventhewordthatonecontemporarythinker
directstoanothercanbeconsideredasa

 Page27

forethoughtandimmediatepast.Inthissensethereisnoprincipaldifferencebetweenwordsjustspoken,publishedworksof"contemporaries"writtenyesterdayor
thirtyyearsago,andtheoldtextsofclassicalphilosophers.

Doesthehistoryofphilosophy,then,includeanyphilosophythathasbeenpronounced?Whatisleftforthematicphilosophy?Doesthisonlyexistinthepresentand
futureofathinkerwhohereandnowthinksfurtheraboutwhathasbeenthoughtbyothersandbyhimself?Inthiscase,allthematicphilosophywouldbea
participationinthehistoryofphilosophy,andallintroductionswouldbehistorical.Allorientationandacquaintance,explanationandcommentarywouldthenbelongto
theoneallencompassinghistoricalpracticeofphilosophy,andtheconstructionofasystemwouldbenothingmorethanaspecifickindofcontinuationofremoteor
recentpasts.

Eachactofspeakingorwritingtransformsthoughtsintoapresencethatimmediatelybecomeshistory.Thequestionarises,then,whethertherereallyisadifference
betweenaphilosophyspokenyesterdayandonewritten2,500yearsago.Theworksaphilosopherturnsto,withthedesiretolearnandreceiveinspiration,mustbeof
highqualitythatis,theymusthelpthereaderacquiretruthsandinsightsinaphilosophicalway.Whentheywerewrittenisnotanessentialconsideration.Or,soone
mightthink.However,aretruthandinsightindependentofthetimeinwhichtheyarepronounced?Canonedissociatetruthfromthelanguage,fromitsreferences,
resonances,andalltheculturalpresuppositionsthroughwhichitisrevealedinanyphilosophy?Isphilosophicaltrutheternal,inthesensethatitcanremainidenticaland
merelychangecostumesasthetimeschange?Thequestion,whatpartsofthephilosophicalpastareimportantforcontemporarysystematics,goesbacktothe
problemoftherelationbetweentruthandtime,whichistheconstantcontextofthethoughtsformulatedhere.Thequestionofwhichauthorsoneshouldturntocanbe
approachedbyreflectingonthedifferencebetweenwhatis"classical"andwhatis"contemporary."

4."Classical"and"contemporary"

Accordingtooneconception,itispossibletounderstandeveryphilosophyasanatemporal,orsupertemporal,coresetintime,

 Page28

place,andcultureboundforms.Itcanbefreedfromtheseformsbyatranslation,orinterpretation,thattransfersthiscoretoanothertime,place,andculture.The
essenceofaphilosophywillthenbeindependentofitsoutertrappings.Whateverthemeritsofthisconceptionmaybe,itisimportanttorealizethatnoconcrete
philosophycanbepresentedinaformbeyondalltime.Thishasindeedbeentried,forexamplebycertainThomistandMarxistschools,whoattemptedarepetition
andliteraltranslationoftheirmasters'thoughts.Theseattempts,however,aredoomedtofail,becauseeverypresentationisitselfnecessarilyamomentofaparticular
cultureandnocultureexistsexternally.A"literal"translationoftheSummaintotwentiethcenturyEnglish,forexample,changesitsentiremeaningonecannot
avoidthisbyaddingnotesandcommentariesexplainingthedifferenceinthemeaningsof'substance','accident','matter'and'nature'inthethirteenthcenturyandtoday.
Whenatextcomesfromaculturethatisfundamentallydifferentfromours,atranslationisonlymeaningfulasareferencetotheoriginalandasafirstcommentary.This
iswhyextensiveclarificationsofthetextareindispensableandmorefittingthansimpletranslationsofoldtextsinto"modern"English(simultaneouslyinvolvingaformof
"modern"thinking).Translationsofoldtextswithoutcommentarycryoutforaninterpreterwhocanpointtomeaningsthatareveiledwithinthetext.

Translations,aswellaselaborations,byepigonestheirapplications,paraphrases,andrepetitionschangeandenervatethegreatphilosophiesofourpast.Many
neoThomistic,neoKantian,neoHegelian,andneoMarxistattemptstounderstandrealityarebroughtstillborntotheworld.Theycanbeusefulasintroductionsto
andexplanationsoftheunderstandingofThomas,Kant,Hegel,andMarx.Butiftheydonotmakethemselvessuperfluous,byencouragingastudyoftheirsources,
theymisstheirmark.Intheirimpotentattemptsatretaininganoldcoreinmodernpackaging,theyareoldfashionedandprovokeouraversion.Evennowtheoriginals
speakbetterandmorestronglythantheirupdatedshadowsandextractions.Andyet,theyarestillnotvoicesofourtime.Masterpiecesaskfortransformations,not
repetitions.Loyaltytothegreatthinkersofthepastmeansthatwemustleavethembehindaswethinkfurther.Forwecanonlybegenuineinourownway.Mindless
repetitionofgreatthoughtsistreasonacertainkindof

 Page29

oppositionthinkingdifferentlyisanecessity.However,noteveryrebellionisgenuine,andnoteveryoppositionisthinking.

Anotherkindofrepetitionispossible.Iwillusethewordretakingforit.Plotinus'srepriseofPlato,orHegel's"Aufhebung"ofAristotle,werenotexercisesin
archaismbutwererather(re)creationsfarsuperiortomostoftheworksoftheirmore"original"contemporaries.Therenewalsaccomplishedbythegreatphilosophers
werepartlyduetotheirassimilationofprecedingthoughts.Withinthenewcontextoftheirowntimes,cultures,andpsyches,theyrecollectedthefruitsofoldthoughts,
whichonlyseemedwornout.Anewthinkerisjustasmuchafatherasheisasonofhisfather.

Tounderstandtheprocessofcreativereproduction,therecognitionofthedifferencebetweencoreandoutertrappingsisinsufficient.Onlyathoroughtransformation
ofthiscorecanbringadeadthoughtbacktolife.Athinkernotonlyappropriates(apartof)hisownpastbut,throughhisremembrance,producesanewkindoflife
foranearlierthought.Thankstoanewfecundity,ithasnotreallypassedaway.

Howareoldandnewrelatedinthelifeofphilosophy?Whatdo'living,''dying,''beingdead,''reviving,''beingborn,''growing,''developing'meanhere?Isthiskindof
metaphoricalimagerysufficienttoshowthewaysofmoving,proceeding,retreating,deepening,andlevellingpeculiartophilosophy?Isitanimprovementwhenwe
replaceorganicmetaphorswithmechanical,geometrical,oralgebraicones?

Thequestionthataroseinthecourseofthischapterwaslesscomprehensive,althoughinitselfdifficultenough:itseemsthatphilosophyandindependentthinking,here
andnow,canbecharacterizedasanactivity"ofourtime,"assomethingcontemporary.Ifdoingphilosophyalwaysimplieslearning,thegreatthinkersofourpast
whohaveproducedtheacknowledged"classics"ofthoughthaveaspecialandindispensablesignificanceforthecontinuationofindependentthought.Inthisway,
thequestionconcerningtherelationbetweenthematicphilosophyandphilosophicalhistorytakestheformofaquestionconcerningtherelationbetweenwhatis
"classic"andwhatis"contemporary".

Whatdowemeanby"ourtime"and"contemporary"?Thetimeinwhichweliveandthinkcannotbeclearlydistinguishedfroma

 Page30

timesaidtobepast.Ourtimeisfullofechoesfromearlieragesourculturelivesoutofmanyandvariousinheritances,whichformitscapitalanditsresources.Weare
filledwiththepast:ourculturedoesnotformaunityinitself."We"areacollectionofgroups,individuals,andtendenciesthatareprofoundlydifferentfromoneanother.
Itisdifficulttorecognizeacommondenominationinourfeelings,thoughts,andactions."Ourtime"and"ourculture"donotrefertoonepermanentsourceofcapital
fromwhichwecanalldraw.Thepresentheritage,forexample,intheformofavailableliterature(notnecessarilyread),lessons(notnecessarilylistenedto),libraries
(notnecessarilyused),sayings(notnecessarilyunderstood),andideologies(notnecessarilydemystified),mustfirstbeappropriatedbeforeitcanplayaroleindefining
ourtime.Manypossibilitiesforrevivalremainunusedmuchdeadmaterialisforgottenordestroyedanew.Thepartsofourpastthatwillbloomagaindependonthe
attentiontheyreceivefromvariouspersonsandgroups,hereandnow.ForsomeofourcontemporariestheBibleismorepresentthantheworkofNewtonand
Euclid.Forothersitistheotherwayaround.InspiteofthecenturyseparatingusfromMarx,heisformanyaveryrelevantguide.Heidegger'swork,ontheother
hand,isconsideredbysomearchaic."Ourtime"isacollectivenameforagreatdiversityofwaysinwhichgroupsandindividualsduringacertainimprecisely
circumscribedtime(theseventies,theperiodafter1945,after1918,after1900)haveacquiredandtransformedpartsof"our''traditions.Receptivity,alongwith
selection,discovery,and(re)creationareessentialmomentsintheconstitutionofthecultureandtheculturesthatcharacterizeacertainperiod."Ourtime"involvesthe
originalityoftimelychoicesandtransformations,throughwhichgenuinetransmittersofculturerecognizeand,intheirselfwilledway,actonthepossibilitiesthey
encounter.Theirselfwillgivesanewtwisttocurrentstylesandconceptions,whicharerenewedinsuchawaythattheyinaugurateanewtime.

Inadditiontotherenewingandsurprisingelementresistingameresynchronicstudyofcultureandtime,thetraditionsandhighpointsacknowledgedtodayareso
variedthataglobalcharacterizationofthe"valuesandnormsofourtime"isverydifficult.Perhapswecannotgoanyfurtherthantosketchsomeoftheformalaspects,
suchasthemausolealitymentionedabove,withitsrelatedpluralism,relativism,andprimitivism,andtheirconsequentimpasses.How

 Page31

ever,everyonecanfindafewalliesandmodelsfromthemanyofferedinhistoryandcankeeptheseascompanionsforlife.Thisistheonlywaytoparticipateinour
culture.Thosewhodothisformaconcert,inwhichallpossibletonesandharmoniescanbeheardtheysharepartsandperspectivesoftheirhistoryandcallit"our
heritage"or"thepast."

If"thephilosophyofourtime"includesanavailableheritageaswellasamultitudeofselectiveassimilations,chronologicalsimultaneityisnotenoughforunanimitywith
regardtofundamentalproblems.ThisalsoexplainswhysomefeelagreateraffinitywithPlatoorAristotlethanwithsomeofourfamousortalentedcontemporaries.
Philosophicalproximityordistancearenotdirectlyproportionaltotheshortnessorlengthofthechronologicaltimeseparatingusfromourpredecessors.Simultaneity
admitsofdistanceandstrangeness.Temporalgapsarebridgedbyareflectiveassociationwiththepastthatalso"represents"itinordertoprepareforafuture.

Doesthismean,then,that"contemporaneity"cannotbeacriterionforjudgingthequalityofaphilosophy?Evenifitcannotbe,twoaspectsofgoodphilosophystill
pleadforthenecessityofitscontemporarycharacter:comprehensibilityandgenuineness.

Philosophymustbecomprehensible,hereandnow.Thisdoesnotmeanthatitmustbeunderstandabletoeveryoneorthatitmustassociateitselfwithcommonideas,
language,andslogansinvogue.Aphilosopherwritesprimarilyforthosewhoalreadyhaveafairlyhighlevelofunderstanding.Theyrightlyexpectphilosophy,asapart
ofspirituallife,tospeakthelanguageofthislifeasitislived"hereandnow."Thisisnotonlynecessaryintermsofcomprehensibility,butaphilosophywillalsonotbe
genuineifathinkerhaslefthisowntimewithitscurrentschemas,associations,andlanguagestosettleinabygonepastorinanunknownfuture.Asaparticipantinthe
lifeofaspecificepoch,onecannotpretendtoliveoutsidethecustomsandidiosyncrasies,associationsandmannersofone'scontemporaries.Everyphilosophy
necessarilybearsthetracesofacertainsolidarity,evenifithasaveryoriginalorexceptionalcharacterbroughtaboutbytheinnerdistancethataccompaniesthemost
thoroughreflection.Someonewhotrulyreflectsongenuineproblemsisveryconcreteagreatthinkerisdistinguishedbyhisextremesensitivitytotheprevailing
situationenablinghimto

 Page32

discoverthehistoricalrootsandbackgroundofthe"hereandnow"andtheseedsoftomorrowandhisabilitytogobeyondthesuperficialmeaningofcurrent
events.

Genuinenessdistinguishestruephilosophyfromoldfashionedandfashionablerhetoric,futuristicprojectionsofpresentsuperficialities,exoticisms,andesoteric
vogues.Itis,however,notenough.Philosophymustalsobringoneclosertothetruthorbringthetruthcloser.Realdemonsorrealscoundrelsaregenuinelywhat
theyare,buttheyarenotexamplestobeimitated.Thepopularopinions,methods,andfashionsofourtimedistortandpervertthetruth.Agoodphilosophyis
thereforenecessarily"untimely."Eventhosewhocannolongerbelieveinthepossibilityofapproaching"thetruth,"oranytruth,musttakethisunadaptednessto"the
time"intoaccount.Littlewouldbelefttophilosophyifitgaveupallcriticaldistancefromthecommonplacesofitstime.Sailingonthewavesoffashionablechatterhas
littletodowithphilosophy,evenwhensuchsailingisbroughtintologicallyperfectformandclarity.

The"untimeliness"ofphilosophycanbemaskedbyareturntothepast.Despitethearchaicimpressionsomephilosophiesgiveatfirstsight,theymaybemuchnearer
tothetruththantheattractivenoveltiessubstantiatingthecurrentfameandinfluenceofmanyinternationallyacclaimedphilosophers.Thetrueandgenuinecharacterof
solidphilosophyexistsinthenewpossibilitiesitofferstoanindustriousandthoughtfulreader,whoseekstounderstandwhattruerealityisandwhyitisso.Onthis
levelalevelthatcannotbedissociatedfromitsinterpretationintimeboundimages,thoughts,tendencies,events,andexpressionstheissueofoldandnewis
unimportant,unlessonemeans"new"preciselyassomethingtolearnfromstudyinga(recent,older,orancient)philosophy.

Nevertheless,itseemsplausibletoconsidercontemporaryphilosophyaheadofpastphilosophies,inviewofourwidehistoricalknowledgeastowhichsolutions
succeededorfailed.Thisimpressionpresupposes,however,that(1)wecandeterminewhichgivensolutionswererightorwrong(2)wecantrulyexperienceand
thoroughlyunderstandthecontentofpastphilosophiesand(3)thehistoryofphilosophycanbeunderstoodasaseriesofanswerstoproblemsthatdonotchange
radicallybutremainthesame,orformimmutablepartsofnewproblems.Thesethreepresuppositionsform

 Page33

animplicittheoryofthehistoryofphilosophythatisnotreadilyevident.Inthefollowingchapters,variousaspectsofthistheorywillbediscussed.Forthetimebeing,
thefollowingconsiderationsoftheproblemofcontemporaneitywillsuffice.

Forthisreasonalone,whatcomeslaterisnotbetter.Somethingancientisoftenwiserthanthederniercri.Istheelementoftimeusefulindeterminingthequalityand
the(relative)truthofapresentorpastphilosophy?Theonlycriterionisinthetruthattainedorapproachedinasuccessfulway.Theonlywaytoapplythisstandardis
throughanewthinkingthat,hereandnow,reproducesthetruthdifferently.Ifthe"rethinking"ofaformerthoughtfavorstheformationofcorrectthoughts,orifanolder
thoughtallowsthedevelopmentofcorrectthoughtsmorequicklyandeasily,thinkingfromthepastdeservesrecognition:itisagoodpacesetterforcontemporary
thought.

Itispossible,however,foronetorecognizethequalityofaformerphilosophywithoutunderstandingitsentirebreadthanddepth.Onemayunderstanditwellenough
tohaveageneralideaofitsstrengthandtogiveduecredittoitsuncomprehendedaspects.Itisnotnecessaryforagoodmusiccritictobeagreatcomposeror
musicianinphilosophy,too,itispossibletobeanauthoritywithoutbeinganoriginalthinker.

Theideaofanewphilosophy'shavingagreaterchanceofbeingtruethananearlieroneisirresistablewhenonetakesthehistoryofscienceslikephysicsandchemistry
asamodelforthehistoryofthought.Theabandonmentofcertainconceptionstomakewayforanewconsensusseemsatleastpartiallyattributabletothestrengthof
certainargumentsandtheevidenceoftried(hypo)theses.Theworksofearlierscientistsandthetextualreportsontheireffortsfulfillaliberatingandtherapeuticrolein
theexpansionofourinsights.Inashorterperiodoftimewecancomeasfarasourpredecessorsdid.Acrisissometimesarisesinadiscipline,shakingthewhole
edificetoitsfoundations.Afteravictoryoversuchacrisis,however,agreatdealofformerlyacquiredknowledgeisstillsavedfromtheruins.

Thefoundationsofphilosophycanneitherbecomparedtodefinitelyestablishedthesesorhypothesesnortoprovisionalfundamentalsthat,throughacontinuous
processofamendmentand

 Page34

correction,attaingreaterprecisionandareinsuredagainstmistakes.Sincephilosophyisanattempttounderstandthingsthoroughly,itdoesnotaimatderivedtheses,
hypotheses,andtheoriesbutratheratinsightsintogroundsthatmakethinking,establishing,experiencing,guessing,searching,andreasoningpossible.Untilstarting
pointsaretransparentandclear,philosophycannotrest.Butisthisgoalattainable?Shouldwenotsuspectthe"attainability"ofclearandcertainanswerstomost
fundamentalquestions?Ifthissuspicioniscorrect,thehistoryofphilosophyconsistsinacontinuousstartingover,trying,seeking,anddaringitwillbeanunceasing
experimentationwithstartingpointsandopinionsthatmusteventuallyshowwhatcanbediscoveredandunderstood.Theessentialradicalismofphilosophyinvolves
theimpossibilityofsimplyabolishingearlierattemptsandproceedingfromahigherlevelthatweassumehasbeenattained.Aphilosopherisaneternalbeginner,and
thereforeanapprenticetoeveryonewhohasmadethesameattemptbeforehim.Ashegoeson,hedevelopsarelationshipwiththeotherdiggersandbuilders,who
areirreplaceableasthecreatorsoftheclassicsofphilosophy.Thequalityofaphilosophicalworkhaslittletodowiththepointintimeinwhichitiswritten.Thehistory
ofthoughtmaybecomparedtoacourtofjustice,butitissurelynotthesupremejudgeitself.Philosophiescanonlybejudgedbyaprofoundthinkingthatcutsacross
timeandformsakinshipwithprofoundthinkersofthepast.

Themeaningofearlierphilosophiesdependsonwhatourownthoughtcandowiththem.Whatthismeaningiscannotbedefinedbyascertainingaportionofthetruth
containedinanearlierphilosophy.Itdoesnotcontainanytruthunlesssomelivingthinker(re)thinksit.Itsimportancedependsonthecorrectnesswithwhichathinker
reproducesthepossibletruthinthisearlierphilosophy.Muchexperience,imagination,strengthofthought,andaffinityisneededtolayopenthetruthinanexisting
work.Thevalueofhistoricalphilosophiescanonlybemeasuredbyathinkerwho,hereandnow,triesandteststheminordertoestablishtheirsolidity.Onlyhecan
formajudgmentagainstwhichthe"historyofthought"ispowerless.

Independentthinkingisthetask.Butdoesitnotdestroythemeaningfulnessofallhistoricalviewpoints?

 Page35

5.TowhichphilosophersmustIturn?

Ifphilosophyisalwaysalearningprocess(seeSections2and3),thematterofchoosingteachersandtextsisitselfanessentialmomentofphilosophy.Ifthehistoryof
philosophycanbeunderstoodasanexplorationandpresentationofthetextsofthegreatteachersofourpast,itisnecessarilyanelementofthematicphilosophy.Of
course,nophilosophercanfamiliarizehimselfwithallthephilosophiesofthepast.Evenaphilosophicalhistoriancannotachievesuchcompletenessneithercanitbe
delegatedtoresearch.Thenwhoknowsandrethinkshistoryasawhole?

Philosophersthinkasindividuals,ontheirown.Icannotcontractforotherstodomyownthinking.Ateachercanhelpmetofindtherightway,analyzeaphilosophical
work,learnhowothersposeandsolvecertainquestions,checkordeveloparationalargument,suggestviewpoints,andsoon.ButImustredoallthispreparatory
work.Thoughtsdissolveiftheyarenotanimatedandpreservedbyaliving(re)thinking.Ideascannotbedisplayedascanlifelessmineralsandstuffedbirdstheyonly
existintheformofactualactsofthought.

Aphilosopherorhistorianwhocanabsorballthethoughtsofthepastisnotpossible,iffornootherreasonthanthathedoesnothaveenoughtimetodoso.Butis
completenessaphilosophicalideal?Howarehistoricalcompletenessandtruthrelated?Identifyingthetruthwith"thewhole,"inanhistoricalsense,presupposesthatall
philosophiescontainacertainelementoftruthandthattheyareallnecessaryincomposingthewholetruth,whichcanonlybeachievedafterthehistoryofthe
philosophicalsearchfortruthiscompleted.Nophilosophycanbecompletelywrongorsuperfluous.Inthisview,thehistoryofphilosophyisinspiredbyapowerthat
attainsitsgoalbymeansofwarandharmony:themanyperspectivesandfoundationsthatacquirepoweronthelevelofphilosophyjointogetherunderanomniscient
eyeasonewhole.

Suchaconceptionoftruth,philosophy,andhistorycanbecharacterizedasaninterestingformofteleologicalandsyntheticalthinking.Itcannotrealizeitspretensions
inconcretounlessitidentifiescompletenessandqualitywithaselfmadeselectionfromthehistoryofphilosophy.Becauseitjoinstruthwithtotality,itmustmaintain
thatsuchaselectionissufficienttoconfirmitsconceptof

 Page36

philosophyandhistory.Thisthesiswouldberightifphilosophicallifeatvarioustimescouldbereducedtoafewprincipletypes,expressingwhatisessentialineach
period,andifeachoftheseprincipaltypescouldbeviewedasvariationsononetheme,whichwouldappeartofulladvantageinthelast,allinclusivesymphonyclosing
thehistoryofphilosophy.

Howcanoneproveallofthesepresuppositions?Forthetimebeingitismorerealistictoproceedfromtheirrefutablefactthathumanbeingsdonothaveenoughtime
orenergytoputthemselvesintothethoughtworldsofmorethantenphilosophers.Then,sincelifeisshortandpreparationforgenuinephilosophyislong,which
philosophiesmustonestudy,notonlyaspleasantbrainteasersbutalsoforexistentialinterest?Ittakesyearsofstudyandreflectiontobecomfortableinthephilosophy
ofSpinozaorKantorAristotle.Isthepricenottoohighforthelessonstheywillgive?Apersoncannotanswerthisquestionbeforestudyingthesethinkers.What
argumentscanmakehimaccepttheriskofdisappointment?

Thequalityofaphilosophicaltextorteachercannotbedeterminedexternally.Withintherealmofphilosophy,theonlyauthorityisone'sownthinking.Someonecanbe
agoodprofessionalcriticwithoutbeinganoriginalthinker,buthecannotmanagewithouthisownpowersofreflectionandconsideration.

Abeginnerdoesnotyethavesufficientknowledgeofphilosophytomakeasolidjudgmentabouttheteachersandtextsheneeds.Hethereforeisdependentonthe
authorityofothers,whosereliabilitycanonlybedeterminedthroughabeliefinfurtherauthorities.Onecanchoosetorelyongreatnames,onnumerouspublications,
onopinionsofthemedia,onadvicefromfamily,friends,andacquaintances,orevenonthedesiretodefyauthority.Fashioncanalsobeinfluentialinthestudyof
philosophy.Evensomefamous"philosophers"succumbtothepopularvoicesoftheday.Perhapsthisexplainstheirfameforacertainperiodoftime.

Initially,astudentdependsontheauthorityofhisteachers.Buthisteachersarechosenorrecommendedbyothers.Whatarethequalificationsoftheseothers?What
criteriadotheyuse?Whojudgesifthecriteriaareappliedcorrectly?Andsoon.Questioningthecompetenceofcriticsandthecorrectnessoftheirconclusionsresults
inanendlessregression,unlessoneknowsanacceptableandindisputableauthority.Unfortunately,suchanauthoritydoesnotexist.

 Page37

Neitherthenumbernorthepowerofthosewhoshouttheloudestcarriesanyweightbeforetheforumofreason.Thisforumisneitheracollectionofalltheprofessors
ofphilosophynorthesumofallthosewhopublishthemostnorisitthemostpopularorwellpaidgroupofspeakersincurrentlecturecircuits.Onlyagenuine
philosophercanjudgethequalityofavailablephilosophies.Onlyonewhogenuinelyquestionsandknowshasanyauthoritytojudgethequalityofprofessors,
publishers,anddebatersclaimingstateoftheartknowledgeinphilosophy.

Abeginnercannotrelyonthestandardsthataresupposedtodistinguishphilosophers.Someteachersaremore"open,""inspiring,"scholarly,intelligent,sharp,clear,
andrevealingthanothers.Howeverimportantallthesemaybe,howeverintimatetherelationtheymaintaintogoodphilosophy,theystilldonotnecessarilymakegood
philosophers.10

Ifnoneoftheauthoritiestowhomapupilcanappealarereliable,thesituationseemshopeless.Butcanwenotassumethepossibilityofimmediaterecognitionof
genuinephilosophicalthinking?Perhapssomepeoplehaveabetterfeelforitthanothers.Sincephilosophyhasitsrootsinthecoreofbeinghuman,thethoughtthat
everyonesomehow"knows"whatphilosophyisandcandistinguishthegenuinefromthephonyseemsunavoidable.However,sucha"remembering,"throughwhich
this"knowledge"isawakened,needshelpinbeingbroughttobirth.

Isour"preknowledge"enoughtorecognizegoodphilosophicalmidwives?Coincidence,andsomeluck,playarole.Butduringthelearningprocess,theabilityto
distinguishgoodandbadphilosophyalsodevelops.Whenrepetition,imitation,appropriation,andpracticehaveledtothedevelopmentofapupil'sownindependent
thinking,hiscriticalawarenesswillalsohavegrowntothepointwherehecanjudgehisteachers.

Agoodteachernotonlythinksbeforeandforhisstudents,healsodoeseverythinghecantohelpthemcometotheirowncriticalandproductivewaysofthinking.He
elicitstheircriticisms,evenifheisunabletocomeoutofitunscathed.Hewelcomesthissortofundoing,ifitmeansthathisstudentsarethinking.Ofcourse,criticism
fromstudentscanbeunjustforinstancewhentheypraise"progressive,"butsuperficial,teachersatthecostofsolidandapparentlyoldfashionedinstructorswho
emphasizetheformative

 Page38

valueofclassicaltexts.Itcanbeacredit,aswellasadiscredit,toateacherwhenheiscelebrated.Negativecriticisms,wornoutideasintheguiseofmodernor
"progressive"remarks,oreasilycomprehensiblefadsmakegreatandlastingimpressionsonmanyadolescents.Butevenbadorfaddishteacherscansometimesspur
theirstudentstorealthinking.Inspiteoftheerroneousormisleadinginformationgeneratedbytheirexamples,theirstudentssometimesdevelopenoughstrengthtosee
theerrors,thesuperficialities,anddeficiencies.Informingaschooloneraisesone'spupilstothefreedomofautonomousthinking.Apupilwhoswearsbyoneormore
philosophersisaslave,evenifthecoryphaeionwhomheleansarethemostcriticalandemancipatedimaginable.

Theseassertionsarenotmeanttoinduceunbridleddoubt,scepticism,andnegativecriticism.Theinnerdistancenecessaryforallmastersmustbeaccompaniedbya
carefultreatmentofthepresentedtexts.Agoodteacherknowshisresponsibilityinthechoiceofthesetexts:theyshouldpreservethebestofourtraditionsandoffer
thegreatestopportunitiesforfruitfulthinking,whicheventuallyleavesthembehindasitmakesitswayhereandnow.Ifthewordtruthstillhasmeaning,andifthereare
indeedtruthstodiscover,theresponsibilityofateacherinvolvesnotonlyapupil'strainingintheformalaspectsofthinkingbutalsohisacquisitionoftrueandprobable
ideas.Ifphilosophywerenolongerasearchfortruthorwisdom,everynonformaldifferencebetweenteachersandstudents,advancedandbeginningphilosophers,
reasonableandfoolishpeople,philosophersandbabieswoulddisappear.Althoughonepersonmightthinkmoreclearlyorhavegreatersyntheticfacultythananother,
noonewouldhavetobotherdiscoveringwhatcanbejustifiablyclaimedorstated,asfarasthecontentofideasisconcerned.Everyonewouldbeaswiseasthenext
person.Onewouldmerelywatchoutforgibberish,andcontradictionswouldhavetobeavoided.Butonemightask,why.Ifitwerenolongeraquestionoftruth,
thinkingwouldsuppresstheearnestpassionofseeking.Philosophywouldbedegradedtoapleasantpastimedivorcedfrom"reallife."Therewouldbenosuchwords
asmeaningfulandmeaningless.Inone'sgrowingupanddevelopment,noidealsor"values"couldberecommended,fornothingwouldmakeanydifference.Childish
opinionswouldhavethesamestatusasthoseofthe"sages."Pedagogy,likeourmuseums,wouldbeamerepresentationofallthe

 Page39

possiblealternativesandtechniquesfordiscoveringwhatonewants.Inphilosophy,everyonewouldmerelyhavetodecidewhathewantedtothink.Apreferencefor
certaintextscouldnolongerbejustified.Onlyformallogicalqualitiescouldfunctionascriteria,unlessonealsoregardedclarityandcoherenceasunnecessaryfeatures
ofknowledge.IfeverybabywerejustaswiseasPlato,therewouldnolongerbeaplaceforphilosophy.Thehistoryofphilosophywouldmerelycontaincuriosities,
piecesofinterestinginformation,andsymptomsofapeculiartendencytoconcoctdifficultthoughts.Thishistorywouldnotbeinterestingsinceitcouldnotbe
continued.

However,iftruthisstillpossibleandphilosophymayremainapassion,ascholarofphilosophycannotescapethequestionstandingbeforeallbeginners:towhich
mastersshallIturn?WhichtextsmustIread?

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Takingabookinhandalwaysentailsthegivingofacertaincredit.Evenanaccomplishedphilosopher(ifsuchathingispossible)cannotsaywithcertaintywhetherthe
textheisgoingtoreadisgoodornot.He,too,isdependentonauthorities:colleagues,quotationsandreferencesintextshehasread,recommendationsbythemedia,
publishers,andprofessionalassociations.Ofcourse,philosophicalexercisesrefineone'stasteandjudgment,butone'spreferencesreflectjustasmuchononeselfason
valuedorrejectedauthors.

Thedecisiontostudyacertainphilosophydependsonajudgmentconcerningnotonlyitsintrinsicvalue,butalsoitsabilitytomeansomething,hereandnow,forthe
personwhostudiesit.Onecanrecognizethegreatnessofsomephilosopherswithoutbeingdrawntospendmuchtimeonthem.Sometextsliebeyondmyintellectual
horizon(whichdoesnothavetobeandcannotbeallinclusive)othersdealwithsubjectsthatseemconfusedandsuperficialothersstrikemeasstrange.

ButperhapsthosestrangetextsarepreciselytheonesIneed!Itcanbepleasantandfruitfultodealwithfamiliarauthorshowever,acertainalienationisnecessaryto
avoidshortsightednessandobsessionwithsocalledselfevidenttruths.Bothrelationshipandstrangenessarenecessary,andyeteachdemandsaparticularapproach.
Thegreedyopennessofanoctopusnarrowsandkills.Thedesireto

 Page40

absorbeverythingleadstoapedantic,pettyhousingforthegreatestthinkinginthetinylodgingofone'sbrain.Therightkindofopennessisalsodifferentfrom
totalizationandsynthesis.Itisratherlikeagrandtour:temporarilyescapingfromthefamiliarityofahomebecomingincreasinglyopaquecautiouslyexposingoneselfto
otherclimateswithdifferentpresuppositionsandexperiments.Imustlearntothinkotherwise''tocometomyself"inanew,different,andmoreseasonedway.The
assistanceofthinkerswhodisputemyfoundationsandlimitationsisnecessarytoovercomemyoldthoughts.Ineedgoodenemiestoleadthefightformoretruth.

Inmysearchforgoodguidance,chanceandgoodluckcomeintoplay.Notalltextsareavailable,andthosethataredemandtimebeforeIcanknowifImustread
thematall.TheWesterndemocratizationofculturehasled(thankgoodness!)toafloodofgoodeditions,butmuchtimeislostinworkingthroughuselessoroverly
lengthyworks.Oncewehavefoundaproperwayofthinking,wemustleavemanyunread.Discrimination,acarefulcultivationofrelationships,andapassionfor
battlingwithgreatopponentsandgoodstrangersarestronglyneeded,inordertoknowwhichphilosophieshavetobestudied.

Pupilsaswellasteacherschangepreferences,relationships,andfavoriteenemiesastheyproceed.Indifferenttimes,indifferentphasesofproblematicsandreflection,
otherothersarenecessary.Athinker'schoiceoftextsandpartnersfordiscussionhasahistory.Thinkingisaproductionthatobeysaninnerurgencyandaspecific
regularity.Choiceandinteriorityare,however,notthesoledeterminants.Likeeveryhistory,thehistoryofthought,too,isdeterminedtoacertaindegreeby
coincidencesandinfluencesarisingnotfromthethinkingindividual,butfromexternalcircumstances:colleagueswhoattackhim,reviewsthatmisunderstandor
excoriatehisworks,studentshecannotconvince,ortextsthathereadsbychance.

Agenuinephilosophercannotbeaplaythingofhistorybecauseheisactivelypresentandinvolvedinithewantstomeasurehimselfagainstthoughtsthatmaybe
surprisingorstrange.Althoughhedoesnotpretendtohaveanallinclusiveviewpoint,hisparticipationinthehistoryofthoughtliesinanoriginalwayofassimilatinga
selectionoftheutterancesthatstruckhismind.Asahistoryofinformation,instruction,andtraining,thehistoryofphilosophyisessentiallyincomplete.

 Page41

6.Consequencesforahistoryofphilosophy

Philosophizingisaunityofappropriationandalienation.Wemustgooutsideourselvesandenterintootherthoughts,butwemustalsotransformthemintoourown.
Thisprocess,however,doesnotconstituteadialecticalsynthesiswherebyeverythingelseisassimilatedintotheidentityofonemainphilosopher.Rather,itcreatesa
unitywhereintheothernessofdifferentthinkersisrecognizedandpreservedinaspecificway,whichhasyettobedetermined.TherelationoftheOtherandtheSame
isnotafusion.

Fromthestructureofphilosophicalresearchasdescribedintheprevioussections,anumberofconsequencesfollowforthehistoryofphilosophy.Ifahistorical
accountofphilosophicalthoughtismotivatedbyadesiretocontinuethepastandthepresentlifeofphilosophy,itwillnecessarilybearthecharacteristicsofthis
discipline,whichisanessentialelementofindependentthinking.

6.1Why"thehistoryofphilosophy"cannotbewritten

Animmediateconsequenceisthatthehistoryofphilosophycannotbewritten.IfItrytowriteitwithouthelp,Iamforced,onphysicalgroundsalone,tobasemostof
myworkonsecondaryliterature.Inadditiontovariouspragmaticlimitations,Icannotescapethefactthatmyselectionofmovements,authors,andtextsaswellasmy
renditionofrelevantquestions,ideas,argumentations,schemes,andsystemsbetraymyexplicitorimplicitpersonalphilosophy.IfIamnotawareofthisfor
example,byuncriticallyfollowingatrendIwillbelieveandclaimmystorytobethestoryofphilosophy,wheninfactitismerelyarenditionofhowthishistory
looksfrommyparticularviewpoint.

Everyhistoricaloverviewofphilosophyexpressesaparticularthematicphilosophythatfunctionsasaprism,throughwhichthephilosophicallightradiatedintoour
historyisrefracted.Theselectionandinterpretationofthephilosophersdiscussedareexpressionsofanotherphilosophy:thephilosophyofthehistorian,whoplaysthe
roleofstagemanager.Atworsthistaleteachersonlywhatheholdstobetrue.Thehistoryofphilosophywill,then,appearasaseriesofattemptsatformulatingthe
"true"philosophyofthehistorian.Whenalltruthcanbesummarizedinonelast,allinclusivesynthesis,thehistoryofphilosophywillloseitsimportance.Itcanstill

 Page42

beusefulfromadidacticviewpoint,butitwillnolongerbeanessentialmovementofthought.Thesamecanbesaid,however,ofahistoryofphilosophythatdoesnot
striveforasynthesisbutallowsitselfafinaljudgmentonthegoodandevilinphilosophy,elevatingOckhamisticrazorsandpersonalstandardstothelevelofthehighest
criteriaandplayingthesupremejudge.

Ahistorywrittenbyanauthorwhokeepshimselfinthebackgroundandstrivesforneutralitymightseemfreerfromprejudiceandmayappearmoreinstructive.But
neutralityisnotpossible.Selectionitselfdemandsthatchoice,onthebasisofinsightorassumptionregardingtheimportanceofthematerialinvolved,bemade.A
renditionofthecontentandstructureofacertainphilosophydemandsathinkingthatisatleastsympathetictoitslineofthought.Ifitsproblemsandstrugglesarenot
recognized,thisphilosophyisnotworthmentioning.Infact,"neutrality"alwaysconcealsaparticularphilosophy.Initsselectionanddiscussionsa"neutral"philosophy
normallyfollowsthe"usual"listofnamesanddivisionsconsecratedbyaparticulartradition.Ahallowedseriesofauthors,schools,problems,anddiscussionsappears
againandagain,withoutanycriticalstancetowardsthesourceofallthoseschemasandhiddenevaluations.Suchaviewisitselftheproductofatraditionallookat
philosophyanditshistory.Agenuinehistoryofphilosophyandofitshistorymustdiscoverhowphilosophyandtraditionalphilosophicalhistorybothcametobe,
whomadethetraditionalselectionsanddivisionsofauthors,texts,andtopics,whycertainnamesarenotincludedincertainperiods,andsoforth.Agoodhistoryof
philosophyjustifiesitsownpresuppositionsandcriteriaitissimultaneouslyaphilosophicalilluminationofotherhistoriesofphilosophyandanexplanationofitsown
implicitphilosophy.

Manyproblemspresentthemselveshere.Firstofall:Whodecideswhothegreatestspecialistsare?Mustthedecisionmakernotatleastbehighlyknowledgeableon
thematterinquestion?Whodecideswhoisknowledgeable?ThefactthatsomeonehaswrittenagreatdealonPlatoorhasreadhisworksforyearsdoesnot
automaticallymakehimagoodinterpreter.Ifonereliesonthenamesfrequentlymentionedatconventionsorinpublications,onedependsontheauthorityofthose
mentioningthenames.But,dotheyreallyhavethecapacitytojudge?Theorganizerofateamefforttheeditorofanencyclopedia,forexamplemustdecide

 Page43

whoshouldwriteaparticularsection.Hisdecisionmirrorshisknowledgeofeachsubjectandhistrustinhisadvisors.Hemustalsodecidewhichpartsofthehistory,
whichphilosophers,problems,texts,andschoolsmustbediscussed,howtheymustbepresented,(inwhatorderandlength),andsoon.Thesedecisionspresuppose
acertainvisionofthehistoryasawhole,theimportanceandsignificanceofvariousphilosophersandtheirinterrelation,themeaningoftheproblemsdiscussed,andso
on.Itpresupposesaninsightintothehistoryofphilosophy.Thisinsightwillbeillustratedandconfirmedintheexecutionoftheproposedplan.However,thequestion
astoitscorrectnesscanonlybeansweredafterallotherpossibleplanshavebeencomparedtoit.Aslongasthisisnotdoneandthisisnotphysicallypossible
everyencyclopediaandallotherhistoriesareonlyexpressionsofaparticularandlimitedperspectiveofphilosophyanditshistory.

Youcould,ofcourse,decidetotreatallauthorsandschoolsconsideredtobeimportantbyprofessionalphilosophers,butyoucannotescapethenecessityof
designatingplacesandfunctionstothesetrue,orsocalled,philosophersandtherolestheyplayinthishistory.However,insodoing,youmakeadecisionastotheir
relevance.Thevaluejudgmentsunderlyingthisdecisionareonceagainexpressionsofyourphilosophy.

Arrangingphilosophersaccordingtobirthdatesisnotthesolutioneither.Suchagalleryofseparatefigureswillnotconstituteahistoryandcannotbereadwithout
previousknowledgeofthenamesofthishistoricalwho'swho.Consistency,andtheavoidanceofanysemblanceofvaluejudgments,willmeandevotinganequal
amountofspacetoeveryname.Suchalevelling,however,isjustwhatphilosophicalthinkingisnot.

Athirdproblemariseswhenseveralhistoriansofphilosophycollaborate.Theirpersonalphilosophiesdonotnecessarilycoincide.Forexample,anAristotelianscholar
maypersonallybeanidealist,whileanexcellentKantianscholarmaybeempiricallyoriented.Inordertoguaranteeunityinthework,theeditorofanencyclopediawill
usuallylookforcollaboratorswithsimilarthinking.Indoingso,theeditoracceptsthatthediscussionwillhavealimitedperspective.Thespiritualclimateoftheresulting
workdependstoagreatextentontheopennessofthecollaborators'perspective.Theeditormightalsoentrusteachsectiontothespecialistwiththegreatestaffinity
for

 Page44

thatparticularsubject.Asaresult,thiscollectiveproductionwouldcontaingreatlydifferingtreatments,aseachspecialistrevivedthespiritofhissubject.Suchabook
wouldreflectanimageoftheconstantlydivergingpositionsinphilosophy.Buthere,too,theproblemsdiscussedabovewillsurface:(1)whoshouldorganizethebattle
betweenphilosophiesandtheirinterpreters?and(2)whoshoulddecidewhothesuitableandspirituallycompatibleexegetesofthephilosophiesare?Thesequestions
becomemorepressinginconnectionwiththegreatandmanysidedphilosophiessuchasthoseofPlato,Aquinas,Hegel,Nietzsche,Levinas,andothers.Whose
thoughtcangraspthesegreatphilosophers?Tounderstandthemthoroughly,onemustperhapsbeagreatphilosopheroneself.Butthenonerunstheriskofabsorbing
philosophiesintoone'sownoriginal,newphilosophy.

Weneednotspendmuchtimeonhistoriesimposedbyideologiesandinstitutionalizedreligionsastheirofficialdocumentationofthepast.Thepowertryingtolegitimize
itselfthroughsuchapparentgenealogieswouldappearridiculousifitwerenotsodeadly.Withingenuinespirituallife,too,theendlessdemagogicrepetitionofthesame
slanderrobsusofagenuinepast,andthusofthecapacitytoprofitfromitsgreatestworks.Theideologicalterrorofapoliticalor(quasi)religiousconcentrationof
powerresultsinanevengreaterprimitivismandbarbarismthandoesthedictatorshipofcommonsense,reigningoverandrulinga"freesociety."

6.2Everyhistoryofphilosophyisanexpressionofathematicphilosophy

Everyhistoryofphilosophyimpliesaparticularphilosophicalperspective.Thus,therearejustasmanyhistoriesofphilosophyastherearephilosophers.Considering
that,basedontheirsimilarity,certainphilosopherscanbegroupedtogether,wecansimplifythisfact(andmakeitcruder)byspeakingoftypesofphilosophyandof
philosophicalhistory.Traditionallabelssuchas'positivism','idealism','rationalism','logicalempiricism',andsoforthareattemptsatatypologythatisalsoapplicableto
thehistoryofphilosophy.

Toavoidnaivet,theauthorofphilosophicalhistorymustbeawareofhispresuppositionsandperspectives.Thesameistrueofthereaderwhotoevaluatesucha
historyproperlymustdiscoveritsexplicitorimplicitphilosophy.Authorandreadermustboth

 Page45

undertakeathematicphilosophizing,iftheyarenottobesweptuncriticallyawaybytheirownorothers'opinions.Thosewhoclaimneutralityandobjectivityinthe
renditionofthephilosophicalpastarethemostnaiveofall:theylackallreflectionandmethod.Nobodycanwriteagoodhistoryofphilosophyunlessheisagood
philosopher.Historyisnotthehidingplaceforpeoplewhocannotsucceedinthematicphilosophy.

Astudentintroducedtophilosophythroughthestudyofitshistorymustlearnthatheencountersanimplicit(thematic)thinking,unaccountedforinsuchahistory.This
hiddenthinkingrepresentsanauthorityofwhomheisinitiallyunaware.Learningtodophilosophyinvolveschallengingthesehiddenauthoritiesandurgingthemto
justifythemselves.Suchreactionsarethebeginningofone'sdiscussionwiththethematicphilosophythatdominateseachhistory.Thestudentdiscoversthathecannot
blindlytrustanyhistoryofphilosophy,becauseahistoricalintroductionpresupposesathematicaspect,andeverythematicphilosophypresupposesitsauthor's
discussionwithexistingphilosophies.Thus,thestudyofphilosophyanditshistoryrevealsaspecificcircularity.

Wemustgiveuptheillusionofhavingtheentiremuseumofphilosophy'spastatourdisposal,allowingustotakeoutandexamineatwillanyartifactswewish.Our
memoriesarenotuniversal.Ourlibrariesbearthemarksofindividualandchangingpreferences.Thefurnishingofamuseum,alibrary,anoverview,atextbookis
alwaysanexpressionofsomeone'sthematicposition:hisfriendshipsandbattles,victoriesanddefeats,suspicionsanddesires.Everyphilosophicalmuseum,every
"philosophicallibrary,"andeveryencyclopediaischaracterizedbyindividuality.Everysynthesisisbasedonaparticularperspective.

Suchaninsightmakesusmodest.Imperialisticclaims,presentingindividualviewpointsasiftheywerecompleteanduniversaltruths,betrayablindnesstothearguable
assumptionsrulingtheirvisions.Inwritingaboutourpast,aselfawarehistorianknowsthathepartakesintheongoingdiscussionconstitutingtheactuallifeofthematic
philosophy.Allinclusivesynthesesareoverextended.Strivingforwidelyinclusiveinterpretationsisnotcondemnedhere,forwithoutthemphilosophyquicklybecomes
smallandpetty.Greatdifferencesinqualityremainpossiblebetweenasoloistandothermembersoftheorchestra,orbetweenvarioussoloists,buteventhe

 Page46

mostforcefulsynthesisisalsoonlyonepartofanentireconcert.NeitheraHegeliansummaryofallthetruthseverthoughtnorapositivisticneutralityispossible.The
impartialitydeemedtocharacterizeHegelianism,aswellaspositivism,isanillusion.WhilepositivismisinfinitelymorenaivethanHegel'saccountofourhistory,Hegel
himselfwasnotfullyawareoftheparticularpreoccupationsandunconscioustendenciesofhisuniversalisticthought.

6.3Thenecessityforacertain"positivism"inthehistoryofphilosophy

Inspiteoftheassertionsabove,acertainpositivism,alongwithastrivingforthegreatestpossibleopennessandsynthesis,isnecessaryforaserioushistoryof
philosophy,sincephilosophizingalwaysimplieslearning.Thisconclusionbecomescriticalforthefollowingchapter'sinterpretationofphilosophy(thematicaswellas
historical)asdiscussion.Ifthepracticeofphilosophyisnotasolipsisticrepetitionbutaspeakingandlisteningsothatonemaybetterspeak,otherphilosophiesmustbe
allowedthechancetospeakasothers.Theothermustbeheard.Acertainreservationisrequiredonmypartaslistenerputtingmyownconvictionsinparentheses,I
mustbewillingtoregardmyownideasasamatterfordiscussionandtotakeotherpostulatesaspossiblealternatives.Makingtheother'spositionasstrongas
possibleisthebestwaytoescapemyownobsessions.Tolistenistogoonajourneytothegroundsandboundsofworldsinhabitedbyotherthinkers.Reading
involvesfollowingothers'trainsofthoughtandenteringtheirlabyrinthstoexplorethemfromtheinsideout.

Sincegreatthinkersinourhistoryhavetreatedoneanotherunjustly,listeningisanartpoorlypracticedbycreativephilosophers.Althoughtheyhavelearnedfromone
another,theirrenditionsofothers'thoughtshavebeendistortions,andoftencaricatures.Theincorrecttransformationsoccurringinlearningandlisteninghave
nonethelessbeenfruitful:evenahalforpoorlyunderstoodphilosophyseemstoinspiregreatthinkerstogreatthoughts.Ourhistorymight,however,havebeenmore
fruitful,morehuman,andmorephilosophicalifindividualphilosophershadunderstoodothersasothersinanexemplaryfashion.ThemanydialogueswrittensincePlato
are,assaidearlier,disguisedmonologuessometimesmerecatecheticalpresentationsofadogmatismtryingtosubjugateitsopponentsatanyprice.Wehavenot
progressedveryfar.Dogma

 Page47

tism,arrogance,neutralism,andeasyformsofnegativismareintheirheyday.Somephilosophersonlywanttohearthemselves,ortheirfollowers,speak.Buteven
genuinephilosophers,concernedwith"thethingitself,"aresometimestooabsorbedintheirproblemsandideastogiverealconsiderationtootherthoughts.Auniversal
opennessisprobablybeyondourcapacity.Strivingtodoothersjustice,however,remainsessentialforatruedescriptionofphilosophy'spastandpresent.

6.4Specificproblemsofthehistoryofphilosophy

Whatkindofpositivismisrequiredforajusthistoryofphilosophy?Thelifeofphilosophymustbeunderstoodandexplained"fromtheinsideout."Buthow?

6.4.1IndividualPhilosophers

Theinitialquestionsinthiscontextare:Howshouldahistoryofphilosophybegin?Whoorwhat"makes"thehistoryofphilosophy?Must"philosophicallife"be
identifiedintermsofindividualthinkers,orasahistoryofideas?Isitanexpressionofculturalpatternsandreflexes?Ananswerpresupposesone'sphilosophicalinsight
intotheparticularnatureoftheindividualandintotherelationshipsthatdistinguishandholdideas,language,andculturetogether.Thewinningofsuchinsight
presupposesacertainexperience,bothinphilosophicaldescriptionandintheanalysisoffactualoccurrences.Itis,therefore,apartofthereflectiveactivityofa
philosopherasheinvestigatesthehistoricalprocessinwhichheandhisthoughtsparticipate.Suchatheoryisnecessaryinordertowriteamethodicallysolidhistoryof
philosophy.Acertainnaivetisinevitablebecausethecirclewefindourselvesincannotbebrokenunlessthereisanabsolutecommandgivingsomethingor
someonepriorityovereverythingandeveryoneelse.Suchacommand,infact,exists:Imaynotsubordinateanotherindividualtoanythingelse.Ideas,language,
culture,andallhumanitycombineddonotoutweighoneperson'sworthanddignity.Isthereaconsequencefromthisastowho,orwhat,thetruesubjectofphilosophy
is?Willahumanbeingnolongerdeserverespectifhisphilosophyisnothisalonebutisratheraproductofaparticularepoch,society,culture,orlanguage?Can
anotherbetakenseriouslyasahumanbeingifheisnotconsideredanindependent,originalthinker?

 Page48

Evenwithoutsolvingtheproblemjustposed,themethodologyofthehistoryofphilosophycanbeginbyemphasizingtherolesthatindividualphilosophershaveplayed
init.Thisdoesnotmakeitimpossibletoqualifytheirimportanceasweproceedortoreducetheirworktosomethingmorefundamental.

Letusbegin,then,withreflectionontheconditionsforaphilosophyofhistory,asconstitutedbyindividualthinkers.

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Thework.

Athinkerispresentforusinthetextofhiswork.Aswehaveseen,thishasmadeitselfsomehowindependentofitsauthor,whohasinscribeditintohistory.Asatrace
ithasitsowncharacterandmeaning.Doesitreallyhaveameaning,ordoesitreceiveonefromitsreadersaftertheauthorhasletitgo?Theworkisactuallytobe
foundbetweentheauthorandthereaderitsmeaningisnotyetfullydetermined.But,isitnotthereader'stasktoreconstructthemeaningthevisionandthe
intentionsexpressedinthework?Therelationbetweenthereconstruction,or"positivistic"moment,andacreativeretakingoftheworkwillbeconsideredlater.
Forthetimebeingwewillattendonlytothereconstructionofthework'smeaningatthetimeofitswriting.

Atext.

Thetermworkisambiguous.Itcanincludethewriter'slifework,oroeuvre,oritcanrefertoasinglepieceofwriting.Letusbeginwiththeeasiest,whichisstill
difficult:theindividualtextbroughtfortheitherorallyorinwrittenform.Anorallypresentedargumentrequirestime,anditdoesnotnecessarilymanifestcoherence.
Duringitsprogresstheauthorcanquestionorcorrectpreviousassertions,qualifythem,andsoon.Theimprovizationalcharacterofanoralpresentation(notanoral
renditionofapreproducedtext)hasanexcitingandunexpectedcharacteratleast,ifthespeakertrulythinksanddoesnotmerelyrepeatoldthoughtsinaverbal
barrage.

Awrittentextcanhaveasimilartemporalityforexample,ifitisaletterorajournalentry.Itdiffers,however,fromanoralpresentationinthatthewritercan
review,correct,andchangepartsofatextbeforehegivesittohisreaders.Forthem,theentiretextispre

 Page49

sentatonce.Theyneedtimetoreadit,butthistimeisruledbythesimultaneityofallphasesofthewrittenargument.Theartofcompositionbringstemporarilydifferent
phasestogetherintoonespatialpresentation:abookoranarticleisacompositumpacingandrulingitsreader'stime.Everyreaderis,orcourse,freetobreakloose
fromthetext'sstructure,bypagingthroughthebookfrombacktofront,forexample.Butthen,heisreadinganothertext.Ifhewantstoknowwhattheauthorhas
written,hemustfollowtheauthor'sargument,whichleadshimbythedispositionofsignswritteninaparticularorder.Althoughonecanapproachitfromallsides,a
writtentexthasitsowndisposition,meaning,andorder.Thesemustberecognizedandformulatedclearlybyahistorian,ifheistosaywhatthetextmeans.

Dothemeanings,thestructure,andthetimequalityofthetextcorrespondtotheintentionsofitsauthor?Onemightthinkthatthisquestionisuninterestingthatwe
havenothingtodowithwritersbutonlywithwhattheyleavebehind.Atotaldistinctionbetweenanauthorandhiswork,however,makesameaningfulinterpretation
ofhisworkimpossible.Aswewillsee,suchaseparationdestroysourcapacitytounderstandanytext.Ontheotherhand,itisnotonlydifficult,orimpossible,to
discoverwhatthoughtsandfeelingstheauthorhadwhilewritingatext,itisalsounnecessary.Thetextspeaksforitself.Itisneitheraphotographofahumanpsycheat
agivenmomentnortheexpressionofaseriesofinternalrepresentationssucceedingoneanotherinsubjectivetime.Inthetext,theauthorstylizeselementsofhisand
otherthinkers'thoughtsandexperiences,arrangingandinterpretingthemthroughparticularstructures.Theproductisnotaltogethertheauthor'swork.Thelanguage
andtheepicofhistimeandmilieualsospeakinit.Thisdoesnotmean,however,thatwecantotallyignoretheauthor'slifeandthought.Throughthemwearriveatthe
text'sothersources:theauthor'stime,language,andculture.Iftheauthorwereamereexponentorsymptom,hewouldbeonlyamedium.Butacompletereductionof
athinkertoanonymouspatternsoflanguageandculturecontradictstheessenceoflanguage,whichimposesatleastsomeresponsibilityonits"user."

Therenditionofwhatatext"wantstosay"takesplaceonatleasttwolevels.Historianswhoseephilosophyasastreamofviews

 Page50

noteagreementsanddifferencesamongthinkers'opinionsduringthesameordifferentperiods.Thepensiverespondingtoposedandtobeposedquestions,through
theanalysesandargumentationcharacteristicofphilosophy,isnotwhatisdealtwithinsuchacatalogueofopinionsandconceptions.Ahistorysensitivetothegenuine
activityofphilosophyconcentratesonitscharacteristicwaysofquestioningandresponding.Ittriestorevealtheinnerconsistency,orinconsistency,ofvarious
positions,theexplicitargumentsandtheharmoniesanddiscordshiddenintheirpresuppositions,andtheinspirationgivingbirthtothework.

Thecoherenceofatextcanbecharacterizedinseveralways.Thecoherenceofapoemisdifferentfromthatofascientifictreatise.Themostfundamentalstructureof
aphilosophicaltextcanbecalledthe''logic"ofthetext(weusethetermlogicinaverybroadsense).Nowitisutternaivetetothinkwecan,orshould,possessthe
onlytruelogic,whichwillenableustoascertainandjudgethe(in)coherenceoftexts.Everytexthasitsownlogic,andthequestionofcorrectcoherencecanbe
inappropriateifmorethanone"true"logicispossible.Itisnaivetobelievethatallpossiblelogicshavebeenformulated,orcanbeformulated,withintheframeworkof
"modernlogic."Thevariousversionsof"modernlogic"arefoundedonnumerouslogicalandontologicalpresuppositions,whichneedjustificationinadiscussionof
philosophy'sfundamentalquestions.Thesefundamentalquestionsarenotpurelyformalbecausetheyalreadyimplyacertainnotionoftruthandthusacertaintheory
onthenatureofknowledgeandreality,andtheirrelation.

Thepeculiarlogicofaphilosophicaltextistwofold.Eachtextupholdsacertainlogicalideal.Thewriterisledbyanideaofargumentation,alegitimatewayof
proceeding,andsoon.Theresulting"objective"structuresrepresentasecond,actuallogictheydonotnecessarilycorrespondtotheidealforwhichthewriteris
striving.Thelogicactuallypracticedcanfallshortoftheideal.Butitcanalsobebetter:forexample,throughabreakthroughthatismoreintuitivethanreflective,which
leadstonewpossibilitiesforlanguageandthoughtthatcanlaterbecomenormativeintheformulationofnewlogicalideasandideals.

Agoodrenditionofaphilosophicaltextrequiresapreciseanalysisofthelogicalidealandthelogicattainedinit.Allstructuralelementsmustbediscoveredand
illuminatedastheyare.Everytext

 Page51

hasastructureofitsown:themostoriginaltextsarecharacterizedbyafundamentalandthoroughrestructuringoftheusualautomatismsofdefinition,divisions,and
composition.ThisiswhythelogicsofSpinoza'sEthics,Kant'sCritiqueofPureReason,Hegel'sEncyclopedia,andNietzsche'sOntheGenealogyofMoralsare
sodifferentandareirreducibletooneanother.Nologiciancansubjugatethemwithasupremejudgment,althoughthegreatandsmallRussellstrytodoso,timeand
timeagain.

Aspointedout,thepeculiarlogicofatextdoesnotconstitutethemostfundamentallevelofdiscourseitsetsforth,evenifitpavesthewaytothatlevel.Asidefromthe
structure,thetext'sparticularstylepointstotheprimarysourceofitslifeitsspecificrelationtotruthandreality,itspeculiar"ontology."

Anoeuvre.

Thefundamentalontology,whetherprofessedorrealized,maybeapproachedfromtheperspectiveofanthropologicalandexistentialanalysis,relatingthestudied
worktothelivingthoughtandlifeofitsauthor.Beforeweturntothisapproach,afewwordsmaybesaidaboutthepluralityofwritingsmakingupanoeuvre.

Theanalysisandinterpretationofasingleworkisinsufficienttocharacterizeitswriter.Aproductionofsuccessivetextsresultsinasimultaneityofbooks,whichcanbe
readinanyorderandwithdifferentpurposes.Fromthe"positivistic"perspective,twolinesofinterpretationarepossibleandrecommended.Ifonelaysoutallthe
worksofanauthorsidebyside,theyconstituteawholewhosemeaningandinterconnectionmustbediscovered.Iftheyformoneselfconsistentsystem,thisoeuvre
canbeexplainedinawaysimilartotheexplanationofasinglework.Often,however,thevariouspartsofanoeuvrecannotbethoughtintoaharmonybecauseeach
asksradicallydifferentquestions,orevencontradictingones.Thedifferencesinsingularworksmustbedescribedandunderstood,withoutneglectingthegenuineor
apparentcontradictionstheyintroduceintothewhole.Thedifferencessometimesrevealafundamentallackofclarity.Alackofawarenessofunderlyingquestionsand
prejudices,forexample,canleadtocontradictions.Theexplanationoftenalsoliesintheauthor'scorrection,explicitornot,ofthoughtsexpressedinearlierworks.A
geneticinterpretationdealswiththegenesisofan

 Page52

oeuvreandattemptstoreconstructthedevelopment,ofwhichthesuccessivetextsarejunctionpoints.Suchareconstructionisnotapsychologicallyaccurate
descriptionofwhatanauthorthinksandfeelsthroughouthisphilosophicalactivitybutisratheraschematicrenderingofthemainargumentsfromoneworktoanother.
Ofcourse,itisnotsufficientforonetoconstructaplausibleargumentwherebytheideasofoneworkcanbetransformedintothoseofanother,becausethetruthful
descriptionofahistoricalgenesisisbasedanddependsonobjectiveindicationsinthetextitself,frommanuscripts,remarks,andotherdatagatheredfromthethought
andlifeoftheauthor.Ifthesearenotgiven,thereconstructioncanresorttohypotheticalexplanationstobridgegaps.Butathinker'sdevelopmentdoesnotalways
proceedinalogicalandobviousway.Itcanalsoobeylessrational,emotional,andviolentmotives.

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Workandlife.

Nowwecometoanapproachthatdoesnotlimititselftoindividualtextsandtheirinterrelationsbutexplicitlytakestheauthor'slifeintoaccounttogiveageneticand
systematicinterpretationofhisphilosophy.

Aphilosopher'slifeincludesnonphilosophicalandnonrationalfactors,that,togetherwiththephilosophicalelements,constituteanddefinehisindividualhistory.To
whatextentcanaphilosophybeunderstoodthroughthephilosopher'slifehistory?Whatisthevalueofbiographiesintherenditionofphilosophy?

Thedistinctionbetweentheexperientialandconceptualtotalityofaphilosophyanditslogicalstructuremayhelpinfindingtheextenttowhichabodyofthoughtisthe
sedimentofalife.Obviously,theopinionsofphilosophersareeffectsoftheirlives,upbringing,environment,andexperience.Theoriginalityofauniquelifeformsthe
allinclusiveviewpointfromwhichtheindividualseesreality.AlthoughIcanrespectotherperspectivesandimprovemyownbyrelatingtothem,asanindividualIdo
nothaveanotherpointofview.BecauseIamthisparticularindividualwiththisparticularlifehistory,theobjectsIthinkaboutandmymethodsofinvestigationare
partiallyset.Mustwegofurtherandsaythateventhelogicalelementsonwhichmyargumentationsrelyaresubjecttothecon

 Page53

tingenciesmarkingmeasthisperson,ofthismilieuandthistime?Doeshaecceitasgovernthedeepestfoundationsofthinking?Buthowcanwemaintainthe
universalityofthinking?Dowenotlosetheideaofjustificationifeverysystemstandsorfallsontheindividualpeculiaritiesfromwhichitderivesitsinnerlogic?Canand
mustaphilosopheronlyspeaktothosewhoarecloselyrelatedtohim?Properlyspeaking,suchwouldnotbepossibleifoneseriouslyconsideredindividualityasthe
inevitablestartingpoint.Philosophywoulddisintegrateintoanunlimitednumberofmonads,allthinkingforthemselves.Theywouldnotbeabletojustifytheirthoughts
tothemselves,forwhatkindofjustificationcanlackasuperindividualstandardoftruth?Theveryideaofcoherenceandthedemandfornoncontradictioncannotbe
salvagedaftersuchanabolitionofuniversality,noteventhrougharbitrarydefinitions.These,too,becomeimpossibleifonedoesnotpresupposeanylogical
universality.

Canthinkingoutwittheinfluencesdetermininganindividual'soutlookbysubmittingittoanalysisandcritique?Philosophizingwouldhavenosignificanceifitweretotally
impossibletogetacriticalgraspofthesocial,cultural,andpsychicfactorsframinganindividuallife.Itwouldbesuicidalforaphilosophytomaintainthatitwasamere
effectofpurelyextraphilosophicalelements.Itsclaimwouldbedestroyedinthediscoveryofitsimpossibility.Ahistoryofphilosophywouldsubsequentlyonlybe
possibleasaseriesofreportsonphilosophicalwholesasproductsofnonphilosophicalfactors.Thinkingwouldthenhavenohistoryofitsown.

Aphilosopher'sexperienceisotherwise.Hedoesnotnecessarilyseehimselfasakingofthoughtthethoughtoflordshipmayevenberepulsivetohimbuthe
cannotbeamerepawnofirrationalfactorseither.Hisawarenessofhimselfasarelativelyautonomousproducerofthoughtsisnotasufficientargumentagainstthe
conceptionthatheissuchapawnoreffect.Forhowcanherefutetheideathathisevidenceistheeffectofadeepseatedillusion?Howcanheprovethathisisnota
falseconsciousness?TheMarxist,psychoanalytic,andstructuralistdistrustoftheessenceofphilosophycannotberefutedbysimplyreferringtoselfevident
experiences.Thedifferencebetweentrueanduntrueexperiencesisathomeinphilosophy,justasisthetruththatgreateffortsandvariousconversionsarenecessary
tocorrecttheevidenceofinitialexperiences.Ontheotherhand,thespecialistsofsuspiciontreadonthinicewhenthey

 Page54

groundtheirunmaskinginaconvictionthatispeculiartothem.Accordingtotheirowntheories,allsuchprinciplesas"theunconscious,""language,""culture,''
"education,"andeconomicorotherinfrastracturesareatleastasdubiousasisthinkingwhenitclaimstolaydownbasicrulesandtodiscoverfundamentaltruths.All
sciences,underminingthebasicintentionofphilosophybyseeingitasaderivativefunction,sharethissamebasicintention.Theydothismoredogmaticallybecause
philosophyismorecircumspect.Bydeclaringthetruthofphilosophytobeillusory,psychoanalysis,linguistics,ethnology,sociology,andhistoryallproclaimthemselves
tobemetaphilosophical,orsupraphilosophical.Butmetaphilosophyandsupraortransphilosophyarepartsofphilosophy!Ifasciencepresumestogive
metaphilosophicaljudgments,itmakesitselfridiculous,unlessitrecognizesphilosophy.Forphilosophersarespecialistsatlayingfoundations,truth,reality,appearance,
andunmasking.Ifantiphilosophersbelievetheyhavediscoveredamoreradicalwayofaskingtheoldquestionsoftruthandappearance,theymustprovethisbefore
theforumofphilosophy.Iftheyaresuccessful,thehistoryofphilosophywillhavereachedanewmilestone.Asciencecannotfightagainstphilosophyunlessit
developsphilosophicalproceduresstrongenoughtocompetewiththebestproceduresofexistingphilosophies.

Thepresentationofaphilosophicaloeuvredemandsnotonlyafaithfulreconstructionofitsempiricalandlogicalpeculiaritiesbutalsoaclarificationofthetiesbindingit
tothelifeoftheauthor.Noteverythinginaphilosopher'slifeisimportantfortheformandcontentofhisthought,butifhisphilosophizinghastheseriousnessanddepth
ofawagerwithlifeitself,ahistoriancannotdisregardthewayinwhichhistextsmatchhisparticularlife,howtheycomeforthfromit,andwhatrepercussionstheyhave
onit.Ageneraltheoryoftherelationbetweenlifeandthoughtisperhapsnotpossible,consideringthatthisrelationinconcretoinvolvestheuniquewayinwhichan
individualphilosopherlivesandthinks.Ifitbecomesthoroughandserious,thinkingisnotseparablefromfearandhope,willinganddesiring.

Thediscussionofallscientificwaysofreducingaphilosophytosomethingelsecanbedoneinapositivemannerbyconsideringthelifeofanindividualthinkerasaway
ofdiscoveringmoretruth.Suchawayisnotnecessarilyrectilinearitmayleadtoinsolubleprob

 Page55

lems,andeventodefeat.However,itisstillphilosophicalsolongasitisgovernedbyapassionforthetruth.Whateverisunmaskedasalieoranillusionmayperhaps
alsobeunderstoodasanunsuccessfulattempttoseemoregenuinelyhowthingsreallyare.Aphilosopherisaidedbyhismostsuspiciousenemies,becausetheyforce
himtobecomemoregenuine.Trueexperienceisnotacommonfact,butratheranideal.Everydemystificationbearsfruitifitleadstotheconversionoftheunmasked.
Byleapsandturns,aphilosopherbecomesmoretrue.Thewayofenlightenmentisawayofpurification.Philosophizingisawayofbecomingtrue.Butitdoesnot
standonitsown,independentofhowthephilosopherexistsandrelatestootherpersonsandthings.Truthdoesnotdeliveritselftoanabstract,uprootedthoughtit
rathermakeswayforitselfatthemostgenuineandtruest"level,"wherethemeaningoflifeisrealized.

Agoodrenditionofaphilosophyincludesabiographyofthethinkerclearlydelineatinghowhisphilosophyisinterwovenwithhisexistentialsearchfortruth.Thislevel
liesmuchdeeperthanwhatisempiricallylogicallyreconstructable.Theexistentialperspectivefromwhichaphilosophicaloeuvreisconsidereddoesnottreatitasa
pieceofliteratureoraspureexpressiontheliveddiscoveryoftruthsneitherabolishesnorreplacestheirargumentativejustification.Thedifferencebetweenahistoryof
philosophytryingtounderstandtherelationbetweenlifeandphilosophicalthoughtandoneignoringtheexistentialcontextisthemoreconcretenotionoftruthinthe
former.Thehumansignificanceofaparticularphilosophydisappearswhentheideasofwhichitiscomposedareisolatedfromthelifeexperimentuponwhichitsauthor
hasventured,notonlyandnotprimarilybyhisphilosophizingbutalsobyhislivingathoughtfullife.Thisexperimentisthetrueexperiencethatoughttobe
revealedifwewanttoknowthetruemeaningofaphilosophicaloeuvre.

Toexplainaphilosophy,then,meansnotonlyunfoldingitatthelevelofinterconnectedconceptsbutalsoshowinghowitemergesasoneelementfromanindividual
history.Agreatdifficultywithsuchanexplanationisthatonemustrevealitfromtheperspectiveoftheauthor'sownclaimsandmotivations,withoutsubjectingitto
foreign(e.g.,tomy)schemas.Bysubordinatingtheworksofotherthinkerstoasuperconnectioncomingfromme,Idistorttheirmeaning.Asdictator,Imanipulate
themaspartsofmyconceptualrealm.WhatPlatosaysaboutatyrantmaybeappliedhere:ifmydealings

 Page56

withtextsbecomeviolent,IwillbecomeextremelypoorbecausetheywillonlyteachmewhatfitsintotheframeworktowhichIamaccustomed.Theywilleitheragree
withmyopinionsortheywillcontradictthem,butmyreadingisuselesswithregardtothetaskofthesearchfortruth.Explainingaphilosophymeansrevivinganother's
thoughts,motivations,andexperiences.Imustworkmywayintohistextandbeitssoulandapologist.Itslogicalcoherenceiseasilyrendered,eventhoughwehave
seenthatsingularityalreadyplaysaroleattheleveloflogic.Thereconstructionoffundamentalexperiencesandperspectives,basicintuitions,presuppositions,and
motivesmakesthegreatestdemandsonthehistorian,becauseitrequiresthecombinationoftwoattitudesdifficulttobringtogether:ontheonehandthehistorian's
interestmustbecaptivatedbytheworksunderconsiderationandontheother,acertaindistancefromhispreferencesisnecessaryinordertobecomereceptiveto
theiroriginality.Ahistorian'squalityisdeterminedbytheunityofopennessandphilosophicalengagementheachieves.Here,too,greatnessisequaltospacetimes
depth.

6.4.2.Milieuandtime

Ourinitialobjectivestancetowardsaphilosophicaltext,withoutconsideringthephilosopher'slifehistory,ismademoreconcretebyreflectingontherelationbetween
lifeandtextualproduction.Theconcentrationonaphilosopherandhisoeuvreis,however,stillanabstraction.Amoreconcreteconsiderationaskshowthe
philosopherisrelatedtohismilieuandtime.Isitpossibletobe"aheadofone'stime"?Aretherephilosopherswhoareabovetheculturewhereintheyareraised?Or,
iseveryphilosopheranexponentofagivensituationandepoch?

Justastherelationoflifetoworkprovokesaphilosophicaltheoryinterweavingthinkingandexistence,somustaphilosophyofhistory,sensitivetothenonindividual
aspectsofphilosophizing,thematizetherelationofaphilosopher'slifeandworkontheonehandandthehistoricalcontextencompassingthemontheother.An
integralhistoryofphilosophyincludessubstantialcontributionsfromsocial,political,economic,andculturalhistory,naturalandsocialgeography,sociology,cultural
anthropology,andsoforth.Evenasystematicphilosophycannotignorethenonphilosophical

 Page57

studyofphilosophypresentedbythevariouspositivesciences.Whiletheirlessonscanneverreplacephilosophy'sselfunderstanding,theyprovideuswith
considerationsnecessaryforaninsightintotherootsofourownthought.Aphilosophicalhistoryofphilosophy,however,isverydifferentfromaneconomic,
psychoanalytic,orpoliticalinterpretationofthephilosophicalworksandtraditionsconfrontingus.Thehistoryofcontemporary,andearlier,philosophizingcanbe
presentedasaseriesofadventuresinthehistoryofpower,oraseffectsofsocioeconomicprocesses.Suchpresentationsprobablyhavetheirownscientifictruth,but
assoonastheyclaimtogivefundamentalexplanations(i.e.,assoonastheypresumetomakephilosophicalclaims),theydegenerateintoaformofpositivismby
absolutizingtheirrelativeviewpoints.Aphilosophicallyorientedhistoryofphilosophy(andafortioriathematicphilosophyaccountingforitsownpast)doesnotallow
itsdominationbypsychoanalytic,sociological,orotherscientificreductions,althoughitseriouslyconsiderstheminassessingtheirimpactonoriginalexperienceand
thoughtprocessesresultinginathematicphilosophy.Thevariouswaysthatsocialscientistsusetoshowthataphilosophyisaconsciousorunconsciousexpressionof
somethingotherthantheexperienceandthinkingofitsauthor,alongwiththedemystificationsreducingmanythoughtstoillusionsandlies,providealoveroftruthwith
foodforthought.Thetaskofunmaskinghasbeenknowninphilosophysincethebeginningofitshistory.FromthetimeofHeraclitusandParmenides,allgreat
philosophershaveunderstoodeverythoughtprocessasanavigationbetweenappearanceandreality.The(relative)truthandvalueofreductionstononphilosophical
elementshavealsobeenknown.Theproblemtheyposedcoincideswiththe(old)philosophicalquestionofthedifferencebetweenthebasicandotherlevelsofbeing
human,orwiththequestionoftheessenceofhumannessandculture.Wedonothaveareadymadeschemeforintegratingscientificunmaskingsorreductionsthe
temptingschemeoffreedom'smasteringthefactorsthatsimultaneouslylimitandmakeitpossibleisitselfunderdiscussionbut,anaiveabsolutizingoftheviewpoints
mentionedisjustasshortsightedasaquickrecuperation.Asignofthisnaivetisthescepticismthatnecessarilyresultsfromsuchanabsolutization:ifeverythingiswill
topower,repression,classconsciousness,orthelike,theideaofscienceandafortioriphilosophynolongerhasanymeaning,exceptofsomekind

 Page58

ofirrationality.Consequently,itmakesnosensetoargue,unlessoneisboldenoughtoforgeweaponsoutoffalseandunprovablethoughts.

Timeistheuniversalhorizonspanningthegeographicalandsocialmilieu,technologicalandeconomicstructuresandprocesses,culturallevels,trendsandevents,
idiomsoflanguage,commonplaces,popularopinions,traditions,andexpectations.Howisaphilosophicalworkrelatedtoitstimeandmilieu?Towhatextentisitan
exponentofthematerial,social,artistic,andideologicalprocessesinthatatmosphere?Howisitrelatedtothe"consciousness"ofitstime?

Ananalysisofsuchatimeconsciousnessshouldinvolvedistinctionsrevealingthepluralitywithinthisconsciousness."Thepeople,"thevarioussocialclasses,
intellectuals,semiintellectuals,journalists,"theelite,"scientists,politicians,governments,andphilosophersvaryinwhattheyconsiderobvious,ordinary,proper,
worthwhile,andcharacteristicfor"ourtime."Canthedifferencesintheirconsciousnessbeunderstoodasmodificationsofoneoverall"collectiveconsciousness''?Or,
doesthistermmerelyrefertosimilaraspectsofalargenumberofgroupandindividualformsofconsciousness?Withoutdoubt,allormostworkswritteninthesame
periodhaveacertainaffinitywithoneanother.Incertainrespects,eventheexceptions(e.g.those"aheadoftheirtime")canbeunderstoodasexponentsoftheirtime.
The"spirit"thatinspirestheseworkscanberecognized,allowinghistorianstogroupthemwithinaspecificperiod.Althoughtherearemanyaffinitiesoverlapping
certainperiodsforexample,manyCatholicsinthe1930sfeltclosertothemedievalChurchthantomoderndemocracy,andmanycontemporaryphilosophersare
morePlatonistthanstructuralistavantgardists,aswellasarchconservatives,are"childrenoftheirtime."Epigonesandtraditionalistsglancebacktotheformertimes
theirstylesaremixturesofthepastandthepresent.Nordorevolutionariesorprophetsescapethepowerandspiritofthetimesagainstwhichtheyrevolt.They
struggle,hereandnow,againstotherelementsofthe"hereandnow."Theirtimeisabattlefieldoftensionsandcontradictions.The"spiritoftheirtime"expressesitself
inamultiplicityofdivergentmovements.Insteadofastaticpresent,itisahistory.

 Page59

Toestablishasatisfactorymethodforthehistoryofphilosophy,weneedtosolvethefollowingproblems:(1)Towhatextentcanweunderstandtheworksofa
philosopherasexpressionsofthelifeandthoughtofhistime?(2)Whatdoes"lifeandthoughtofhistime"mean?Whichlevelsoflife(economic,social,cultural,etc.)
andwhichlevelsofthought(everyday,scientific,philosophical,religious)mustbedifferentiatedhere,andhowdotheyrelatetooneanother?(3)Whatistheplaceand
functionofthisphilosophicaloeuvrewithregardtotheotherelementsandthespiritofitstime?

Thethirdquestioncoincideswiththefirstonebutisformulatedinadifferentmanner,byintegratingitwiththesecondquestion.Theseproblemscanonlybeanswered
throughanintegralanalysisofparticulartimeperiods,includingaphilosophicalconsiderationofphilosophicalhistoryaswellasageneralsocialandhistoricaltheory.It
isimpossibleforonepersontoperformthistaskinterdisciplinaryresearchisnecessary.Usuallyahistorianofphilosophyrepeatscustomaryschemeswithoutmuch
ado.

Certainelementsinthecontextofaphilosophicaloeuvrearemoreorlessphilosophicalinnature:genuineorsupposedselfevidenttruths,conceptualpresuppositions,
currentlanguagegames,andstandardquestionsprovideanunavoidablegroundingforthought,evenwhenitturnsagainstthem.Aphilosopherissomeonewhodraws
uponthetendenciesandtrendsofhistimetoformquestionsandideasinhisowncharacteristic,andoften"untimely,"way.Ifhesucceeds,hetransformsthecustoms
ofthoughtintoanewwhole,whosemeaningcanbedefendedinitsownright.

6.4.3.PhilosophicalConstellations

Althoughgreatphilosophersarenotmany,everyperiodinhistoryhasafew.Eventhoughtheymatchoneanotherinquality,however,theirconceptionsandlogiccan
beradicallydifferent.Evenifallphilosophiesemergefromdifferentsources,dotheynothaveacertainaffinity?Theconstellationsformedbyphilosophersofacertain
periodsuggestatleastthefollowingquestions:(1)Howaretheindividualphilosophersrelatedtooneanother?(2)Howaretheyrelatedtothephilosophical,the
semiphilosophicalandtheprephilo

 Page60

sophicaltraditionsoftheirtime?and(3)Cantheindividualphilosophiesandphilosophicaltrendsofonehistoricalperiodbebroughttogetherinoneallencompassing
characteristicof"thephilosophy"orthephilosophical"spirit"ofthisperiod?

Thesequestionscanbeformulateddifferentlyandfurtheranalyzed.Onecan,forexample,moresharplydistinguishbetweenindividualphilosophies,schoolsofthought,
andphilosophicallyrelevantundercurrentstodeterminetheprevailingexperiences,languagepatterns,argumentativestructures,andsoforthforeachofthese.A
completetheoryofthehistoryofphilosophyisimpossiblewithoutasystematicanalysisofalltheelementsinvolvedinthesequestions.Themainquestionatthisstageof
ourreflection,however,is:Isitpossibletotakeallthephilosophicaltrendsandtendenciesofacertainperiodintotheconceptof"thephilosophyofaperiod"(e.g.,of
theRenaissanceorof17801830)?Isasuperindividualtotalityofatemporalnaturepossible,orisanindividualwork,whereinathinkercollectsmanifoldmaterialand
influencesbytransformingthemintooneuniquetextualwhole,thehighestunity?Or,doesthehighestphilosophicalsynthesisexistinthephilosopherhimself,whenseen
asonelifeofthoughtinwhichtheworksaremerelymarkingstonesleftbehindalongajourney?

Whichschemaisappropriateinunderstandingtheinterrelationofphilosophiesinoneperiodofhistory?Mustonenotpossessasuperphilosophytobringthose
philosophiestogetherintooneconstellation?Iftheirauthorsaretrulyfundamentalthinkers,theirphilosophiesarethemselvessuchafirst(andlast)orsuperphilosophy,
whichcannotbearrivals.Theconceptsaffinityandenmitymightallowmorefreedomthansynthesisorrefutation.Whatisthedifferencebetweena'constellation'
anda'synthesis'?Howdoesahistorianescapethetemptationofmakinghimselftheonlymetaphilosopher,leavingallotherphilosophersbehindandbeneathhim?
Doestheonlysolutionlieinhisabandonmentofhistorical"objectivity"?Mustheboldlystatethatheisnotinterestedinarenditionofearlierphilosophiesbutmerely
concernedwithwhathe,asathinker,candowiththem?Inthiscase,thehistoryofphilosophyisonlyapreparationforawellinformedthematicphilosophyinwhich
othersofferthematerialand,perhaps,theinspiration.

 Page61

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

a.TheUnityofAnOeuvre.

Thequestionofhowcontemporarythinkerscanbegroupedtogetherispartofthequestionofwhethersuperindividualwholescanbedifferentiatedinthehistoryof
philosophy.Inasinglework,weseektheinnerunityandconnectionofatextunfoldingintimetodiscoveritsstructure,wehavetogobackandforthfromatoz.
Takentogether,severalworksofanauthorformaphilosophicaloeuvre.Insomecases,anoeuvrecanbeunderstoodasoneongoingtext.Asuccessionofworks,
however,usuallyatteststochangesaphilosophergoesthroughinthecourseoftime.Temporalityandaspecialwayofcomingtobearepartofthetotalityofan
oeuvre.Noreadymadeschemacancharacterizethedevelopmentofthistotality,becauseeachhasitsowngenesisandtemporalcoherence.Ifonestillwishesto
speakofanallencompassingtext,presenthereandnowasarangeofbooks,onemustnotforgettheparticulartimestructuredifferentiatingthesetextsintophases.
Thecommentarymustnotonlydisplayitsthematicconsistencybutalsotellastory.

Therenditionofanoeuvreisnotasimplifiedcopyofawriter'smentallife.Thedevelopmentofhisthoughtthesamemaybesaidafortioriforhislifeismore
complicatedthanwecanknowfrompublishedtexts.Anauthorrelatesonlyafewofthestagesofhislifeandthoughtinhisworks,onlyafewofhisachievements.
Unspokenandunconsciousthoughtsandmotivescanberevealedbythedetectiveskillsofexegetes,psychoanalysts,literarycritics,andotheranalyticspecialists.
However,thephilosophicalmeaningofanoeuvreisinthespecificwayithastransformedallthevitalfactorsintoanexplicitbodyofthought.

Thelifeofaphilosopherpresentsitselfasaninclusivetotalitywithinwhichphilosophizingcanbedefined.However,objectionscanberaisedagainstsummarizinga
philosophybyencirclingitsauthor'slife.Firstofall,wearenotconcernedwithhislife,butratherwiththephilosophythatcomesoutofit.Themomenthisworksare
produced,whenlivingthoughtsaretransformedintoobjectiveelementsbelongingtoourcultural"apparatus,"theyattainindependencefromtheirwriter.Second,a
philosopher'sbirthanddeathdonotcoincidewiththebeginningandendofhisphilosophical,orphilosophicallyrelevant,developments.Thus,third(andthisis

 Page62

closelyrelatedtothepreviouspoint),thepathofthinkingisnotacopyofthelifeinwhichittakesplace.Extensivepsychologicalandphilosophicalanalysesare
necessarytoelucidatethecomplicatednetworkconnectingthenontheoreticalmotivesofalifeandthephilosophicalproductionitleavesbehind.Butevenbeforesuch
analyses,itseemsplausiblethatthetotality,thestructure,andthegenesisofthetheoreticaldonotcompletelycoincidewiththetotality,thestructure,andthegenesis
ofthelivedlife.Ahistorianofphilosophyisthereforemorecautiousifhestartswiththestudyoftheoeuvreasaclosedtheoreticaltotality,withoutimmediately
questioningtherelationofthisoeuvretothelifefromwhichitsprings.Whileatleastsomeacquaintancewithitsexistentialsourcesisdemandedfortheconcrete
understandingofaphilosophy,atthebeginningthiscanbeintuitiveandunscientific.

Afourthreasonwhytheworksandthelifeofagreatphilosopherarenotcoextensiveisthatmostoftheteachingcontainedintheworkisposthumous:ithasanother
timeandfuture,distinctfromthelifeofthethinker.Theworksbecomeapropertyofothertimes.Themeaningthatagoodinterpretationcanacquirefromthem
inevitablychanges.

Wemustnotbedeludedbytheapparentunityofaphilosophicaloeuvre.Forsomeauthors,evenworksintendedforpublicationaremissingforothers,wehaveall
theexperimentsandfingerexercisestheythemselveshaddiscarded.Mustwecounttheposthumouspapersaspartofanauthor'soeuvre,orshouldwebemerciful
enoughnottoidentifyaphilosophersuchasKantwiththeliterarystammeringsthatheleftbehind?Theworkswrittenare,toagreatextent,amatterofchance:the
demandsofteaching,questionsfromstudents,invitationsandcallsforpapers,thesuccessesofrivals,imposters,sophists,andtrendsallplayaroleintheproductionof
texts.Theideathattheworkofagreatthinkercanbereadasoneinterconnectedwholeisthustooperfect(i.e.,tooabstractlyphilosophical)tobetrue.Butitisuseful,
andinevitable,inaphilosophicalrenditionofthehistoryofphilosophy.

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

b.TheUnityofaPeriod.

Thedifficultiesoftotalizingbecomegreaterwhenahistoriantriestocreateconnectionsamongthe

 Page63

variousphilosophiesofacertainperiod.Whatunitycanbringthevariousphilosophersandtheirworkstogetherinonephilosophicalwhole?Or,isthisawrong
question?Mustweseektheunityofaphilosophicalperiodatthelevelofphilosophicallyrelevantcurrentsandundercurrents?Dosuchthingsasperiodsin"thelifeof
philosophy"actuallyexist?

Takingavailabletextsasourstartingpoints,wemightconsiderwhetheraphilosophicalperiodcanbedescribedandunderstoodasaContext,ofwhichallsurviving
textsarefragments.Inspiteandbecauseoftheirdifferences(whichmaycontaincontradictions),thesefragmentsbelongtogetherinamanneropentofurtheranalysis.
Itseemspossibletocircumscribeaphilosophybycharacterizingitstextsandtheirtextualconnections(withouttryingtohide,polish,orremovetheircontradictionsby
one'sownsynthesis).

Anobjectiontoreducingallpastphilosophiesintoonetextoftexts,orsupertext,isthatittreatstheseasaseriesofcorpses.Assoonasatextceasestobethought,it
isdead.Thethoughtpossibilitiesitharborsdonotcometolifeunlesssomeone(re)thinksthem.Aphilosophyofthepastexistsjustliketoday'sphilosophy,hereand
now,whenitisthoughtbyoneormorethinkers.Aphilosophy"ofthepast"differsfromone"ofourtime,"however,becauseitisrethoughtviainterpretation.Itneeds
atleasttwohumanbeingsinordertoexist:thewriter,whoselifenolongerparticipatesinhistory,andthereader,whodidnotliveinthewriter'stime.Readersare
presupposedwhentextsarewritten.Thechronologicaldifferencebetweenadeadwriterandalivingreadermeansthattheformercannolongerdefendhistexthe
needsotherstopleadhiscase.Asopposedtoatext,aContextisnotproducedbyaphilosopherashisownthought:itcomestobewhensomeoneelsetakesthe
textsofseveralphilosopherstogether,inadiagnosticsynthesis.Suchasynthesisformsametatext,displayingtheconnectionsofatextualconstellation.Aninsightinto
suchconnectionsishardlypossibleforoneofthethinkersfunctioningwithinthisconstellation.Hegivesaninterpretationofothertextsandproductionsofhisperiod
fromhisparticularperspective.Alaterreaderhasmoredistancehisdescriptionoftheearliercontextismarkedbyanewperspective,whichisdeterminedbyhis
placewithinalaterconstellation.Rethinkinggivesoldtextsanewplaceandmeaningwithinanewcontext:thewrittenandspokenthinkingofanothertime.Liketheold
text,itsretakinghas

 Page64

itsownhistory,too.Itcanbeforgotten,scorned,refuted,refined,oramended.Thehistoryoftextsisahistoryoflibrariesandarchives,revivedonlywhenthinking
takesanewturn.Anearlierphilosophyremainsafossil,untilsomeoneisabletoreadandunderstanditwell.

ThequestionofcharacterizinganearlierContext(i.e.,thedesignationofperiodsinthehistoryofphilosophy)mayperhapsbeformulatedasfollows:

Itseemspossibletoreadthemostimportanttextsofacertainperiodandtodistinguishthemaccordingtocontent,form,andstyle.(Thedefinitionandselectionofthe
"important"ones,ofcourse,poseenormousproblems,butwewillleavethisproblemforthemoment.)Theconstellationofthe(questionable)selectionoftexts
presentsuswiththetaskofdescribingandinterpretingitsnature,structure,andstyle.Suchcharacterizationisevenmorequestionablethantheinterpretationofasingle
work.Fromthecornerofthepresent(whereIdonotevenhavean"objective"viewofmyownrelationtoothercontemporarypeople)andwithinthewebofa
specificcontextspunaroundme,Igivemylimitedvisionofthoughtsinscribedintothedocumentsofanearlierpresent.A"periodofphilosophy"isaninterpretation
onlyexistingaspartofalatercontext,fromwhichanearlieroneacquiresoneofitsmeanings.Aninsightintotheconstellationwithinwhichathinkerdevelopshis
thoughtscannotbeadequatelyattainedbysomeonewithinthesameconstellation.Thequestionofcharacterizingthepatternofaparticularperiodcanonlybe
answeredinthatperiodthroughriskysuppositions.Goodoverviewscomelater,whicharetoalargeextentdeterminedbylaterpatterns'interpretingtheearlierone.
Thecharacteristicsofaperiodalsohaveahistory:themeaningofanearlierContextdependsonahistoricalinterpretationfunctioningwithinalaterContext,whichin
turnpointsbeyonditselfforabetterdiagnosisofthepast.

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

c.TheUnityofaHistory.

Theproblemofasuperindividualhistoricaltotalitybecomesyetmoredifficultwhenwereflectonhistoryasacontinuousshiftingoftransitoryconstellations.Some
levelsofhistorychangeveryslowly,butinthehistoryofphilosophy,mostchangesoccurveryrapidly.Closerconsiderationmayrevealaslowermovementunderneath
thosechanges,orevenatotalstandstill

 Page65

forseveralcenturiesforexample,whencertainassumptionsareacceptedandunquestionedforaverylongtime.However,therearealwaysimportantdifferences
atlessfundamentallevels.

Atotalhistoryofphilosophicalthoughtisnotpossible.Onecansurmisethatthedifferencesbetweentraditionswilldiminishinthefurtherunificationofourworldand
thatitwillbepossiblesomeday,owingtoenormoussimplificationsanddistortions,togivethesameovergeneralizingsynthesisofphilosophicalworldhistoryasisgiven
inourtimeof"Western"philosophy.Aworldhistoryofphilosophy,asopposedtoasocioeconomicworldhistory,isimpossible.Whiletheconceptandtheoryof
nonWesterneconomicsarealsoWesternproducts,ahistorysubmittingOrientalandotherphilosophiestothefundamentalproblems,schemas,andconceptsof
Westernphilosophywillmissitstargetbeforeitevenbegins.ThenonWesternphilosophiesitwilltreatcanprovidenothingbutconfirmations,variations,ordenialsof
typicalelementsintheWesterntradition.Theywillnotbeallowedtoshowtheirowncharacter.Agenuineworldhistoryofphilosophyhastoportraytheconstellations
andmovementsofradicallydifferenttraditionsbysimultaneouslyrevealingtheirprofoundstrangenesstooneanotheraswellascertainaffinitiesjustifyingtheirjoining
underthetitleof"philosophy."

AhistoryofWesternphilosophyisdifficultenough.Itisalsonotpossiblewithoutenormoussimplificationandscarelyjustifiableuniversalizations.Philosophers,
works,currents,andundercurrentsdonotrevealtheirsecretsinlabelsandhastycharacterizations.Thepreciserenditionofaphilosophypresupposesthatonehas
spentalongtimestudyingit.ButhowcanoneindividualworkthroughthewholeofWesternphilosophywithitsmultiformityandconstantmobility?Thehistorian's
remembering,whichgathersthemanyexpressionstogether,changesthepastintoelementsofhisownthought.Selectivity,theneglectofimportantauthors,andthe
misrepresentationofearlierthoughtsarelesserdangerstoonewhowantstoprofitfromourheritageforhiscreativethoughtalonethantheyaretoatruehistorian.
However,ahistoryofphilosophyisnotthesameasapropaedeuticphenomenologyofthevisionswhosespiritcanmakeuswiser.Aswehaveseen,selfeducation
basedonhistoryisnotonlyananamnesis,butanexodusandalienationaswell.Anemphasisonthislastaspectdoesnotabolishthedifferencebetweenphilosophical
formationandthehistoryofphilosophy.

 Page66

Withoutastandpointtranscendingallphilosophiesandtheirhistories,andwithoutidentifyinghimselfwithaparticularpositionwithinthedifferentconstellations,a
historianmustdescribetheirsimultaneityandcontinuoustransformations.Atthesametimehemustintegratetheinterwovennessofeveryphilosophywithitsauthor's
prephilosophicalexperiencesandwiththephilosophical,psychical,social,economic,technical,andculturalhistoriesinwhichitisrooted.

Suchahistoryisverydifferentfromahistoryofideasmaintainingthatideasleadanindependentlifeapartfromotherhistories.Ideasneitherexistnorfunctionexcept
aselementswithinthinkingindividuals'materiallyandsociallyrootedlives.Ideasandideologiescertainlyhavepower,buttheyarenotindependentsubstancesisolated
intheirideality.Theycannotbeunderstoodinisolationfromtheirthinkers.

Thehistoryofphilosophyalsodiffersfromahistoryofideologythatreducesallideasandphilosophiestostrugglesforpropertyandpowerorforlove.Although
certainphilosophicalcriticismsofideologiesmaybetrue,theyoverextendthemselveswhentheyclaimtobemorethanjustone(interesting,butpartial)contributionto
theproblematicoftruthandappearance.Byascertainingthetruth,theyrefutetheirownclaim.Absolutizingtheirviewpointcondemnssuchcriticismstoagreater
naivetthanthatofthecriticizedphilosophies.Thelatteratleastknowthatscientificanalysescannotanswerphilosophicalquestions.

Acompletehistoryofphilosophymustnotonlybeconcernedwithreconstructingthedifferentphilosophers'keypositions,shifts,anddevelopmentsbutmustalsobe
awareoftheirinfluencesupontheirownandothertimes,oftheirliterarytraces,theuseandabuseoftheirthoughts,oflegalandeconomicinstitutionsstimulatedby
theirtheories,andsoon.Foraphilosopherwritingphilosophy'shistory,thispresupposesathematicphilosophyofthetotalcultureaswellasitsmaterialandsocial
foundations.

6.5Dogmatismandhermeneutics

Fromtheforegoing,anumberofcriticalremarksregardingthetraditionalrenditionofphilosophyfollows.

The"positivism"defendedherecondemnseveryhistoryofphilosophywithpretensionsto"objectivity,"yetwithanexplicitor

 Page67

implicitapologyforaparticularphilosophy.ThomistichistoriesthatviewallphilosophybeforeAquinasaspreparationandallphilosophyafterhimaselaborationsof
hisdoctrineorasdeclineareasbadasMarxist,Hegelian,orempiricisthistories.Thewriterproclaimsonestarastheallencompassingsynthesisofallthe
constellationsandmovementsofhistory.

DoInotcontradictherethedemandforahistorianofphilosophytobeaphilosopherhimselfandforwritingphilosophyinthelightofactualthematicproblems?How
elsecandistanceandengagementbeunified,withoutchoosingapositionandpayingthepriceofonesidednesssoastoavoidanillusoryobjectivismsoneutralthatit
cannotsayanythinginterestingaboutthehistoryofthought?

Aonesidedandapologeticaccountofmypersonalpasthaseveryrighttobe.Itisagenealogyofmyfamilyandmyfriends,acquaintances,andenemies.However,it
isnotahistoryofphilosophy.

Wecanextendtheperspectiveofan"I"totheperspectiveofagroupa"we."Buteventhen"our"historyofphilosophywillbenomorethanapartialplea.Ifsuch
apologiesmakeuniversalclaims,theydegenerateintoimperialismandcolonialism.

Isanonimperialistic,nondogmatic,andnontriumphantattitudepossiblewithrespecttohumanhistory?Themetalevelforcedonthehistorianbyhisdesigndemandsits
ownlegitimation.Thisproducesapeculiar(meta)philosophy.AshistorianIhavemyownmetaphilosophy,whetherdisguisedwithinahistoryofphilosophyornot.
Doesmyexplicitorimplicitmetaphilosophyprovideenoughroomfortheunderstandingofallthephilosophiespresentedinmyhistoryintheirproperlight?Among
themareotherexplicitandimplicitmetaphilosophies.Doesthemetaphilosophyofahistorianleavetheotherphilosophiesandmetaphilosophiesfree?CanIbeso
"democratic"astorecognizetheirequalstatus,worth,oreventruth?Basedonwhathasbeensaidsofar,acompleteanswercannotbegiven.Thefollowingdiscussion
willreturntothisquestion.However,itisclearatthispointthattheideaofan"impartial"historydemandsasmanypartiesasthereareactualphilosophiesandpossible
metaphilosophies.

Subtlerwaysofmakinganapologycanbefoundinaccountscomposedaccordingtoschemasofriseandfallorofunendingpro

 Page68

gress.Theyassumethatideascanbeattainedonceandforalltheirauthorsareconvincedthattheypossessthecriteriathatcandistinguishtruefromfalse
philosophies.Justashopelessarethosehistoriesthatregardnoonepositionasmoreimportantthananother.Thethematicdefeatismevidentinsuchindifferenceisthe
oppositeofanequallybadapologeticdogmatism.

Theinquiryintohistoricalwholesinthelifeofphilosophynecessarilypresentsuswiththethematicproblemsofabsolutismandrelativism,andwiththebasic
questionsconcerningtruthandtime.Onourpresentlevel,wherethemonologicmodelstillprevails,overcomingpartialityseemsimpossible.Manyarguethatsincewe
cannotreach''objectivity,"asubjectiveviewpointisthebeginningandendofalltruthandmethod.Inviewofjustice,however,thechoiceforasubjectiveperspective
isunfairandweak.Evenfromamonologicalviewpoint,IamdefeatedifIcannotsayhowthehistoryofphilosophicalmultiplicityreallyfitstogetherasawhole.As
longasmyidealisthetruerenditionofactualhistory,inwhichmyviewpointisonlyonepossibility,thepartialityofmyvisionisamakeshiftmeasure,perhapsa
necessarystep,thatmustbeovercomelater.Theideaofaneutralrenditionisanillusion,butthe"positivism"shownhereasanecessityremainsacriterion.Asa
regulatoryidea,itmustbecombinedwiththenecessityofdevelopingmyversionofphilosophicalhistoryasanexcitingmovementofconstellationssweepingmealong
withit.Boththepersonalretrievalofpastandpresentphilosophiesandacertainpositivismarenecessaryforthesakeoftruthandjustice.Theretrievalcanbenarrow
oropen.Butitwillalwaysbecharacterizedbyaparticularvisionandstyle.Thelimitationofitsthematicperspectivedoesnotguaranteeafruitfulwayofbringingdead
textstolife,butitisanecessaryconditionifthosetextsaretosayanythingatall.Thestrengthofahermeneuticalrelationshipwiththepastrestsnotonlyonitsexciting
ordazzlingresultsbutalsoontheimpossibilityofanothermethod.All"objective,"positivistic,andideologicalaccountsaredisguisedformsofhermeneutics.Their
weaknessisinthenaivetoftheirclaimtothecontrary(andthustheydispute,ignore,ordespisethehermeneuticalmethod).

Atthispoint,themeaningofahermeneuticalapproachisstillanegologicalone.Otherphilosophersexistforme.Theyaremaster,friend,challenge,sourceof
contentionorinspiration.OfcourseIdonotwanttobeunjusttothem,butIamnottheirapologist.My

 Page69

defenseoftheirthoughtsisstrategicintheexpansionofmyownconsciousness:Ibecomewiserthroughdifferentanddangerousdiscussions.Bystrugglingwithothers,
Idiscoverand(re)formthetradition(s)towhichIbelong.Thus,historychanges,confirms,andillustratesmyownphilosophy.Otherscanread"the"(their)history
differently:theyhaveeveryrighttodoso.Thehistoryofphilosophyexistsasadiversityofstories.Thetotalityofallstoriesreplacesthehistoricaloverviewsforwhich
onlyoneauthorisresponsible.

Howcantheunityindiversityofsuchatotalitybeunderstood?IsthehistoryofphilosophydividedintoaBabelofsubjectivegenealogiescontainingasmanydisparate
viewpointsastherearenowphilosophicalpositions?

Ahermeneutichistoryofphilosophyisagenealogicaltreesetupbyaninterpreterhonoringhisfamily.Itisnotnecessaryforhimtobeafollowerofthatdirection,
becauseonecanalsowriteafamilyhistoryoutofaffectionandinterest.Hermeneuticsdoesnotexcludedistanceandreserve.ItgivesupthevainnotionoftheGreat
Synthesisandtravelsamorefruitfulpath:theexplanationofourpastdoesnotbeginattheendoforabovehistoryitcontinuesoneormoretraditionsandispartof
them.Ahermeneuticalreadingknowsthatititselfisanew,yetnotcompletelynew,partofhistory.Suchahistoryofphilosophyisafragmentofasystematic
philosophy,whichinthiscaseisnotdirectlyexpressedinathematicway,butviaresurrectionsofrelatedthinkersandenemies.

Badhermeneuticscoincideswithadogmaticformofpositivism.Epigoneswhointerprettheentirehistoryofphilosophyasacollectionofpreparations,mistakes,
variations,shadows,andconsequencesofonetruthareoftenquitesuccessful.Theirreadersunderstandwhatissetbeforethem.Thedoctrineisclear.Theconfidence
ofpropagandistsanmakeagreatimpression.Althoughtheireffortsallowthedisseminationofgreatthoughts,theirinfluenceisharmfulbecausetheyhinderthe
unfoldingofgenuinethoughtandsodestroytheheartoftheadmirablesystemsadvertisedbythem.

Thequestionmayarise:Whyistheideathatthetruewayofthinkinghasbeenfoundandonlyneedsrepetition,elaboration,andappropriationsounacceptable?It
wouldbeacceptableifourthinkingcouldgobeyondtimeandlookdownonhistoryfromanunlimitedvantagepoint.A"historyofthought"wouldthenmean

 Page70

thatanadulthoodhadbeenattained,makingallpreliminaryandsubsequentstagessuperfluous.Therewouldberoomonlyforapplicationandtranslation.However,
althoughperfectionasanidealbeckonsfromthehorizon,thehistoryofphilosophyisahistoryofsearchingandapproaching.Butinthatcase,noonecanusethe"only
truephilosophy"asastandardfordecidingthemeaningofthevariousexistingphilosophies.

Ifeveryinterpretationofthe"historyofphilosophy"isonlyfragmentaryand"subjective,"everyversionofitisonlyoneamongmanypartlycomplementary,partly
opposedversionslegitimizingthemselvesfromotherviewpointsandtraditions.Awareofthisfact,Igoinaformalwaybeyondmyownperspective.Aquestion
inevitablyarises:areallinterpretationsequallylegitimate?Whattruthoruntruthcomesforthinthetotalityofallpossibleversionsofthehistoryofphilosophy,inits
partsandasawhole?Thedemandforanallinclusiveviewpoint,thepositingandtheformal,emptythinkingofthetotaltruth,isunavoidable.Butperhapsweare
mistakenintryingtosolvethisproblembythegraceofasuperinterpretationincludingandoverpoweringallpossibleinterpretations.Thedesireforamonologuein
whichallapologiesreceivetheirultimatecoherenceignoresthetemporalandculturallimitsofourinsight.Issuchabreakthroughpossible?Doesitmakesenseto
speakofaspeciesaeternitatis,ofatimelessor"eternal''truth?Itisnotdifficulttoadmitthatwecannotunfoldsuchatruthtoitsfullextent.(Itisuncertainwhetheror
notthislackofpretensionisasignofmodesty.)But,canweforgettheideaofanultimateandabsolutetruth?Canwestopdesiringit?Or,moreimportantly,canwe
continuetophilosophizeifwealtogethereliminatethisidea?

Anotherperspectiveimpressesitselfonus:howfarcanweextendthetemporalandtopicallimitationofourthinking,perhapsevenovercomeit,bythematizingthe
intersubjectiveandsocialconditionsthatdeterminetruthseekingspeech?Doesagoodhistoryofphilosophy,likeathematicphilosophy,requireustoturnfrom
monologuetodialogue?

 Page71

ChapterIII
PhilosophyasDiscussion
Whatistherelationbetweenphilosophyanditshistory?Whatconsequencesdoestheanswerhaveforboth?Chapter2developedthisquestionfromthefact(which
wasalsoademand)thatthematicphilosophizingalwaysbeginswith,andremains,learning.Completeknowledgeisnotpossibleinphilosophy:thisisanunattainable
ideal.Thequestionsphilosophyasksaretoodifficult.Theygobeyondtheboundariesofourcapacityforinsight.Butforthissamereasontheyalwaysleadusbackto
thecompanyofthinkerswhohavelaboredattheseboundaries.

Intheprecedingchapter,otherswerediscussedaspredecessors,examples,andwritersoftexts,that"I,"theeternalbeginner,receive,read,digest,appropriate,
retake,andprolong.Otherphilosopherswerethereforme.Theperspectivewashermeneuticandegological.Spokenandwrittenwordswereimportantformy
developmentasaphilosopher.TheyweresignpostsandguidelinestheymademeawareofaninheritancethatcouldenrichmeifIfulfilledcertainconditions.

Thestudyofphilosophyis,however,notonlylisteningandlearning,repeating,andreflecting,itisalsothinkingandspeakingahead,forthesakeofotherswhowantto
think.Everyspeechaimingattruthisanattempttobringotherssomethingworthwhiletothinkabout.Eventheclumsiestutterancemakessuchclaims.Learningto
speakislearningtoteach.Atraininginphilosophyisunsuccessfulifthepupilbecomesanepigone.Philosophicalparrotsmissthequintessenceofthoughtonly
dictatorscanfindsatisfactioninthem.Theprofessorwhobearsnoopposition,thePartyorChurchthat

 Page72

knowseverything,theMovementthatforcessolidaritythroughslogans:allthesearecaricaturesandenemiesoftruephilosophy.Atruephilosophereventually
provokesotherstocriticismandopposition.Iftheydonotemancipatethemselvesfromtheirteacher'sauthority,thereisnohopeforanycommunicationinwhichboth
willbetheother'spupilandmaster.TheSocratesofPlato'sdialoguesisnotagoodexample.Thereisnotmuchleftforhisinterlocutorstosayexcept"Yes,of
course"(or"No,ofcoursenot").TherealSocrateswasbetter,forhebroughtforthPlato,andPlatobroughtforthAristotle.Findingone'sownpathofthoughtcomes
notonlyfromhavinggoodteachersbutalsofromone'sstrength(andwheredoesonegetthisstrength?)toresisttherhetoricallypowerful.

Philosophicallearningdoesnotresultincompleteknowledgebutratherinanoriginalwayofparticipatinginanongoingdiscussion.Theflowofotherwordstypicalof
discussioncannotbeunderstoodwithintheegologicalperspectivestilldominantinchapter2.Holdingaconversationmeansallowingtheotherpersontospeakas
otherfromme.Theotherisnotonlythereforme(asteacher,assistant,ordiscussionpartner)butalso,andfirstofall,forhimself.Withouttheirreplaceableand
irreduciblecontributionoftheother'sotherness,theconversationlosesitsphilosophicalrelevance.Itisdifferentandcannotbereplacedbythe"internaldialogue"ofa
selfsufficientego.

Ifperfectphilosopherswerepossible,allconversationswouldhavetoculminateintheimperiumofthewholetruth:aMonologuewouldonlyformulatedogmasthe
oneandonlytrueideologywouldmakeperfectpeacethroughuniversalindoctrination.Nations,Churches,andpoliticalpartieshaveappealedtosuchtruthtojustify
warsandcampsfortheexterminationoffalsehood.Areviolenceandrhetoricinevitablewhenpeoplebelievethey"possess"theone,thewhole,andthepuretruth?
No,ifthattruthhasaninfiniterespectforallattemptsatindependentthinking,andno,ifthe"possessors"donotknowtheyhavethewholetruth(inwhichcasethey
wouldnotpossessthewholetruthbecausesomethingwouldbelackingintheirknowledge).No,iftheyknowthattruthisunobtrusive,andactaccordingly.Ifthey
thinkitisuselesstoreflectonotherperspectivesinthebeliefthatthehistoryoftruthseekinghasreacheditsgoal,thenviolenceandrhetoricareinevitable.CanItake
anotherspeakerseriouslyifIamconvincedofmy"possessing"thetruth?Or,isit

 Page73

essentialforgenuinethoughttoremainaneverendingsearch.modestlyallowingotherseekerstospeak?

1.Philosophyasdialogue

Philosophizingisareflectivesearchfortheone,unique,andtotaltruth.Thisdefinitionisnotundonebyinsistingontheinevitabilityofthought'slimitedperspective.The
definitionofperspectivenecessarilycontainsanonperspectivistmomentincessantlypropoundedbytheimpulsethatpowerseveryseriousandradicalthought.

Theconflictbetweenourdesirefortheoneandtotaltruthandourimprisonmentinaperspectivelimitedbytime,culture,education,andindividualitymakesour
strugglefortheGreatSynthesisnotimpossible,butnaive:anoverseerandruleroftheuniverseactingasagodisactuallyamerewindowthroughwhichcertainthings
canbeseen.Whoeverunderstandsthisunderstandsthatneitherhisnoranyothersynthesiscanbethefinalword.Allsynthesesareimportantaslongastheyhavea
certainlevelandquality.Athinkercannotgiveuphisstruggleforoverviewsbecausethinkingisputtingthingstogether.Yetheseeshiswayofthinkingasoneofthe
manydifferentpossibilities.Since"thetruth"cannotbemyindividualmonopoly,Iseeinmy"truth"one(possible)truth,whosevaluedependsontheextenttowhichit
partiallyrealizesthenecessaryideaoftheone,whole,andgenuinetruth.WiththisformulationIdonotwanttosuggestthattruthisanunattainabletreasure
independentlyexistingsomewhere(evenifthisimageisnotaltogetheruntrue).Theideaofapureandcompletetruthrulesallauthenticthinking.Thediscoveriesof
thoughtfulactivitydonotabolish,butratherenrich,itslimitedperspective.Inspiteof,andthanksto,thepeculiarityofmyindividuallimitation,Icanputsomethinginto
wordsthatisworthwhileinitsownright,andalsoforothers.Ithinkandtrymy"word"asamoreorlesssuccessfulattempt.Otherattemptscanandmustalsobetried
out.OnmyjourneyIlookaheadtodifferent"words"othercontributionsbearingshadowsorreflectionsofthetruth.

Icannotinventthoseotherwords.OfcourseIcanthinkofalternatives,othermethods,formulations,divisions,andarguments,but

 Page74

Icannotdefendthemasothers.WheneverIformulatethem,theyarestepsinmyowntrainofthought.Theyare,forexample,suggestionsIacceptorobjectionsI
refute.Theyaresubmittedtothemovementandstyleofmywayinbeingstolenfromothers,theychangetheirindividuality.ThewordsIseekascomplementand
correctiontomyownmustconfrontmewithotherapproaches,mustgiveexpressiontootherthinkersasothersandnotaspossibleelementsofasysteminwhichI
canrecognizemyownthoughts.Icanspeakinthenameofothersandexplainwhattheymean,orreconstructtheiranswerstopossiblequestions,butIcanonlydo
thisafterothershavefirstspokenorwritten.

Ifeverythoughtispartiallydeterminedbythehaecceitasofauniqueindividual,nomonologuecantrulyandconcretelytranscenditsownperspectivealthoughthe
veryconceptofaperspectiverefersourthoughttosomethingbeyonditself.Theonlywayofovercomingtheboundariesofourstrictlyindividualperspectiveisby
receivingthewordsofotherswhoarealsothinkingandspeakingforthesakeoftruth.Theencounterwithotherthinkersisessentialtothemethodofphilosophy.

Bylisteningandreading,Idiscoverthatothersthinkandhavethoughts.Thisdiscoveryprecedesmyownindependentthought.Instrivingforacertainmastery,apupil
doesnotdoawaywithauthority.Thisisinsufficientlymaintainedbyahermeneuticsthatintegrateswordsintoanenrichedmonologue.Amasterphilosopherisnota
conqueror,butaparticipantinaconversationofrelatedmindsinwhicheachtreatstheotherasanauthority.

TheattempttoovercomethemonologicalstructureofphilosophynecessarilyraisesthequestionHowareallthewordsofothersandofminerelatedtooneanother?
Whatunitydotheirinterconnecteddifferencesform?Howmustwedescribetheconstellationofthinkerspresentingthemselvestooneanotherinradicallydivergent
words?

Itisnotthattruthismerelythewholeofalltherepresentedstandpointsandsyntheses.For(a)itisnotcertainthatallpossiblestandpointshavebeenexpressed(what
isthecriterionfordeterminingpossiblestandpoints?)and(b)itisnotcertainthatthesynthesespresentedaresufficientlytruetobeimportantanentireepochandall
philosophieswithinitcanbeuntrueandinauthentic.Doestheexpressionallstandpointsreallymeananything?Doesthe

 Page75

wordallmeanempiricalendlessnessorauniversethatcanbedefined,forexampleinasuperhumanmonologue?

Howwearetodefineandunderstandtheconstellationofexisting(trueanduntrue)philosophiesisaproblemofthehistoryofphilosophy.Themeaningofthis
constellationinoursearchfortruthisoneofthefundamentalquestionsofsystematicphilosophy.Thehistoricalmultiplicityofdifferentphilosophiesformatogetherness
thatcannotbesummarizedbyanyindividual.Thistogethernessisnotasynthesis.Monologuesthatsummarizeremainnecessarytheyprovethatsearchingreallydoes
goonthus,radicalityandcoherencearesought.Thesamegoesforhermeneuticalappropriationandretrievals.However,everyattemptatasynthesisisgoverned
fromthebeginningbythenormrequiringittojoinadialogueinwhichnoonehasthelastword.Inordertorecognizethetruththatnooneisagod,toletothersspeak,
andtorespectthevalidityofallseriousattemptsattruth,mymonologuemustchangeintoafragmentofthegreaterconversationofproposalsandcounterproposals,
whichcanneitherbeovercomenorendedbyanyindividualconclusion.Everyattempttotransformthisdialogueintoasystemofmyownisamereinaugurationof
anotherstage.Thereisnofinalword.Thereisnofinaltime.Thereisnoomniscientauthority.

Basedontheforegoing,itisnowpossibletoformulatesomeoftheconditionsnecessaryforafruitfuldialogue.

Mostimportant,Imustpermitotherthinkerstospeakasothers.Iamandremainonlyaparticipant.Modestydoesnotpreventmefromseekinganddefendingmy
findingsinmyway,passionatelyopposingwhatIfindtobeinauthenticoruntrue.Afiercestrugglefortruthisverydifferentfromadictatorship.

Ofallthethoughtful"words"thatothershaveproduced,thebestdeservepriority.TheyaresonumerousthatImustmakechoices.ButevenifIwereabletostudyall
ofthem,thequestionwouldremain:howwillIrecognizethe"best,"oringeneral,howdoIrecognizethequalityofphilosophicalconceptions?

Onecriterion,whichsimultaneouslyestablishesakinshipamonginterlocutors,isintheorientationoftheexpressedthoughttowardsthetruthitself.Inthisthespeakers
recognizetheircommoninspiration.Buthowisthisorientationascertained?

Dialogueisthetotalityoftheinteractionsthroughwhichafamilyofthinkerscomestobe.Howdotheirencountersdevelop?

 Page76

Ananalysisoftheconversationinwhichtruthisatstakeseemsappropriatetoattainmoreclarityaboutthestructureandconditionsofphilosophyasanongoing
dialogue.

2.Conversationsinsearchoftruth

Noteveryconversationisrelevanttoanunderstandingofphilosophy.Iftwoormorepeopleconverse,intendingtodiscovertruth,theirconversationrealizesan
intentionfromwhichphilosophyderivesitsmeaning.Ananalysisofsuchaconversationwillthereforebeilluminatingforanunderstandingof(theessenceof)
philosophy.

Threeelementsofthisconversationseemtobeclear:

Thereareatleasttwospeakers.
1.
2. Theirspeakingrequiresexchangeandtime.
3. Theirspeakingaimsat(more)truth.

Thethirdelementprovidesfoodforthought,tobediscussedinthelastchapter.Thefirsttwoareanalyzedinthissection,andthefollowingsectionswillrelatethemina
moreconcretewaytotheproblematicofthisbook.

2.1Speaking

Theparticipantsinaconversationabouttrutharesimilarinmanyways.Eachismotivatedbyadesirefortruthandexperienceshisandtheothers'speechaspartofa
searchthatmustleadtofurtherinsight.Whethertheirconversationactuallybringsthemcloserto(the)truthisnotcertain,butthatcertainlyistheirintention.This
intentionisthenormoftheirconversation,fromwhichcertainconditionsfollow:asincerityofintentionandexpression,thecouragetogobeyondthefamiliar,andthe
modestytoadmitboththatnooneisamasteroftheuniverseandthat"thetruth"istoogreatforanyofus.Other"virtues"necessaryforthejointsearchmaybe
deducedfromtheunderlyingaimofphilosophy,whichistobeneitherscepticalnordogmatic.Thesevirtuescomprisethe"morality"belongingtoanauthenticsearch
fortruth.Butthedialogicalcharacterofphilosophyistherebynotyetrevealed.The"morality"ofthinkingindicatedhereisapplicabletoalltheparticipants,butitdoes
notyetexpresstheirmutualrelations.Asitisderivedfromeverypartici

 Page77

pant'sorientationtowardstruth(whichisgreaterthananyindividual'sspeechandgreaterthanthatofallthespeakerstakentogether),thismoralityrulestheir
conversation,butassuchitrevealsneitherthedemandsimpliedintheirdialoguenorthenatureoftheirtogetherness.Thesecannotbecomeclear,unlesswepay
attentiontowhatconstitutesthedifferencesbetweentheinterlocutors.Equalityinthesearchisanecessaryconditionforanaffinityandafeelingofsolidarity,butitdoes
notconstituteintersubjectivity.However,inequalityisalsoessential.

Speakingisalwaysspeakingtoanother."Thinkingaloud"(andinnerdialogues,aswell)aredirectedatsomeoneotherthanthespeaker.Theyarewaysofdoubling
oneself.Speakingalwaysincludestwopersons:thepersonspeakingandthepersonspokento.Evenasaconversationwithmyself,speakingisaspeakingtoitdoes
notmakesenseifIdirectmyinnerwordstonoone,orifthisother"I"isamereillusion.Speechimpliesaparticularkindofduality.

ThepersontowhomIaddressmyselfisfacedwiththeoppositeotherness:heunderstandswhatIsayasanactivityinspiredbyacertainintentionandpretension.By
directingmyselftothelistener,Iintrudeonhislivingaheadofhimself,histhinking,musing,planning,andbeingsilent.Iclaimtohavesomethingtosayandforcehimto
listen.Betweeninvitationandcoerciontherearemanygradations,buteventhesweetestwordisanattackontheother'sprivacy.Itcanbeapleasantsurpriseora
longawaitedanswer.Nevertheless,itbefallsthereceiverassomethingbeyondhiscontrol.IfIhearaworddirectedatme,Idonotandcannotproduceit.Only
anothercanpronounceit.IfItakeitupintomycogitoandpronounceitanew,itisaquotation.ItreferstothespeakerIhaveheard.WhenIappropriateawordI
haveheard,Icaneliminateitsauthorbyabstractingthespeech'scontent.ThetraditionalwayinwhichWesternphilosophyhastakenup,analyzed,andassimilated
wordsandtextsisasimilarabstraction.Appropriationhastakenplacethroughtransformingspokenandwrittenwordsintotheelementsofnewmonologues.The
othersremainedaliveaslongasthereal,orpossible,senseoftheirtextswastakenup,buttheirothernessdisappearedintothenewtextstowhichthisassimilation
processgavebirth.

Thedifferencebetweenspeakerandlistener,pointedouthereinaveryformalway,hasaphenomenalconcreteness.Someofitselementsmustnowbedescribed.

 Page78

Aconversationforthesakeoftruthhasmeaningonlyifsomethingnewissaid,byonesideatleast.This"newsvalue"isgroundedinthesurprisingcharacterofspeech
referredtoabove:italwaysappearsassomethingunexpected.Byhismouthandeyes,orifIcannotseehimbyhisvoice,intonation,andemotionalforce,the
speakercomesuponme,creatingandestablishingsomethingnew.Icannotwithdraw.Imustchooseeithertodealwithhiswordsinmyownwayortoignorethem.

The"news"broughtforthmaybeanexpressionofsomethingIhavealreadythoughtorsuspectedorvaguelyfelt.Still,whatissaidisdifferent.Thisbecomesevident,
forexample,whenyouexpressathoughtthatIhavealreadyentertained.Itsoundsdifferentfromthesamethoughtinmy"head"andprovokesmetoquestions,
doubts,criticism,andsoon.Ifindmyselfmoreinoppositiontoitthanwhenitwasamomentinmyownworldandthought.

Thenewsthatyoutellmecanalsobeaclarificationofmyownthoughtsorfeelings,forexamplewhenyoutranslateorinterpretwhatIhavesaid.Youcanurgemeto
explainorcorrectmythoughtsbyaskingquestions.Youcanopenmyeyestounknownconnections.Listeningtothespokenwordalwaysinvolvesanelementof
learning.Thenewsisnotnecessarilygood:theclaimsofanother'sspeechcanbedestructivenevertheless,theyalwaysrepresentamasterytome,thelisteningparty.
Inthissense,everyactoflisteningisalearningandeveryactofspeakingisaninstruction.Theintentionofspeechforthesakeoftruthincludes(evenifitdoesnot
pronouncegenuinetruths)thepretensionofinstruction.Everyactofspeakingisaclaimtomastery.

Ifonlyoneofthepartiesspeaks(forexample,inalecturetowhichtheaudiencereactsonlythroughvariouskindsofapplauseorreproval),noconversationarises,
evenifthereactioncanbeunderstoodasanagreement.Ifquestionscanbeasked,anexchangemaystart.Criticalquestionsareattemptsatchangingthebalanceof
influence,buttheystillallowthespeakertomaintainthecentralposition.Thisisalsothecaseindiscussionsinwhichonespeakerdominatesandactsas"master,"while
theotherspeakersaremerebuddingteachers.Whenthespeakersarealternatelymasterandpupilforeachother,however,adiscussionbetween"equals"arises.
Theirequalityrestsontheinequalitythatmakesthembothgiverandreceiverinturn.Bothhavesomething(new)tosay,which,atleastinacertainrespect,theother
cannotdrawfromhimself.

 Page79

Aconversationinwhichnothingnewisdiscussedcanhavemeaningasapauseinthesearchfortruth.Itexpresseslittleofthedifficulttrialanderrorthatistypicalof
thissearch.Althoughspeechthatconfirmswhatthelisteneralreadyknowsstillbringssomethingnew,thenewnessoftheother'swordsshowsthataconversation
cannotstopatamutualaffirmationofthesametruth.

Anobjectionariseshere.Areformandcontentnotconfusedbysayingthatawordspokentoanothercontainssomethingnew,justbecauseofitsotherness?Why
shouldthecontentofthatexpressionchangeifanother,andnotI,pronouncesit?

Thephenomenonofspeakingisanoccurrenceofsomethingnew:itsurprisesthelistenerandhasacertainstrangeness,evenforthespeaker.He,too,issurprisedby
it.Bystressingthedifferencebetweenformandcontent,theobjectiontriestosalvagetheidentityofthe"word,"inspiteofthedifferencesbetweenthespeakerandthe
listener.Itmaintainsthatthephenomenonofspeakingcanbeexplainedwithinthefamiliarframeworkofaphilosophyoftheuniversal.Thisphilosophytakesitsstand
beyondtheindividualityofindividuals,summarizingtheirthinkingandspeakingintheformof"common"thoughts.Theprecedingdiscussion,however,hassetouttwo
linesofthoughtthroughwhichthispresupposeduniversalmaybechallenged.

Afirstrefutationbeginswiththeassertionthataphilosophical"word"(Iusethisexpressionhereasametaphorforawholeargument)ismeaningfulonlywithinthe
contextofother(philosophical,scientific,literary,etc.)relatedwords.Thiscontextispartofitsmeaning.Ifitistrue,asarguedabove,thatthecontentandthemeaning
ofallthewordsspokenbyaphilosopherareperspectivized,andthattheultimateperspectiveisconstitutedbytheuniquenessofhisindividuality,thenthemeaningof
hiswordsisalsouniqueandstrictlyindividual.Thisinterpretationcorrespondsmorecloselytotheexperienceofspeakingasapresentationofsomethingnewthan
totheexplanationthatdeniestheimpossibilityofacontent'srepetition.Italsoescapesthevulgarnominalismofmeaningbysimultaneouslymaintainingthepossibility
andrealityofathoroughaffinitybetweenthethinkers,whoalsoproduceaconcreteandnonreductiveuniversality.

Thesecondlineofargumentationbeginswiththeindividualityofthespeaker.Yourspeakingexpressesapositionbywhichtheself

 Page80

engagesitself.Alongwithyourvoice,melody,rhythm,andemotions,yourthoughtsarealsoyourown.Ideasbecomedisconnectedfromyourindividualityjustaslittle
asdoyourotherattributes.Theabilitytocommunicatewithothersandachieveagreementbyexpressingyourthoughtsdoesnotnegate,butratheremphasizes,the
uniquenessofthosethoughts.Themoreindividualtheyare,themoretheyhavetosay.Thepossibilityoftheirvaliditybeingrecognizedbymany,orevenbyall,does
notinvalidatetheiroccurrenceonlyintheformofuniquethoughts,thoughthereandnowbythisspeaker.Thoughtsarenotlifelessrealities,existingindependentlyfrom
theconsciousnessoftheirthinkers.Iftheformerthinkinginwhichtheyexistedisnottransmittedbyalaterretaking,theydisappear.Activethoughtproduceswords,
letters,andtextsifanotherthinkerdoesnotbringthemtolifeagain,theyremainmerepossibilities.Pureuniversality,unsulliedbyindividuality,''exists"onlyasa
possibility.Butwhatkindof"existence"doesapossibilityhave?Beingpossiblemeanspreciselythat:althoughitcan,itdoesnot,exist.Evenifweadmitone
superindividualintellectthatthinksandkeepsuniversalityalive,individualspeakersarestillitsconcreteanduniqueeditions.Everywordisstrictlyanindividual
expression.Everywordisnews.Notasinglewordisisolated,eitherfromthespeaker'scontextorfromthatexchangeofwordscalleda"discussion."

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Whensomethingnewissaidtome,Iamapproachedbysomethingstrange.Ifthespokenwordcontainsawholephilosophyandasatruthseekingspeaking,it
alwaysdoesinamoreorlessexplicitwaygreateffortisdemandedofmeinworkingmywayintotheother'strainofthoughtandcontext.Thespokenwordurges
metosee,think,andfeeldifferentlythanIdowhenIfollowmyownspontaneousinclinations.TheestrangementIaminvitedtocanbeverydifficulttoaccomplish,
especiallywhentheothercomesfromafar.IcandisregardtheclaiminthespokenwordsIcanalsomakethewordsharmlessbyforcingthemintomyownlanguage
andframeworksothattheyhavenothingnewtosay.Theactoflistening,however,presupposesthatIallowmyselftobecarriedoutfrommyowncenter.WhatIfind
tobeselfevidentisthensuspendedbyway

 Page81

ofatest,Iallowmyselftobepersuadedtoassumeanothervision.Iabandonmymind,atleastprovisionally,tothedifferentlogic,rules,andpatternsofanotherwayof
thought.Theother'sspeechturnsmearound.

Suchachangedoesnoteliminatethedemandforautonomousthinkingthatisnecessaryforaphilosopher.Histemporarysilenceinreflectingonothers'wordsremains
motivatedbythestruggletoexamineeverythingcriticallyhimselfand,ifpossible,toretakeitforhisown.Thepathofcriticalreceptivityrunsbetweenatotal
submissiontothespeakerandarelapseintoadogmaticmonologue.Thereactiondemandedbythewordcanbeschematizedasfollows.

Listeningisacomplying,thinking,enjoying,seeing,andfeelingalongwithwhatissaidasatentativeagreeing,measuring,andexploringofitspossibilities,itabsorbs
somethingstrange.Whatissaiddemandsmyreflectionanddistantappropriation,asakindoftest:Iexamineitsinternalcoherencewithinthespeaker'scontext,his
ownprinciples,norms,andpresuppositions.IfIdothisthoroughly,Ireconstructtheentireconstellationoftheother'sspeech.

Thetesting,however,alsooccursfromanexternalpointofview.Thedistancebetweenthespeakerandmemakesitimpossibleformetodenymyownframework,
context,andsystem.Imustassertthem,inspiteofmywillingnesstolettheotherspeak.IdonotmaintainmyconvictionasthoughIhadthepatentontruthoras
thoughmycriteriawereabsolutelyunassailable,butrathertocreateatensionbetweentwo"words,"myownandtheother's,thatstrugglewitheachotherinvarious
degrees.

Thisawakenedtensionforcesmetoexaminebothmyownandtheother'sspeaking,thinking,andexperience.Another'sspeechcausesadoubledistanceinme:
distancetowhatissaidanddistancefrommyownpresuppositionsandcriteria,robbedoftheirselfevidenceandsecurity.Idonotgivethemup,butIallowthemto
bediscussed.Igointoastateofnot"knowingforsure":anundecidednessthatmustbedecided,acrisisthatbecomesmorecritical,astheotherexaminesthingsmore
thoroughly.Theconfrontationwithalivingothertriesthelistener'sownstrength.Whenawordshocks,ituprootstherecipient.Aslistener,Isometimeshavemore
difficultywithmyownconvictionsthanwithprovidingananswertothespeaker.Ifhisspeechisveryfundamental,therearenoreadycriteria

 Page82

ormethodologicalrulesforsolvingthecrisisitgenerates.Theradicalityofanother'swordmakesthehithertoacceptedrulesquestionable.

Suchacrisiscanbebeneficial,namely,whenitresultsinareorderingoflife,thought,vision,andfeeling,makingthemmorefruitfulandtruethanwastheoldorderof
truth.Perhapsthisisevennecessaryforathoroughrenewal.Forwherewillwefindthenewnessthatshocksourfamiliarframework,exceptinthewordthatistruly
other?Reflection,meditation,andprayercanalsounderminewornouthabitsanddogmasandrenewapersonbutissucharenewalnotexperiencedasthefruitof
an(inner)wordaswell,onethatbreezesby,rustles,separates,connects,orcreates?

Aparentheticalremark

Evenbynolongerputtingitsfaithinthemonologuebutbyexpectingtruthfromgoodconversation,philosophystilldoesnoteliminatethestruggletowardssystemand
synthesis.Thewordsthatcomposeatruthorientedconversationreceivetheirvaluefromthedegreetowhichtheyofferinsight.Aninsight,however,isnotanisolated
statement,becauseitinvolvesanoverviewandcontextaswideasthecivilizationofwhichsuchwordsandviewsareexpressions.Astruggleforcoherence,broad
horizons,andsynthesisisessentialtoeverysearchfortruthbothphilosophicaland"spiritual."Theburdenoffindingandbuilding,onone'sown,cannotbeavoided
by"talkingthingsover"together.Dialogueisnotarefugeforexhaustedsoulswholackthestrengthtodeepenandstretchtheirthoughtsintothedimensionsofa
system.Systematizing,stamina,andacourageousbidforthewidestandmostradicalareessentialforgenuineandprofoundthoughtsandlives.Althougheverysystem
representsonlyaparticularwhole,andthusonlyoneperspectiveandvision,thequalityofadialoguedependsonthesyntheticforceofthedesignsinit.Aconversation
owesitsthoroughnesstotheradicalityandbreadthofscopeexpressedinthewordscomposingit.Agoodconversationdoesnotreplacesystemsbutsetsthemintoa
specificrelationshipwithoneanother.Thespeakersareresponsibleforthequalityoftheirarguments.Thecoherenceresultingfromthesynthesesoftheirencounters
withoneanotherisnotahighestsynthesisorsupersystem,butratherauniqueformof(meta)philosophy.

 Page83

2.2Dialogue

Asspeaker,Iamsuccessfulwhenmywordselicitaresponse.Totalsilenceorapplauseinterruptsorendsmyspeaking.ThelistenerwhoassimilateswhatIhavesaid
canproduceananswer,whichcanstimulatemeinreturn.Mylistenerbecomesspeakerandviceversa.Masterandpupilexchangeplaces.

Thedifferencebetweenspeakerandlistenerdoesnotexcludeacertainunanimityinfact,itdemandsit.Theconsensuspresupposedbyeveryconversationhascertain
characteristicsofformandcontent.

Theformalconditionsforaconversationdirectedtowardstrutharethefollowing:
1.
Tospeakwithoneanothermeansthatallformsofdestructionareexcluded.Murder,suppression,
censorship,excommunication,ridicule,contempt,andthelikedestroyspeechbeforeitisspoken,
evenifthespeakerwhousessuchmethodsonhis"opponent"managestosaywhateverhewantsto
say.Yetstruggleandpolemic,evenhate,donotmakeaconversationimpossible.Everyconversation
mayevenbeseenasa"fight"aswillbeshown.Butifitisnottodegenerateintopurebarbarism,a
fightmustbeaccompaniedbyaprofoundunanimity.
Thiscanbeillustratedbythe"method"offighting.Likeeveryconversation,averbalfightfollows
certainrulesandhasitsown(methodo)logic.Thewholeoflogiccanperhapsbedevelopedfromthe
ideaofdialogueanditsnecessaryconditions.Wheneverinterlocutorsargue,eachofthemassumes
thattheyagreeonthemeaningandnatureofacceptablewaysofarguingatleastforthemostpart.
IfIwanttoshowtheothersomething,IrefertoexperiencesthatIassumetheothermayalsohave
had.Ourconversationmayalsodealexplicitlywiththepresuppositionsof(other)conversations
withoutthematizingthem.Forexample,thoughtsmaybeexchangedaboutthenatureandstructureof
anargument,aboutdefinitions,abouttheimportanceofexperiences,andsoon.Thissortof
"metaconversation"againhasitsownimplicitpresuppositionsandagreements.Thequestioningofthe
presuppositionsonwhich"speakingtogether"restscannot,however,berepeatedwithoutend.There
musteitherbeastartingpointthatcannotbequestionedanyfurther,orwemuststopourquestioning
withanarbitrarydecision.

 Page84

Theideaofconversationimpliesafundamentalconsensus,onlypossibleifbothspeakers
a. speakand
b. listen
c. aimattruth
d. understandeachother'slanguage
e. understandeachother'swayofthinking
f. donotliveintwoworldswhosecontentstotallydiffer(see2below).
Theessentialmomentsandconditionsof(a)speakingand(b)listeninghavebeendiscussedabove(in
section2.1).Theintentiontosearchfortruth(c)isdiscussedinchapter4.Ananalysisof(d),the
commonlanguage,impliesthedifficultquestionoftheextenttowhichdeadlanguagescanbe
translatedintolivingones,onelivinglanguageintoanother,technicallanguagesintoeveryday
language,onesystemintoanother,andsoon.Inconsidering(e),theunityandthedifferencesof
variouswaysofthinking,wecannotavoiddiscussingtheunityanddifferencesof(ontoand
methodo)logicsnoraskingifanallencompassinglogic,afinalsuperormetalogic,ispossible.
2. Theconditionsgoverningthecontentofaconversationarenotcompletelyindependentofthe
formalconditions(especiallyofunderstandingeachother'slanguage)thatallowspeakersto
understandoneanother.Theyrefertocultural"prejudices"usuallyconsideredtobeselfevident
truths,whichtheinterlocutorsareunawareofasprejudices.Toeliminatethemonecanplayother
prejudicesoffagainstthem,modifythem,orevendisjointtheminacreativeway.Theintentionto
pursuetruththatischaracteristicofphilosophicalconversationsforbidsouruncriticalsurrendertothe
prejudicesandtraditionswehaveinherited,butitdoesnotprovideacreativestartingpoint,orsuper
standpoint,outsidetheculturethathastaughtustospeak.Thecoincidenceofanintentionfortruth
withcultureboundnessmakesforthecriticalcharacterofalltruthseekingspeech.Aphilosophical
conversationexaminesthewordsitproduces:everyrepetitionoffamiliarsayingsisquestionedevery
newlyriskedexpressionmustdefenditselfagainstoldandnewcontradictions.

 Page85

Thenewnessofeveryinstanceofspeechimpliesthatinterlocutorsdonotonlyagreebutalsodisagreewithoneanother,atleastinthesenseofnotyetagreeing.Ifthey
agreeineverything,theirexchangeofwordsisnolongerasearchfortruthbutajointenjoyment,areposeinthecommonconvictionofanattainedtruth.Thisis
philosophicalparadise.

Becauseagenuineconversationisalsocharacterizedbydisagreement,epigonesdonottrulycontributetophilosophicalconversationstheymerelyreferbacktothe
greatmasterswhohavesomethingtosay.Thelattermustremainpartnersinourconversations.However,epigonesmaynotbetheirbestmouthpieces.Commentaries
bydisciplesmayelucidatetheirmaster'stext,butintheirdependence,theirthinkingcapacityisobviouslynotgreatenoughtoencompasstheirmaster'struth.As
partnersandguidesepigonescanbeuseful,buttruephilosophyrequiresthatathinkermeasurehimselfagainstthegreattexts,whichspeakforthemselves.

2.3Topicsofconversation

Theunityofconsensusanddifferenceinatruthorientedconversationexpressesitselfinthetopicdiscussed.Whatislife?Doespainhaveameaning?Howcanwe
understandvegetativeexcess?Whatdoesadiagnosisofourtimereveal?Suchquestionskeepourdialoguesalive.

Duringverbalexchanges,particularlywhentheyfallintorepetitionsandharshertones,speakersmaydiscoverthatunthematizedpresuppositionsand"selfevident
propositions"arewhatiscausingtheimpasseintheirdialogue.Suchimpassesmaylieinthecontent,buttheymayalsoconsistofthevariousviewpoints,methods,and
logicsgoverningtheinterlocutors'thinking.Inthelatercaseafruitfulconversationisnotpossible,unlesstheparticipantspayattentiontotheseformalelements,treating
themasexplicitthemesofajointexamination.

Thediscoveryandexplicitdiscussionofdeeplyhiddenprelogical,emotional,orspiritualapriorisareevenmoredifficult.Evenlogicsdonotalwaysimmediatelygrasp
these,buttheynonethelesspenetrateanddirecteveryactofspeaking,aspsychoanalysis,sociology,andpsychologyhaveshown.

 Page86

Incontent,logic,andtheprelogicalwecandistinguishvariouslevelsbetweensurfaceanddepth.Therearethusmanypossibilitiesofdiscussing,ofprofound
questioning,ofseekingadeeperunit,orofretreatinginthefaceofpainfuldiscoveriesandrefrainingfromproceedingfurther,beyondwhatoneisaccustomedto.

Criticismsofcurrentlyheldopinionsand"democraticallyascertained"decisionsorinstitutions,theunderminingofcommonsenseconvictions,thediscoveryof
psychological,sociological,andhistoricalconditionsresponsibleforouracceptingasselfevidentwhatotherspirits,times,andculturesdidnotbelieve,analysesofthe
unconsciousandsuppresseddesiresmotivatingourthinkingandspeaking,analysesofthelanguagereflexesthathavedeceivedus:alloftheseandmoreintherealmof
selfcriticismarenecessaryinordertomakespeakingmorehonest,freer,andmorecompatiblewithitsgoal.Ifspeakersdifferbutlittle,theyhardlyprovokeone
anothertoselfcriticismandconversions.Sincethemostradicalprovocationcomesfromtruthitself(seechapter4),theirdiscussioncanbringthemfurther,butthey
fallshortoftheturnaboutthatfundamentaldifferencesmaycompel.Thedeeperthedifference,themoreonecanlearnfromit.Butspeakersoftenabandontheir
argumentprematurely.Perseveranceisindeedverydifficult.Torealizethis,speakersmustgenuinelysearchfortruth,allowcriticism,questionothersaswellas
themselves,andhaveenoughstrengthtoletgooftheirownconviction,atleastprovisionally.Theprogressandregressdemandedofthemisnotapurelytheoretical
activity.Sincethinkingisrootedinavital,emotional,andpracticalgroundthatprecedesanydistinctionbetweenthetheoreticalandpractical,a(self)criticalspeaking
demands,andoccasions,radicalchangesandprofoundreversals.

Theidealofeverythoroughconversationisacommunionofalltheparticipantsinthepure,andwhole,truth.But,thisremainsunattainable.Allspeechparticularizes
thought.Evenifsilenceandsingingincreasewhenthechatteroffashion,themedia,andscienceareovercome,thetriumphofaharmoniouschorusremainsadistant
prospect.TheenvisioningofthisUtopiaisproductive,however,becauseitlengthensandimprovestheendlessconversationofthosewhoseekfortruth.

 Page87

2.4Conversation,combat,violence(or:dialogueandrhetoric)

2.4.1SpeakingasFighting

Everyconversationisafight.11

Theteachingandlisteningofmasterandpupilprecedesthedialogueofequals.However,aswehavealsoseen,everyactofspeakingexercisesacertainmasterywhen
ithassomething(new)tosay.Inthissense,speakingisessentiallyauthoritative.Anofferingofthe"word"isalwaystheselfpresentationofanauthority.Itdemandsto
behearditisobtrusiveitforcesonetolistenandprovokesaresponse.

Wordshavepower.Theyhit,wound,slash,silence,kill.Eventhefriendliestofwords("Listen...""Shallwediscussthiscalmly...""Ithinkyou'renice...")areways
ofpersuadinganothertogointhespeaker'sdirection.Thepowerofwords,theauthorityoftheirexpression,doesnotcoincidewiththeircontent.Thereisasurplus,a
power,thathaseffectsbeyondwhatisunderstoodinthewords.

Sincethereparteeprovokedbythespeakerexpressesthelistener'sownstance,everyreplyistosomeextentacontradiction.Noconversationescapestheconflict
thatbeginsastruggle.Everydialogueisthussimultaneouslyadiscussion,andeverydiscussion,asidefrombeingasearchforcommunity,isalsoacompetitionamong
colleagueswhodisagreewithoneanotherbecausetheyareaimingatthesamething.

Ifviolencemaybedefinedasanexerciseofpowerthatcausesotherstodocertaindeedsortoholdopinionsthattheywouldnotdoorholdontheirowninitiative,we
mustsaythateveryspeechis,moreorless,violent.Thissamedefinitionofviolence,however,alsoforcesustosaythatanyonewhofollowshisownmotivations
withoutunderstandingthemisviolentlypropelled.

Uncleardesiresanddrivesareaviolencefromwithin.Icannotdoawaywiththisviolencebyfreelychoosingwheremyowninclinationsaretolead.Ithappensin
factitiscommonthatIoftenchoosetofollowthevariousexpressionsofadarkpathos.Itisnotpossibletoeliminateallviolence!Wewouldhavetoextinguishall
affectivityandallspeech.Thequestion,then,isnothowwecaneliminateallviolence,butrather,asAristotleaskedinhisexemplaryway,howtheunavoidable
violenceofdrivesandstrugglecanbe

 Page88

purifiedandchangedintogoalsandintentionsof"thespirit,"thatis,ofreasonandcivilization.Intermsoftheconditionsgoverningatruthorientedconversation,this
meansthatitisawasteofeffort,unworthyofattempt,toeliminateallcompulsionandstrugglefromspeaking.Whatmattersistherefiningofverbalcompetitionsothat
itcanbecome(more)civilizedand(more)humananethicsofdiscussion,agooddispute.12

Thehighestnormfortheethicssoughthereliesinthepoweroftruthitself.Boththecompulsionnecessarilyexercisedbyeveryspeakerandtheresistanceofhis
opponent'sreplyhaveapositivevalue,aslongastheirfightand"violence"fightagainstanotherviolence:thatofthedestructiveordistortingforcescomingfrom
fraudulent,irrational,andbarbarousmethodsandmotives.

2.4.2Rhetoric

Wenowcometotheproblemofrhetoric.Whenaspeaker,especiallyatruthseekingspeaker,givesforcetohiswordsbyotherthanrationalmeans(e.g.,bybeing
preachyorbytakingadvantageofthevogue),acritiqueisnecessarynotonlyofhiswayofspeakingbutalsoofhiscontent.

Notallrhetoricisevil,however.Thepowerplayresultingfromemotionalenergy,fromtheinevitableauthorityofhumanspeechanditssurplusofforce,canbe
subordinatedtothepoweroftruth.

Sincetruthisnotapurelytheoreticalbutanexistentialconcernaswell,itmustbeconquered.Abstractthoughtisnotadequatetothisend.Havingtruthashisideal
mobilizestheentirelifeofatruthlovingindividual.Itgovernsandsetsnormsforhislife'sexperiments.Thephilosopher'sactions(elucidatedbyhisthoughts)aswellas
hisheart,theemotionalsourceofhisthoughtsandprojects,iswrappedupinhissearchfortruth.Ifahumanbeingreachesthepointwherehecanspeakthetruth,he
experiencesakindofliberation.Speakingthetruth,then,isnotmerelyaquietaffirmationbutalsoanexplosionofemotionalenergyarejoicing,evenasinging.This
sortofthinkingisnotfarremovedfrompoetry.

Searchingforthetruthisnotyetarejoicing,butratheranintensificationoftheentireperson:aconcentrationofattentionanddrivethatexpressesitselfevenphysically.
Theintensificationofpsychicenergycausedbyapassionfortruthisaccompaniedbyarelaxation,areleasefromthingsthatdonotmatter.Itwouldbeunjust,
however,

 Page89

todividethesesidesbetweenspiritandcorporeality.Seekingthetruthcomesfromsomethingthatissimultaneouslymorefundamentalandmorematerialthanthinking.
Thinkingistheexpressionofadeepseatedpassionthatawakensanddrivesit.Althoughthekindofthinkingaphilosopherdesiresgeneratesandexplainsitself,human
existenceitsaffectivityandcorporealitycannotbeunderstoodastheexternalizationofanIdeajustifyingitselfbyitsselfknowledge.Accordingtoabsolute
Idealism,theIdealearnsnothingnewbygoingoutsideitselfintothepsychesandbodiesofindividualpeople,butthespiritualisticschema(builtonalogicallypreceding
dualism)reducesallrhetorictoashellwithoutanytruthofitsown.Itseesinallincomprehensibleelementsonlyametaphor,onethatoughttobetranslatedintotheory.
Itdenieseverysurplusbeyondunderstanding.Accordingtothisconception,eventhelanguageofunderstandingisnothingotherthanan(unimportant,evenfalse,
becauseitistimeconsuming)expressionoftheeternaltruth,existingonlyintheactualcomprehensionoftheConcept.Ifunderstandingisnotitselfthesourcebutis
ratheranexponentofone'sdeepestdesires,arhetoricalwayofspeaking,justlikeapoeticone,maycontainapeculiarmomentoftruththatcannotbetranslatedinto
comprehensibility.Theexperienceofphilosophizingconfirmsthisidea:thoughtandunderstandingareguidedbyadeeprootedaffectivity.

2.4.3Polemic

Iftheforegoingiscorrect,wecanunderstandwhyspeakingorwritingisasortofwrestling.Itforcesitswayinspiteofalltheoreticalandexternalresistance.The
denialofcertainotherthoughtsmaydemandsocialcourage,butthefightagainstone'sownuntruthfulnessdemandsevengreaterstrength.

Truthfulness,asaconditionforthesearch,isapretheoretical,practical,andemotionalconditionforgoodtheory.Fightinguntruthfulnessisanessentialpartofthe
philosophicalsearch.Thisis,therefore,abattle:withintheperspectiveoftruth,speakingnecessarilybecomespolemic.Itremainssoaslongasitcrossesthesocial
andindividualdimensionsofwhatisnotgenuine.Criticismisanessentialelementofallphilosophy,butitisamistaketolimitittotheoreticalanalysis.Truthalso
demandscorrectionofthedispositionsprecedingtheory.

 Page90

Thepowerofpretheoreticaluntruthfulnessresistsrationalinsightsaswellasallformsoftruth.Ifone'sspeakingisreallyconcernedwithtruth,itfightsagainstthe
violenceofthatpower.Itisthereforenecessarilymilitant,aggressive,andinacertainsense,violent.

Thevehemenceofrhetoricalspeakingcanarisefromthefeelingthatsomeonewillnotbeconvincedbyrationalargumentsbecauseheisnotconcernedwith(the)truth.
This''someone"isnotnecessarilyanotherthecauseofmyvehemencecanalsobewithinmemyownyouth,mylackofdaringtobewhatIam,ormyown
concealedlies.Insofarasnontheoreticalfactorspreventmysecurepossessionofthetruth,thepolemicisessentialtoaserioussearchfortruth.Anabsenceofverbal
battlesisasymptomofindifferenceandnotnecessarilyof"goodmanners."

However,noteverypolemicisamanifestationofloveforthetruth.Vehemenceinspeakingcanalsobetrayjealousy,resentment,bitterness,andformsofdishonesty.
Theconditionsforagoodpolemiccanbededucedfromtheintentionpeculiartotruthorienteddiscussions.

Ifwelookatthecontentofadiscussion,weseethefollowing.Supposingthat(1)alltheinterlocutorsareaimingattruth,(2)theirspeakingapproaches(the)truth,at
leasttosomedegree,and(3)theydonotbreaktheirconversationtheirexpresseddifferencesareinstructive.Themoreradicaltheyare,themoretheycanlearnand
thegreaterthechancethattheirindividualspeakingwillbecomemorethoroughbytakingthemeasureofthosedifferences.Muchcourageandpatiencearenecessary
forsuchanencounter.Itwouldbebesttoseekoutthosewhoaremostdistantfromone'sownideas,thosewhoareattheutteroppositeendofthespectrum,for
discussion.ThisFernstenliebeloveforthe"farthest"demandsthatoneresisteveryinclinationtoridiculeorbelittleanotherandinsteadconvertsuchnegativity
intorecognitionandrespectforhisotherness.

Agreatthoughtdoesnoteasilyacceptsubjugation.Sinceitisgreat,itanticipatesandrefutesmuchcriticismitsfoundationsareresistanttoundermining.The
impregnabilityofagreatphilosophyisasignofitsstrength,butthisattributealsomakesitvulnerable.Indeed,thebasisofsuchaphilosophy,whosequestionshaveyet
tobeansweredbythecriticizedphilosopher,canbemadeintotheobjectofcriticalreflection.Thediscussionofstartingpointsthat

 Page91

arisescanmakehistory,ifitisdoneingreatstyle.Assumingthatalltheparticipantsaredrivenbyadesirefortruth,thereisnoreasonforvehementpolemics,andeven
lessofoneforafightinthenameoftruth.

Vehemenceislessunsuitableinconnectionwithfaultsofamoreformalnature.Forexample,whensomeoneisignorantordoesnotknowofcertainproblemsandyet
claimsexpertiseinthesubject,irritationandangryreactionscanresult.Anyirrationalbehaviorleadingtoaggressionbetraystheorientationto(more)truth.Anattitude
thatisunwillingtoacceptthetruthrightlyawakensindignation,asdosuperficialityandinsincerity.Dotheygiveonetherighttoreactsharply,withspiritualslaughteror
superiorirony,forexample?

Aquietanswerorasimplerepetitionofwhathasbeensaidcanbeadevastatingcriticism.Itsacceptancerequiresthelistenerorreadertounderstanditascriticism
andtobereadytoprefertruthoverfalsity.Thequestion,however,is:ishepreparedtodothis?Ishesoenamoredofthetruththatheiswillingtobackdownhimself,
ifnecessary?

Therearemanyformsofuntruthfulness:swearingbyareveredteacherorbythedogmasofaninstitution,party,orschoolfearofnotbeinginstylelackofcouragein
facingpracticalconsequencesimpurityadesireforacceptanceandsoon.Onthisterrain,too,everyvicedemandsanappropriatereaction.Thegeneralquestionis
whether,andunderwhatcircumstances,thesereactionsmayutilizeacertainrhetorical"violence."

2.4.4AnEthicsOfViolence

Thequestionofthelegitimateuseofrhetoricalviolenceispartoftheproblemofcompulsionwithintheframeworkofeducationandpolitics.Theclassicaljustification
foracertainviolenceseesitascounterviolence,necessitatedbyapreceding"primary"violencethatdisturbstherationalfoundationsofahumansociety.Amurderer
forcesthestatetocheckhisviolence.Fromhisbehaviorheisobviouslynotopentoreason,sincereasondemands,asanecessaryconditionforsociety,thatmembers
ofasocietynotdestroyoneanother.Societymust,then,makethemurdererharmlessthroughmeansthat,iftakeninisolation,areunreasonableand,inthatsense,

 Page92

violent.Thejustificationsimultaneouslyindicateshowfarthiscounterviolencemaygo:itiscompletelysubordinatetoitsgoal(society,assuch)andmaynotgofurther
thanisnecessarytopreventprimaryviolenceortorectifythedamagedone.Thenormgivenwiththisjustification,therefore,alsocontainsarestriction.

Thesameprincipleappliestothephilosophiesofeducationandselfeducation,orselfdevelopment.Compulsionmaybenecessaryinordertocounterirrational
behavior.Ifthevoiceofreasonisnotheeded,achild'sbehaviorcanbeharmfultohimselfandtoothers.Suchbehaviormustbecontrolledtowhateverextentis
necessaryforpreventingorcorrectingtheharm.Thesameistrueforapersonseekingguidelinesforselfdevelopmentthroughreason.Thelowestdegreeofself
knowledgediscernsirrationalimpulsesandtendenciesimmoderate"passions."Ennoblingthemrequiresalonghistoryoffightingtheirinclinationtoabsolutize
themselves.Reasonmobilizesotherforcesagainsttheunreasonableviolenceoftheimpulsesnottoeliminatethespontaneousdynamicofthe"passions,"butrather
tomaintaintheirenergyformorecivilizedwork.Wemustgivetotheconfusionoffeelingsahumanform,andchannelnaturalenergiesintoamoregenuinehumanness.
Theprocessrunsaccordingtoperiods,whichcanperhapsbecharacterizedinthefollowingway.

AnewperiodbeginswhenIdiscoverthatmylifeisbeingruledbyhiddenemotions(e.g.,desire,fear,ordespondency)thatIcannolongertolerate.Thisdiscovery
occasionsacrisisinmylife.Acertaindisintegrationthreatens.IknowImustbeginagain.Rationaldeliberationisnecessary,butnotenough.Ialsoneedanidealimage
tohelpmeinaugurateabetterattitudeandbetterbehavior.Suchanimageispartlyderivedfromother,examplarylives,partlyfromanindividualprojectionofbetter
possibilitiesformyself.Inspiredbyanidealizedselfimage,Itrytofashionmybehavioraccordingtoit.TothisendImustbendcertaintendenciesorsubordinatethem
toothertendencies.Thus,Iengageinaplayofforces,inawrestling.Theimpulsedrivingeverythingmustnotbewastedordestroyeditmustbemobilizedtowards
overcomingthechaosthatwouldariseifIleftmyspontaneousdrivestothemselves.Theviolenceperpetratedinagenuineformofselfdevelopmenthumanizes
destructiveforcesbydiscipliningthem.Therefore,civilizationandrationalityalsohave

 Page93

anaspectofsubjugation,insofarastheypreventourpassionstobecomewildandchaotic.Thisaspectis,ofcourse,onlyonemomentofatrueintegration.

Thetheoryofselfdevelopment,education,andpoliticsgivenabovejustifiesacertainperpetrationofviolence,underthefollowingconditions:

Justifiableviolencepresupposesaprecedingviolencethatcannotbedealtwiththroughnonviolent
1. means
2. Thegoalofthissecondviolence,thisantiviolence,limitsit:theforceexertedmustbeproportionate
tothedesiredeffect(preventionorrectification).

Theoppositionofreasonandpassions(ornaturalinclinations,emotionalenergy,etc.),anoppositiontypicalofGreekWesternethics,hasperhapshaditsday.Ifone
interpretsreasoninaveryformalsense,inwhichreasonableaffectivitydiffersfromachaotic,spontaneous,or"natural"affectivityonlythroughitsstructure(orientation,
coherence,style),thedifficultyoftransitiontoanondualisticconceptionofmoralityisprobablyminimal.Iwould,however,prefertodevelopanethicsonthebasisof
fundamentalmoodsandcentralaffectsthatarepropelledbythemostprofounddesire.Theinterplayofforcesoflesscentralfeelingsinhumanlifecanbeinterpretedas
theconcreteexpressionofthe"heart."Theneedtoformandorderourfeelingsandbehavior,inviewofourmostgenuinedesire(s),necessitatestheforcefulactionof
theeducator,thepolitician,andmaningeneral.Againstourtyrannicaltendencies(forwhichnotonlyourbellyandunderbellybutalsoourheartsandmindse.g.,
reason'sarroganceareresponsible),desirerebelsthroughtheaffectiveviolenceofaveryradicaland,therefore,verysubtlenature.Theheartofthe"antiviolence
theory"canbetakenupinaphilosophyoffeelings,whichreplacestheschemaofreasonandsensibilitybyconsideringlevelsanddifferencesofaffectivity.

2.4.5ConditionsForAGoodPolemic

Ifwereservethewordpolemicforacoercive,energetic,rhetoricallyviolentformofspeakingandapplytheclassicalapologyforacertaindegreeofviolencetoit,it
followsthattheonlypolemicswe

 Page94

canconsidergoodarethosethatareprovokedbyunreasonableemotions(untruthfulness,badintentions,egotism,etc.)andthatmaintainapropermeasureintheir
vehemence.Intheethicsofpolemics,thequestionofproorconbecomesthequestionofthedegreetowhichrhetoricalviolenceisanadequateanswertothe
previouslyspokenword.Inwhatnameisonefightinghere?Isitnecessarytoproceedinthisway?Isitefficient?

Polemicalspeakingisavariationontheforcefulconfrontationoccurringineveryactofspeech.Thenonargumentativeelementsaremoreclearlyperceptibleina
polemicthaninapeacefulconversation,althoughnodiscussionisevermadeupofcompletelytransparentreasonsandtheory.Fightingashowofstrength
resultsfromtheinterlocutors'differences.Thenecessitytofight,however,canchangeintoavirtue.Speakingalsoaimsatthe"sublimation"ofaggression.The
completeeliminationofaggressionwouldnotonlybeawasteofincredibleenergybutwouldalsodestroythespeaker'sindividuality.Heroism,honor,holywar,
patriotism,martyrdom,andotheridealshaveacceptedviolenceinanoblemanner.Themanneroftheirfightinghasbeenregulatedbycodes.Asimilarregulationis
necessaryfortheviolenceofspeech.

TherejectionofrhetoricbyphilosopherseversincePlatostemsfromtheiropinionthattruthissimplyaquestionofseeing,"givingreasons,"andhavinginsight.
Speakers,then,aremerepronouncersoftheunimpassionedgameofthoughtplayedbytheconceptsthemselves.Butifeveryspeakercontributesanindividualand
irreplaceablemomentoftruth,thetruthcomesbymeansofauniversalwarthefatherofallstatementsworthyofreflection.Allagainstall,butinacivilizedway
thatis,intheserviceoftruth.Anethicsofpolemicsisnotanapologyforunimpassionedrationalizing,butratherastylizingmoderationofrhetoricalviolence.The
medievalQuestionesdisputataehadtheircodeofhonor.Theideaofthetournamentcorrespondstothenecessityoftheargument,inwhichtheparticipants
passionatelyargueagainsttheenemiesoftruth.

Whocanclaimtobealoveroftruthandnotanenemy?Someone'sdifferenceofopinionwithmewasnotmentionedaboveasajustifiedmotiveforapolemicnor
wasthefalsityofhisstatements.Thepolemicwasmotivatedbysomeformofuntruthfulness.Theotherrebelsagainsttheessenceoftruthitselfandagainstthe

 Page95

possibilityofembracingit.Hedoesnotlovethetruth.ButwhencanIsayIammovedbyrespect,desire,andlovefortruth?Whoistruthfulandknowsit?

Theapplicationoftheethicalprinciplesofpolemicsfacesobjectionssimilartothosefacingtheclassicaldefenseofviolenceinpoliticsandeducation.Howcana
politicianbesurethatthedefenseof"lawandorder"isindeedmotivatedbyrespectforhumanrightsandfreedom?Isan"anarchist"totallywrongindeclaringhis
actionstobeacounterviolenceagainstinstitutionalizedinjustice?Eveniftheabstracttheoryofprimaryviolenceandcounterviolenceiscorrect,whocansay(1)who
beganitand(2)ifviolencewascommitted?Thesamequestionsariseineducation.Whattheeducatordeemsunjustandirrationalissometimesexperiencedbythe
childascompletelyinnocentandgood.Howdoeducatorsknowtheyareright?Isitnotpossiblethattheythemselvesareledbysecretlyviolentmotivesfor
example,bythepleasureofrulingandgivingorders?Sucheducationwillthenworkinadestructivefashion,andthepupilsarerighttorebel.Evensomeonewhofights
againsttheviolencewithinhimselfcanbemistaken.Evenalittlepsychoanalysiscanshowthatpeople'svehemenceinturningagainstthemselvesmaycomefrommurky
sources.Masochism,fear,selfhatred,andnarcissismrulemanyascetics,whoseconsciousnessisfullofmorality.Selfdisciplineisnotenough.

Fulminationagainstformsofuntruthfulness,too,canhavespuriousmotives.Thearrogancecouchedinacertainvehemenceisdangerous.Canthespeakerendurethe
comparisonofhispretensionwiththeactualmotivesofhisspeaking?Fleeingintoarelativismoftruththatmakesallclaimsimpossibleisforbiddenbytruthitself.But,is
itnotsafertoabstainfromallpresumptionandtospeakinamannertotallydevoidofpassion?Thisshowsmoremodestythandoesanostentatiousindignation.It
seemspossibletowithdrawfromthefightinordertoconcentrateonthepositivestatementsoftruth.Butnomatterhowaffirmativelyoneworksatit,arguments,and
therefutationofopposedopinions,remainnecessaryinphilosophy.Whensuchopinionsresultfromuntruthfulness,theproperattitudeispolemical.

Ifitisnotpossibletoparticipateinthediscussionoftruthandtoabstainfromallpolemicssimultaneously,iffightingisanunavoid

 Page96

ableelementofintersubjectivity,13thenitisessentialforspeakerstopurifythemselvesfromuntruthfulnessasmuchaspossible.Polemicdemandsselfdiscipline,
asceticism,practiceintruthfulness,andtheeventualgenuinenessofthosewhoattemptit.

Buttherearedangershere,too.Somanyformsofselfdisciplineconcealnarcissism.Whatsomeonebelievestobeagenuinelovefortruthcanbemoralismorfear,
lackofimagination,unrecognizeddesire,scepticalarrogance,aslavishspirit.Asidefromselfexaminationandmeditation,aprofoundturntowardsthetrue,whichcan
beneitherexternallynor"objectively"ascertainedbyinnerobservation,isdemanded.Eventhoughapersonmaybeledbyadeepconsciousness,thecrepuscular
domainaccompanyingallselfconsciousnesswillsuggestdoubtsabouthisowngenuineness.

Asaspeaker,Iexperiencethegreatestselfcriticismbyexposingmyselftoanotherwholistensandspeakstome.Whilewhathepresentscanbeuntrueor
unimportant,thefactthathelistensandspeakstomeisthegreatesttestthatIundergo.Infaceoftheother,Ihearmyownwordsdifferently.Theyrevealmorethan
theiractualintention.Iamovercomebyshame,asquestionablemotivesbecomeaudibletome,eveniftheotherdoesnotnoticethem.Sometimesitisenoughthat
anotherrepeatsmywords,tomakemeawareoftheirweaknessorinsincerity.Evenpuretruthstakeonavulnerablecharacterwhentheyarestatedinthepresenceof
anothertheysoundlikeaquestion:willtheother,musttheother,endorsethesestatements?Aretheynotdisputable,oratleastquestionable?Thesequestionsrefer
tothecontentofmywordsandtotheirinspirationaswell.Myknowledgeandmyattitudetowardsthetruthandtowardsmyown(un)truthfulnessareputtothetestby
theexistenceoftheother.14.

Whentheotherspeakstome(eveninapolemicalway),Iseehiminthelightofhis,andmyown,truthfulness.Ifhisintentionisnotpure,hiswordssoundfalse.Itis
possiblethatIhearinthemareflectionofmyownmixtureofpurityandimpurity.Ifhisspeechisgenuine,Ienjoyit,evenifitoccasionallyembarrassesme.

Agreatdealhasbeenwrittenaboutthetherapeuticsignificanceofdialogue,butperhapsnotenoughonthetruthofthefurtherspeakingitprepares,andcertainlynot
enoughonthesignificancethattheother'sspeakinghasfortheessenceofphilosophy.

 Page97

2.4.6UniversalPolemics

Acertaintheoreticalviolencemayandmustbeusedwhencertainirrationalforcesariseagainsttheattainmentof(more)truth.Ontheotherhand,muchaggressionis
duetovanity,hurtpride,imperialism,andothervices.

Onetheorywidelyheldinourtime,however,goesfurther.Itdoesnotseerhetoricalviolenceasanessentialelementofspeakingnor,particularly,ofspeechclaimingto
present(the)truth.Accordingtothistheory,aggressionexpressesnotacoincidentaldesiretosubjugateothersbutafundamentalwilltopowerthatruleseveryhuman
being.Willtopoweristheessenceofbeinghuman.Everyhumanbeingisadangerous,murderousanimal.Justasbehaviorcannotbeotherthanviolent,speakingis
necessarilypolemical.IfItrytoavoidallverbalviolenceinspeakingorwritingforexample,ifIamimpressed(oppressed!)bytheWesternreverencefor
unimpassionedrationalitythenIrepressmywilltopower.Acarefulanalysiswillbringthehiddenaggressionineverytextandeveryspeechtotheforeandrevealits
strategicstructures.Alltextsarestrategies.Waristhefatherofallspeech.

"Truth"wouldseemtobeastrangeexpressioninthiscontext.Thestruggleinherentineverydiscussioniswagedinviewofpower,thatis,asanexerciseofforces
tryingtooutdooneanother.Theperspectivehereisforceandstrength,healthandsickness,lifeanddeath.Nonetheless,itisnotimpossibletospeakoftruth,evenin
thiscontext.However,theremustbearelationbetween(more)truthand(greater)strength.Iftruthandenergyarerelated,willtopowerandloveoftruthcan
converge,andperhapsevencoincide.Truthorientedspeakingmakeswayforitselfinafieldofforcesthatconstitutewar.Strategyandpolemicsareessentialelements
ofatruemethodology.

Iftruthandforcearenotrelated,thequestionarises,whichnormsgovernourconversations?Doesthecriterionforthequalityofdiscussionconsistonlyofthegreatest
forcesassuch?Thegreatestefficiency?Efficiencytowhatend?Or,canwenolongeraskthat?Ifthereisnolongeranycriterionforqualifyingacertainpowerasgood
orbad,the"right"ofthemightiesttriumphs.Powertothesophists!AwaywithPlato,whosoughtamorebeautiful,trueandbetterrealitybecausehecouldnotbe
satisfiedwiththebrutalityofthestrongestforcesinthepolisandinthesoul.

 Page98

Letushopethattruthandpowerarenotindifferenttoeachother.ThetheoreticalculturethattheWesthasbeenbuildingsinceParmenidesandHeraclitushas
humanizedthepowerplayofspeechandwritingintoastrategicfieldinwhichthetrueandthegoodarecentral.InspiteoftheillusionsandselfdeceptionsthatTheory
hasbroughtuponitselfasapolemicagainstsophism,thelawoftruthwillnotbegivenupbeforeourcivilizationisexhausted.Thehumanizationofthetruthwardoes,
however,demandanorganizationofitsrhetoricalelements,bywhichsquabblingischangedintoargumentativesport.Thestipulationsofthemedievaldisputatiowere
suchanattemptatjoiningthetrialofstrengthwiththetruesearchfortruth.

2.4.7DemocraticDeliberation

Theorganizationofatruthorientedconversationmustnotbeconfusedbythemisconceptionthateveryonehasanequalrighttospeakandthatthebestresultscanbe
expectedfrom"democratic"deliberation.Accordingtothisview,itwillbegoodandsufficientifeveryonespeakshisthoughtsthereasonseachparticipantgiveswill
beeitherstrongenoughorweakenoughtoobtainorlosethevoteofthemajority.Speakingandvotingwillnotonlyresultinthebestsolutionforthisgroupbutalsoin
themostcorrectideas.

Thepresuppositionofanydemocraticsearchfortruthisweak.Itassumesthattheactualityofseveral(andideallyall)opinionscanconstitutethetruth.Inapure
relativismconcerningtruth,thereisperhapsnootherchoiceexceptbetweensilenceand"democratic"votingprocedures.Inthelattercase"truth"meansanopinion
agreedonbythemajority,towhichtheysubjugateallothers(withorwithoutpermission).

Thedevil'sadvocatemaycallthisrepresentationamerecaricature.Itdoesnottakeintoaccountthattherequireddeliberationmustalsoinvolvetheformulationand
examinationofarguments,andnotmerelythemakingofclaims.Thisdemandmustindeedberecognized,asmustthenecessityofdeliberatingwithothers.Butwho
urgesthesedemands,andhowaretheyrealized?

Therearesometimesparticipantsinadiscussionwhodonotunderstandwhattheothersaresaying.Theysometimesdonotevenfullyrealizewhattheythemselvesare
saying.Somedoknowwhat

 Page99

theyaresaying,buttheydonotprovideargumentsforit.Othersgivearguments,buttheirargumentsareinvalid.Areallthesespeakerstobecorrectedbysomeofthe
others,alloftheothers,amajority?Themajoritysupposedlydecideswhethersensibleopinionsanddecisiveargumentshavebeengiven.Thisdecisionismadebya
vote,thatis,bynonargumentativeprocedure.Whyshouldamajoritybemorecapableofjudgingthananindividual?Inpracticallife,science,andphilosophy,many
"selfevidenttruths,"universallyrecognizedforlongperiodsoftime,havenotwithstoodacloserexaminationoftheirclaimstotruth.Ifthemajoritywerealwaysright,it
wouldbeimpossibletoinvestigateits"truths"critically.Whyshouldanindividualbewrongifthemajoritydoesnotunderstandorignoreshisargumentsfor
example,whentheyareuncomfortableordifficult?

Thedescriptionofnonrationalmotivesbehindourspeakingisalsoapplicabletojointdeliberation.Heretoo,ulteriormotives,insensitivity,partisanloyalty,vanity,and
lackofgenuinenessplayarole.Themajorityisnotpure.Whilethecritique,asanessentialmomentofanother'sspeakingtome,canpurifymyconvictions,this
possibilityislostwhenthetruthperspectivebecomesaquestionofWhowins?Onlythetruthitselfdecidesthemajorityhasabsolutelynorighttoclaimabetterinsight
thananindividual's.Thetruthseekingdiscussionisnotanunqualifieddeliberationthatresultsinonecollectiveopinionitisacontinuousdialogueamongspeakerswho
arelettingthemselvesbejudged,notonlybyotherspeakersbutprimarilybytruthitself.

Ifquestionsoftrutharedecideddemocratically,itispureluckiftheoutcomeisindeedtrue.Oneusuallyexpectsacompromisebetweenthenotcompletelytrueand
thenotcompletelyuntrue,atleastifonebelievesthatmostpeoplearesomewherebetweentruthfulnessanduntruthfulness.Thereis,however,anotherspecial
difficulty.Deliberationontruthisanargumentative,selfreflectivespeakingaboutdifficultquestions,andthenatureofthequestionsandthemannerofspeaking
involvedrequiresuitableskillsfromspeakersandlisteners.Noteveryoneisabletoformareasonableopiniononallquestions.Theshortexplanationandthe
concentratedevidenceallowedbyalimiteddiscussiondonotpermitathoroughexaminationofcomplicatedmatters.Howlongonehastohaveworkedin
mathematics,chemistry,psychology,orexegesis

 Page100

beforeoneisqualifiedtopassaproperjudgmentonthevalueofanideaoranargument!Thesubjectsdiscussedindemocraciesareoftenphilosophicalinnature.The
historyofphilosophyshowshowdifficultitistounderstandthem.Theeasewithwhichunqualifiedpeoplejudgeismanifestedinmanycasesofdecisionmakingthese
days.Herethequestiondoesnotconcernwhichdecisionsagroupmustmakeregardingitsownorganizationandaction.Althoughmakingthemimpliescertain
unprovenpresuppositionsinrelationtothetruth(ofsociety,wellbeing,right,etc.),thedecisioncannotalwaysbepostponed.Thegroupmustdowhatitcanand
deservestheresultsofitsefforts(evenifsomeormostofitsmemberssufferfromthem).However,whenthisprocedureisheldupasanexampletoaphilosopher,he
canonlyfeelcontemptforthenaivetofincapablepeoplewhomakethefinaldecisionsondifficultquestionsofwhichhehaslearnedwithdifficultyhow
complicatedtheyare.

Theformormannerofspeakingneededinjointdeliberationtheartofargumentativeconversationsdemandsacapacityacquiredonlybytalentandpractice.
Thisisalreadythecaseatthelevelofreasoningandoftherefinedanalysesprovidedbylogic.Itisevenmoresoinathoughtfulspeakingresultingfromlongexperience
inperceivingandmeditation.

Despitetheseobjectionstoademocraticsearchfortruth,itseemsdifficulttoproposeanalternative.Theideaofequalrightinexpressingone'sownopinionisa
protestagainstdogmasandideologiesimposingtheirdominationundertheguiseof''truth.""Dominationfreecommunication"(herrschaftsfreieKommunikation)is
necessaryincounteringtherhetoricalviolenceofthoseclaimingaspecialcompetenceincorrectspeaking.Howcansuchcommunicationbeorganized,exceptasa
forumwhereeveryonecanparticipateunderthesameconditions?

Theabsenceofinequalityinpowerisnotenough,becauseitdoesnotguaranteeequalityinintelligence,experience,orverbal,scientific,andphilosophicalability.
Whoeverthinksthatalloftheseinequalitiesareeffectsofdominationisnaive.Manyindicationsmakethishypothesisextremelyimplausible.Itsdefendersmustmake
surethatunwillingnessoralackofgenuinenessdoesnotdisturbnonviolentdiscussion.Arethesealsotheeffectsofviolence?Howthencanviolenceitselfevercome
tobe?Or,isviolenceitselfthePrincipleoftheonlytruecosmogony?

 Page101

Theconversationofserioustruthseekersisindeedakindofforum,withnootherauthorityexceptthetruthitself.Whetherthosewhotrulyhavesomethingtosayare
acceptedasauthoritiesdependsonthequalityoftheparticipants.Thereisnoformulafortheproductionoftruth,exceptineachinterlocutor'shonestandthoughtful
speaking.Thevehemenceoftheprophetdoesnotcontradictthis.Hisverbalviolenceissometimesbeneficialasaprotectionagainsttheimperialismofkingsand
masses.However,inthehopethatcertainunpolemicalwordswillbeaccepted,noworlater,becauseoftheirintrinsicstrength,onecanchoosethegreatestpossible
nonviolenceandthiscanbebeneficial,too.Auniversalabolitionoftestingstrengthisimpossible.Evensilenceisnotpowerlessittouchesbothkingandsophist,
forcingeachtoanswer.Everyconversationisaforcefield.Onemustbestronginordertostrengthenthepositionoftruth.

2.4.8PolemicsAndRhetoric

Sofar,rhetorichasbeendiscussedonlyintheformofrhetoricalviolence.Thereisastrongtendencytoidentifythetwo.However,rhetoricinvolvesmore
evocation,suggestion,invention,andeverythingthatgivesspeakingitsemotionaltoneanddepth,forexample.Theidentificationofrhetoricwithverbalviolenceis
probablystillinfluencedbythetraditionalschemaofWesternthoughtreferringtoanythingnot"rational"(i.e.,translatableintoconceptuallanguage)asviolent.
Accordingtothisschema,allfeelings,inclinations,andpassionsareirrationalformsofviolence,insofarastheycannotbetransformedintocomprehensibility.

Somecontemporarydefendersofrhetoricdenythislastpointbutmaintainthesolidoppositionofconceptualityandviolence(orpower).Butistherenotagreatdeal
offeelingintheworldthatcanneitherbeconceptualizednorcategorizedasviolence?Ofcourseonecandefine"violence"sobroadlythateveryimpulseandevery
mentalactionwillcomeunderit.Butthenonemustdrawadistinctionbetweenaggressiveandotherfeelings,andbetweendifferentmeaningsofthewordforce.

Ifconceptualinsightandviolencetogethercomprisethewholeofthehumanbeing,thereisnoalternativeinrhetoricbetweenvariousfacesofconceptualityontheone
handandopen,concealed,

 Page102

orsublimatedviolenceontheother.Thereisthenprobablynothirdplace,forspeakingandwritingasart.Perhapsitisthetaskofagoodrhetoric(andanaesthetic)
toshowthatouremotionallifecannotbesplitupinto"rationality"andwar.Foratheoryofdiscussion,thiswillmeanthatwaysofspeakingotherthanthesystematic
andpolemicwillhavetobediscussed:thevarietiesofspeechtypicalforlove,contemplation,desire,enchantment,andsoon.Allthesewaysofspeaking,andtheir
emotionalsources,wouldneedtobeanalyzedifonewereattemptingtodevelopatheoryoftruthorientedconversation.

2.5Thetimestructureofconversation

Anecessaryconditionforconversationistime.Imust"take(the)time"foraconversation.

Tospeakwithanotheristoalternateasspeaker(whohasthewordandtheauthority)andaslistener(whoisreceptiveandobedient).Aslongasmywordislaw,the
otherfollowsmylead.Buthistimewillcometoo.AfterIamfinished,theotherwillhave(thepowerof)theword.

Thetemporalitycharacteristicforconversationisnotahomogeneousandindifferentsuccessionofone'sownwordfollowedbytheother's,butisratheraseriesof
phases,inwhichtheinequalityofspeakerandlistener(s)expressesandhearsitself.Speakingtimeisscannedbytherepeatedexchangingofinequality,whichcan
resultinunanimity,butnotinasupratemporallogosthatmakesalltalkingsuperfluous.Thetruthhasoftenbeenrepresentedasjustsuchanauthoritativelogos:the
conceptofallconceptsbeyondalltemporalityanddeliberationapermanentnow.Inthelightofeternity,thisconceptstandsalone.Itendsalldiscourse.Evenits
formulationintheformofamonologueisaformofdegeneration,however,becauseitusestimethatis,itfallsintothedispersionoftheoneafteranotherandthe
outsideoneself.TrueUnderstandingstopsalldiscussionsandsilentlyenjoystheOnethatiseverything.

Imperialisticspeakersboastofthetimelessauthorityofeternaltruth.Theyhavenotimetolistenbecausetheyhavenothingtolearn.Assoonastheotherspeaks,they
eitherbegintorefute,ortointegrate,thespeaker'swords.Inthelattercase,theypointoutthattheotherdoesnotsufficientlyunderstandhisownstatements,which

 Page103

canonlyhaveasatisfactorymeaningiftheyaretransformedintopartsofthetruesystem.Atranspositionoftheother'swordsintotheconceptualandterminological
patternsoftherulingspeakeristhennecessary.

Sincetimeconditionstheinequalitybetweenyouandme,15itisaconditionforthenonimperialisticspeakingthatwecalled"conversation."Itis,however,stillmore.
Temporalitypermeatesourthoughtandmakesitdiscursive,notonlyinthesenseofamonologueproceedingstepbystepbutalsoasadialoguecombiningtheplurality
oftimes.Thetimestructurethatrulesspeakingturnsourthoughtsintophasesofahistoryofwords.Thishasconsequencesfortheunderstandingofphilosophical
systemsandtheirhistory.

3.Isphilosophyaconversation?

Variousaspectsoftruthorientedconversationhavebeenilluminated.Thesubject,aswehaveseen,isbroaderthantheconceptof"philosophicaldialogue."The
numberofspeakerswasnotthematized,andalthoughphilosophywassometimesusedasanexample,thecharacteristicsdistinguishingphilosophyfromotherkindsof
truthlovingdiscoursewerenotdiscussed.

Itisnotnecessarytoexplainthespecificdifferencesofphilosophyherenortocomparethemwithotherkindsoflinguisticbehavior.However,threeaspectsof
philosophyareimportantwithinthecontextofthisbook:

Aphilosophyexists,forthemostpart,intheformoftexts.
1.
2. Thelanguageofphilosophicaltreatisesisgovernedbyrules,whichhavetheirownhistoryandare
partlytraditional,partlyoriginal.
3. Athematicphilosophyissomethingotherthanafleeting"word,"leavingnotraceofitself.

Thesecondaspectisdiscussedbelowinsections3.7and4.Thefirstandthethirdareimportantforunderstandingthemetaphoricalcharacteroftheword
conversation,asappliedtoanexistentmultitudeofphilosophers.Theyarediscussedinsections3.1and3.4.

 Page104

3.1Thematicphilosophyandconversation

Withtheexpressionthematicphilosophywesummarizeanentireoeuvre.Anoeuvremaycomefromadesiretotakepartinphilosophicallife,orfromaneedto
replytootherphilosophers.Itisawholecomposedofarguments,evenifitconsistsofunfinishedfragmentsorindicationsofapossiblesystem.Thephilosophy
producedinthecourseofalifetime(orofaperiod)isamonumentthatwecaninheritatombinwhichtheauthor'slivingvoiceisburied.Itisnotpartofafleeting
dialoguebutisratheralastingcomposition,summarizinganentirehistoryofformulations,Itiscondensedtime.Wescrutinizewhatsomeonehasachievedin
philosophy,takehisproductsasawhole,andcallthem"Plato'sphilosophy,""thephilosophyof(theearly)Wittgenstein,""thephilosophyof(thelater)Kant."Andwe
canconsidersuchaphilosophyasacontributiontoourdiscussion.Theanalogyisnottotallyarbitrary,sincephilosophersthemselvesthoughtinresponsetoquestions
oftheirowntimeandofotherphilosophers(ofvariousperiods).Theyexperiencedtheirownphilosophiesascontributionstotheknowledgeofothers.Their
formulationsresemblethelittlespeechesthatcompriseawholediscussion.Thattheirlife'sworkbecomesonewholeandisunderstoodasacontributiontoa
discussiondependsonour''listening"toitasaspoken"word,"althoughitmayconsistofaseriesoftextsthatwereadandstudyoveralong,ofteninterrupted,period
oftime.Intheexplicitdiscussionthattakesplacebetweenphilosophers,theworddiscussionisusedinalessmetaphoricalsense.Buteventheirpolemicsareusually
meanttobemorethanjustawordtoanotherspeaker.Thepubliccharacteroftheirwritingsshowsthattheyareaddressingthemselvestoalargerandunknown
public,beyondthosedirectlyspokentooftenbeyondtheirdeaths,toposterity.

Sincethematicphilosophyisnotafleetingwordbutistightlycondensedtime,itisnotboundtoitstextuality.Anoralpresentationcanalsosummarizeanentirehistory
ofthoughtandinauguratealongperiodofreflection.Inacertainsense,everyseriouswordistheresultofalonghistory,butaspokenwordvanishes:itexistsonlyina
multitudeofpartialandtransformedmemories.Textsoffergreaterresistancetothechanginganddestructiveforcesoftime.Theyremainpresentintheirmateriality,but
demandnewandforceful

 Page105

(re)thinkingtoliveagain.Theyalsochangethroughinterpretation,althoughtheyregulatethiswithasteadierhandthandotheremnantsrememberedfromthespoken
word.Thespokenword,ontheotherhand,isbettersuitedforforcingthelistenertoindependency.Thelivepresentationofathinkercanalsobemorestimulating,
especiallytobeginners(andwhoisnotabeginner?),thantexts,sincethesesuggestnothingunlesssomeonemakesthemspeak.

3.2Thematicphilosophyandthehistoryofphilosophy

Ifwecanunderstandtheactualmultiplicityofthematicphilosophiesanalogouslytoalivingdiscussion,andifdiscussionischaracterizedbyaspecifictimethatdisturbs
theillusionofatimelessconceptoreternallogos(cf.section2.5),itisdifficult,ifnotimpossibletoseparatethematicphilosophyfromthehistoryofphilosophy.From
theverybeginning,then,everythematicphilosophyisapartofthehistoricaldiscussion.Itisafragmenttobediscussed,acontributiontofurtherconversation.

Inthiscontextitdoesnotmatterwhetheronespeaksofcontemporaryphilosophyorofphilosophyofthepast.Itmakesnoessentialdifferencewhether"word"and
"reply"areseparatedfromoneanotherbyashortoralongtime.Thetimespentwaitingforananswerishenceforthamomentofthethematicphilosophyitself.The
''ancients"arejustasrelevanttopresentphilosophizingasarethestrongestcontemporaries,andmorerelevantthanthelesssignificantthinkersoftheday.The
situation,andpresuppositions,ofphilosophyhavechanged,andwecannotgetaroundthisfact.Butgreatintellectualdifferencesandalackofaffinitycanalsooccur
betweencontemporaries.

Inviewingallthematicphilosophyasamomentinadiscussion,ourconsiderationshiftstoareflectiononthehistoryofphilosophy(section4).However,itisstill
possibletoconcentrateonthepartscomposingthehistoricalConversation,withoutexplicatingthehistoricalrelationsoftheseparts.

3.3Theabolitionoftheindividualsubject

Acurrentobjectiontothesuggestedanalogyisraisedinconnectionwithits(inter)subjectiveandindividualistcharacter.Ifweseethematicphilosophyaspartofa
discussion,dowenotnecessarily

 Page106

presupposethatitistotallytheproductofoneindividual,possiblyeventheselfexpressionofamostindividualsubject?

Accordingtotheabovementionedobjection,wehaveminimalinterestinallthevariousthingsanindividualexperiences,thinks,andsays.Philosophyisconcerned
withthemeaningandthetenabilityofwhatissaid.Itscontentsurvivesaftertheauthordies.Whatthelivingcandowithitwillbecomeclearthroughinterprettion.The
speakerisnotinterestingwhathesaidmaybe.

Nowtheobjectionbecomesparticularlyawesome.Whoorwhatisthesourceandcarrierofspeech?Isthephilosophicalmeaningofsentencesandtreatisesthework
ofanindividualuseroflanguage,oristhelatteramouthpiece,translator,orscribeforsomethingelse"speaking"or"writing"throughhim?Languageitself,acertain
culture,thespiritofaparticulartime,apeople,aclass,thestructureofacertainsociety,therepressederoticismoftheunconsciousareconsideredtheoriginof
thematicphilosophy,andnotauniquephilosopher'sindividualEgo.Theindividualsubjectparticipatessemiconsciously,atbest,intheprocessoflanguageproduction
itslanguageusage,too,ischaracterizedbyapowerlesspassivity.

Thehistoryofideasisanold,spiritualisticversionofthisattackonthecreativeI.Itpresupposesthatitisnotthephilosopherbutrathertheidea,thatexpressesitselfin
thematicphilosophiesandintheirhistory.Astheideathatcomprehendsitself,itisSpirit:thespiritofapeople,ortheworldspirit,whichgivesitselfahistoryby
unfoldingandthenrecollectingitself.Currentversionsofantisubjectivismbasethemselvesonpsychoanalysis,sociology,history,linguistics,semiotics,andsoon.
Proceedingfromvariousbehavioralsciences,theyelevateinsightsintotheprocessandstructureofcertainmechanismstobasicandallencompassingsocialand
historicalprinciples.Themoderncelebrationoffreedomasautonomyhasbeenreplacedbythepostmodernemphasisonanonymousstructures,inwhichtheindividual
subjectseeshimselfcaught.

Aphilosophyisthusnotaspeakerexpressinghimselfbutisratheranexponentofsomethingelsethatconditionsit.Thelifeandworkofaphilosopherandthe
existentialaspectsofanoeuvrearenolongerimportant.Thethinkerhimselfhasnothingtosayheonlyplaysarole.Hefindshimselfonthestage,butwedonotknow
whowrotehislines.Thereisnodirector.

 Page107

3.4Conversationandtext

Forthosewhomaintainantisubjectivism,anotherconceptismorerelevantthantheconceptofconversation:everythematicphilosophyconsists,atleastpartially,of
texts.Theoralexpressionsaddedtothemareeitherunimportant,ormaybeunderstoodasaspokentext.Inthelastcase,theword"text"isperhapsused
metaphoricallyintheothercasesitliterallypresentsthemateriality,the"havingbeenengraved"ofactuallyexistentphilosophizing.Everyphilosophyisacollectionof
textswithsomemutualrelation,andthehistoryofphilosophyisaweavingtogetheroftexts,invokingandcorresponding,orconflicting,withoneanother.Philosophyis
aTextoftexts,aContextandIntertext,apolyphonywiththecharacteroftextuality.

Fromthetextualperspective,thedialogicalconceptionofphilosophyappearstobeanexpressionofnarcissism.Thethinkerdoesnotstepawayfromhisphilosophy
butwantstostay,toassistit.HaveIproducedsomethingstrongenough?Thesubjectisafraidandwantstoguaranteethevictoryofhisideasbyraisinghisvoiceand
producingpowerfularguments.Thefactthatphilosophizingconsistsinproducingtexts,however,meansthatthethinkermaydisappear.Thetextisatombstoneand
thatisallright.Towriteistomakeoneselfsuperfluousitpreparesforone'sdisappearance.Inasense,everyworkisposthumous.Onceathinkerhasgivenushis
work,informationonhislifeaddsaslittlemeaningorvaluetoitasinformationonanarchitect'sfeelingandvisionaddstothesenseandvalueofthebuildinghehas
designed.Thethinkerhimselfcanperhapsstillprovideserviceasaninterpreter.Butinsofarashisexplanationdoesnotproducenewtexts,itisonlyamiseensceneof
thework,whichhaslefthimbehind.

Insomerespectsthewritingofatextcorrespondstospeaking.Athinkerusestimetoformulatewhatmustbesaidaboutcertainexperiencesandproblemscarefully.
Thepossibilityofgoingbacktopastutterances,however,ismuchgreaterhere.Inspeaking,too,onecancorrectwhatdoesnotseemaltogethertrueinalater
evaluationandcanthusgivenewmeaningtowordsspokenearlier.Butonecannottakebackwhathasbeenheardinadiscussionitcontinuestoplaytheroleofan
earlierstatementthathasnowbeenchanged.Thepublicationofatextdoesnotrevealalltheeventsandstagesofits

 Page108

production.JamesJoycespentmorethan1200hoursonAnnaLiviaPlurabelle.Butthispasthistorydoesnotplay(orscarcelyplays)anyroleindecipheringits
textualfabric.

Afterawordhasbeenspoken,itexistsonlyasapossiblememory.Thispresupposesthatalistenerhaspaidattentiontoitandinternalizeditsformormeaning.Its
continuedexistencerequiresaneverrenewedrememberingandreproduction,actualizingapastpresent.Thewordcangoonexistingbecausesomeoneunderstands
it.(Thispersoncanalsobethespeakerhimself,butthenhehaschangedintoonewhohaslistenedtohimself.)

Textshaveapermanencethatmakesthemindependentofthecoincidentalsubjectwhoremembersthem.Rememberingatextismoredifficultthanrememberinga
discussion(whichisalsoeasilydistorted).Theformer,however,islessnecessarybecausethewrittenisanobjectivegiven,apartofthehistoricalinheritance,a
documentthatwecanstudyagainfrombeginningtoend.

However,thedifferencebetweenwordandtextisnotasgreatasitseems.Atextdoesnotexistasameaningfulargumentuntilareaderabsorbsitandrethinkswhat
thetext"gives"himtoponder.Bythemselvestheletters"give"nothing.Inasensethereadergiveshimselfthoughtsbasedonthetext.Heallowsthemarksonthepage
toregulatetheformationofhisthoughts.Anothercausesthedeadtexttolive,thewrittentospeak.(Itcanalsobethewriterwhorereads"himself,''butthenheis
anotherforhimselfaswriter.)Theawakeningofatextislecturaandinterpretation.Textandinterpretationareinseparablemomentsofphilosophy's"existence."

Boththespokenandthewrittenword,then,onlyexistwhenappropriatedbyanotherthereaderorlistener.Heappropriatesthemwithinthelimitsofhisown
possibilities(whichcanbegreaterorlesserthanthoseofthespeakerorwriter).Suchanappropriationformulatesthetextorspeechanew.Itallowstheinterpreted
textto"speak,"insofarasitcausesathoughtfulpresence,hereandnow.Themeaningofatextincludestheexistenceofapresentthinkingofthistext.Writerand
readerarenotexponentsofananonymousstructurebutareratherthinkerscommunicatingwitheachother.Thetextregulatingtheircommunication,however,cannot
bereducedtoaninvisibleinstrumentfortheirreciprocalunderstanding.InrereadingmyowntextIamastonished:Ihavebroughtsomethingintoexistencethatisnot
altogethermine.Thereaderrecognizesmuchof

 Page109

whatheisconcernedwithandalreadysuspectedorknewitsnewnessexistsnotonlyintheother'sthoughtsbutalsointhetextualsuggestionsandtracesthatagood
readerperceives,withoutbeingobligedtoknowwhetherI,aswriter,thoughtthemmyself.Throughinterpretation,atextcontinuestoliveinatransformationofits
possibilities,andthistransformationisanewtext,whichcanitself,inturn,makehistory.Textsthatarecontinuouslycommentedonthusachieveimmortality.Their
meaning"lives,"thankstotheresponsesofathinkingactualitythatis,thankstootherswhohereandnowsayorwritewhatcanstillbethoughtfrominscriptionsof
thepast.Interpretationandreinterpretationaretheposthumouseffectsofgreatthinkers.Andhere,too,everythingdependsontheexistenceofgoodreaders.

Incomparingspeechandtext,wehaveseenthattherealizationoftheirmeaningdemands,inadditiontotheauthor,atleastoneotherwhotakesuphisproductand
bringsittolifeinapersonalway.Bothtextandspeecharejunctionpointsofcommunication.Inthesimplestexampleofaconversation,theparticipantscommunicate
inaveryimmediateway:themeaningexistsasasoundthatissimultaneouslyaspeakingandahearing.Eveninthisexample,however,thehearer'sappropriationofthe
messagedemandstime.Atextcanbridgecenturiesandmillennia,butitpresupposesatleastaminimalidentifiabilitywiththesituationinwhichitwaswritten.Between
theextremesofanimmediatepresenceandaretakingofprehistoricinscriptions,middleformsoftemporalityexistinspeakingaswellasinwriting.Inadditiontothe
materialfixation,aformofinternalizingandrememberingisalsodemandedineverycommunication.

Iftheremainderofthisbookpresentsthematicphilosophizingandthehistoryofphilosophyasconversation,thepointofthismetaphoristheelucidationofa
communicativestructure,throughwhichtheotherness,aswellasthequality,ofphilosophiescanbebothunderstoodandpracticedwithoutbecomingdissolvedina
"dialectical"synthesis.Thewordconversationencompassesspeaking,listening,appropriation,interpretation,andanswering,andasametaphoritisaresumeofthe
partscomprisingthehistoryofphilosophy.Sincethegreaterpartofphilosophyexistsintheformoftexts,wemightgiveourpreferencetoadescriptionputtingthe
textualaspectintheforeground.Isthereanexpressionthatsynthesizesthewholeprocessofwriting,publishing,reading,interpreting,digesting,and

 Page110

writinganewtext?Thewordtextualityisnotonlyuncommon,abstract,andvaguebutitalsogivestheimpressionthatphilosophycouldgetalongwithoutindividual
thinkersandtheirintersubjectivity.Thetermstextualcommunicationorconfrontationmightperhapsbeacceptable,buttheygiverisetomisunderstandingsjustas
theothermetaphor,conversation,does.

3.5Unmasking

Thecomparisonofdiscussionandtextdistractedourattentionfromtheobjectioncitedinsection3.3.Theattackontheindividualsubjectbybehavioralscientistswith
philosophicalpretensionsisprobablythecentralproblemofcontemporaryphilosophyanditsrelationtotheempiricalsciences.Aneasyanswerforexample,that
thesciencesareunabletoanswerphilosophicalquestionsisnotsufficient,evenifitiscorrect.Philosophymustaskitselfhowitshouldreacttothedismantlingsand
unmaskingsproposedbypsychoanalysis,linguistics,sociology,andhistory.Whatuntilrecentlyseemedtobeveryoriginalandspiritual(andevendivine)isnow
exposedasareversiontovulgar,andevensuspicious,motives.Whatdoesthismeanforphilosophicalselfexamination?

Athoroughreflectiononthisproblematicfallsoutsidethescopeofthiswork.Ishalllimitmyselftoafewremarksonthreeaspectsofthestruggle,insofarasthis
struggleisimportantforthenatureofsystematicphilosophy.Thesethreeaspectsare:

Theunmaskingofa(semiconsciousorunconscious)lackofgenuinenessinphilosophiesthattake
1. themselvestobeexplanationsofthetruth(thissection)
2. Thestatementthateveryphilosophyistheexpressionofahiddenwilltopower(section3.6)
3. Therelationbetweentheindividualsubjectandthenonindividual,collective,oranonymouspowers
andstructuresthatgovernit(section3.7andchapter4).

Todesignateacertainphilosophyasnotgenuinedoesnotcontradicttheideathatphilosophy,ratherthanbeingtheworkofathinkingindividual,istheproductof
anonymoussuperindividualorsubindividualpowers,mechanisms,processes,orstructures.Thelackofgenuinenesswould,then,notconsistofaphilosopher's
consciouslies,butratherofthe"objective"factthathiswordssimultaneouslyexpresshisthoughtsandsomethingthatcontradicts

 Page111

thoseverythoughts.Theselfconsciousthinkingofsuchaphilosopherexposesconsciousorsemiconsciousnarcissism,willtopower,distortedsocialrelations,linguistic
reflexes,andsoon.16

Marx,Nietzsche,andFreudhaveshownthatmanyargumentsonjusticeandloveonlyappeartobeinspiredbyaloveforjusticeandlove.Theyindicateaninner
discrepancybetweenthecontentofanargumentandthe"real"intentionsconcealedinit,althoughthearguingsubjectisunawareofthem."Lawandorder"are
defendedandlegitimizedaslawandgoodorderbecausetheyguaranteethefundamentalinjusticesofthisorder.Moralityispreachedoutofrevenge,sadism,orother
immoralmotives.Religionisahedonismthatdeniesitself.

Ontheleveloftheory,theindicateddiscrepancyisacontradictionbetweenwhatisconsciouslysaidandwhatisunconsciouslyorsemiconsciouslyintended.Buta
philosophyisnotamatterofmeretheory.Itismovedbyafeeling.Theactualintention,thehiddenmotivationfortheargumentation,comesforthfromanimpulseor
"will,"whichcantakeonallsortsofforms:libido,greed,lustfordomination,willtopower,andsoon.Byrevealingthesuspectedmotivesofaphilosophy,onecan
makethevalueofitsmessagesuspect.Butwhatkindofjurisdictionarewedealingwithhere?

Itisclearthatthevalueofevidencedoesnotstandorfallonthepurityofmotiverulingawitness.Psychoanalyticalandideologicallycriticalinsinuationsarenotanswers
tothequestionwhetherphilosophicalstatementsaretrue.Evenscoundrelssometimesspeakthetruth.Andeverythingacriticsaysaboutotherphilosophersalso
appliestohimself.Whatfeeling,whatsortof"will"or"desire,"controlshisjudgmentandtheory?

Wheredoesthepathosofunmasking,whichdelightssomanyunmaskers,comefrom?Doesthepleasureofrevelationhavesomethingtodowithdisappointment,
revenge,cynicism,andresentment?Ordoesitspringfrompureindignationatinjusticeandinauthenticity?Evenselfrevelationisnoproofofhonestyitcanbemore
morbidthanthephilosophiesitcriticizesashypocritical.

Ifthemotivesofthecriticmaybejustasquestionableasthoseofthecriticizedphilosophy,itseemsnecessarytoascertaintheconditionsnecessaryforacleanfight.It
isnotenoughforacritictobecomeawareofhishiddenmotives.Noonebecomesbetterthroughknowledgealone.Butwhatstandardcanthecriticusetojudge

 Page112

whetherthemotivesguidinghim,oranotherphilosopher,arepure?Forinstance,ifhecondemnscertainphilosophiesasegotistic,doeshebasehisjudgmentsona
normprescribingloveforothers,orononeprescribingasuperindividualwellbeing?Ifso,thenthatnormcanbeformulatedasatheoryofthegood.Butthismustbe
investigatedwiththesameArguseyesofeveryotherphilosophy.Thecriticismofphilosophythusindicatesthenecessitynotonlyofexaminingbutalsoofpurifying,the
emotionalfoundationsofaphilosophyanecessitythatispossiblymoreimportantforthecriticthanforthosehecriticizes.

Havethegreatcriticsthemselvesnottaughtushowdangerousitistowanttobeajudge?Themoralismthatsogladlyjudgesisitselfadisguiseforthelusttodominate
thattriumphsevenwhenitacquits.Tobesimultaneouslyjudge,plaintiff,andclaimantisjustasdelightfulasbeingaphilosopherwhospeaksinthenameofthe
Weltgericht.Criticismandselfcriticismarenotnecessarily"evil,"butanabsolutizingofthecriticalviewpointsuffersfromaninabilitytotakerealityasitis,asdoes
everyabsolutizingrighteousness.

Thenormofphilosophyandphilosophicalcriticismisloveforthetruthitself(cf.chapter4).Butifoneconsiders"thetruth"tobenonsensicalorimpossible,wherewill
oneseekaguideline?Is"genuineness"stillpossibleifonegivesuptheideaoftruth?Likehonestyintheexperiencingandrenderingoffactsastheyactuallyare(asort
offacttruth),genuinenesscannotbeseparatedfromthetruth.Howcanhonestybeascertainedandstrivedfor?Whenitfunctionsasacriterion,itcomesfroma
specificmoralityandcanbeformulatedasanethics.Butthisimpliesthepretensionthatoneissayingsomethingtrue.Iftherelativismoftruthseeksasolutiontoits
contradictionsintherejectionofgenuinenessandfraudulenceforexample,throughthethesisthatthosewordsnolongermeananythingbecausethereisno
objectiverealityinmanhimselfwithwhichhehastoagreethewholepathosofunmaskingbecomessenseless."Unmasking''is,then,aninadequateword.Onecan
continuetoexposethenontheoreticalfactorsthatplayaroleinphilosophicalpositionsbutthereisabsolutelynoreasontofindonepositionbetterthananother.

Ideologicalcriticismusuallychargesthatthecriticizedphilosophypretendstodefendtruth,morality,justice,andsoon,butissecretlyuntrue,immoral,andunjust.
Whentheaccusationisput

 Page113

inthisway,thecriticismindicatesanagreementwiththeexpressedintentionofthephilosophyinquestion.Thefaultofthisphilosophywouldbethatitspretensionis
false.Justice,thegood,truth,andhonestyaregoodaccordingtothecritic,too,butthecriticizedphilosophydoesnottakeitsownidealsseriously.Thecriticismis,
then,atleastimplicitly,anapologyforthecriteriathattheaccusedphilosophyprofessesbutdoesnotapply.Thisapologycanbeworkedintoapositivephilosophyof
truth,justice,andsoon.Ifthecriticismremainspurelynegative,itsobjectsandimplicitnormsmustbetrackeddownandjudgedbyametacriticism.Ifthecriticism
posesanewcriterionorideal,itdoesthesamethingastheprecedingphilosophiestheymustbecomparedaccordingtothequalityofitsidealsanditstheoretical
arguments.Thecriticismsofphilosophyareneverimmunetoacriticaldistrustoftheirownpretensionsandmotives.Inallcases,theythemselvesinvolveamoral
perspective,andthus,theirownclaimsfortruth.If,afterexamination,acriticismappearstobetrueandpure,itisobviouslypossibletopracticephilosophyina
properway.Thestrugglebetween"philosophy"andcontemporarydemystificationstherebybecomeonemorestageinthehistoryofphilosophy.

3.6Thematicphilosophyandrhetoric

Accordingtosomeauthors,philosophyisnecessarilyrhetorical.Thisepithetisusuallytakeninarestrictedsense,asindicatingthewilltopowerthatsupposedly
motivateseveryphilosophy(cf.above,p.87ff.).Philosophizingisthusseenasanattempttoachievenonlogicaleffectsparticularlythesubjugationofothersby
verbalandlogicalmeans.Philosophicaltheoriesalwaysinvolveapology,polemics,andstrategy.

Philosophyexercisespowerinatypicalway.Throughthedevelopmentofatheory(i.e.,ofaverbalandlogicalcoherence),oneshowsthereaderorlistenerthathe
canand(ifheisrational)mustseethatthistheoryiscorrect.Itisselfevidentforonewhoisnotstupidorfoolish.Anyonewhodoesnotseethisisirrational.In
itsusuallysuggestedandsometimesexplicitlyformulatedcriticism,everyphilosophicaltheoryisamoralisticandauthoritarianruse:ifyoudonotagreewiththis(my)
philosophy,youarenotrational.Thisruseisaperpetuationofviolence.Theoryispowerandsubjugation.Everyphilosophyisanideology.

 Page114

Somephilosophersdonothelpthesituationwhentheynolongercondescendtosupporttheirclaimswithargumentsbutsimplyannouncetheirstatementswithaplomb
andcontempt.Someofthemdefendtheirnonmethodsinthenameoftheideathatphilosophyisamerebattlefield:theonlythingthatmattersisachievingeffects.
Theoriesareonlyquasirationalmaskesforconflictingforcesargumentsarewargames.Askingthequestionoftruthisawayofcapitulatingtoagreaterforce."When
onewonderswhetheraphilosophyisrightornot,oneisalreadysubjecttothepowerofcensorship...."17

Ifphilosophizingisindeedastruggleforpower,variouspossibilitiesareopentous.First,onecontendsthatphilosophyaimsatnothingmorethanpower.This
standpointcanbepracticedandjustifiedinatrivialway,asPlatoshowsinhiscaricaturesofGorgiasandothersophists.Amoresophisticatedversionoftheidentityis
possible,however.AccordingtoSpinoza,thehighestforceandpowerarethecharacteristicsofthehighesttruth.Thetestofstrengthtakingplaceinphilosophical
investigationsresultsinthetruththisrevealsitselfandacquirespowerthroughitsownforce.

However,onecanalsorecognizetherhetoricalelementinallphilosophywithoutidentifyingpowerwithtruth.Evenifaphilosophy,accordingtoacorrectbutlimited
viewpoint,isanideology,atthesametimeitiswhateverideasandargumentsanintelligentandtruthlovingthinkerreadsintoit.Thequestionofthesearguments'
correctnessorincorrectnessisdifferentfromthequestionoftheirpower.Stupidpeopleandimpostersoftenhavealotofinfluence.Thetruthofthegreatest
philosophers(suchasSpinoza)oftenhaslittleeffect.AccordingtoKierkegaard,oneofthemaincharacteristicsofthetruthisthatisdoesnotwinitsuffers.

Still,suchaseparationoftruthandpowerdoesraisedifficultiesHoweverconvincingtheirnonidentitymayseem,toathoughtinsearchfortheultimate,forceappears
tobeapropertyofthetruth.Whatdowemeanbya"forcefultheory"?Isitonethatcanstandfirmlyanddefenditsstrengthagainstmanyobjections?Whatenablesa
philosophytoresistattacksandtoimposeitselfonotherminds?Istruthnotnecessarilyexperiencedassomethingdeservingobedience,respect,andsubmission,
althoughitcertainlydoesnotenslave?Istruthaforcethatmustimposeitselfand"rule"thepersonwhodesirestorealizehimselffully?

 Page115

Theproblemoftherelationsbetweenphilosophyandrhetoriccannotbesolvedwithoutathoroughreflectionontheessenceoftruthanditsrelationtopowerand
force.Apartofthisisthephilosophicalconsiderationoftherelationbetweenphilosophyandpolitics.Butathoroughreflectiongoesdeeperanddevelopsintoa
fundamentalphilosophy,ormetaphysics.Plato'spolemicagainstthepoliticaland"philosophical"(i.e.,sophistical)fashionsofhistimeremainsexemplary.

3.7Theindividualandthepowers

Thisbook'scentralthemeistheintersubjectivityofphilosophizing.Onecouldcallitadefenseofphilosophicalconversationordialogue,ontheconditionsthatone(1)
doesnotlimitsuchaconversationtotwospeakersand(2)takesthewordconversationmetaphorically.Allphilosophiescanbebroughtintodiscussionwithone
anotherevenphilosopherswhodonottakenoticeofotherscanbereadasparticipantsinahistoryofspeakingandwritingthatisnotmerelycollectiveoranonymous
butisratheradramaperformedbyindividualthinkers.Thefollowingchapterwillcontinuetodefendthisschema.Theanthropologicalandethicalperspectivedefended
bythisbookcanhardlyescapeadiscussionofthethesisthatasFoucaltquitesensationallyputit"manisdead."Athoroughdiscussionoftheopposition
betweenhumansubjectivityandanonymousstructuresisnotpossiblehere,butwecannotomitaclarificationoftheproblemandacertainjustificationofthestandpoint
takeninthisbook.

Thestructuresofsocietyandculture,therulesoflanguage,mythology,andart,thehistoricalconstellationinwhichwefindourselves,andsoon,conditionthebehavior
andspeechofindividuals.Asasocialandhistoricalpower,philosophytooisgovernedbyobjectiverulesandreflexes.Itconformstoacertainwayofspeakingthat
hasbeencustomarysince600B.C.Thethinkingofindividualphilosophersandtheirexchangesarecontrolledbyregulationsthatnooneinvented.Speakingand
writingareatbestvariationsongivenlanguageforms.Somehavetriedtodrawadistinctionbetweenparticularformsofthought(determinedbyaspecificcontext)
andunivrsalformswhichstructureallhumanthoughtapriori.Suchauniversalitywouldsalvagethemeaningandcapacityfortruthoftheindividualthinker.Whatis
necessary,then,istheformulationofa

 Page116

logicthatdifferentiatestheuniversallyvalidelementsfromthehistorically,socially,andbiographicallydeterminedones,whicharealsopartofaphilosophy.Thereisa
strongsuspicioninourcentury,however,thatnouniversallogicofthoughtformsispossible,notonlybecausetheformulationofanylogicisitselfsubjecttoallsortsof
particularitybutalso,moreprincipally,becausethereisnosuchthingasasuprahistoricalstructureofalltruethought.Nothingescapeshistory,andhistoryknowsno
constants.Duringacertainpriod,thenetworkofbasicformsremainsthesame,butatacertainpoint,thesystemofthisperiodisbrokenoffandmakesroomfora
radicallydifferentgroundstructure.Iftheruptureseparatingthetwocanbeexplainedasanecessaryornormalevent,thediscontinuityisnotcompleteifitis
contingent,aphilosophyofthetransitions,andthusofhistory,isimpossible.

Accordingtotheconceptionquotedhere,alogicsuchasHegel's,Kant's,orLeibniz'sistheresultofacertainepochofthinking.Inspiteofgreatdifferences,often
ignored,thelogicsofHegel,Kant,andLeibnizareofthesamefamilyasthoseofPlatoandAristotle.ButthebasicstructuresofGrecoWesternthoughtarenot
universaleither.Thepatternscomposedbythesestructuresdominated2500yearsofhistory.Theycanbedescribedas"ontotheologicalthinking"(Heidegger)oras
"egology"(Levinas).Butsuchadiagnosisofitsparticularityisalsoadeathnotice.

Whathasbeendescribedhereonthebasisoftheconceptsstructureandhistorycanalsobeformulatedonthebasisoflanguage,theunconscious,orsocialrelations.
Onecanalwaysshowthatanindividual'slife,languageusage,andthoughtaretheexponentsofanonymous"powers,"notof"thelanguage,""thesociety,""the
culture,''"thehistory"althoughthisisthecommonwayoftalkingfortheseexistonlyinandasthespeaking,theexperience,theculturalbehavior,andthe
personalhistoryofindividualpeople.Onecan,however,defendthenotionthattheconsciousandunconsciousactionsofindividualsarecodeterminedbycertain
impersonalelementsofsociety,culture,andsoon.

Whatisthecontentandthenatureofthisdomination"undergone"bytheindividual?Whichpowersaretoostrong,evenforaphilosopher,andhowcanheunderstand
their"causality"?Thequestionofthecontentofwhatisthought"underinfluence"belongs,toagreatextent,tothebehavioralsciences.Philosophyhasmuchto

 Page117

learnfromthem,asacentralpartofthephilosophyofscience.Thequestionofthe"causality"ofnonindividualfactorsinindividualbehaviorisforscienceand
philosophytogethertoconsider.Aphilosophyoftherelationsbetweenindividualityandintersubjectivitycannotbesatisfiedbythejuxtapositionofasubjectivisticand
astructuralisticviewpointsuchaphilosophyshouldatleastmakeitplausiblethatinspiteofandthanksto,theanonymouspowersregulating,structuring,andruling
him,anindividualcanrealizehimself.

Theintrospectiveconsciousnessofourfreedomisvulnerablebecausesomuchevidencehasturnedouttobeillusory.Still,immediateevidenceremainsanessential
criterion.Otherwise,howcouldweprovethatthesupposedevidenceisillusory?Howelseexceptonthebasisofother,moresolidevidence?Butisthereauthentic
andirrefutableevidenceofindividualautonomy?OrarewevictimsoftheWesternand,inparticular,themodernwayoffeeling?

Amoreexternalapproachseeksforthetraceofindividualityinthepeculiarstylewithwhicheverypersondistinguisheshimself.Butistheattentiongiventooriginality
(e.g.,intheformofheroworship)notarelicofromanticism?Howcantheuniquenessofeachindividualbedistinguishedfromauniversalpeculiarityandindividuality
characteristicofallhumanbeings?Canwenotimaginethatthemodernprivatizationofcultureisagainmakingroomforasocietyinwhichallcultureiscommonandin
whichheroismandoriginalitynolongermeananything?

Eveninthemostcollectivisticculture,Icannotescapethetaskofdoingwhatmustbedoneandsayingwhatiscorrectmyself.Evenifeverythingwereselfevidentand
everyonewereexpectedonlytoconformtorules,IwouldstillbeirreplaceableanduniqueinsofarasIacceptedthisactivity(orthisundergoing)myself.Theought,or
inabroadsenseofthetermthemoralviewpointgivenwiththedifferencebetweenanindividualandtheinstancethatruleshim,impliesacertainformofbeingoneself.
Itforbidsatotalreduction,orneglectof,one'sindividuality.

The"morality"spokenofhereconsistsofthedemandsasocietymakesonitsmembers.Anindividualis,however,morethanjustsubmissiveness.Ifthereisthinking
inacollectivisticsociety,someindividualsatleastmustwonderaboutthemeaningandthejustificationofitsmorality.Theseindividualsquestionthissociety

 Page118

andinprinciplegobeyonditnottoanindividualism,buttothedemandforajustifiedmoralityandsociety,whichmaybedifferentfromtheestablishedones.

Criticismandtransformationarenotinthemselvesarefutationofalltheobjectionstotheindividual'soriginality.Itusuallyappears,atleastinretrospect,thatcriticism
andrenewalareinnowaycreationsexnihilo:theyexploitpossibilitiesthatarealreadypresentintheexistingconstellation.Tobe"creative"istobringthewaiting
seedstofruition.Ifyouchangethelevelandqualityofacuturalsystemyouareradicallyinnovative,butthesuggestionsyoutakeuparealreadythere.Inthisrespect
yourindividualachievementsaretheproductsoftheworldinwhichyoulive.

Thereareenoughargumentsfromthebehavioralsciencestodefendthethesisthatahumanindividualisnothingmorethananexponentormouthpieceofsomething
else.Byreducingalloriginalitytoajunctionpointwhereacombinationofgivenforcessortsouttheireffects,thatthesisisabsolutized.However,onecanalways
reversetherolesand,withthesupportofimmediateexperience,maintainthatthedefenseofthedeterministicviewpoint(beitstructuralist,archeological,collectivistic,
orideahistorical)istheresultofachoice.Thereductionofindividualsubjectivityintosomethingelseisitselfanindividualviewandchoice.Nothingcandestroythis
interpretationofthestructuralistbehavior.For,whichexperience,whichscience,isstrongerthantheselfexperienceofanirreducibleself?Ifthisexperienceisan
illusion,whyaretheexperiencesonwhichthereductionistsbasetheirinterpretationsnotillusory,butsolid?Again,theabsolutizingofaperspectivedestroysits
(relative)truth.

Iftheviewpointsoforiginalityandofanonymousstructurescanbothbedefended,itisataskforthoughttounderstandthemasperspectivesthatis,asmomentsof
oneinsightor,ifthisistoodifficult,atleasttoputforwardtheirinterrelation.Thesciencesoverwhelmuswithstatisticsandargumentstoshowthepowerof
everythingthatweundergo.Untilnow,however,littleattentionhasbeenpaidtoananalysisofscienceastheworkofindividualresearchersortotheexperiences,
perspectives,andchoicesbywhichtheybecamescientists.Husserlianphenomenologypaidagreatdealofattentiontoprescientificintentionsandstructures,butnot
muchtotheessentialfunctionofindividualitywithinthescientificprocess.

 Page119

Thetruthoftheindividualisnotonlyfoundintheimmediateselfexperienceofaselfconsciousegoconcerningwhichtheunmaskingsandreductionsdiscussed
abovehavegivenusabadconsciencebutitalsopresentsitself,andmoreobjectively,intheexperienceoftheother,towhomIamobligated.18Kanthasalready
indicatedthe"experience"ofrespectasawayinwhichfreedommakesitselfknown.Theelementofalteritycharacterizingethicalexperiencefreesourapologyfor
selfhoodfromitsnarcissism.Butitisnotonlyanotherpersonwhoovercomesmemyownhumannessovercomesmeasanothertowhommylife,andthusmy
thought,isoriented.Ifethicsisofanyvaluehowcouldweotherwiseescapefromaworldinwhichthe"right"ofthestrongestiscorrectandinwhichphilosophy
andeveryuseoflanguageisonlycunning?itisimpossibletoreduceourspeechtothepureproductofananonymousforce.Speakingisalsoruledbyanother
alteritythatisnotreducibletonarcissism,tosadomasochism,toclassinterests,toculturalfixations,andsoon.Ifethicsisanythingatall,thenhumanindividualsare
irreplaceable.

Themoral"passivity"effectedinmebythisother(Intheformofanotherhumanbeingandalsoasanaspectofthehumannessimposedonmeasatasktobecarried
out)19liberatesmefromabsolutedeterminismandgivesmemymoral,andthereforemyanthropological,independence.Although"Itthinks"("Itspeaks,""Itwrites")
containsacertaintruth,justas"Ithink''(andspeakandwrite),Iamnotreallyfreeforindependentthought(andspeechandwriting)untilIam"addressed"bytheother
(intheotherorinmyself).

4Thehistoryofphilosophyasconversation

4.1Textandauthor

Sincethephilosophersandphilosophiestreatedinahistoryofphilosophyareforthemostparthiddeninaseriesoftexts,theymustberecalledbygoodreaders
beforetheycanfigureinanewtextdescribingtheirhistory.

Sinceinaconversationawordexistsatoneandthesamemomentbothasspokenandasheard,speakerandlistenerareunifiediftheyunderstandthiswordinthe
sameway.Atext

 Page120

separatesauthorandreaderbyaperiodoftimethatcanhavelastedformanyyearsandhavebridgedmanygenerations.Whatwaswrittencanhavebeenleftbehind
andcoveredwithdust.Astheresultofconversation(withothersandwithoneself),atextalreadycontainsmanycorrectionsthathavecomeoutofpreceding
dialogues.Asareportontheconversationsthathavepreparedit,atextcanhavethecharacterofasummary.Astheculminationofaverbalhistory,ithasthe
tendencytolookbackandtoreflectonitspast.Theauthorisalreadysomewhereelse:ifhedoesnotpersevereintherepetitionsandapplicationsofhiswritings,he
hasgrownbeyondthemandispreoccupiedwithfindingnewanddifferentthoughts.

Theinevitabledistancebetweenthewriterandhistextisresponsiblefortheparticularkindofdistancethatseparateshimfromhisreaders.Thedifficultiesinvolvedin
understandingatextareevidenceoftheinnerdistancethatthinkingmustbridgebeforereaderandauthorcanmeet.Atextdoesnotspeakforitself.Itmustbebrought
tospeak,andthisisalwaysabringingbackofthelivingthinkingcrystallizedwithinit."Whatdidtheauthorintendhere?""Towhatishealluding?""Towhichelements
ofhissituationishereferring?""Howcanhesaysuchathing?"Atextcontinuestogiveevidenceofthinking,andthusofthethinkerfromwhomitderivesitsexistence.
Wesometimesneedtoknowverylittleaboutthelifeandpeculiaritiesofanauthor,butevenwithananonymousauthor,wecannotmakeatotalabstractionofthe
intentionthatinspiredhistext.Someonedirectshimselftous,hisunknownreaders.Theassertionthattheauthor'sintentionmaybeforgottenaltogetherbecausethe
textpresentsthenoemainitselfisincomprehensible.Anoemaisnothingunlessitisactually,virtually,orpotentiallyintendedbysomeone.Ifthis"someone''isareader
bringingthetexttolifethroughhisownintention,heproducesanewnoemabasedonthetext:hiswayofunderstandingthewrittenwords.Tothisextentthetextisa
potential,orvirtual,noemaofanewlivingintention.

Thequestionofhowtheintentions(andcorrespondingnoemata)ofauthorandreaderarerelatedmustbeaskedand(atleastapproximately)answered.Iftheyhave
nothingtodowitheachother,wecannotspeakofinterpretation.Inthiscase,forexample,Spinoza'sEthicaisnolongerSpinoza'sthought,butratherapuzzletobe
solvedwithoutevenaskingwhatitmeansorintendstosay.Thiscomparisonisnotaltogethercorrect,becauseevenapuzzleisassembled

 Page121

bysomeonewhointendssomething,namely,toconcealtherightanswer.Iftheauthornolongerplaysanyrole,onemustcompare"his"texttoanaturalphenomenon
suchasacompositecrystalorabirdsongortherustlingwind,aboutwhichotherscanformtheirthoughts.Theabsolutizingoftextualityresultsinageneral
proclamationofdeath:notasingleauthorcanhaveanythingtosayhiswordsarepartofasilentnaturethatsurroundsus.Orphanedandalone,wepossessthe
monopolyoflanguage.Everyonemaythinkwhathepleasesoftheriddlesgivenhiminstoneandscriptourdesireforcommunicationisjustaspiousandillusoryasthe
immortalityaspiredtobyanywriter.Whoeverwritesdownhisthoughtsmerelyaddsnewscratchingstothegraffitiofanoldworld,withoutanyhopeforsurvival.

Thedistanceimposedbythetextbetweenwriterandreaderisnotabsolutelydifferentfromtheoneseparatingparticipantsinadiscussion.Thefactthatalistener
quicklyunderstandsaspeakercanobscurethefactthatthewordsspokenandthewordsheardarenotsimplyidenticalbutratherdifferinhowtheyarebeingthought.
Aspokenwordisathoughtthatthespeakerthinks,ortriestothink,andputsintowordsmoreorlessprecisely.Todigestit,thelistenermustallowittosinkin.Ifthe
wordisunusualordifficult,itsintegrationtakestimeandwork:athinkingefforttoreproducewhatwasofferedasathoughttobethoughtabout.Ofcourse,with
regardtospokenwordstoo,thelistenercanbelessinterestedinthespeaker'sthoughtsthaninthenewspeechesthatcanbemadeoutofthesemanticandsyntactical
materialheishearing.Whoeverconceivesofthehistoryofphilosophicalutterancesinthiswayseesthemasacollectionofbuildingblocks,orasgrammaticaland
lexicalelementstobeusedfortheconstructionofnewtexts.History,then,wouldbenomorethanalarderofmaterialforother,uniquephilosophies.

4.2Interpretation

Atextdoesnotsayanythingunlessareaderbringsitto"life"orcausesitto"speak."Atext"speaks"or"lives"ifitstimulatessomeonetothinkaboutwhathereads.
"Writtenthoughts''mustnowexistinthethinkingoftheirreadersandnolongerinthethinkingofthewriteraswriter,forthelatterhaspassedawaywithhisinscriptions.
In(re)readingmyowntexts,IrediscoverwhatIthoughtatanearlierstageofmyexistence.AlthoughImaystillagreewithmyformer

 Page122

thoughts,thereisadifferencenotonlyintime,butalsointhethoughtsthatseparatemywritingfrommyreading.AsareaderI,too,amforcedtoreconstructwhatI
havethought.SometimesIstillrememberwhatIthoughtwhileIwaswriting,butthisisnotanabsolutecriterionfortheinterpretationofmytexts,becauseitisnot
certainthatmyformulationswereadequate.Thetext"speaks"foritself(ifsomeonebringsittospeak).AsawriterImustchangemyselfintoareaderandinterpreterif
Iwanttoexplainmyowncreations.SinceIcarrymypastwithme,myideaspreserveacertainrelationshipwiththeideasItriedtorecordinwriting.Thisqualifiesme
asanexegetewhoisclosertomytextsthanmanyothers.Notwithstandingmybeingboundtoaparticularpast,Imayhaveleftmyearlierthoughtsbehindme,sothat
myownwritingshavebecomeforeigntome.Othersmightnowunderstandthembetter.

Sinceatextrequiresa"someone"inordertobemeaningful,aphilosophicaltreatisemustbereadandunderstoodifwearetosaythatit"contains"ideas.Thesupport
atextneedsinorderto"say"something20canseldombegivenbyitsproducer.Inanycasetheauthor,too,standsatagreaterorlesserdistancefromhistext.The
explanationofwhatis"written"isanewformulationofsuggestions,intheformofmutesignswaitingtobeactuallythought(ortoberealthoughts).Byunderstanding
them,areaderreproducestheresultsofaprecedingcompletedproduction.Helendsathoughtfulpresencetowordsthathave''survived"theirfirstlife.Inexplaining
them,hetranslates"withotherwords"(hisown)whattheauthorhasleftbehind.Sincethebondwiththeauthorcanneverbetotallysevered,everyexplanationisalso
anapologiaororatioproalio.However,asareproductionandactualization,itisanewtext,forwhichtheapologistispartiallyresponsible.

Thepresentationofatextisarepresentation:awordingthatisdifferentfromtheoriginallypresentedtext.Thedistancesbetweenwriter,text,andreaderare
expressedinthisdifferenceoflanguage.Howmuchmay,ormust,aninterpretationvaryfromthetextitisexplaining?Copyingorrecitingmaycontributeto
understanding,ifitstressesarticulationsandaccentsinthetext.Aparaphrasethatremainsclosetotheauthor'sterminologypresupposesacertainfamiliaritywithitand
raisesoursuspicionthatonewoulddojustaswell,orbetter,toreadtheoriginal.Bytheconversionofagiventextintoanotherterminology,onerunstherisksofnot
explaining"what

 Page123

theauthorwrote,"andofwritingaverydifferenttext.Anexplanationbasedonothertheoreticalpresuppositionscouldverywellbar,ratherthanopen,theentryintoa
text.

Thereisnosingle,allpurposenormforinterpretation.However,theinterpretermustknowwhatheisdoing.

Hisinterpretationisexcellentifitallowssomeonetomakeabetterconnectionwiththeexplainedtextthanhehadbefore.Interpretation,asareadingaid,aimsat
makingitselfsuperfluous.Itgivestheprerequisitehistoricalandculturalinformationconcerningthetextitshowsthequestionsasked,thelinesoftheargument,the
divisionofthetext,theinterconnectionsoftheconceptsused,andsoon.Thepositivisticelementofthehistoryofphilosophysystematizesthiswayofinterpretation.It
remainsasclosetothetextsaspossible,butatthesametimeitdevelopstechniquesfordecipheringandifitreflectsonitselfatheoryofdeciphering.(This,then,
isapartofthematicphilosophy,namely,philosophicalreflectiononreadingandinterpretationandonthewritingofhistoryasareconstructionoftheperiodinwhich
thetextswerewritten.)

Insteadoflookingforexplanationstoeaseourunderstandingofcertaintexts,wecanalsoreadthemfornootherreasonthantofindinspirationfornewideasofour
own.Fromthisperspective,earlierphilosophiesaremerelystimulants.Asathematicphilosopher,ImakewhateverIwantoutofthem.TheHistoryofphilosophy,
then,functionsonlyasaportaltogenuinePhilosophy.Thiswayofreadingisunfruitfulifitdoesnotcarrymeawayfrommyself.IfatextonlyconfirmsordenieswhatI
alreadyknow,itdoesnotfurthermyinsight.Ifitisnotparticularlywellwritten,itsreadingisawasteoftime.Anallknowingattitudepreventsmefromlearning
anythingnewanddoesnotdojusticetotheoriginalauthors.Itispossible,however,toexposemyselftotheothernessofawrittenthoughtwithnoothergoalinmind
thantheproductionofmyownphilosophy.Otherphilosophersarethereforme.Myinterpretationispartofmyowntrainofthought.Myinterestsaremystandards
fortheselectionandthewayofreadingthroughwhicholdtextsmayacquiretheactualityoflivingthought.

Allsortsofgradationsarepossiblebetweenthetwoextremesofreadingaidontheonehandandhermeneutical(re)creationontheother.Wecanspeakof
"interpretation"aslongastwoelementsarepresentinsomeformandtosomedegree:

 Page124

Areferencetothetext(alreadyexpressedbythefactthatthewords[thetext]oftheinterpretation
1. cannotexistintotalseparationfromtheinterpretedtext)ismadeand
2. One'sownthoughtsareresponsibleforanoticeabledistancebetweenthelettersofthetextandthe
spiritoftheinterpretationgiven.

4.3Anethicsofinterpretation

Asidefromtheartofreadingandthehermeneuticaltechniquesdemandedbythisart,theinterpretationofatextpresupposesamoralattitude.Asenseofresponsibility
forthelifeanddeathoftextsnotonlyobligesmetointegratethemintomyownthoughtbutalsotoperformakindofservicefortheirauthorsandotherreaders.Imust
dojusticetothewriterhislegacymustbehandedoverand,ifnecessary,explainedtoposterity,atleastifthetextisnotstupidorvainorcheaporitselfunjustand
lackinginrespect.Evenifthetextisbad,Imustrespectthedeadauthorbynotidentifyinghimwithhistext.

Backinatimewhentherewasnotsomuchprintedpaperdailystreamingintoone'shouse,awrittenworkcouldcountonmorerespectthanitnowcan.Our
disappointmentwithmanypublicationscontributestoadistrustthatisdifficulttoovercomewhenweattempttoconvinceothersthatthey"mustread"something.Some
texts,however,havebecomesacrosanctasaresultofthousandsofreadings,explanations,andevaluationstheyattractattention,andonemustbewelladvancedto
maintainthattheyareunimportantorempty.

Tosaythatatextis"allright"and"shouldberead"meansthesame.Whetheragiventextcanbedescribedas"allright"canonlybeknownafterithasbeenread.But
inordertoreadit,onemustatleastsurmisethatitisworthwhile.Acertaincredit,asortofhypotheticalrespect,isthusdemandedbeforeonedecidestoevaluatea
text.Byrefusingtogiveitanycredit,wewouldcondemnaphilosophybeforeithadhadthechancetogiveitsownevidence.Suchabiascancomefrompartiality:the
authorbelongstoanothergroupthereforeheprobablywritesnonsense.But,wasthisgroupeverseriouslylistenedto?

Takingyouropponentseriouslyisthebasisforafairrenditionofhiswritings.The"positivism"thatwasreferredtoearlierasan

 Page125

essentialelementofeveryhistoryofphilosophyisgroundedinthis.Itcannotbebasedontheegologicalsubjectobjectschema.Althoughthisschemaadmitsthe
necessityofleavingone'shomeandsojourninginaforeignterritory(myownenrichmentdemandsaconfrontationwithotherphilsophers),anegologicalconfrontation
preparesafinalmonologue.Initotherphilosophiesaremerelypreliminarystagesorsubordinatedelements.TheotherloseshisuniquenesstotheEgo'sassimilation.A
trueoratioproalioleavesopenthepossibilitythatIamnotabletoappropriatetheotherphilosophy,althoughitstillhasitsownvalueandrighttoexist.Theattitude
thatthishypothesisclaimsseemstobeanecessaryconditioninorderforafairhistoryofphilosophytodojusticetoeveryone."Everyone"heremeans:everyonewho
hassomethingtosaythatisworthreflectingon.Butwhodetermineswhetherastatementisworthreflectingon?AsahistorianIcannotavoidgivinganevaluation,even
ifIonlyrefertowhat'everybody,"orotherhistoriansofphilosophy,thinkaboutthevalueofcertainphilosophies.Imyselfstillattachavaluetothejudgmentofthose
others.Theevaluationexpressedbymyselectiondoesnot,however,necessarilyimplyamonologicalintention,andIcanalwayspresentmyhistoryofphilosophyas
oneofmanypossibleperspectives,whichallequallycontributeto"thehistory."

Besidesbeing"positivistic,"impartial,"neutral,"and"objective,"aninterpretermustbeanadvocateorapologistforthetextsuponwhichheconcentrates.Theethicsof
readingdoesnotstopatacarefulreconstructionofthemeaning''contained"inatext.Notonlyasahumanbeingbutalsoasanauthor,theauthorismorethanhis
writings.

Theidentificationofanauthorwithhistextkillshim.Thisstatementisnotanapologyforthesubterfugeofthosewhoclaimtothinkorknowmorethantheycanwrite,
butratheranadmissionofthefactthatawriternevertotallysucceedsinwritingwhatheintendstowrite.Everytextisinsomewayafailure:theauthorwasnotableto
say(andthusalsonotabletothink)whathewasseekingfor.Textsarepointers,stonesthatmarktheway,butthinkingcontinuestoaimatanunwrittenand
indescribabletruth.

Thebestapologyforaphilosopherisaninterpretationthatpresentshiscaseasstronglyaspossible,evenmorestronglythandothelettersofhisowntext.Suchan
interpretationsupplementshis

 Page126

workwithargumentsthatareonlyindicatedbytheauthorandclarifieshisintentionsthroughinformationtakenfromhislettersandconversations.Throughsuchcareful
work,thehistoriansustainsaphilosopher'slifeandhonor.Hethus"saves"himfromoblivion.Asmanagersofaninheritance,historiansofphilosophycandetermine
howlonganauthorlives,incontrasttotheepigones,whokeeprepeatingwhathaspassed.

4.4Anonymousthought

Mustthehistoryofphilosophydirectitselfinthefuturelesstowardsphilosophyandmoretowardscurrents,collectiveperspectives,andspeakingstyles,prejudices,
schemas,andmethods?They,too,"speak"intextsbutaretheyphilosophical?

Howeveroriginalphilosophiesmaybe,theyalwaysinvolveperspectivesandnotionsreflectiveoftheirtimes.Insofarasthesehavebecomeintegralpartsoftheir
works,thecommonplacessharedbygreatthinkerswiththepeopleoftheirtimebelongtothecontentofthehistoryofphilosophy.Insofarastheyrepresentthe
unreflectedconvictionsofaspeechmakingcommunity,however,theyarenotmuchmorethaneverybody'sopinions.Inordertobecomeacquaintedwiththe
theoreticalqualityofaparticulartime,itisimportanttotrackdownthepatternofitsprejudices.Butahistorypresentingthemas"theprevailingphilosophy"would
mistakenlyidentifyphilosophicalthinkingwiththecommonsenseofaparticulargroupofpeople.Itwouldneglectthethoughtcharacterofphilosophyanddescribeno
morethanthemilieuinwhichandfromwhichthinkinglives.Manygeneralviewpointsaredocumentedbythemediaandbyagreatdealofessayistliterature.If
philosophicaltextshavemerelyreproducedcommonlyheldviews,theyareonlyillustrationsofbeliefsthatwereheldbymanypeopleduringacertainperiodoftime.
Byreducingallphilosophiestosuchbeliefs,oneshowsatotalneglectofthephilosophicalfeaturesofphilosophy.Afterall,commonlyheldopinionsarecharacterized
bythefactthattheyarenotreflectedon,letalonethoughtthroughtheyaresemiconsciously,almostautomatically,takenoverandpropagated."Anonymousthinking"
isacontradictionofterms.Indeed,thinkingstartswhensomeoneshrinksfromthegratuitousnessofeverybody'sconvictionsandwonders:whatwillIdowiththisin
myownreflectionandoutofmyresponsibilityforwhatissaid?WhatcanandmustImakeofit?

 Page127

Theexplanationofaphilosophyisgreatlyhelpedbyanaccountofthemilieufromwhichitoriginatedandthematerialsavailabletoit,butitsthoughtcanonlybeginto
manifestitselfatthepointwherethataccountends.Anarcheologyofthetracks,passageways,andstructuresthroughwhichhistoricalphilosophizinghasbeen
channeledpreparesforaconsiderationofthephilosopher'soriginalityinintegratingthem.Thetransitionfromcollectiveevidencetotheactualthinkingofoneormore
individualsistheeverrepeatedbirthofPhilosophy.Althoughthehistoryofphilosophyisnotaheroworship,itisacommemorationofuniqueachievements.

4.5Historyofphilosophyasatriumph

Manyaccountsofphilosophicalhistorypresentitasanuphillprogressiontowardsthetrue(ormostnearlytrue)philosophy,againstwhichallotherphilosophiesmust
beunderstoodaspreparations,variants,orshadows.Artistotle,Kant,Hegel,Comte,Marx,andRussellhaveallusedthisschemaintheirownway.Itisfoundintwo
forms,dependingonwhethertheemphasisisplaceduponauthorsoruponcurrentsofthought.

Ifhistoryconsistsofaseriesofphilosophers,thekindofhistorymentionedaboveimpliesthatthereisathinkerwhoknowsthetruthbetterthanallofhispredecessors
andcolleagues.Hemustbecapableofjudgingtowhatextenttheothersarerightorwrong,andwhy.Thephilosopherinwhomthehistoryofthoughtculminatesisthe
masterassigningtoallotherphilosopherstheirplacesandpartialtruths.Heneednotbethemostrecentphilosopher,forthehistoryafterhimmaybeadecadentone,
deservingoblivion.Thehistorian,however,musteitherbethistruephilosopheroranadeptwhoswearsbyhim.Hisnormistheonetruethinkerwhothrowslighton
thewholeofearlierandcontemporaryphilosophicalactivity.InneoThomisticcircles,thissortofhistoryisfoundratheroften.Itispeculiartoeveryepigonismbutis
equallycharacteristicofselfawareandcompetentphilosophersforwhomtruthexistsoutsidetheirowninsightsoropinions.

Anotherversionoftheevolutionaryhistorywearecriticizinghereseesthephilosophicalprocessasanexpressionofacollectiveconsciousness,orasuperhumanspirit.
ItisamodernversionofancientandmedievalnotionsconcerningahighterIntellect,whichinsomewayilluminatesindividualthinkers.HegelandMarxare

 Page128

classicexamplesofthisperspective,widelypopularizedbyneoHegelianandneoMarxistepigones.

Inbothversions,otherphilosophiesarediscussedonlyinsofarastheonetrue(ortruest)philosophycaneitherincorporatethemasasubordinatesectionorunmask
themaserrors.Theaccountisthusatthesametimeanevaluationthehistorianhasclimbedontothejudge'sbench.Liketherenditionandevaluationofaphilosophy,
theevaluationofthehistoricalconstellationofphilosophiescanbegivenonmanylevels.Ahistoriancantakethestandpointthathisworldview,theperspectiveofthe
elitetowhichhebelongs,ortheconvictionoftheproleteriatsetsthestandardforthepresentationofvariousphilosophies.These,then,arereducedtothemost
superficiallevelofopinionandareconsequentlyevaluatedintermsofthesimplemaxim:"I(orwe)agree(ordonotagree)."Thehistoryofphilosophyissubsequently
transformedintoacrusadefortheonlytruefaith.

Ahistorianismoreseriouswhenheconfrontsaparticularphilosophywithcertainexperiencesthatdonotcorrespondwithitsstatements.Thedebateonthe
genuinenessandtruthofcertainexperiencesthatfromthebasisofaparticularphilosophicalthoughtisphilosophicallyinteresting.

Payingattentiontotheargumentationandmethodofthevariousphilosophiesandtothepresuppositionsonwhichtheyarebasedbringsonetotheheartof
historicalphilosophizing.Whoeverthinkshehasfoundthedefinitivemethodandcorrectlogicfromwhichhecanjudgethecorrectnessofhistoricalsystemsiseither
verynaiveoranexceptionalgeniuswhohasfinallysolvedthefundamentalproblemsofphilosophy.Heiseitherasunawareasananimal,orheismorethanaman:a
god.

Buteventhelogicalandmethodologicalstartingpoints,andafortioritheexperiencesinwhichphilosophyputsitstrust,dependonhiddensources,whosesolidity
mustbetestedbyacontemporaryaccountofsuchaphilosophy.Aradicalizationoftranscendentalreflection,combinedwithinsightsfromsociology,psychology,
linguistics,andethnology,looksbeyondtheexplicitthoughtstothehidden,buteffective,motivesthathavedeterminedthenatureandmethodofexistingphilosophies.
Ifyouengageinthismetareflection,itisalmostimpossible,psychologically,tokeepyourselfoutofthediscussioninordertoconcentrateontheothersinviewofthe
one

 Page129

trueorbestphilosophy.Whoeverthinksdeeplyismorelikelytofallintoscepticismthantowriteahistoryofthetruephilosophyanditshalftrueanduntrue
counterparts.

Thewriterofsuchahistorymustnotonlybeconvincedthatheiscorrectonallthelevelsmentionedabovethelevelsofdoxa,oftheempirical,oflogic,andofthe
hiddenfoundationshemustalsobesurethatheseestherelationsamongtheselevelscorrectly.Onceagain,hemusthavesolvedthefundamentalproblemsof
philosophy.Onthisconditionthatis,afterendingthephilosophicaldebateon"theprinciples"byfindingtheonetruephilosophyaphilosophicalhistoryisamere
summaryofthetruthitself,inwhichtheonlygoodthematicphilosophyrevealsitselfinachronologicalfashion.

Themeritofdogmatichistoriesisthattheyshowhowtheirauthors'thematicphilosophieshaveincorporatedideasoftheirowntimeandoftheirpast.Thepunishment
fortheirnaivetisanoverestimationoftheirownstandardsandaninabilitytolearnanythingnewfromthestudyofotherideas.Theeasewithwhichtheselfassured
knowerselects,divides,givesnames,evaluates,andcategorizesistherewardforhisfailuretoaskthequestionsthatlieattherootsoftheeveroldandevernew
Beginning.

4.6Thehistoryofphilosophyasdiscussion

Everyhistoricallyawarethinkeraskshimselfhowhisphilosophyrelatestothephilosophiesofthepast.Thisbackwardlooktohispredecessorscanbeworkedout
intoahistoryofphilosophysketchingtheriseoftruephilosophizing.Butifthehistoryofphilosophymaynotassumeinadvancethatoneparticularphilosophyisthe
trueone,thevariousincompatiblephilosophiesmustbepresentedasindependent,seriouspossibilities.Anabsoluteneutralityisnotpossible,sincetheselectionand
degreeofattentionalreadygiveninvolveajudgmentofthephilosophiestreated.Butonecanandmustshedlightonboththeplausibilityandthecontestabilityofthe
thoughtspresented.Insteadofaselfchosendogmathatgivesthehistoryofphilosophyanunambiguousdirection,thepossibilityofcontestingbecomesaguidelinefor
thehistorianofphilosophizing.Hisdescriptionrevealshistoryasadivergenceofperspectives,foundations,waysofarguing,experiences,andconceptions.Very
differentdescriptionsarepossible,butdisagreementsnotwithstanding,theybelongtogetherwithinthecommunityofthinkerswhoare

 Page130

seekingthesamething.Ifphilosophiesareworthmentioning,theyallrealizetheirsearchfortruthintheirownwayandwiththeirowndegreeofsuccess.

Ifsuchaportrayaldoesnotdegenerateintoasuperficialtaleofeverythingthathasbeensaidandwrittenbutisitselfactuatedbyphilosophicalinterest,itcanverywell
functionasanintroductionandorientationtothematicphilosophy.Itdoesnotpresentonesystembeforewhichallothersmustbow,butratherdivergenceitself,asa
constellationofrelated,andyetdifferent,problematicsandsolutions.Onthebasisofsuchadescription,thereadertravelsmanypaths.Howmuchhebringshomeand
incorporatesfromsuchajourneydependsonthetraveler,aswellasonhisguide.

Aswasstatedearlier,everythematicphilosophyisalsohistoricalinsofarasallthinkingneedstimetocomeintobeingviaattempts,corrections,renewedbeginnings,
andreturnstostartingpointsinordertodoeverythingoveragain,andbetter.Becausephilosophizingisaradicalwayofthought,thediscoveriesmadeinthisfield
forceustoadjustourpreviousthoughtsandearlierstatements:toprovidethemwithmorenuances,tocorrectthem,eventodenyorreversethem.Theprogressof
thematicthought,exploratoryandreflective,isitselfquiteastory:itsgenesisisanessentialcomponentofallphilosophy.

WhenthisinsightintotheunbreakablebondbetweenthinkinganditsgenesisisappliedtothewholeofWesternphilosophy,itbecomesclearthatphilosophycanbe
understoodasonegreatattemptatthinking,byamultitudeofsubjects.Thesubjects,ofcourse,donotalwaysknowoneanotheronlyafewphilosophershave
dealtwithotherphilosopher'sworksbutthehistorianwhoexaminestheirproductscanrelatethemascontributionstoonecontinuousdiscussion.Insofarastheyare
alllookingforapproximatelythesamething,theyshowarelationshiptooneanotherbecausetheyseldomagree,theirinterrelationisalsoadisputation.Iftheir
belongingtogetherhasnotbeenexpressedindiscussionswithoneanother,itmaybebroughtaboutbyanexternalperspectiveaskingquestions,onwhichallofthem
areequallyatwork.

Theideaofdiscussion,asitisanalyzedintheprecedingsections,canbeappliedtothehistoricalconstellationofphilosophicalconstellations.Evenifmostphilosophers
havenotenteredintodiscussionwithoneanother,weareabletobringtheirphilosophies

 Page131

intoaconversation,now.Todoso,however,wemustarrangetheirmeetinganddefendthemfromtheirownperspectives.Atthesametimewemustbeawarethat
ourreconstructionofapastordistantphilosophyoccupiesanewplaceintheongoingconversationconstitutingthehistoryofphilosophy.Themerefact,forexample,
thataninterpretationofPlato'sworkstakesintoaccountthepresentantiPlatonicclimatealreadymakesitdifferentfromPlato'sthought.AsIhavealreadysaid,the
wayinwhichthehistorianpresentsthehistoryofphilosophyasadiscussionisitselfaphilosophy.Aselfconscioushistorianwillthereforenotpresenthisviewasthe
finalwordhewillnotspeakasafinaljudge,aphilosopher,oragodbutassomeonewhoproposesonenew(andnotthelast)contributiontothemultisubjected
discussion.

The"method"beingdefendedherehaslittleornothingincommonwiththeviewthatthepastisamereseriesofexercisesleadingtodefinitivesolutions.Unfortunately,
onehearsmanystatementslikethefollowing,evenfromthemouthsoffamouspeoplepraisedfortheirlogicalexpertise:"We,inourtime,havediscoveredthat..."or
"Twentiethcenturyphilosophyhasestablishedthat...forexample,thatmetaphysicsisnonsense,thatitisnotworthwhiletophilosophizeabouttheinfinite,that
"essentialism"ifsomethingbad,andsoon.Iftheauthorsofsuchexpressionsdonotdeigntogiveanintrinsicproofforthestatementthattheyactuallywanttoassertor
denyviatheir''we"and"ourtime,"theyareassumingtheauthorityofaparticular"time"orgroupofpeoplereferredtoas"we."Thedifficultiesfacinguswhenwedo
notsimplywanttomakeaclaimbutargueitare(1)thatwemustsaywhat"ourtime"and"we"meanand(2)thatwemustexplainwhythesebodies(iftheyare
anythingatall)havesomuchauthority.Sloganssuchas"beingmodern"and"beingprogressive,""emancipation,""realism,"andsoonarenotofanyhelphereandwill
chaseaseriouslisteneraway,unlessthefoundationsandtherealorassumedauthorityoftheseslogansarerevealed.Ifitispermissibleinphilosophytodefend
ourselvesbythesimplefactthat"we""think"it"nowadays,"wenolongerneedtostudyhistory.Wecannotlearnanythingfromit,becauseitonlyrepresentsa
prehistorywithoutanytruthofitsown.Ofcourse,onecanbecuriousastohowfarwehavecome,anditisprobablyusefultoknowwhatmistakesweremadeearlier
sothatwecanavoidrepeatingthem,butlearning,receptivity,gratitude,andrethinkinghavemaderoomfor

 Page132

theselfassurednessofascientificactualityraising"ourtime"aboveallofitspreparatorystagesinthepast.

Ifthe"we"inthisconnectiondoesnotmeananelitebuteveryTom,Dick,andHarry,alongwiththeircommonlyheldopinions,wemayagainberemindedthatsucha
"forum"isfoundonthelevelofcommonplacesandsuperficialprejudices.Butsincewhenhastheopinionofthemajority,theforceofthepeople(amongwhommany
average"philosophers"canperhapsbecounted)beenacriterionforgoodphilosophy?Ifthevoiceofthepeopleisdecisive,thenphilosophyisapartofsociology.
Whyshouldanyonestillbotherwithphilosophyifoneistothinkwhateveryman"thinks"?Itmight,ofcourse,beinterestingtoanalyzewhatisin,beneath,andbehind
it.Perhapssuchananalysiswouldrevealinnercontradictionsandstupidassumptions,butifEverymanisking,philosophychangesintopolitics.

4.7Teamworkinphilosophy?

Thesubjectmatterofphilosophyisthemultitudeofconversationsthathavetakenplace,orcanbearrangedbyahistorian,amongallthehistoricalthinkerswhohave
madetheirthoughtsknowntoothersinoralorinwrittenform.Itisessentialforaphilosophicaldiscussionthateveryparticipantassumeresponsibilityforhimselfand
forthesuccessoftheconversation.Isitpossibletoconceiveofthisconversationbytheanalogyofalaboratorywherevariousindividualsperformonejobtogether,or
ofajointdeliberationaimingataunanimousdecision?

Whatcanthewordwemeanwhenitisusedinconnectionwiththeproductionandpropagationofaphilosophy?

"Wethinkthat..."canbesaidbytheloyalmembersofaPartyoraChurch.Intotalitariansystems,thisistheonlypermissiblewayofspeakingandwriting.Thepower
ofthemassmediacanbringsocalledphilosopherstoconformwithopinionsthatmostlistenerswouldfindselfevident.Evenwithintheworldofscienceand
philosophy,therearetemptationslyinginwait:bybeingloyaltoanauthenticstreamofthought,onerisksmissingoutonhonorsandfinancialrewards.Thelivelyfish
thatswimsupstreamisoftendevouredinpublic.Obedient"philosophers"donothingexceptreformulate,clarify,andunfoldwhat"they,"themedia,thecurrent

 Page133

trends,thesciences,theauthoritieswanttohear.Theylackthecourageforacriticalexaminationoftheunpondered,possiblyunacceptable,presuppositionsbywhich
"themany"allowthemselvestoberuled.Forthem,truthisaquestionofpowerandconquest:"philosophers"areonlyusefulforsellingimperativesandinstructionsin
theformofdogmas.

Unanimityin"thinking"alsooccursinSchools,whereepigonesofagreatmasterunfoldhisideasandexploittheirpossibilities.Notwithstandingtherelativeutilityof
theirwork,italsocontainsagreatdanger:aSchoolcaneasilybetakenoverbyaChurchoraPartybecauseepigonesdonotthinkindependently.Ifyouimposeyour
individualitybymeansofcriticalandthoroughthinking,youarebelovedbyneitherthemassesnortheirguides.Theveryfactthatyouconsiderindividualityand
selfhoodtobeirreduciblemakesyouadissident.

Isa"forumofexperts"possibleinphilosophy,asitisinothersciences?Everyforumisbasedonachoice,andthisrestsonappreciationsthatresultfromaspecific
philosophy.Doweneedanotherforumtoestablishthequalityofthesebasicassumptions?Whoisresponsiblefortheselectingofthememberswhowillcomprisethe
highestcourtandforthelawsbywhichtheywillevaluatetheworkofotherphilosophers?Isthereahighercourtthanthatofauthenticphilosophyitself?

Aforumfunctioningasanauthorityforacertainconceptionormethodisasecularizedformoftheoldtheologicaldogma.Justasapologeticsformerlyjustifiedthe
authorityoftheChurch,rationaljustificationisnowdemandedforsurrenderingtothecourtofsocalledexperts.Aphilosopherisparticularlyinterestedinsucha
justification,notonlybecauseinsightinterestshimmorethanauthoritybutalsobecausethebasicquestionsmustbeansweredbeforeonedetermineswho,infact,isan
expert.Thedefinitionofexpertiseinphilosophypresupposesagoodunderstandingandevaluationofphilosophicaltechniquesandresults.BeforeIcanappealtoa
forumImustaskthequestion,whatisgoodphilosophy?ButifIknowtheanswer,theauthorityearlierattributedtoaforumhasbeentransformed:eitheritsdogmatic
authorityhasbeendeducedfromanonauthoritarianinsight,whichneedsnoforum,orthatauthorityhasbeenunmaskedasanillegitimatepretension.Inanycase,the
groupofphilosophersfirsttobeproclaimedasjudges

 Page134

nowfunctionsasoneofthemanyseminarsinphilosophy.IfIappealtoaforumbeforeIhavebecomeaphilosopher,IcannotknowifIamappealingtotheright
group.OnceIhavecometoknowwhatphilosophyis,I,too,takepartinthefamilydiscussionunlessIknoweverythingsowellthatIeitherpossessthetotaltruth
(inwhichcaseIcanappointmyselfandmyepigonestothetribunaloftruth)orIhavediscoveredwithcertainty(bydeductionorrevelation)whothetruejudgesare.

Afourthkindofunanimityisalsoconceivable:theunanimityofanidealsociety,unitedbyadiscussionsheldundertheidealconditionsthatleadtocompleteagreement.
Chapter4willsaymoreaboutthisforthemomentitmaysufficetostatethatsuchanidealpresentstheclassicalideaofuniversaltruthinamoreconcrete,albeit
utopian,waywhileneglectingtheproblemofindividuality.Itsdefendersseemtohopeforavictoryoverthedifferencesthatmakeallspeakingandwritingindividual,
andthusdebatable.

Everyhistoryofphilosophyischaracterizedbyacertainattitudetowardstheproblematicofunityandplurality.Anepigonalhistoryintroducesitsheroasculmination
andstandardagainstthebackgroundofprogressanddecline.Totalitarianhistoriesaremaskeddogmatismsthatreduceeveryheresytoanerror,orasubordinate
momentofhistory.Theirreducibilityofpluralism,defendedbyadialogicalconceptionofhistory,destroysallencompassingsynthesesandfinaljudgments.Because
thinkingmeansthinkingforoneself,itremainsanindividualandlonelywork.Accordingly,thecollaborationofvariousauthorsononeworkisimpossible.Teamwork
isnotaphilosophicalmethod.Thisfact,however,doesnotexcludetheexistenceofacommonresourceandofallkindsofrelationships.Buttheyareconcernedwith
thepreparationsprecedingactualthought.Theyresultfromaconvergingofthoughtprocessesandconstitutematerialtobeassimilatedandtransformedbyindividual
thinkers,afterstudyanddebate.

Themilieuofathinkerandthe"thought"hefindstherecontainsnotonlycommonplaces,slogans,clichs,andfashionsbutalsoseriousprejudices,scientific
assumptions,ideologies,andideasofotherphilosophers.Thestratificationofallideasandthoughtprocesses,precedingtheirincorporationintoanoriginalphilosophy,
onlyrevealsitselftoaverycomplexdiagnosis,differentforeachphilosophy.Inordertogiveanideaofhowaphilosophy,andthe

 Page135

wholeconstellationofhistoricalphilosophies,arerootedinaprephilosophicalground,acomprehensivehistoryofphilosophywouldnotonlyhavetoanalyzethe
wholeseriesofset,current,new,old,wornout,andforgottenideasbutalsotherelatedstruggles,feelings,facts,andevents.Withthehelpofthesocialsciences,and
throughhistoricalsources,thehistorianshouldtrytoreconstructthematerialandculturalclimatefromwhich"thethought"(includingtheopinionsandtheoreticalstyles)
ofaperiodandthethought(i.e.,thetextuallydocumentedideas)ofindividualphilosophersemerged.

Thatvariousphilosopherssometimesthinkthesamethoughtscanbeduetoacommonbackgroundtheyshare.Fromaphilosophicalperspectivethatissensitivenot
onlytohistoricalconnectionsbutalsototheoriginalityofindividualassimilation,theinterestingquestionis:Whathavetheymadeofthecommonelementsgivenintheir
sharedculture?Correspondingmethodsandresultsinvitethehistoriantoclassifygroups,schools,andperiods.ButthelifeofPhilosophyisfoundintheinimitableand
examplarywayinwhichindividualsthink.Assoonasaphilosophybecomescommonproperty,itislevelledandworndown.Themoreselfevidentadoctrineseems,
thegreaterthechancethatitnolongersaysanything.Insteadofideasspringingfromindividuals'blood,wehearadogmaticrhetoricurgingustobelievewhatnobody
understandsanymore.

"Thinkingtogether"isthereforenotthesharingofoneandthesamethoughtprocess,butratherthediscussionofsimilarproblemsbyseparateindividualswithina
familiarcontextandinmutuallyunderstoodlanguage.Lonelinessandcommunication,thecouragenottoachieveconformityatanyprice,goingone'sownwayof
listeninganddiscussingallofthesebelongtothetaskofthinking.Ahistoryofphilosophymustreconstructthisdimensionofthecollaborationandtheconflictof
unrepeatablethoughts.

4.8Historiographyasapresentationofothers

Sincethehistoryofphilosophycannotbepresentedasonelongpreparationoftheonlytrue,orthebest,bodyofthought,"truepositivism"evokesthephilosophersof
thepastandpresentaccordingtotheirparticularities.Adialogicallyconceivedhistoryincludescommonanddifferenttimepatterns,milieus,andpresuppositions,as
wellastheuniquewaysinwhichindividualthinkershaveintegratedthoseelementsandconfrontedthem.

 Page136

Inordertopresentaphilosophy,Imustgiveiteverypossibleopportunitytobeunderstood.Mydefensemustshowthatitcanremaingreatacrosstimeanddistance.
Theapologyforaphilosophyagainstmisunderstandingalsoinvolvesprotectingandstrengtheningitagainsttheapologist'sownphilosophy.Whilediscussinga(nother)
philosopher,Imustbracketmyownoriginality.Asahistorian,Iplacemyselfonametalevel"above"thecommunityandthedifferencesbetweenthephilosophiesI
present,alevelabovethepositionthatImyselftakeasoneofthemany(explicitorimplicit)philosophers.Asahistorian,Ithereforestandabovemyselfas
philosopher.

Ifthewritingofahistoryofphilosophyisnecessarilyguidedbyaphilosophicalperspective,ahistoriancannotabstractaltogetherfromhisownphilosophy,buthecan
exerciseacertainepochinlookingattheothers'thoughts"sceptically,"thatis,withoutrejectingthemorsubscribingtothem.Asimilar"scepticism"isevenpossible
towardsone'sownphilosophy.ToacertainextentIcandistancemyselffrommyconvictions,makethemuncertain,andlookatthemasastranger.The(meta)levelof
thisscepticismisnevercompletelypure,sinceitisalwaysboundtothefirstorderpositionthattheobserveroccupiesasphilosopher.However,aclashofpositions,
thedifferencesseparatingphilosophers,alsoexpressestheiraffinityinahigher,ordeeper,dimension.

Asidefrompresentingvariousthinkers,ahistoryofphilosophyalsoexplainstheinterrelationoftheirthinking.Itarrangesphilosophicalexchangesbeyondthelimitations
ofspaceandtime.Whenthehistorianhimselfisanimportantparticipantinthehistoricaldebate,hehastwovoices:thehistorianallowsthephilosopherinhimto
speakbutwhatandhowdoeshethinkasa(philosophical)historian?Hehasmadehimselfasubstitutefortheothers,andhiswordsrepresenttheirdiscussions,
whichhehasarranged.Thewayinwhichhetreatstheothers'conversationscomesfromhisownvisionofwhathappensinphilosophy.Themoreopenheis,the
greatertheopportunityforhisshowingitscomplexdynamism.Agoodoverviewofphilosophicalhistorywillaboundinsurprisesnothinginitwillresembleamere
introduction,inpraiseofonesystemoroneuniquelyvalidmethod.

Thegreatestdifficultyinwritingthehistoryofphilosophyisthatwhiletheauthormaynotidentifyhimselfwithanyone

 Page137

philosophy,hemustneverthelessunderstandanddefendeachonefromaphilosophicalperspectiveandpresentitasphilosophicallyrelevant.

Acomparisonwithmusiccanperhapselucidatetheproblemathand.Eversincethenineteenthcenturyithasbeenrareforgreatcomposerstobegoodconductorsor
soloistsaswell.Aperformingartistmustperhapshavemoredistanceandbelessoriginalthanacreator.Thehistorianofphilosophycanbecomparedtothe
conductorwhopresentsaudienceswiththeproductsofpastandpresent,interpretingtheirrelationsinacertainorder.As"positivist,"hestrivesforahistorically
correctreconstructionasphilosopher,heresurrectsthedeadtextascore!sothatitsphilosophicalrelevanceisclearlyperceptibleandenjoyable,hereandnow.
Acertainrecreatingisthereforeunavoidable.Thepositivismofhistoricalreconstructionisonlyonemomentofanewevent,whichisitselfinanothercultural
contextphilosophical(ormusical).Thehistorianofphilosophy,likeaperformingartist,isruledbyexistingtextsorscores,buttheseneedhisphilosophicaltalentin
ordertorisefromthedead.

Anothercomparisonisalsouseful.Inrelatingthevariousphilosophiestooneanother,ahistorianissimultaneouslyjudgeandlitigant.Hedeterminestheimportanceof
individualphilosophiesanddefinestheirconstellationintheperspectiveofthesearchfortruth.Ajudge,too,selectsandcollects,buthebaseshimselfonastandard
thathecannotchange:thelawisgivenbyahigherpower.(Thisschemaistoosimpleuponcloserexamination,sincethejudgemayalsobeforcedtoadjustthelaw
accordingtounforeseencircumstances,butthesimplifiedmodelwillsufficeforourpurposes.)Asahistorianofphilosophy,IhavenoreadymadenormfromwhichI
mayjudgeandevaluatephilosophicaloccurrences.Thenormofphilosophizingexistsinthetruthitself(orinthetrue,or"mostnearlytrue,"philosophy),andthisis
preciselywhatthehistoriandoesnothaveathiscommand.Tofindthetruth(ormoretruth),hetoomustsearch,asoneofmanyphilosophers,andthusparticipatein
thediscussiononwhichhereportsasahistorian.IfIbelieveIpossesthetruth,Iwriteabouttheprocessleadingtomytriumphandpronouncesentenceonallthe
others.Igiveupthepretensionofjudgingalltheothers,however,whenIcarefullystudyeachindividualphilosophyandstandupforitbeforethetribunalofmyown
vision

 Page138

ofhistory.InthiswayIinterpretthevariousphilosophiesasaseriesofexperiments,repeatingthemmyselftotesttheirquality.Iputmyselfintheothers'placesand
conditionallytakemychanceswitheachoftheirattempts.BeforeIpassjudgment(asahistorian,Iamnotobligedtodoso),Iwritetheadventurousdramaofthe
philosophicalsearchfortruth.Describingthehistoryofphilosophy,then,becomesanactualrethinking,anexperimentalrepetition,ofallthedefendedphilosophiesand
theirconstellationsalwaysasking:Howmuchlightdotheyshed?Suchahistoryallowsthereadertoshareinthehistorian'sexperimentationandinviteshimto
rethinkinhisownwaywhathashappenedinphilosophy.Thefinaljudgmentispostponeduntilatimethatnobodywilleverseebecauseourlivesaretooshortto
performseriousandthoroughexperimentsontheoeuvresofallthegreatcreatorsofthepast.Ingloomymoments,therefore,one'sinclinationistoconsiderthewriting
ofahistoryofphilosophyimpossibleandtoreplaceitwithpersonalnotesonasmallnumberoftextsorwithareportonfortuitousvisitstosomehighpointsandstages
ofphilosophicalhistory.

4.9Theatrumphilosophicum

Bypresentingthehistoryofphilosophicalthoughtasanetworkofdiscussions,Iarrangeconversationsamongvariousphilosopherswithoutaskingtheirpermission.
Mostofthephilosophersarenotawareofmyundertaking.Themonologicalcharacteroftheirworksalreadyindicatesthattheirideasconcerningthedesirability,the
necessity,andthepossibilityofauniversaldialoguearenotthesameasthosedefendedhere.Bypresentingphilosophizingasacommunicativeconstellation,Ichange
somethinginthemonologuesIrender.Isummonthelivingandthedeadandconfrontonewiththeother.Butwhoaskedmetodoso?Usinganotherimage,wemight
saythatIamadramatistcitingexistingworksasfragmentsofadialogue,oradirectorsettinguparoleplayamongthevariousphilosophers.Butwhogivesmethis
authority?

Thejudicialandstagingpowerjustmentionedisalsoexercisedtowardsthosephilosopherswhoindeeddidhaveexplicitdiscussionswithotherphilosophers.Itisa
historian'stasktoseewhetherAristotlereallygaveafaithfulrenditionofPlato'sideasinhispolemicagainstthelatter,ifHegel'sreproachesreallydoapplytothe

 Page139

philosophiesofKantandFichte,andsoon.Manycontemporarieshavebeenignorantof,orhaveignored,oneanothermanyothershavemisunderstoodtheir
colleagues.Areasonforthismaylieintheoriginalstyleofeachone'sownapproach,whichleavesnoroomfortheappropriationofanother'sapproach.Thedistortion
resultingfromsuchaconflictcreatesanotherproblemforathirdpartywhowantstosummarizethediscussionbetweenthesetwoapproaches.NotonlymustI
reconstructthepuredoctrineofeachphilosopher,Imustalsoexplainwhyonedistortedtheother'sideaandtowhichnotionhewasreallyopposed.Itisonlyafter
suchanunravellingofthefactualpseudodiscussionthatitbecomespossibletosetoffamoreadequatediscussionbetweenthephilosophersinquestion,evenifitisfirst
necessarytodiscoveranewviewpointthatneitherofthemsaw.

Thus,aphilosophercanunjustlyseeacaricatureofhisownideas,ortheexpressionofhisowntemptations,intheideasofanother.Sometimesdiscussionsofexplicit
statementsalsoconcealaprofound,butunexpressedandbarelyconscious,incompatibilityinattitudeanddesire.Differentsocialmilieuscangreatlyaffectorchange
themeaningsgiventosharedphilosophicalproblems.Thephilosophicallanguageandthewholeapproachofanoriginalphilosophydemandacertainacclamatization
beforeonecanunderstanditfromwithin.Tobringthiskindofconnectiontolight,thehelpofthepsychologyandsociologyofthoughtisindispensable.

Theinterpretationofthehistoryofphilosophyasanongoingdiscussiondoesnotmakeitimmunetotemptationsofpower.Forexample,ifIstagethewholehistoryof
philosophyjusttoportraymyfamilytree(includingthosewhomadeitoralmostmadeit,andthebastardsandprodigalsonsordaughters),Ihavecleverlystagedmy
ownvictory.Selfawareculturescreatearchesoftriumphforthemselvesoutoftheruinsofthepast.Butarepublicoflettersdetestsdictatorsitlivesonthediscourses
oftheequallyunequal,whoargueagainsteachotherasfairlyaspossible.

Whoeverdiscoversunityinthehistoryofphilosophersandtextstreatsthemaspartsofonetotality.Bybringingaunifiedhistoryintobeing,however,suchasynthesis
alsobringsittoahalt.NomatterhowhardImaytrytokeepmyaccountopenfornewdevelopments,itwillinevitablyhaveacertaincompletenessbecausethese
developmentsdonotyetexist.Therenditionofwhathas(accordingtothis

 Page140

samerendition)alreadyoccurredproducesathoughtfigurethatbelongstoacertaintimeperiodandacertainphilosopher.Itinvitesthereadertodividethehistoryof
thoughtintoperiodsandtoproceedfurtherfromthestandpointthathehasreached.Everyhistoryofphilosophytiesknotsinthestrandoftimeanddefinesa
standpointthattheninterruptsthecontinuityofphilosophizing.Itlendstophilosophythatdiscontinuitynecessaryfortruetemporality.Ahistoryofphilosophyisitselfa
contributiontothehistoricityofthought.

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Asahistorianofphilosophy,Ihavethetaskofrealizingtwodesideratasimultaneously:(1)Imustbringmanyphilosophiestogetherunderoneallencompassing
perspective(ifthiswerelacking,wecouldspeakjustaslittleofonehistoryasof"philosophy"inthesingular)(2)Imustdojusticetotheuniquenessofeachofthe
individualphilosophiesandtotheparticularnatureoftheirrelations.

Canthesetwotasksbeunified?CanIfulfillthefirstdemandwithoutoverpoweringmanyothers?EvenifIpresentmyvisionofphilosophicalhistoryasanexperiement
forwhichIaloneamresponsible,Istillremainthedirectorofthelaboratorywherethisandotherphilosophicalexperimentsarebeingcarriedout.

Theformofadramaticpresentation,orroleplay,seemsmostsuitableforpresentingeachphilosophyinitsuniquenessandallowingittospeak.Thesceneisa
gatheringofindividualswhoexpressthemselvestooneanotherasothersandwhoenterintoallkindsofrelationsforwhichtheythemselvesareresponsible.The
greatnessofGreektragedyliesinthefactthatthecentralcharactersareallequallyjustifiedintheiractions,hencethetragicconflictsothatnohigherfreedom
revealsitselfasasynthesis.Atbest,onecansaythattheplayersaresentencedbyanegativepower,whosewisdomifithasanyremainshidden.

Yeteventragedyknowsanothersuperperspective:Fate.Andheretoothepoet,justasineverydrama,hassupremecontrolofthedialogicorperspectives.Arethe
playersnotmarionettes,andisthewriter'soverviewnotarestoration,atthehighest(meta)level,ofanallpowerfulMonologue?

 Page141

Theorganizerofthedialogueplaywright,director,orhistorianhaspower.Hedecideswhospeaksandwhenandwhatistobesaid.Ahistorianofphilosophy,
ofcourse,hasmuchlessleewaythanapoet:hemaynotputwordsintophilosophers'mouthsthattheydidnotsayandwouldnothaveacceptedastruerenditionsof
theirthought.Hislibertyisrestrictedtowhatactuallyexistsinwriting.Buthisselectionofquotationsandthepersonalmannerinwhichheaccentuatesandinterpretsthe
others'worksisaformofdominion.

AsorganizerofadialogicalhistoryIleadthediscussion,byallowingorpreventingtheothers'speakingandbymeasuringverbalexchangesaccordingtomyown
summariesandquestions.Myleadershipisattackedifyouproclaimyourselftheleaderoftheconversation.Ifyouhavebeenaparticipantinthediscussionuptothat
moment,youchangeroles:youwanttotakeoverthedirectionfromnowon.Bydisputingmyleadership,youinaugurateanewdiscussionatthemetalevel,atwhichup
tonowonlyI,astheundisputedleader,spoke.Icanreacttoyourattackinvariousways:IfIenterintodiscussion,astruggleoverleadershipensues.IfIreactinan
authoritarianmanner,frustrationorrevoltistheoutcome.IfIsurrenderpower,thesamesituationwillariseagain,withdifferentpersonstakingovervariousroles.

Appliedtoourproblem,allofthismeansthatthehistorianofphilosophyrulesthediscussionofphilosophersfromametaviewpoint,butheisnotinvulnerableto
disputeonthepartsofthosephilosophersheisdiscussing.Thedeadnolongerspeak,buttheirvoicesresoundanewwhengoodmonographiesdestroythefossilized
renditionsthatarefoundinaveragetextbooks.Theprotestthatlivinganddeadphilosopherscanmaketoaproposedvisionoftheirhistoryplacesitselfuponthe
metalevelmentionedandcontainsatleastagermofanewdrama.Thestrugglesofcreativethinkerschangeintothestrugglesofthosewhothinkaboutthemthestage
ofspontaneousdialoguenowbecomesthedramatists'sceneofbattle.

Theprimarymotiveforpresentingthehistoryofphilosophyasadiscussionwasthedemandforrespectingtheuniquenessofeveryindividualphilosophy.Butifthis
representationofthingsnecessarilyimpliestheimposingofadirectionandacertaindomination,doesitnotculminateinafinaljudgmentandapologymadebythe
highestjudge?Thehistoricalstrugglesofthevariousphilosophieswould

 Page142

thenseemtodegenerateintoaconversationbetweenthejudgeandhimself:allindividualswouldbemomentsofthe''dialogue"thathissoulcarriesoninitsinnermost
corehisanalysisofthosemomentswoulddeliverasentencethatwouldirrevocablysilencethem.

Insofarasphilosophycannevertotallyfreeitselffromthedemandthatitberesponsibleandcritical,itcanneverbetotallyfreefromtheideathatitisacourtof
arbitration.Butthereisnoconcretesupremejudgewhosewordislaw.TheideaofthearbiteristheideaofAnotherwhoispureandtruthlovingandwhotherefore
continuouslyaccompanieseveryconcretesearching.Ahistorianofphilosophyisruled,justasmuchasthephilosophershetalksabout,bytheideaofa"higher"
jurisdictiontowhichhepresentshisaccounts.Bybringingtheotherstospeak,andbyselectingtexts,hesitsincourt,butheknowsthatthisismerelyanattemptto
revealthetruththatisconcealedwithinthevariousphilosophiesandintheirhistoricalaccounts.

4.10Scepticismandtime

Agoodhistorianofphilosophyinvitesthediscussionofhishistoryassoonasitiswritten.Byhavingdistancedhimselffromhisownperspective,heknowsthathis
stagingofphilosophywillbesubjecttocriticism.Heexercisesacertainscepticismtowardsanyattemptatwriting"thehistoryofphilosophy."

Positivescepticismcombinesanawarenessoftherelativityofallphilosophiesandtheirhistorieswithapassionforthedesiredtruth.Itdoesnotlapseintoindifference.
Lackingareadymadecriterionbutadversetoadogmaticrelativism,scepticaldistancekeepsaplaceopenforthepresentationofoldandnewideas.Itsfreedomis
undecided,engagedasitisinaseriesofexperimentsinvolvingamultitudeofphilosophies.Whilepassingfromtheirinnermostcorestotheiroutermostlimits,ittests
variouspossiblewaysofunderstandingtheirdifferencesandtheirunity.Assoonasscepticismitselfbecomesafigureofconsciousness,itchangesintoadogma,which
inturnwillbeconqueredbyothercertainties.Atransitionfromscepticismtodogmatismisinevitable,becauseonecannotliveonapurelynegativefreedomthatleaves
everythingundecided.Butitwillbefollowedbyanewwithdrawal,puttingthedogmaatadistanceinordertoallowforevaluationandcriticism.Thisalternationis

 Page143

typicalofaphilosophicalhistorythatisawareofitsownpresuppositions.Distanceandengagementareitswarpandwoof.

TheauthoritytowhomIpresentmyproductsasa"sceptical,"butnotrelativistic,historianisnotthedogmaticscepticismjustmentioned.Ihopeforajudgewhosees
someorallmattersdifferently,andpossiblybetter,thanIdo.AtfirstitisagainsttheconcretepastandagainstpresentphilosophersandhistoriansthatIcanmeasure
myself.Theconcreteotherpresentsapossibilityformetotestmyownvision,asindividualandasquestionable.Theotheristheconcretizationofmyawarenessthat
myvisionisnotnecessarilythetrueone.ButfactualindividualsevaluatingmyaccountarenotinfallibleeitherIcannotconsiderthemthehighest,finaljudgesofmy
experiment.They,too,representindividualandimperfectviewpointsjustasIdo.Iseethemasshadowsofanidealcritic:theidealofapure(meta)philosopherand
historian,functioningasmy(philosophical)conscience.Theconcreteotherisasubstitutefortheutopianideaofaperfectlytrueevaluationofmyhistoryand
philosophy.

Theideaofanidealevaluationisnotachievedbytheconstructionofanidealsocietyinwhichauniversalandfreecommunicationispossible,becausetheabsenceof
dominionandtheequalityofopportunityarenotsufficientconditionsforwinningthetruth.Towhatextenttheyarenecessaryconditionsremainstobeseen.Thesocial
dimensionoftruthshouldprobablybeunderstoodaccordingtoamodelotherthanthatofdemocracy.Anindividualcanberightwithoutanyoneelse'srecognizingit.
Towhatextentisfreedomfromdominancenecessaryforagenuineandtruespeaking?Hegelhasshownthatemperorandslavecanbothbefreeandtrue.IsMarx
correctinthinkingthattheproletarian'schainsalsobindthecapitalisttoafalseconsciousness?Theidealotherissomeonewhohasaclearinsight,evenifheisbound
inchainsandsufferssocialmisery.Thepoweroffreedomthatdefiestheconcentrationcampismoreimpressivethanthenotionofafreedomthatknowsnosocial
obstacles.Itisnotenoughfortheidealothertobefree(inawaythatstillneedstobespecified)hemustalsobeintelligent,experienced,andskilledinphilosophy.The
idealjudgeisa"representationaccompanyingtheconsciousness"ofthephilosopherasaconcreteimageofhisphilosophicalconscience,theidealotherwhoknows
judgesallofhisproducts.

 Page144

Thesupervisionthroughwhichthehistorianofphilosophytakespartinhisownexperimentexertsafascinationthatlooksaheadtothefutureasatimeofsurprisesa
hopeforfecundtwiststoalltoowellknownanswers.Heexperienceshimselfasonevoiceinapolyphonicfabric.Althoughhis"scepticism"overseeshimselfaswellas
theothers,hedoesnotclaimtohavethefinalword.Inthespacekeptopenbyhisoverview,allvoicescanberaisedtospeakwith,andagainst,oneanotherwithout
end.Agoodphilosopherdethroneshimselfassoonashehaserectedaverbalmonument.Thisdoesnotmeanhowever,thathefindshiswordsunimportant.Theyare
intendedasacontributiontoanunendingconversation,whichwilltesttheirforce.Empiricalapprovalordisapprovalisnotdecisiveforananswertothequestion
whetherthosewordsaretrue,butthesearchfortruthitselfforbidsaphilosophertoshuthimselfupinthelonelinessofhisindividual(thereby,insufficient)perspective.

Forbothphilosophyandhistorywecansaythatthereisnofinalwordthereareonlyprovisionalwords,askingforrepliesandneedingtimetoshowtheiruntruthor
partialtruth."Thetruth"isnotadogma,andthedeificationofwordsisevil.Positivescepticismandinnerfreedomareindispensabletheydonotannihilatetheeffortof
philosophyanditshistorytosearchforknowledgeofthetruth.Historyastimeisprogresswithoutend.Theendoftimenevercomesafinaljudgmentthat
completesabeginningisahistoricalimpossibility.

4.11Solitudeandhope

Philosophicalwordsaremeantforothers.Toreachanother,Ineedtime.Willanyonetakemywordsanddosomethingwiththemonhisown?Thecomingandgoing
oftheother(orhisabsence)makesupapartofthetimethatbelongstospeaking.Philosophicalspeech,likeallotherspeech,isdependentonthefreedomwithwhich
othersconfirmitsexistencethroughrepliesofapproval,criticism,contradiction,ordevelopment.Withoutanotherspeaker'sinterruptiontobreaktheflowoftime,a
discourselosesbreath.Theauthorhopesforitsprolongation,albeitbyothers'contradictions.Willthetextprocurehimalittleimmortality?

Evenifnooneelsehearsorreadsacertaintext,itsproductionisnotnecessarilymeaningless.Evenforanisolatedindividual,

 Page145

speakingbeforedeafears,theactcanbemeaningfulforexample,asameansoforderinghisownthoughts,orbecauseitispleasurable.Thehopeofattracting
another'sattentioncannotbegivenup,howeverthepossibilityofaninterestedotherisanessentialconditionofspeakingorwritingitself.AsPlatosaysinthe
Symposium,philosophizingisanattempttogeneratechildreninbeauty.Ifthisattemptissuccessfulthatis,ifastudentdevelopsintoanindependentthinkerhis
"father"ishappy.21Atthislevel,too,thedesireforpropagationandimmortalitycanbenarcissistic,butitisnotnecessarilyso.Itdependsonwhyandwithwhomthe
desireisconcerned.

Norightexists,demandingthataphilosopherbeheardoranswered.Areplythatbringsthetruthcloserisagiftthatmakesusgrateful.Butwecannotpunishothers
fortheirindifferencetoourstatements.Ifmyargumentscontainsomethingimportant,itisapitythatmywordsdiebeforetheyhavepropagated.Iregretthat,notonly
becauseitisalostopportunityforothersbutalsobecause,innotreceivingattention,Ifeelneglected.Thecomplaintsofanisolatedpersonwithoutanaudienceare
seldomfreeofresentment.ButaprophetshowsusthatsadnesscanalsoresultfromdisinterestedeffortsdedicatedtogreatCauses.

Thewritingsofahistoriancanbeofgreatservicetootherphilosophers.Thankstohisdevotiontoapastthatwouldfadeintooblivionwithouthiseffortstokeepit
alive,thatpastourpast!hasafuture.Thestrongerthecasehemakesforwhatwasoncewritten,thegreaterthechancethatitcanstillbefruitful.Withouthis
worktheancients'textswouldlieasdesiccatedtracesinthearchivesofourlibraries.Thishistoryofphilosophyisacommemoration,promisingafutureandaslong
asitistakenupbyothersimmortality.

 Page147

ChapterIV
PhilosophyandTruth
Inthisbookphilosophyhasoftenbeendefinedasasearchforthetruth."Truth,""thetruth,"andeven"thetruthitself''havefunctionedasthehorizonwithinwhich
philosophicalactivityanditshistoryhavebeenthematized.Evenifitisnotpossibletoanalyzethe"concept"oftruthherethoroughly,someexplanationofthe
presuppositionsoftheanalysesgivenaboveseemsnecessary.

Inchapter3,section4.10,thethesiswasstatedthatallphilosophizingisaccompaniedbytheideaofanidealevaluation,whichwecouldcallthe"philosophical
conscience."Philosophicalthinkingisaventuringofcertainquestionsandanswers,anexperimentalformulatingawareofitsownexperimentalandriskycharacter.In
speakingandwritingasaphilosopher,ImustalreadyhaveacertaindistancefromwhatIsayitisthebeginningofacriticalexaminationthatwillprobablyleadtoa
correction,andperhapsalsotoaradicalchangeoranewbeginning.Thisselfdistancingcriticalconsciousnessisanascent,vagueawareness,pointingaheadtowards
aperfectspeakingorwritingthatcantellthetruth.Theevaluatingconsciousness(orrather,theevaluatingmomentofconsciousness)isnot,however,thekindof
knowledgethatcanbeexpressedinastatement.Thepeculiarnatureoftheaccompanying"conscience"involvesitsremainingunsaid,priortolanguage.Thisexplains
itsvagueness.Theexaminingconsciousnessisa"knowing"thathasnoknowledgeofobjectsan"unknowing"that,likeSocrates'daimon,isnotsatisfiedwith
whateverissaidsomethingpriortoknowledgethatprodsmeintofurthersearchingandbetterexpressionametaknowledgethatisimpossibletoconcretizeonthe
levelofstatements

 Page148

becauseitistheconditionfortheirpossibility.Aphilosopheralwaysstrivestoexpressthis"somethingpriortoknowing"aspurelyaspossible,butassoonashehas
doneit,itescapeshim:itarisesagainbehindandinfrontofhisexpressionsasanunattainablehorizon.

This"somethingpriortoknowing,"the"apriori"accompanyingallphilosophicalconsciousness,keepsthespaceforthinkingopenbutisneitheramerelynegative
powernoranindefiniteopenness.Criticalexaminationsdependuponthestandardbywhichonemeasures.Thenormpossessedbyphilosophicalconscienceisnota
statement,butrathersomethingthatprecedesallstatementsandindicatestheirgoal:thegoodofphilosophythatis,thetruth.Ifphilosophywerethehighest,this
goalwouldalsobethegreatestofallgoods: .

Somethingunsaidandunsayable,whichregulatesallstatements,astandardofformulatedtruth,whichitselfcannotbeputintowordsisthisnot"magic"or"mystical"
nonsense?Manyattemptsatnamingthisunsayableunsaidareknowninthehistoryofphilosophy:TheOne,theThinginitself,theAbsolute,Spirit,Substance,Idea,
,ipsumEsseorBeingitselfallthesenameshavereferredtothehorizontowardswhichphilosophymoves,withouteverbeingabletoattainit.To
indicatesomethingwithoutknowingandsayingitisthispossible?Yes,itis,ifallsayingisitselfanimatedbyamovementpointingbeyondallwordsiflifeand
thoughtreceivetheirultimatemeaningfromsomethingthatitselfcannotbecapturedinoneofour"categories."

Theexperienceofthinkingreferredtoherethetensionbetweenthepracticeofverbalexperimentsandthenonverbal"conscience"withwhichthispracticetriesto
coincidecorrespondstothewayinwhichweexperiencemoral,aesthetic,andreligiousrealities.Perhapsasimilartensionischaracteristicofalltypesofexperience.
Theenjoymentofapieceofmusic,forexample,ortheperceptionoftheworldasadomaininhabitedbygods,isanexperienceinwhichtheaffirmationofacertain
fullness(or"fulfillment")doesnotexclude,butratherincludes,acriticalevaluationofitsownquality.Sincesuchexperiencesarealways,atleastinsomerespects,
imperfect,theirselfevaluationurgesustosearchbeyondthemforamoreadequateexperience.Asidefromsatisfactionandrest,experienceisalsothebeginningof
selfcriticism.AlthoughIcometoknowrealitybyenjoyingit,IdonotstopattheaspectsofrealitythatIhave

 Page149

discovered.Authenticexperiencerelativizestheinvolvementintowhichithasdrawnme.Everyappreciationismixedwithshadowsofunfulfillment.Astaticdefinition
ofexperienceneglectsthefactthattheexperiencingsubjectisdriventowardsgreaterexperientialadequacy.

Foreachoftheareasmentionedmorality,art,religion,andphilosophyandperhapsforallareasofculture,itispossibletosketchasuitableroutedescription,or
methodology,basedonthetypicalpathsofexperiencecharacterizingthem.Forthewaysandmovementsofexperiencearecharacterizedbyacertainstructureand
regularity.Thus,apreliminarysketchofthe"method"ofphilosophycandistinguishthefollowingmoments:

Theentiretyofanindividualsearchmaybeseenastheconstructionofapathunderthedirection,and
a. in"light,"ofadesirefortruth,involvingakindof"foreknowledge"ofthisgoalandthedirection
towardsit.
b. Travelingthispathmeansventuringcertainexpressions,intendedassuitableformulationsofreality.
ThejourneycannotevenbeginifIshrinkawayfromallimperfectformulations,butitends
prematurelyifImakemyexperimentintoadogma.
c. Undertheinfluenceoftheguiding"(un)knowing"(whichgives"morelight,"butnotmoreknowledge,
beyondwhatissaid),IdiscoverthatwhatIhavesaiduptothispointisunsatisfactory.Thisdiscovery
mayexpressitselfeitherinasuspicionorinanobscurecertainty.Butasathinker,Iwillmakeevery
efforttofindoutexactlywheremyshortcomingliesandtoformulateitprecisely.
d. Inbecomingconsciousofmyerrors,Imayexperienceacrisis.Ifmyerrorsareonlylogical
inconsistencies,anincorrectworkingoutofcertainprinciples,Itrytocorrectmytext,butits
foundationsremainintact.Muchmoreserious,andalsomorefruitful,isthediscoveryofa
fundamentalmistakethatforcesmetochangemyideasradically.Therearemanyphilosophical
schoolsandindividualswhohaveneversufferedafundamentalcrisis.Theirdogmatismexpresses
itselfinpedantic"selfevidences"ornaivepraisesofunassailablelogics,buttheirapparentself
assurance(asortofblinding)isarewardfortheirsuperficiality.Aphilosopherwhotriestothink
radically(atautology!)takesthegreatchanceofundermininghisownthought.

 Page150

Obligedbymyfailurestofacemyfundamentalmistakes,Iamforcedtolookforaradicallynew
e. possibilityofthought.Anewphaseinmythinkingbegins,ifIhavethestrengthtoriskanother
hypothesisthatismorepromisingthanthepreviousone.Becauseithassprungfromacrisiswithmy
veryfoundations,thisnewattemptisnotaconclusion,butaleap.Thiskindofdiscontinuity,resulting
fromaleap,generatesaphilosophicalhistory.Theworkingoutofhypothesesdoesnotgeneratenew
eventsbutconstitutesatemporalcontinuity.

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Therightattitude,andtherightopportunity,helpathinkertoprogressinthedirectionofthetruth.Thishasbeenthepresuppositionofourdiscussiononanapproach
to"thetruth."Tospeakof"more"or"less"ofthetruthwouldbemeaninglessifthethoughtofaperfecttruthwere(a)senselessand(b)notthegoalandnormof
thinking.Under"truth''wemustthenunderstand:athinkingorspeakingthatsaysandthinks"whatis,"whatis"goingon,"orwhat,andhow,realityis(doing).(The
demandtobeginwithanambiguousdefinitionisunjustified,becauseitalreadyimpliesanentiretheoryoftruth.)What"realityasitreallyis"means,andhowitis
possibletousesuchanexpression,iscertainlyatfirstnotclear.Toavoidanymisunderstandingitisimportanttopointoutthat"reality"cannotbeadequately
differentiatedoutofthespeakinginwhichitisputintowords:itincludesnotonlypeopleandthingsbutalsoallstatementsconcerningreality,allphilosophies,cultures,
andhistories."Reality"isalsoathought,towit,ofsomethingallinclusive,includingnotonlytheactualpeople,things,words,andhistoriesbut,equally,allpossibilities
ofthepastandpresent.Tosaythatthoughtshouldforthisreason"beonlyathoughtandthusno(real)reality"isanincorrectconclusion.Perhapsthecoincidingof
thisthought(or"idea")withtheallinclusive(authenticor"true")realityistheidealandtheprototypeofalltruth.Perhapstruthmustbe"defined"astheidentityofa
thoughttogetherwiththerealitythatisintendedbythisthought.

Ofcourse,realityisnotaccessibletothoughtthatisseparatedfromthinking.AsathinkerIcannotplacemyselfoutsidemyown

 Page151

thinkingtoaffirmordenytheadequacyofthissamethinkingtowardsrealityunless"thinking"itselfisdouble:a"categorical"thinkingthatexpressesitselfin
statementsanda"transcendental"thinkingthataccompaniestheformerandsees(bytranscendentalinspectionor"skepsis")whetheritsatisfiestheidealoftruth,which
thethinkerhassomehowprojected,withoutgettingadefinitivegriponit.Thetranscendental''thinking,"or(fore)knowledge,referscategoricalthinkingtothetruthand
pointsawayoutofthestatementsthatimprisonandbreakthetruth.

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Inthesectiondevotedtoapositivekindofscepticism(4.10),truthispresentedintheimageofthehighest,andthustheideal,judgmentthecontextperhapssuggests
thatsuchajudgmentmightcorrespondtothesentenceofanidealjudge.Thecompletetruth,however,cannotrestinanindividualthinking,becauseevenifitis
pureitisnecessarilyperspectivizedandmadeonesidedbyitsindividuality.Onthebasisoftherelativityofallphilosophies,thisbookhasdefendedanirrevocable
(butnotrelativistic)pluralism,whilebothphilosophyanditshistoryhavebeeninterpretedasanunendingdialogue."Thetruth"isneverthepropertyofonephilosopher,
whocanjudgealltheothers.Truthcomestobeoutoftheinterplaybetweenthevariousphilosophicalconstellations.Notasthoughthehistoryofphilosophywerea
gradualconstructionoftheoneandthewholetruth,however,becausesuchanotionpresupposesaclandestinespirit'susinghistoryasaninstrumentforthegradual
buildingupofitsmostadequateknowledge,oraHistorythatisitselfProvidence.Howcouldahumanbeingrevealtheplanofthisprovidenceifhedidnothimself
coincidewithit?Theactualproductionof(moreorless)truthbyphilosophyinthecourseofitshistoryformsacontingentconstellation,whichcouldalsohaveturned
outdifferentlyunlessonecouldprovethatallthestagesofitsfactualevolutionhavebeenanecessaryunfoldingoftheprecedingones.Ifaphilosophyofhistory
couldcarryoutsuchaproof,withreferencetoallknownphilosophers,itwouldabolishalldiscontinuityandpresentallthinkersasmomentsinthecontinuousunfolding
ofoneinitialthought.

 Page152

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Theintersubjectivedimensionofphilosophizingispresentedinthisbookasa(relative)victoryovertherelativismofperspectivity.Discussionis"theplaceoftruth."
Butitisnotapanacea,anditselfnotthehighestnorm.Justastheonecompletedefinitivejudgmentcannotbefoundinanidealindividual,neithercanitissuefroma
learnedforumoragatheringofjudgeswhoreachagreementorforceadecision.

Neitherintersubjectivitynorcommunicationcanreplacethenormofthetruth,sinceindividualthoughtsandstatementsarethemselvesruledbythisnorm.Thatsome
peopledefinetruthintermsof"dominationfreecommunication"canbeexplained,Ibelieve,bythecombinationofarelativisticdespairoverthepossibilityofreaching
any("objective")truthontheonehandandanapplicationofthedemocraticmodeltothinkingontheother.Theydefenddemocratizationofthetruthbytreating
theoreticalquestionsandmethodsasiftheywerepoliticalproblemsandstrategies.

Bydefiningtruthasacertainnumberofcoherentstatementssubscribedtobyeveryone,ifallthinkerscouldconferwithoneanotherinanonviolentsituation,oneat
leastshowsthattheproductionoftruthpresupposesfreedomfromviolenceandconsensus(whichmustbespecifiedfurther).Neitherofthetwoconditionsisself
evident,however.Ifthosewhorefertoapossibleconsensusmerelyintendtostatetheirexpectationthatanempiricalagreementwillbetheresult,andthusasign,of
truthsthatcannotreasonablybedenied,thentheirdefinitionwillappealtoaparticularnotionoftruththatprecedesthisconsensusandincludesautopianoptimism
abouttheconvincingforceoftruth.Ifconsensuswerereallyintendedasanelementofthedefinition,itcouldonlybeconceivedasanascertainableorpredictablefact.
Bypresentingconsensusassomethingdemandedbyhumanreason(andnotasanunavoidableoccurrence),oneagainappealstoanormativenotionoftruthand
stressesitstotalindependenceofanyfactualconsensus.

Whyshouldconsensusbeanecessarycondition,orevenanelement,oftruth?Evenifweadmitthatfreedomfromexternalcoercionisanecessaryconditionfortrue
knowledge,thisconditionisinsufficienttoenablealltheparticipantsinthedebatetoreachthesameinsightwhichmaybecalled"true."Ifthisisthecaseatthe

 Page153

levelofeverydaypracticalwisdomandcommonsense,itisevenmoresoatthelevelofphilosophy,whichpresupposesexpertiseinanextremelydifficultfield.Some
peoplearedullothersareintelligent,butunsuitedforphilosophy:Nobelprizewinnerssometimesutterphilosophicalnonsense.Asidefromintellectual"virtues,"the
searchfortruthdemandsotherqualitiesandherewecometoanargumentconcerningfreedomfromviolence.Notonlythepresentationoftrueinsights,buttheir
conceptionaswell,candemandgreatcourage.Thefreedomnecessaryfortruethoughtsandstatementsdependsprimarilyonanabilitytoresisttheexternaland
internalforcesthatdriveusinthewrongdirection.Wedonotknowexactlyhowmuchprotectionfromsocietalviolenceisnecessarytoallowfreethinkingandwriting.
Butwedonothavetowaitforautopianandillusorysituation,grantingcompletefreedomfromrestraint.Forhowcouldwethencriticizethecurrentsituation,hereand
now?Ifatheoryoftruthrefersustothefutureofasuccessfuldemocraticdiscussion,itmustknowagreatdealaboutthetruthanditsrelationtofreedomandsociety.
Itleavestheresponsibilityfortrueknowledgeuptothesociety,whichsupposedlyhinderstheproductionoftruthhereandnow.Buttrueknowledgeisnotonly
demandedhereandnowitispossibleaswell,ifindividualsareunselfishenoughtoaimbeyondtheirownparticularismtowardswhatisvalidforall,without
necessarilybeingrecognizedbyeveryone.Allgenuinephilosopherswouldbegratefulifsomekindofliberationmadeiteasierforeverybodytoremainindependentof
powersandfashions,sothatwewouldnotreplaceoneideologywithanotherbutcouldcriticizeallofthem.Suchaliberationwouldperhapsbeanempiricalcondition
foragenuinedemocratizationofphilosophy.Itisnotacondition,however,butaconsequenceofthetruththatsomethebest,anelitenowunderstand.

Atheorythatidentifiestruthwiththeconsensusresultingfromanidealdialoguehasnomeansofevaluatingthequalityofsuchaconsensus.Democracyisnotaremedy
fortheconspiraciesofwilysophists.Asituationinwhicheveryonereceivesanequalchanceseems,infact,moresuitableforconflictsandtragedies."Thetruth"isnot
belovedbyallandisknownonlytoafewofherintelligentlovers,andthenonlyinpart.Butevenifoneadmitsthatthekindof"freedom"intendedherecertainly
producestruth,thetheorycannotsayhowsuchanidealconsensusisrelatedtorealityandwhy

 Page154

itstillusesthewordtruth.Istheissueherenotpeace,andtheequalityofopportunity,ratherthandiscoursetellinguswhatthefactsareandwhatactuallygoeson?
Besidesbeingdemocratic,suchatheoryisalsopacifistic.Forfearofstruggle?Yetstrugglesagainstinternalegotism,particularism,andlackoffreedomcannotbe
delegatedtoothers,ortosociety.Truthseekingismuchmorepolemicthanthetheoryofanactualordesiredconsensuscanimagine.

Doesthequalitative,"elitist,"andaggressivenotionoftruthseekingarguedforinthisbooknottestifytoanauthoritariancontemptforthevulgarherd?Oneisbest
protectedagainstthisbytheimpersonalnormoftheidealevaluationgivenbytruthitself,notbythedictatorshipofa"collective."Agoodelite(allowingthispleonasm
here)keepsplacesopenfordissidentsinthesearchfortruth,eveniftheirvoicesarescarcelyaudibleamidstthedeafening,andsoporific,disputationofallagainstall.It
hashappenedthat"thetruth"wasonthesideoftheexceptionsandmetitsdeathwiththeirs.Latertheywerecommemoratedasheroesofthetruth,butthe
popularizationordemocratizationoftheirmessagecannottaketheplaceofourownthinking.Theauthorityofthebestliesinthedegreetowhichtheyprovideothers
withfoodforthought.Sinceauthenticthoughtisindependent,thebestthinkersaregoodaslongastheymakeotherseverfreertodiscussthingswiththebestandwith
eachother.Uptothepresenttime,thehistoryofphilosophyhasbeenahistoryofseveralaristoiandtheirschools.Noteveryonemustbecomeaphilosopher,butthe
onlygroundforexclusionliesintheprerequisitesthatthenatureofphilosophicalthinkinginvolves.Asidefromaloveoftruth,facilityinlanguageandreflectionarealso
necessaryskillsthatarenotyetuniversallypossessed.Aphilosophicalpeople'sdemocracy,then,seemsUtopian.Itisapitythatmanywillalwaysbedeniedthe
qualityandenjoymentprovidedbyphilosophy,anditisalossforphilosophythatmanyindividualscannotbringtheirperspectivesandstylesintothephilosophical
debate.Buteveniftheycould,philosophywouldstillnotbeanallencompassingtruth.Thecollectionofthosewhoparticipateinthehistoryofphilosophyremainsas
fortuitousasthestellarconstellationsintheheavens.Thenumberofparticipantsdoesnotchangethiseventhecollectionofallpeoplewouldbeacontingency.The
rise,andmovements,ofphilosophicalconstellationsdeserveadmirationandstimulatethinking.Theircontingencydoesnothindertheirbeing

 Page155

perceivedandconnectedasfigureswithinoneallinclusivewhole.Theexcitingthingabouthistoryisthatnewperspectivescanalwaysemerge.Asattemptsat
overarching,allphilosophiesandallhistoriesofphilosophyarephenomenathatcanchangethefirmament.Evenmetaphilosophiesandmethodologiesofphilosophydo
notcomeanyfurtherthanoneaspectoforvariationinthestarrysky.But,isthatnotenough?

 Page157

Notes
1.ItistheBibliografischRepertorium(alsopublishedastheRpertoirebibliographiquedelaphilosophie)oftheTijdschriftvoorFilosofieandoftheRevue
PhilosophiquedeLouvainthatisreferredtohere.Inpp.9699ofmyWeefsels(Weavings:Bilthoven:Ambo,1974)ashortoverview(andcommentaryisgiven)of
thetitlesfoundinthatRepertoryduringtheyears197072.Thesituationhasprobablychangedlittlesince1972.

2.ThisdifferencebetweenaphilosopherandonewhoknowsphilosophyisilluminatedinWeefsels12ff.and99100.

3.Cf.E.Gilson,Etudessurlerledelapensemdivaledanslaformationdusystmecartsien,2d.ed(Paris,1951)andIndexscolasticocartsien,2d.ed.
(Paris,1979).

4.Athesistobethematizedbelow,whichalreadyplaysarolehere,holdsthatthemostradicalperspectiveofeveryconcretethinkingispreciselythe(simultaneously
contingentandnecessary)factofitsindividuality,whichmakesituniqueandunrepeatable,withoutlosingitsuniversality.

5.Cf.G.W.F.Hegel:"Uneducatedpeopleenjoyreasoningandplacingblame,forblameiseasytofind,butitisdifficulttoknowits(i.e.,aphilosophy's)goodnessand
innernecessity.Educationalwaysbeginswithblame,butwhencompleted,itseesthepositiveineverything."GrundlinienderPhilosophiedesRechts(Berlin,1820),
additionto268.

6.AsJacquesDerridabelievesandbrilliantlyexemplifies.

7.AphilosophicalanalysisofthelearningprocesscanbefoundinWeefsels,4762and148156.

8.Cf.Plato,Phaedrus,247b277aandtheseventhlettercf.alsoE.Levinas,Totalitetinfini(TheHague:Nijhoff,1961),45,6971TotalityandInfinity,trans.
A.Lingis(PittsburghTheHague:Nijhoff,1969),7273,9698.

 Page158

9.Cf.Plato,Sophist,263e4264a9.

10.Cf.my"PhilosophicalIntroductionsandPluralism."Metaphilosophy16(1985):250259.

11.AnanalysisofthehumanbattlehintedatinthefollowingpagescanbefoundinUenik(YouandI).SeeUenIk(Bilthoven:Ambo,1975),4768.

12. weretheopeningwordsofmyschoolsongattheMunicipalGymnasiuminHilversum,whichIhavetothankformyinitiationintoGraecoEuropean
civilizationhereIacquiredmyfirstloveforPlato'soeuvre.

13.Cf.Uenik,1128,4751.

14.Cf.E.Levinas,Totalitetinfini,5478TotalityandInfinity,82105.

15.Cf.Uenik,6365,7475,9599.

16.Cf.forthefollowingalsoH.Kuhn,"IdeologiealshermeneutischerBegriff"(Ideologyasahermeneuticconcept).HermeneutikundDialektikI(1970),:343356.

17.Cf.S.IJsseling,RetoriekenFilosofie:Watgebeurterwanneerergesprokenwordt?(RhetoricandPhilosophy).Bilthoven:Ambo,1975128.

18.Cf.thewholeoeuvreofE.Levinas,especiallyAutrementqu'treouaudeldel'essence(OtherwisethanBeingorBeyondEssence),andpassagessuchas:
TotalitetInfini,5455,217225,278284(TotalityandInfinity,8283,240247,302307).Cf.also"BeyondBeing.EmmanuelLevinas:Autrementqu'treou
audeldel'essenceTheHague:Nijhoff1974."ResearchinPhenomenologyVIII(1978):239261.

19.Cf.myVrijheid(Freedom).Bilthoven:Ambo,19753742.

20.Cf.Plato,Phaedrus,274b277aandE.Levinas,TotalitetInfini,45,69,71TotalityandInfinity,73,96,98.

21.Cf.Plato,Symposium,206b209e.

 Page159

SelectedBibliography
Alqui,F."Structureslogiquesetstructuresmentalesenhistoriedelaphilosophie."Bulletindelasocitfranaisedephilosophie4647(195253):89107.

Alqui,F."Intentionetdterminationsdanslagensedel'oeuvrephilosophique."InPhilosophieetmthode,Bruxelles:Editionsdel'universitdeBruxelles,1974.
2842.

Armstrong,A.M.,"PhilosophyanditsHistory."PhilosophyandPhenomenologicalResearch19(195859):447465.

Beck,L.J."Progretphilosophie."InEtudessurl'histoiredelaphilosophie,Paris:Fischbacher,1964.115126.

Beck,L.W."IntroductionandBibliography."TheMonist53(1969):523531.

Belaval,Y."Continuetdiscontinuenhistoiredelaphilosophie."In:PhilosophieetMthode,7584.Bruxelles:Editionsdel'universitdeBruxelles,1974.

Braun,L.Histoiredel'histoiredelaphilosophie.Paris:Ophrys,1973.

Brhier,E."Introduction."In:Histoiredelaphilosophie,Vol.I,137.Paris:PressesUniversitairesdeFrance,1943.

Brelage,M."DieGeschichtlichkeitderphilosophieunddiePhilosophiegeschichte."ZeitschriftfrphilosophischeForschung16(1962):375405.

Bruch,J.L."Lephilosopheetsonlecteur."Intudessurl'histoiredelaphilosophie,213223.Paris:Fischbacher,1964.

Brunner,F."Histoiredelaphilosophieetphilosophie."Ibid.,179204.

Butler,J.F."SomeEpistemologicalProblemsabouttheHistoryofPhilosophy."PhilosophicalQuarterly(Amalner,India)22(194950):125135.

Chtelet,F."Laquestiondel'histoiredelaphilosophieaujourd'hui."InPolitiquesdelaphilosophie,editedbyD.Grisoni,3153.Paris:Grasset,1976.

 Page160

Collins,J.InterpretingModernPhilosophy.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1972.

Copleston,F."OntheHistoryofPhilosophy."InF.Copleston,OntheHistoryofphilosophyandotherEssays.London:SearchPress,1979.

Dumry,H."Doctrineetstructure."Intudessurl'histoiredelaphilosophie,155176.Paris:Fischbacher,1964.

Dunn,J."TheIdentityoftheHistoryofIdeas."Philosophy42(1968):85104.

Ehrhardt,W.PhilosophiegeschichteundgeschichtlicherSkeptizismus.UntersuchungenzurFrage:WieistPhilosophiegeschichtemglich?Mnchen:
Francke,1957.

Ehrlich,W.PhilosophiederGeschichtederPhilosophie.Tbingen:Niemeyer,1965.

Ehrlich,W."PrinciplesofaPhilosophyoftheHistoryofPhilosophy."TheMonist53(1969):532562.

Faurot,J.N."WhatisHistoryofPhilosophy?"TheMonist53(1969):642655.

Feibleman,J.K."TheHistoryofPhilosophyasaPhilosophyofHistory."SouthernJournalofPhilosophy5(1967):375383.

Flach,W."DieGeschichtlichkeitderPhilosophieundderProblemcharakterdesphilosophischenGegenstandes."KantStudien54(1963):1728.

Gadamer,H.G.WahrheitundMethodeGrundzgeeinerphilosophischenHermeneutik.3ded.TbingenMohr,1972.

Garin,E."L'unitnellastoriografiafilosofica."Rivistacriticadistoriadellafilosofia11(1956):206217.

Garin,E."Osservazionipreliminariaunastoriadellafilosofia."Giornalecriticadellafilosofiaitaliana38(1959):152(DiscussionbyG.Saittaandothers:pp.
353407).

Garin,E."Ancoradellastoriadellafilosofiaedelsuometodo."Ibid.,39(1960):373390,521535.

Geldsetzer,L.WasheisstPhilosophiegeschichte?Dsseldorf:PhilosophiaVerlag,1968.

Geldsetzer,L.DiePhilosophiederPhilosophiegeschichteim19.Jahrhundert.Meisenheima.G.:Hain1968.

Gilson,E.HistoryofPhilosophyandPhilosophicalEducation.Milwaukee:MarquetteUniversityPress1948.

 Page161

Goldschmidt,V."Remarquessurlamthodestructuraleenhistoiredelaphilosophie.InMetaphysique,Histoiredelaphilosophie.Recueild'tudesoffertFernand
Brunner,213240.Neuchtel:LaBaconnire,1981.

Goldschmidt,W."DieAufgabendesPhilosophieHistorikers.EineanalytischeStudie."ZeitschriftfrphilosophischeForschung9(1955):581613.

Gouhier,H.Laphilosophieetsonhistoire.Paris:Vrin,1944.

Gouhier,H."Visionrtrospectiveetintentionhistorique."InLaphilosophiedel'histoiredelaphilosophie.EditedbyE.Castelli,Paris:Vrin,1956.133142.

Gouhier,H."Notesurleprogrsetlaphilosophie."Intudessurl'histoiredelaphilosophie,111115.Paris:Fischbacher,1964.

Gouhier,H."Laphilosophieetsespublics."InPhilosophieetmethode,6174.Bruxelles:ditionsdel'universitdeBruxelles,1974.

Gouhier,Y.Belaval,Lefebvre,Croissant,VanSteenberghen,Serres,Robinet.Philosophieetmthode.Bruxelles:Editionsdel'universitdeBruxelles.

Graham,G."CantherebeHistoryofPhilosophy?"HistoryandTheory21(1982):3752.

Granger,G.G."Systmesphilosophiquesetmtastructures.L'argumentationdutractatus."Intudessurl'histoiredelaphilosophie,139154.Paris:Fischbacher,
1964.

Granger,G.G."L'histoirecommeanalysedesoeuvresetcommeanalysedessituations."InMdiationsI,(1961),127142.

Guroult,M."Leproblmedelalgitimitdel'histoiredelaphilosophie."InLaphilosophiedel'histoiredelaphilosophie.EditedbyE.Castelli,4568.Paris:Vrin,
1956.

Guroult,M."TheHistoryofPhilosophyasaPhilosophicalProblem."TheMonist53(1969):563587.

Guroult,M."Lamthodeenhistoiredelaphilosophe,"inPhilosophieetMthode,1727,Bruxelles:Editionsdel'universitdeBruxelles,1974.

Guroult,M.Dianomatique.LivreI:Histoiredel'histoiredelaphilosophieI:EnOccident,desoriginesjusqu'Condillac.Paris:Aubier,1984.LivreII:
Philosophiedel'histoiredelaphilosophie.Paris:Aubier,1979.

Karskens,M."Tussengeschiedenisenfilosofie.Aantekeningenrondenigeproblemenvandegeschiedenisvandefilosofie."WijsgerigPerspektiefopmaatschappij
enwetenschap21(198081):7076.

 Page162

Kristeller,P.O.''ThePhilosophicalSignificanceoftheHistoryofThought."JournaloftheHistoryofIdeas7(1946):360366.(AlsoinP.O.Kristeller.Studiesin
RenaissanceThoughtandLetters.Roma:EdizionidiStoriaeLetteratura,1956).

Kristeller,P.O."HistoryofPhilosophyandHistoryofIdeas,"JournaloftheHistoryofPhilosophy2(1964):114.

Lefebvre,H."Lamtaphilosophiedevantl'histoiredelaphilosophie."InPhilosophieetmthode,8589.Bruxelles:Editionsdel'universitdeBruxelles,1974.

vonLeyden,W."PhilosophyanditsHistory."ProceedingsoftheAristotelianSociety54(195354):187208.

Lombardi,F.ed.Veritestoria.Undibattitosullometododellastoriadellafilosofia.Asti:Arethusa,1956.

Lovejoy,A.O."Introduction.TheStudyoftheHistoryofIdeas."InTheGreatChainofBeing.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1936.1

Mandelbaum,M."HistoryofIdeas,IntellectualHistoryandHistoryofPhilosophy."HistoryandTheory,Beiheft5(1965).3366.

Mandelbaum,M."OntheHistoriographyofPhilosophy."PhilosophyResearchArchivesII(1976).

Mandelbaum,M."TheHistoryofPhilosophySomeMethodologicalIssues."TheJournalofPhilosophy74(1977):561572.

Mittelstrass,J."DasInteressederPhilosophieanihrerGeschichte."StudiaPhilosophica36(1976):315.

Nash,R.H.,ed.IdeasofHistory:VolI.SpeculativeApproachestoHistory.Vol.II:TheCriticalPhilosophyofHistory.NewYork:Dutton,1969.

Nelson,L."WhatisHistoryofPhilosophy?"Ratio4(1962):2235.

delNoce,A."Problmesdelapriodisationhistorique."InLaphilosophiedel'histoiredelaphilosophie,EditedbyE.Castelli,143168.Paris:Vrin,1956.

Oehler,K."DieGeschichtlichkeitderPhilosophie."ZeitschriftfrphilosophischeForschung11(1957):504526.

Oehler,K."DerEntwicklungsgedankealsheuristischesPrinzipderPhilosophiegeschichte."ZeitschriftfrphilosophischeForschung17(1963):604613.

Passmore,P."TheIdeaofaHistoryofPhilosophy,"HistoryandTheoryBeiheft5(1965):132.

 Page163

Passmore,P."HistoriographyofPhilosophy."EncyclopediaofPhilosophy(1967),VI:226230.

Peperzak,A."OntheUnityofSystematicPhilosophyandtheHistoryofPhilosophy."InAgainstAntiHistoryinPhilosophy.EditedbyV.Tejera&T.Lavine.To
bepublishedbyM.Nyhoff,TheHague,in1986.)

Randall,J.N.HowPhilosophyUsesitsPast.NewYork:ColombiaUniversityPress,1963.

Re,J.,M.Ayers,A.Westboy,eds.PhilosophyanditsPast.Hassocks:TheHarvesterPress,1978.

Ricoeur,P."L'histoiredelaphilosophieetl'unitduvrai,"InP.Ricoeur,Histoireetverit,4559.Paris:DuSeuil,1955.

Ricoeur,P."Histoiredelaphilosophieethistoricit."Ibid.,6680.

Ricoeur,P."Qu'estcequ'untexte?Expliqueretcomprendre,"InHermeneutikundDialektik,181200.Tbingen:Mohr,1970.

Ritzel,W."DiePhilosophieundihreGeschichte."ZeitschriftfrphilosophischeForschung11(1957):235251.

Rorty,R.,J.B.Schneewind,Q.Skinner,eds.PhilosophyinHistoryEssaysonthehistoriographyofphilosophy.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1984.

Santinello,G.,ed.Storiadellestoriegeneralidellafilosofia,VolI:Dalleoriginirinascimentalialla"historiaphilosophica."VolII:Dall'etcartesianaa
Brucker.Brescia:LaScuola,1981&1979.

Sass,H.M."PhilosophischePositioneninderPhilosophiegeschichtsschreibung."DeutscheVierteljarhrsschriftfrLiteraturwissenschaftundGeistesgeschichte
46(1972):539567.

Sebba,G."Whatis'HistoryofPhilosophy'?"JournaloftheHistoryofPhilosophy8(1970):251252.

Smart,H.R.PhilosophyanditsHistory.LaSalle:OpenCourt,1963.

Tonelli,G."Qu'estcequel'histoiredelaphilosophie?"RevuephilosophiquedelaFranceetdel'Etranger152(1962):290306.

Tonelli,G."AContributiontowardsaBibliographyontheMethodologyoftheHistoryofPhilosophy."JournaloftheHistoryofPhilosophy10(1972):456458
(additionstothebibliographyofL.W.BeckinTheMonist53[1969]).

Voelke,A.J."Lafonctionheuristiquedelatraditionenphilosophie."StudiaPhilosophica36(1976):1524.

 Page164

Wiener,P.P."SomeProblemsandMethodsintheHistoryofIdeas."JournaloftheHistoryofIdeas22(1961):531548.

Wimmer,F.M."PhilosophiegeschichtsschreibunginpraktischerAbsicht."Conceptus14(1980):2846.

SeealsothebibliographicalselectionsgivenbyBeck(1969),Braun,Brhier,Geldsetzer(19.Jahrhundert),Karskens(198081),Mandelbaum(1965),Passmore
(1965&1967),Sass(1972),andTonelli(1972).

 Page165

IndexofProperNames

Althusser,Louis,15

Aristotle,1,7,8,29,31,36,72,116,127,138

Augustine,St.,3

Bardili,ChristophGottlieb,15

Comte,Auguste,127

Derrida,Jacques,14,157

Descartes,Ren,3,7,14

Euclid,30

Fichte,JohannGottlieb,139

Freud,Sigmund,14,111

Gilson,Etienne,7,157

Gorgias,114

Habermas,Jrgen,15

Hegel,GeorgWilhelmFriedrich,7,8,10,13,14,15,24,28,29,44,46,51,67,116,127,138,157

Heidegger,Martin,3,7,14,30,116

Heraclitus,57,98

Husserl,Edmund,118

Kant,Immanuel,3,7,8,18,28,36,51,62,104,116,119,127,139

Keyserling,Hermann,15

Kierkegaard,Sren,14,114

Krause,KarlChristianFriedrich,15

Kuhn,Helmut,158

Leibniz,GottfriedWilhelm,116

Levinas,Emmanuel,14,44,116,158

Marcuse,Herbert,15

Marx,Karl,13,14,28,30,67,111,127

MerleauPonty,Maurice,14

Newton,Isaac,30

Nietzsche,Friedrich,7,14,44,51,111

Parmenides,3,57,98

Plato,1,3,8,13,14,18,22,25,29,31,39,42,44,46,55,72,94,97,104,114,115,116,131,138,145,157,158

Plotinus,29

Reinhold,KarlLeonard,15

Russell,Bertrand,51,127

 Page166

Scheler,Max,15

Socrates,22,72,147

Spinoza,Benedictus,8,18,36,51,114,120

ThomasAquinas,St.,7,14,28,44,67,127

Wittgenstein,Ludwig,104

 Page167

SubjectIndex

absolutism,68

affectivity,93

affinity,60

aggression,94,97

alterity,119

Seealsoanother,other

anamnesis,65

ancients,6,14

anonymousstructures,110,116,115118

another,77,81,82,96

Seealsoother

antihistorical,10

antipodes,9

antisubjectivism,106107

antiviolence,93

Seealsoviolence,counterviolence

apology,6768,70,113,119,122,125,136,141

appropriation,77

apriori,85,148

arbiter,142

Seealsojudge

archeology,127

argumentation,128

asceticism,96

Seealsoselfdiscipline

autarchy,11,24

author,22,49,119123,125,126

Seealsooeuvre,text,work,writing

authorityinphilosophy,3637,42,138,154

ofaphilosophicalforum,101,103

omniscient,75

ofwords,87

autonomy,6

beginner,3647

Seealsopupil

Bible,30

causality,116117

Church,14,7172,132133

classics,6,29

cogito,77

collectivism,117

commentary,21,28

commentator,6,10

commonplace,126

communication,135,152

herrschaftsfreieKommunikation,100,152

communion,86

community,87,126,129

competition,87

concept,102,105

conceptuality,101

contemporaries,27

contemporaneity,31,33

conscience,147,148

consensus,84,85,152

constellation,5966,75,81

content,8384

Seealsoform.

context,5659,6364,79,107

conversation,7686,98,115

argumentative,100

asafight83,8788,94,101102

historyofphilosophyas,105,109,119144

versusmonologue,2426,72

andtext,107110

thematicphilosophy

 Page168

as,103105

timestructureof,102103

Seealsodiscussion,listening,polemic,rhetoric,speaking

counterviolence,9195

Seealsoviolence,antiviolence

courtofjustice,34

Seealsohistoryofphilosophy

crisis,3,7,92,150

criticism,15,3738,84,86,89,112113,118,148

absolutizingof,112

asbeginningoflearning,14

selfcriticism,96,112,147

culture,30

daimon,147

death,23

decline,134

defeatism,68

democracyinphilosophy,25,98101,153154

democratizationofculture,40

ofphilosophy,153

oftruth,152,154

demystification,55,57

desire,111

determinism,118119

diagnosis,3

dialogue,7286

historyofphilosophyas,134,141

versusoeuvre,104

philosophical,25,72

philosophyas,107,115

searchoftruthas,99

ofthesoulwithitself,142

therapeuticsignificanceof,96

Seealsoconversation

discussion,80,9799

aselementofeverydialogue,87

historyofphilosophyas,105,129132

betweenmasterandpupil,72,78

ofbasicperspectives,26,90,139

philosophyas,105

asplaceofthetruth,152

asstruggle,141

Seealsoconversation,dialogue,dispute,rhetoric,violence.

disputatio,98

dispute,88

distortion,139

dogma,72,129,144,149

dogmatism,68,134,149

doxa,129

education,9195

ego,14,26,119,125

SeealsoI

egology,24,25,71,116,125

elite,154

emancipation,1314,131

emotion,92

empirical,129

empiricism,10

enmity,60

epigone,10,28,69,85,127,128,133,134

epoch,136

equality,87

ethics,91,115,119

ofinterpretation,124126

ofpolemics,9396

ofviolence,9193

evaluation,125,143,147

selfevaluation,148

everyman,132

evidence,117,149

exegete,10,122

exodus,65

experience,53

authentic,128,149

asexperiment,55

fundamental,56

andphilosophy,5356,57

selfexperience,118,128

thinkingas,148

experiment,21,55,138,140,149

experimentation,138

expertise,133

faith,128

fashion,14,32,33,36,37

fate,140

fecundity,29

feeling,111,117

Fenstenliebe,90

force,97,101,114,118

Seealsopower,violence

form,11,83,84

formalism,4,1618

 Page169

forumofexperts,132134

freedom,143144,152153

future,126,145

genealogy,44,69

genuineness,5,9,13,18,31,32,36,37,40,42,47,55,96,110,112,123

God,25

greatphilosophers,6,10,14,26,29,46

greatphilosophies,21,22,28,90

haecceitas,53,74

hearing,109

Seealsolistening

Hegelianism,67

hermeneutics,18,6871,7475,124

historianofphilosophy,8,35,41,6667,125129,135144

asjudge,131,142

historicism,16

historicity,140

history,40,6466,116,125

scienceof,2

asprogress,144

historyofideas,106

historyofphilosophy,19,27,3233,3536,39,40,4170,119144

asjudge,25,34,138,141

hope,144145

I,67,117,123,128,136,141,143

Seealsoego

idealism,89

ideology,66,68,72,113

immortality,145

impartiality,67,125

individualphilosophers,35,4748,5254,5960,79,135,137,140,142144,149

individualsubjects,79,105106,110,115119,127,152

individuality,45,7375,77,7980,117119

inequality,78,87,100,102

inspiration,27

instruction,21,23

selfinstruction,24

interpretation,108,109,121126

intersubjectivity,26,115,116,152

It,119

judge,137,142

Seealsophilosopher,historian,historyofphilosophy

judgment,138,141,152

jurisdiction,142

language,17,106

learning,2126,27,72

Seealsophilosophy,pupil,teacher,text

life,5156,59,61,62,80,104,135,148

Seealsophilosopher,work

listener,23,77,79,81,83,102,108,121

Seealsospeaker

listening,23,78,8082,84,87

Seealsospeaking

literature,9

logic,34,6,5051,83,85,116,128129

formal,34,12,17

modern,1113

transcendental,12

logicism,10

logos,102,105

Marxism,53,67

mausoleality,19,30

me,143

meaning,38,79

media,132

metaphilosophy,1,2,10,54,67,82,128,143,147155

metaphysics,115,131

method,74,83,128,131,134,135,149,150

methodology,1,3,13,83,97,128,149,150,155

milieu,5658,126127,134,139

Seealsotime

monologue,2425,68,70,72,7475,8182,125,138,140

monology,25

moralism,96

morality,93

museum,16,18,38,45

music,137

 Page170

naivet,57,129

narcissism,96,107,119,145

nations,72

SeealsoChurch,party

NeoHegelianism,28,128

NeoKantianism,28

NeoThomism,28,127

NeoMarxism,28,128

neutrality,8,42,68,125,129

newness,32,33,79,80,82,85,109

nihilism,16

nominalism,79

nuncstans,24

objectivity,8,60,66,68,125,152

Seealsosubject

oeuvre,5156,59,6162,104,106

Seealsophilosopher,work

ontology,1112,51

ontotheology,116

opinion,32,52,128,132

Seealsodoxa

originality,7,10,52,117,118,126,127,136

other,119

aslistener,96

asspeaker,7879,81,96

asthinker,7475,125,135136

Seealsoanother

otherness,72,109

ought,117

pacifism,154

party,71,72,132,133

passion,9293,97

philosophyas,39,89

andreason,9293

andspeech,95

passivity,119

past,22,26,3032,45,63,139

futureof,145

philosophicalimportanceof,24,2627,3034

returnto,18

pathos,87

patience,18

pedagogy,38

period,60,6264

perspective,73,74,118,129,155

perspectivity,152

phenomenology,10,13,17,118

philosopher,6,8,2126,3940

asjudge,25,34,142,143

Seealsoindividuality,life,oeuvre,greatphilosophers,individualphilosophers,text,thinker,work

philosophy,26,32,60

asapassion,39,89

classical,21,22,27,38

contemporary,3,4,18,2729,31,32,57

continental,11

Oriental,65

Western,25,26,65,77

Seealsohistoryofphilosophy,systematicphilosophy

pluralism,30,134

plurality,134

polemic,8991,9397,101102,113

Seealsorhetoric,violence

politician,95

politics,14,19,91,93,95

positivism,10,46,51,66,68,123,124,125,137

power,110,113117,132

anonymous,110,117

historyof,57

languageof,19

philosophical,113115

andtruth,37,98

ofwords,87,102

Seealsoforce,violence

primitivism,21,30

procreation,145

progress,134

progressivity,37,38,131

providence,151

psychoanalysis,53,110,111

pupil,2124,3640,87

Seealsoinstruction,teacher,learning

purification,55

quality,109,138

questionesdisputatae,94

Seealsodialogue,discussion,dispute

radicalism,34

rationality,97,99,101102

reader,108109,120122

Seealsolistener

reading,109,123125

Seealsohearing,listening,text

 Page171

reason,9293

receptivity,30

reflection,14,16,17

transcendental,18

refutation,60

relativism,30,68,98,112,142

representation,122

respect,119

responsibility,23

retaking,29

rhetoric,8891

good,102

andphilosophy,94,113115

andtruth,72

rhetoricalviolence,97,100,101

Seealsoconversation,dialogue,discussion,polemic

scepticism,16,129,136,142144,151

science,118

behavioral,118

ofhistory,2

andphilosophy,54,57,117

Seealsosocialsciences

school,38,60,133

searchfortruth,76,77,84,88101

selfdiscipline,96

selfknowledge,17,92

silence,81,101

skepsis,151

socialsciences,59,128,135,139

andsubjectivity,57,106,110,118

solidarity,26

solitude,135,144,145

speaker,76,78,8086,102,108

assistshiswords,22

asselfcriticism,96

subjectivityof,23

Seealsolistener

speaking,7684,102,122

authoritative,133

andemotion,88

asfighting,87

polemical,94

timeof,102

andrhetoricalviolence,97

versuswriting,26,106110,121

Seealsoconversation,listening,polemic,rhetoric

speech,79,81,109

asconfrontation,94,97

newnessof,85

particularizesthought,86

andrhetoricalviolence,9798

Seealsotext,writing

spirit,25

strategy,9798,113

structuralism,53,117118

structure

Seeanonymousstructures

style,51,117

subject,105,106,110

subjectiveperspective,68

subjectobjectschema,125

Seealsoindividual

subjectivism,117

subjectivity,23,68,115,118

sublimation,94

suffering,114

suspicion,5354,111112

synthesis,41,75,82,134

versusaffinity,60

dialectical,109

theGreatSynthesis,69,73

inthehistoryofphilosophy,42

systematicphilosophy,119,5657,104105,123,130andpassim

talking,22

Seealsospeaking,speech

teacher,2122,3540

Seealsopupil,learning

teaching,87

teamwork,132,134

temporality,61,102103

Seealsotime

text,2123,26,28,4851,6164,103104

authorand,119121

interpretationof,121126,137

posthumous,21

selectionof,36,39

versusspokenword,107110

written,26,4849,122

Seealsoauthor,oeuvre,word,writing

textuality,107,110,121

thematicphilosophy

seesystematicphilosophy

theoryofscience,1,13

thinker,9,24,25,29,31,34,73,106,107

Seealsophilosopher

thinking,9,40,148

anonymous,126127

experienceof,148

independent,1415,34

individualandcollective,132135

lonelinessof,135

otherwise,40

transcendental,17

universalityof,53

Thomism,67

 Page172

time,5659

ofconversation,76,102105

final,75

aslimitation,73,136

our,2930,63,131

period,60,126

asprogress,144

oftextsandspokenwords,119120

ofthinking,107

andtruth,27,68,70

Seealsomilieu,period,temporality

totality,35

totalitarianhistory,134

totalitariansystem,132

traditions,60,65

translation,28

truth,3839,74,7679,84,9496,99,113,137,144,147155

notadogma,144

eternal,70,89,102

final,13,26

andforce,9798

andhistory,6,35

lovefor,55,90,96,112,114

loverof,94

possessionof,72

assynthesis,41

andtime,27,68,70,73

total,72,73

tribunalof,134

Seealsosearchfortruth

truthfulness,9,89,96

unanimity,133134

uniqueness,140

universality,53,80,116,134

unmasking,5355,57,110112

untimeliness,32,59

untruthfulness,91,94,96

Unzeitgemssheit,18

Seealsountimeliness

violence,87

ethicsof,88,9193,95

andreason,9293,101102

rhetorical,9091,97,100101

ofspeaking,90

andtruth,72,152153

Seealsoantiviolence,counterviolence,force,polemic,power

we,67,131132

willtopower,97,110,111

word,26,7881,87,101105,108,119

work,48,5256,58,62,104,124,126

posthumous,62

Seealsooeuvre,text

writer,120122,124

writing,49,120123

versusaspokenword,22,2627,98,106110

Seealsooeuvre,speaking,speech,text,work