Date post: | 23-Feb-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | philobureau2598 |
View: | 218 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 5
7/24/2019 Shapiro Resenha Sublime Nancy
1/5
-)k
'v6
*
&''
$J
1'
Gradmate
Faculty
Philosophy Journal
Volume 16,
Number 2,
1993
Of
the
Sublime:
Presen.e
in
Question.
Translated
and
Nvith
an
Mterword by
Jeffrey
S.
L.i.b
rett.
State
University
of
New
York
Press,
1993.
Nimrod's tower,
and
Noah's
ark.
Of
t
/lt,
Sublime
includes
discus-
,,:,
si
o IA
s
of
Ad
()
rn
o
,
B
enjami
n
,
'
?
4.
Boileau,
Hegel, Hblderlin,
and oth-
'
ers
'a:
well
as, e.g.,
of
Biblical
or
'
1
Mosaic
law
(follosving
one
of
Knnt's
examples of sublimity). We fsnd,
further,
a
provocative
preface
by
Jean-Luc Nancy
and
arl
nfterword
by
Jeffrey
Librett,
the
translator,
which
osers
a
detaled reading
of
the
notion
of
reflexion
in
Hedegger's
essay
rflfnnt's
Thess
or1 Being.''
Librett's
afterward
s
itself
a
work of
original
research,
and
complements the
other essays
insofar as
Gve cf
the
essays
n
this
volum
e
f
o
cu
s
on
Kant,
an
d
all
involve
at
least
some
kind
of
dia-
logue
MLI'I
Heidegger.
Most of'the
esays, howcver,
can be
read
with
1
i t tl
e
o t
n
o
b a
ck
g
r
o
u
n
d
i n
Heideggen'
Nvlat
is
most
remarllable
about
this volume
is
the
way n
which
the
sublime
is shown
to
open
out
ont
qu'
estons
central
to
modern
(and
postmodern)
philosophy.
Nancy's
ftpreface''
begins:
Ona
l'ltay
be
tempted
to
imagizie
that
our
epoch
is
*
JeAey Lbrett's
trpnslation of
dtt
Sublime
(Paris:
Editions
Blin,
1988)
makes
available
n
English
essays
on the
sublime
by
eght
leading
French
scholars:
Michel
Deguy
ofers
a
beautiful analysis
of
Pseudo-fwonginus,
focusing
prinar-
i1y
on
the
question
of
synthesis.
(Philippe
Lacoue-Labarthe alsn
discusses
Longinuj
in
some
detail.)
Jean-Luc Nancy,
Eliane
Escoubas,
and
Philippe
Lacoue-Labarthc
analyze
sublime
presentation
itself-primarily
n
Kant.
Jean-
Franoi
s
Lyotard
and
Jacob
Rogoznski tthe
latter
ocussing
on
the
question of
t-emporalty)
specify
the
sublime in
accordance U't-
an
object
or
end
(i,e.,
with respect
to
questions
of
purpose
and
inter-
estl-again
prmarily
in
Kant.
Jean-Franois
Courtine's
study,
fkTragedy
and
Sublimity:
The
Sp
e cu1
ative In
terp
retati
on
of
Oedipus
Rex
on
the
Threshold
of
7/24/2019 Shapiro Resenha Sublime Nancy
2/5
at
the
veq
least, but
then
thi
restrlction
already
entangles
us
iu some
of
the
questions
which
are
today
tied
to
the
sublim).
The
tradition
passes
on
LLa
tradition
transmctj.
What it
passqs
on to
us
in
the name
of the
sublime is
not
c?z
aestheticsl
This
is to
say
that
there
is
a
cer-
tain
neccssity
to questions
abut
the
sublme
that
gces
beyond
aes-
thetic
questions
to
touch
upon
qestions
essential
to
epstemology,
metaphysics,
and moral
philso-
phy.
Nancy
continues:
irlqhe
tradi-
tion
passes
on
the
aesthetic
as
question.
Which
means
nothing
other than:
sensible
presentation
as
question
1).
Insofar
as the
ques-
tion
of
sensible
presentation
is
inextricably linked
Lo
questions
of
representation,
sgnfi
caton,
essence,
and
the
subject-object
dichotomy,
it
opens
for
discussion
questions
at
tle
heart
f
Westzezn
philosophy.
Rather
than
aesthet-
cizing
a11
existence, what
perhaps
links
tese
essays is
a
conccrql
wit,h
the
various
events or
instances
of
presentation
histzory,
community,
meaning,
politics,
thought,
and
even
representation,
which
is
itself
also
one
f
these
instances). The
question
of
presentation
can
thus
be
read
as
the
question
of
exis-
taence,
or,
lilfyou like:
tle
question
of
bcing-in-the-world
2).
As
it
would
be impossible
to
review here
every
essay in
this
col-
lection
several
of
the
essays
are
individually
worthy
of an
entire
revicw),
l will
limit
myself
to
brief
summaries
of
three of
the
essays.
Lyotard
sets
himself
at the
cen-
ter
of
tzhe queston
of
t-he
unity of
the
three
critiquos;
in
particular,
how
the
Critique
o
Judgment
s
meant
to
provide
a
bridge
between
the
first
two
critiques,
between
theoretieal
and
practical
phloso-
phy,
between
the
capacity
of know-
ing and the capacity of
willing.
Aesthetc
feeling
s
supposed
tn
serve
as
the
ccntral
pillar
of
that
bridge.
ln
a
detailed
analysis
ofthe
notion
of
ntercst
in tle
analytics
of
both
the
beautiful
and
the
sub-
lime,
he
is
able
to ca11
into question
gr
at
least
complicate)
the very
possibility of
establishing this
bridge.
The
disinterestedness in
beauty
and
tlae interest
in
good-
ness
resist
tny
notion
or
a
uniGed
subje
ct,
of
a
ulli
ty among
i
ts
diverse
faculties.
This
disjunction
between
aestetics
m4d
ethics
does
ilot
go
uncontested, and
Lyotard
goes
as
far
as
he
can
in
recn-
structing
Kant s
arguments.
lIe
follows
two
selies
of
arguments
for
tlne relunification
of
aesthetics and
ethics
in the
Critlue
ofludgntent:
logical
and
teleological
argtments.
Tle
logical
arguments
isdraw
on
the
transcendental
properties
com-
mon
to
both aesthetic and moral
judgments, the
traits
shared
by
aesthetic
and moral
judgments
that
authorize
their
analogy
115).
Lyotard
attempts
to
demonstrate
in
s
eme
detail
tlat
the
family
resemblance
between
aesthetics
fmd
ethics
is
ultimately
structured
b
y
a
n i
m
p
r
o
b
a
b
1
e
a
n
a
1
o
g
y
:
ttlnterest
is
the
result,
in
ethics ,
in
aesthetics,
disinterest
initiates
fdaesthetics
designates taste
or
117).
In
order
to
find the nmnity theory); art is
itself displaced, or
)
the
beautiful with the
good,
the rataher placed
in
question
as a
work
teleological
argtunents draw
on
the
or
As a
task. The question of
the
regulative idea
of
a
nature final- sublime
is
therefore
essentially
ized in terms
of the model of
art/ tied
to
the
question f the
end
of
Practical reason should
be
able
to
art,
both
in the
sense
of telos and
fsnd
itself interested in the disin- cessation.
In the
sublime,
Nancy,
terested
pleasure that
ttnatural
citing
Benjamn,
Hedegger,
beauties arouse; there should
be
Adorno,
Bataille,
and Blanchot,
mz alliarce between
aesthetic
fayor
claims that
art
is
interrogated or
.
y
jyjjyya
d
etlical
respect.
Lyotard argeq
wprovoked
in view
o
some
that the
sublime,
however,
comes other
than art.
What could this
to
disorgani ze
thi
s
alliance
mean?
What
could this other be?
betweez
the
two
tsatisfactionsn).
And
how
does
the
suspenson of
Since t he
sacrifice of magination art
necessarily
call into
question
see
the
ftGeneral
Cnmmet
fol- the txask
of thought?
With
constant
h C
i tiq
ue tj
reference
to
Hegel
Nancy
oflkrs
an
o
wi
ng
j
2
9
of
t e
r
,
Judgment) is
not the
condition of
extremely
sensitive
and
nuanced
respect,
the
sacrifice
remains
use-
.
analysis
of
the
formlessness of the
less,
without
ethical
us.
Respect
sublime
although
he also
takes
takes place
without
condition.
It
account of the fact, according
to
cannot
be
acquired
n any
trade or Knnt, t hat
the
sublime
is
not
nec-
sacrifice. Being
a vgorous
affbct,
a essarily
fonuless).
lf tle beautful
violence of feeling,
the sublime
is a
question
of presentation
wth-
cannot
in
any
way
sel we tlae satis- out
the concept
of
an
object-and
faction of
reason.
ln
short,
enthu-.
for that reason perhaps
without
siasm is
not
pious. lt is the
p-rofaze subject-te
sublime offrs
up
the
if
not
profaning) way-anl--hub-
beautiful
to
its limit.
The
sublime
the aporetic way-of gaining
is
therefore
always
a
possibility of
access to
piety
131).
Lyotard
con- the
beautiful;
it is
always there,
cludes:
GIt
remans to
examine the
waiting
in
the
wings,
t,o carry
art
implicntons
of
this
disaster for the
ofr
to
the
l imits of
presentation:
dlt
unty
of the subject
and for
the
transforms
or
redirects
the entire
community
of
aesthetic)
feeling
motif f
presentation
34).
The
132).
sublime is
not
simply
beyond
form,
Jean-Luc Nanc/s The
Sublme
beyond
presentation,
but
is
a
kind
Offerng
attempts
to
take
the of
movcment of
the unlimted
that
reader
to
the lizft of the
question
ta ke s p la ce on
the border of the
of
relpresentaton-and thus
aes-
limit, and
thus on the
border of
thetics
if
not
philosophy-as
such.
presentation
35).4
Conversely,
In the subl ime there is a break
there
is
no
sublime
without the
within
or
from
aesthetics
whcther
possibility
of
beauty, fnnu,
or pre-
513
7/24/2019 Shapiro Resenha Sublime Nancy
3/5
7/24/2019 Shapiro Resenha Sublime Nancy
4/5
sentaticn.
Ths
initial
insight
enables
Nancy
t,o
trace,
ever
so
del-
icately, tie
limits
of
(relpresenta-
taion
and
imagination.
At
the
limit
it
is
no longer
a matter
of (relpre-
sentation
in
general
but
of
tsome-
thing
else,
something that
takes
place, happens,
or
occurs
in
thc
presentation
itsclf
and in
sum
through it
but
which
is
not
presen-
tation''
(37).
trf'he
sublime
is:
that
there
is
an
image,
hence
a
limit,
along
whose
edge
unlimitation
-
makes
itself
felt''
(38).
This tmlimi-
free
play
of
presentation
comes
into
contact
with
its
limit-which is
freedom.
Or more
exactly, freedom
itself
is
a
limit, because i ts
Idea
not
only cannot
be an
image but also
cannot-in
spite
of
Kant's
vocabu-
laly-be
an
Idea
(which
is
som
ething like a
hyper-
image,
a nonrepresentable
i
n)
age
) .
I t
m us
t
b
e
a n
offdng.
(48..49)
Nancy cncludes
that there
is
a
thought of
the
frering which
deses
the dstincton
between
aesthetics
tation,
movement,
efrusion,
synco-
pation,
lappening,
or
event,
Nancy
names
the
7/24/2019 Shapiro Resenha Sublime Nancy
5/5
lnow-how
or
activity
of
fabrication,
and
of mimesis
as
resemblalce,
we
find
that
in
uzzveiling
azz entirely
oter
mimesis is
at stake.
In
the
context of
Kant's
analytic
of
the
sublime
and
Heidegger's
reinter-
pretation
of
trush
as
unconceal-
ment
aletlciaj,
and
Mt,I
reference
to
Aristotle and
Longnus,
Lacoue-
Labarthe thus
reinterprets
the
relation
between mimcsis,
techne,
and physis.
Just how
Lacoue-
Labarthe
reilterprets mimesis,
fcFzzzey
and physis,
and
how
he
is
thus
able to
lmdermine
Hegel's
clo-
sure
of
aesthetics
and to
circum-
vent the
end
of
art
predicted
or
described by
Hegel (great art
is
still
possible,
Lacoue-Labarthe
afirms),
will
be
left
as
a
surprise
for
readers
of Ofthe
Sublime.
below
by
page
number
only.
3.
Recail
that
for
Kant
teleological
judgments
are
neither
theoretical
nor
practical
because they
deter-
mine
nothing
about
the
character
of
the
object.
We
judge
nature
itsel:
thugh
merely
by
analog,y
with
an art.
Nature
is
judged
a-s
if
it
were
made
possible
through
al,
i.e.,
in
its
subjective
relation
to
our
cognitive
power,
rather
than
in
ts
objectiva
relation
to
objects
(cf.
Critiqte
(IJJIZJCZnZNZI,
R
rs
t
IIl
tro
d
u
cti
on
,
''
j
1,
commenf')
4.
The
vel''y
langmage
of-
the
qimit''
implies
a
border
between
inside
and
out-side.
At
stzke
here
is
not
only
the
l
imi
t
or
b
order
of
a
(relpresentation?
image, fotma,
or
Gestalt
,
but
of
aesth'etic.s and
phi-
losophy
as
such.
'
Nan
cy's
i
nterpre
tati
on of
th
e
'off-el-ing''
(-asvs
o1l tlla
not-iolls
of-
''gft''
and
'Tsacl-if-ice''
in
I-ldeggel-
and
Deln-ida.
L
g
i c
a
,
L
e c c
i
o n e
s d
e
M .
Heidegger,
(semestre
verano
19
34
)
,
e
n
el
1 egad o
d e
i-I
el
e1)
e
Weiss,
Introduccin
y
traducci6n
de
Vi
ctor
Farf
as
,
Anthropo
s
,
Editorial
de1
Hombre,
Centro
de
Publicacienes
de
MEC,
Barcelona,
Espaa,
1991.
Joel B. Shapiro
Depaul University
NOTES
1.
Lacoue-Labarthe's
discussion
of
Heidegger's
notion
of
truth
is
clear and
detailed
eough
to
help
i
nterested
readers
unfam
i
1
i ar
with Heidagger
through
the
rest
ct-
the
volume.
The
difficulty
of
many o
these essays
is
due
less
t,o
any
stylistic
failure than to
the
subject
matter
itslf:
how
is
one
to
fbrnxulate
the
folvnlessness
o
tlae
sublime,
to
delimit the
vel'y
deformation
of
the
limit that
is
effect-ed
by
the
sublime?
O
tlc
Sltblimc (Albany:
SUNY
laress,
1993),
p.
1;
citd
in
the
text
The
relea
se
of th
s
bili
ngual
S
p
a
n
i
sh
-
G
e
rm
a
n
e
d
i
ti o
n t) f a
manuscript
fotmd n
Helel
Weiss'
bequest i
s,
without d
oubt,
an
im
p
rt
an t
p
ubli
cati
on
ev
eI
L.
Hitherto
scholars
have
notcd
tle
embarrassing
gap
in
publications)
mmauscripts,
and
Iecture notes
ccr-
responding
to
the
period durillg
which
Hedegger
was
most closely
associated
with
the
Nazis.
This
manuscript,
although
not
m
torigi-
nal'
from
Heidegger's
hand,
and
perhaps
precsely
because
of
that
a11
tle
better,
begns
both
to
fill-in
those
gaps
and
to
provide
addi-
tional
matezials
for
the
rectlnstnzc-
tion
of
Heidegger's
own
re-formula-
tions
tthe turning)
of
his
philosoph-
ical
project
n
view
of
his
political
engagement
and his
subseqent
.
*
disenchantment.
The
text
appears
in
the
very
prestigi ous
Spanish
series
of
Textos
y
Docunentos:
Cfcsco,s
del
Pensamiento
y
de
as C
iencias
,
published by
the
edito'rial
group
Antllropos,
in
ccoperation
with
thc
Ministry
of
Educatin and
Science.
In addition,
the
text
also
appears
wth the
permi
ssion
of
Ernst
Tugendhat,
the executor
of Helene
Weiss?
bequest. ln
his
boolt
Hcid-
egger
and
Nczs'zz;,
Victor
Faras
quoted
extensivcly
from
another
manuscript
contained
in Weks'
bequest,
particularly
in
his
discus-
sion
of
Heidegger's lectui.q
cn-
he
4iF
ndmcntal
Questicks
of
u
Philoscph/'
given during
the
sum-
mer
semester of
1933.1
T'hese
inci-
dentals
need
to
be
noted
so
as to
establish
the authenticity'
and
genuineness of the tcxt. Indeed,
Victor Faras
has
been
ridculed,
abused,
attacked,
and
criticized
for
a11
sorts
of
reasons,
but
the
legiti-
macy,
authenticity,
and,
one
might
even say
canonicity'
of
the
docu-
ments he
has
used
has
not
been
ut
in
queston.
The
question
of
p
how
he has
iptzerpreted
these
texts,
however,
is
another
issue.
The bo
o1t
i
s
ma d e
up
of
a
lengthy
introduction by
Farfas
and
the
bilngual
text,
German ()n
nc
side,
Spanish
on
the
other.
The
body
of
the
text
appears
wthout
any
editorial interventions,
that
is,
without footnotes,
etc.
As
Faras
states
in
tle
introducton,
he only
changed
the
obvous
errors
of
spellng
and
grammar.
For
this
reason,
since
Spanish
is
necessary
only
to
read
tlnc introducton?
the
text
can be
an
useful
tool to
any
German
speaking
person,
and t-hus
can
be
an
useful
addition
to
the
Heidegger
library
of
primary
mate-
rials.
ln
what
follows,
1
will suc-
cinctly
review
the
contents of
the
manuscript,
reconstructng
thc
thread
of
the
argument
and calling
attention
to
some
or
its
interesting
aspects.
As
is
well
ltnown,
. l l iegger
was
scheduled,
in
the
summer
semester
of
1934,
tzl
teach
a
course
cn
the
state.
This
course was
can-
celed,
and
nstead
Heidegger
taught
a
course
on
logic.
The
manuscript
here
tmder
review
is
based
precisely
on
the
notes
and
reception of
that
lecture
courseoz
It
is
not
dcar,
however,
at
least
not
in any
of
the
documentation of
whi ch
1 am aware,
why
thi s
change
took place, especially
when
on:
considers
that
n
this
manuscript
of
a
student's
notes
from
the
summer
course
of
1934,
the
question of
the
state
is
ndeed
brnached,
if
not exclusively,
at
least
extensively.
In
view
of
this,
one
can
speculate as
to
the
philo-
soplaical
reasons
behind
a
shift
in
focus,
as
opposed
to
a
purely
politi-
516