FilosofiaEvil Monstrosity

5/14/2018 FilosofiaEvil Monstrosity - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/filosofiaevil-monstrosity 1/19

Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia

Evil, Monstrosity and The SublimeAuthor(s): Richard KearneyReviewed work(s):Source: Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, T. 57, Fasc. 3, Desafios do Mal: Do Mistério à Sabedoria(Jul. - Sep., 2001), pp. 485-502Published by: Revista Portuguesa de FilosofiaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40337638 .

Accessed: 23/01/2012 10:03

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

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

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

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

Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Revista

Portuguesa de Filosofia.

http://www.jstor.org

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40337638?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40337638?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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



R.P.F.57-2001

Evil,Monstrositynd TheSublime

Richard Kearney*

Abstract. This rticleresents varietyfphilosophicalnswerso the ge oldquestion:

undemalum where oes evil ome rom? tarting ith hemetaphysicalesponsesfAugustine,egel ndKant, t roceeds o examineomemore ecentpproaches Lyo-tard, ristevand Zizek intermsfthe postmodernublime'. e concludesy ropos-ing 'hermeneutic'esponseothe roblem,nspiredyPaulRicoeur, hicheeks o d-dresshe uestionntermsfnarrativenderstandingndpracticalction.

Key Words:Abject;Action;Aesthetics; lterity;ugustine,t; God; Hermeneutics;Holocaust; I y a; Kant,E.; Kristeva, .;Law; Levinas, .; Lyotard, ean-Francois;Monstrosity; ourning;Myth;Narrative; ewAge; Original in; Other; assivity;Phronesis; ostmodernity;sychoanalysis; esponsibility;icoeur, .; Sin; Subli-me;Suffering;heodicy; ranscendence; iolence; izek, lavoj.

RESUMO: presentertigopresentarnaèrie erespostasilosóficas¿memorialuestuo:undemalum quala origemo mal?Partindo asrespostas etafísicaseSantoAgosti-nho, egel Kant, autor xaminaepois lgumas asabordagens ais ecenteso pro-blema Lyotard,risteva Zizek em termoso 'sublimeós-moderno. O artigo on-cluí omurnaropostahermenéuticapara oproblema,roposta ssa nspirada open-samentoe Paul Ricoeur cujoobjectivoelucidar questuo o malem ermose urna

compreensàoarrativade accàopràtica.

Palavras-Chave: Abjecto; ccào;Agostinho,t; Alteridade;eus; Estetica; ermenéuti-ca; Holocausto;Iy a; Kant, ; Kristeva,.;Lamento; a; Levinas, .; Lyotard,.-F.;Mito;Monstruosidade;arrativa; ewAge;Outro; assividade;ecadoOriginal; eca-do; Phronesis; ós-modernidade;sicanálise;Responsabüidade;icoeur, aul; Sofii-mento;ublime; eodicea;Transcendencia;iolencia;izek,

lavoj.

oftheoldest onundrums fhuman houghts undemalum?Wheredoesevil come from?Whatare theorigins f evil - human,natural, upernatu-ral? And what,by implication,s the character nd content f evil - sin,

suffering,atastrophe, eath? We beginwith a briefgenealogicalanalysisof evilfrom heearlymythologicalnd biblicalaccountsto themodemtheories f Leib-niz and Kant,beforeproceeding n the second partto a critical iscussion of the

postmodernreatmentf evil as sublime nd/ormonstrous.We will concludewithan outline f some 'ethical' responsesto theenigmaof evil in terms f narrative

understandingndaction.

*Boston ollegeChestnutill,Mass USA) e UniversityollegeDublin,rlanda).

© Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, 57 (2001), 485-502



486 Richard Kearney

I.

In an essay entitledEvil, A Challengeto Philosophy nd Theology'1, aul Ri-coeur offers hermeneuticritique f differentiscursive esponses o evil: myth,lament,wisdomand theodicy.These genres epitomisevariousways in whichthehumanmind nd imagination ave soughtwaysofsaying heunsaying, ftryingo

representheostensibly nrepresentablenigmaof evil.

The first iscursive enre myth allows for he ncorporationfevil intogreatnarrativesf origin'Mircea Eliade). These genealogicalnarrativeseek to explaintheorigin fevil in terms f thegenesisof thecosmos- cosmogeny.Theyoffer

'plot' whichconfigureshemonstrosityfevil,explaining he ourceof theobsceneand thereby aking ome of the shock out of it Such mythic pectaclesmake the

foreign uriouslyfamiliar,he unbearablebearable,theoutrageous ccessible.AsAristotle oted nhisPoetics, II, 4-iv,3: 'There is theenjoyment eoplealways getfrom epresentations....wenjoy lookingat accurate ikenesses f thingswhich arethemselves ainful o see, such as obscene beasts and corpses'. In mythologicallegendsand dramas, onsiderations f human moral choice are inextricablyinkedtocosmological yclesoffate, estiny rpredestination.he evil figures the alien-atedfigure,hats,a selfdeterminedysome force eyond tself.

The second discursivegenre lament differentiatesetweenevil as wrong-

doingand evil as suffering.amentrefers o an evil thatbefallsus from utside.By contrast,lamerefers o evil that rises fromwithin s and thatwe arerespon-sible for.Or toputitanotherway, if ament ees us as victims, lame makescul-

prits f us2.The fact s,ofcourse, hat hesetwocategories realmost lways nter-twined nbiblicalaccounts, s in the Adam storywheretheserpent ymbolises nexternal ocus of seduction nd where he fallresultsnAdam's own senseof inner

guilt nd culpability.We can feelguilty or ommittingn evil act while simultane-

ouslyexperiencinglienationr nvasion yanoverwhelmingorce romwithout.

Mythproceedstowardswisdom our third iscursive ategory to the extentthatwe notonlyrecount heorigins f evil but also seek to ustifywhysuch is the

case foreach one ofus. In short,whilemythnarrates, isdomargues3.t seeks toaddressthequestionnotonlyofwhybutwhyme? The Wisdomgenre urns amentinto legal complaint.ttries o makemoral sense of themonstrous. n exemplarycase here s theBook of Job whereGod and manengage ndialogueaboutthe na-ture f creation nd covenant.With uch Wisdomliterature,heenigmaof evil be-comes less a matter f metaphysical ivenessthan of interpersonalelationshu-

1P. Ricoeur,Evil:A ChallengeoPhilosophyndTheology'nFiguringhe acred:Re-ligion, arrativend magination,ortressress,ndianapolis,995.2

Ibid., .250.Lawrenceanger otes similarialecticnthesplit' estimoniesfcertain

holocausturvivors hospeak f dividedelves one self hatdoes' andthe therhat s'done o'(Lawrenceanger, olocaust estimonies,aleUniversityress,991, .47).

Ibid., . 252. See also Ricoeurs classic ermeneuticccountfthe enealogyfevil nSymbolismf vil, eacon ress, oston,967.

Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, 57 (2001), 485-502



Evil, Monstrosity and The Sublime 487

man-human rhuman-divine).n theconclusion oJob, rgumentsboutretributionand usticeare ultimatelyurned o a contemplative isdomof love: Job earnstoloveYahweh fornought' ndefiance f Satan'swager ttheoutset fthe tory.

Wisdom discoursegives way to 'speculative' discoursewiththedevelopmentof Christian heology.Augustine s thefirst reat dvocate of thisposition n hisanswer to thegnostics. n order o show that vil is not a substance mplantedntheuniversebut a punishmentpoena) forhumansin (peccatum),Augustine n-vents newcategory,nothingness' nihil).Evil is now construed s a deficencyn

beingwhich amounts o a privation f goodness privatioboni). If there s evü intheworld,therefore,t can onlybe the result f humanaction- that s, an act of

turningway from hegood beingof God towards lackofbeing.Augustine husproposesa radicallymoralvisionof evil whichreplacesthegenealogicalquestionUndemalum?with hequestionofwilfulhumanwrongdoing,Undemalum acia-mus? The cause ofevil is not to be found ncosmologybut n some form f willedaction the sinsof the bad will'. This leads in turn, f course,to a penalview of

historywhereno one suffers njustly. veryonegetstheir eward nd all pain is a

recompense or in.

The difficultyorAugustine nd subsequent heologywas how to reconcile hisextreme ypothesis f moralevil with heneed to give sin a 'supraindividuaPnd

historical-genericccount n order o explainhow sufferings notalways ustly p-

portioneds a retributionor ndividual ins. n countless ases it s clearly xcessive.In otherwords, fevil is something e as humans o, it s also done tous: somethingwe inherit,omethinglready here.Augustinehus ought o reinterpretheGenesistale oforiginal in in order o rationalisehis pparentlyrrationalaradox:namely,we areresponsible utnotentirely esponsible or he vil we commit r endure.Byconjoiningwithin heconceptof a sinfulnature hetwoheterogeneous otions f a

biological ransmissionhrough enerationnd an individualmputationf guilt, henotion foriginal inappears s a quasi-concept...'4.

It was buta short tepfrom heseAugustinian peculations n original in tothe

fully-fledgedheodicees f Western nto-theology.hus we findLeibniz,for xam-

ple, invoking heprinciple f Sufficient eason to accountfor the udicious balan-cingofgoodwith vil n the bestofallpossibleworlds'.And ifthis alancing ct ofretributionndcompensations attributedothe nfinite ind fGod byLeibniz, t s

dialecticallyumanised y Hegel andtheGerman dealists.Hegel's 'cunning f rea-son' silences he candalofsufferingy subsuminghe ragicnto triumphantogicwhere ll that s real s rational.Herethe hubris f systematicpeculation eaches tsuntenable xtreme.The morethesystem lourishes,hemore itsvictims re mar-

ginalized.The successofthesystems itsfailure. uffering,s what s expressed ythevoicesof amentation,swhat he ystemxcludes'5.

4Ricoeur,Evil:AChallengeoPhilosophyndTheology',.254.

3Ibid. .257.




488 Richard Kearney

In thisrespect,Hegeliantheodicymight e said to mark he extreme f notonlyspeculativerationalism, romotedby the Enlightenment,ut also of a mysticaltheologydear to certain omantics: he atter eems questionsof good and evil tobe the lower concerns of a radically ranscendent odhead who residesbeyondboth- and by implicationwell beyondourmerelyfinite umanunderstanding.certainversion of romanticmystical heodicythus emergeswhich subordinatesindividualwill to theprovidential ill ofGod who knows better hanwe evercan

whyevil is visited n ourunsuspecting orld.Since God is really super-essentialtranscendence eyondtheoppositesof good and evil, it is impossible o attribute

anythingo him- even goodness,wisdomor eternity in anyproper ense. The

mystical scentbringsus so far nto henothingnessfthe via negativa hatwe arestruck umb before he bsolute. My argument',s DionysiustheAreopogite aid,'now rises fromwhat s below up to thetranscendent,nd themore tclimbs, hemore anguagefalters,nd when thas passed up andbeyondthe scent, t will turnsilent ompletely, ince it will finally e at once with himwho is indescribable'6.

Commentingn this pophaticwaywhichgoes 'beyondtheGood', Derridaoffersthiscurious remark:Evil is evenmore devoid of essence thantheGood. Let us

draw, fpossible, ll the mplicationsfthis trangexiom'7.

But neither ersionoftheodicy rationalist rmystical canprovide convin-

cing answerto theprotest f unjust suffering: hyme? This protest ightlynd

righteouslyontinues o echothroughhememoirs f evil fromJob nd Getsemeneto Hiroschima nd Auschwitz.Nor can theodicy esist hedebunking f 'rational

theology' npart hree fKant's Critique fPure Reason. Indeed thegreatness fKantwas to recognise heneed to pass from purely theoretical' xplanation fevil to a more practical'one. This move from peculative xplanation o moral-

politicalaction liberates he insight hat vil is somethingwhichoughtnot to beand needs to be struggled gainst.By de-alienatingvil and making t a matter f

contingency ather hannecessity cosmogenic, theological,metaphysical r his-

torical),Kantbrought s facetofacewith heresponsibilityfaction.

I might dd here,by way of footnote,hat f Kantfreedus from heexcess of

rationalist peculationon evil he also warned against the opposite extremeofdrunken rationalismwhathe called Schwàrmerei), hesortof mysticalmadnesswhich ubmits o evilas an alienpowerthat nvades and overwhelms s at a whim.This latter iew typifies otonlybelief ndemonicpossessionbutalso themysticalprofessionof the 'dark side of God' runningfromthe gnosticsand Bruno to

6Dionysius,MysticalTheologyii 1033 c) from seudo-Dionysius:TheCompleteWorks,

Classics ofWesternpirituality,rans, olmLuibheid, ondon, SPCK, 1987.J.Derrida,Derrida,Commentne Pas Parler' nPsyche: nventions e l'autre,Galillée,

Paris,1987,p. 571. The translationsmyown. It seemsto me thatHeidegger s skirtingimilar

zones of indistinctionndprivationwhen he declares hat t s not n anykind ofpersonalorcommunal xperienceErlebnis)that he Last God' appearsbutonly n somemysticalabys-mal space' whichdefies anguage ndreducesus to silence BeitràgezurPhilosophic,GA 65,Klostermann,rankfurt,992,p. 416).

RevistaPortuguesa de Filosofia, 57 (2001), 485-502




Bòhme, Schellingand Jung e.g. AnswertoJob). By taking hemystique ut ofevil,Kant removed ome of itscaptivating ower.He enabledus to see that vil isnot propertyf someexternal emon ordeity uta phenomenon eeplyboundupwiththeanthropologicalondition. vil ceases to be a matter fparanoid projec-tion or sacrificial capegoating nd becomes instead n affair f humanresponsi-bility.Absolutistdualitiesare overcome. One's self becomes oneself-as-anotherand one's other ecomes another-as-oneself.

But evenKant could nottotally gnore heaporetic haracter f evil. For ifhe

clearly alled for responsewithin he imits fpracticalhumanreason,he couldnevercompletely enysome residual nscrutabilityUnerforschbarkeit)o evil. At

one point ndeed,Kant states hat heremaybe 'no conceivablegroundfromwhichthe moral evil in us could originally ave come'8. The lament f Why? Whyme?

Whymybeloved child? remains s troublinglynigmatic s ever. Victimsof evilcannotbe silencedwitheither ational xplanation theodicy)or irrationalubmis-sion (mysticism). heir storiescryout forotherresponsescapable of addressingboth he lterityndthehumanityfevil.

II.

But in addition o thespeculative nd mysticalmovements, iscussedabove, I

would identify third endency oremove vil from herealmof a properly umaninterpretation:hat call a postmodern eratologyfthe ublime.This thirdmove-mentfocuseson the 'monstrous'character f evil, variouslyassociating t with

'horror',unspeakability',abjection', privation' r nothingness'.In therealmofthesublime, heupwardly ranscendentinds tsmirror-imagen

thedownwardlymonstrous orwhat Kant called radicalevil'. Both extremes reso marked ytheexperience fradicalalterityhat hey ransgresshe imits f re-

presentation;nd for everalpostmodernuthors ikeLyotard,Kristeva nd Zizek,the two sometimes ecome virtuallyndistinguishable9.n thisschema,the mons-

trosityf horror s ust as 'ineffable' s thevertical ranscendencefGod (invoked

by Levinas and thenegativetheologians).There is, in short, n apophasis of themonstrous s there s an apophasis of the divine.To render hese two apophaticextremesnterchangeables to revert o the tohu bohu of the ly a which, s I un-derstandt,rejects ny ethicalnotion f the divine as unequivocallygood. In 'TheDialectics of Unspeakability', eterHaidu applies this kind of argument o thelimit-case f contemporaryvil- the Holocaust: The impossibilityhat ttends he

representationsftheEvent the Shoah) as well as itsdesignation s a uniqueeventwitha special statusof 'exceptionality',ooks verymuch like the initial tageofthe nstitutionalisationfthe divine.As such, t willbe a divinity nlike hatwhich

8I. Kant, eligionithinhe imitsfReason lone, ewYoric, arperorchbooks,1960,.38. ee lsoRicoeur,Evil', p.citp.258-9.

Berel ang, heRepresentationfLimits'nProbinghe imitsfRepresentation,d-itedy aul riedlander,arvardniversityress,992.




490 Richard Kearney

we inherit s Jews, s Christians, r as atheists. he unspeakabilityf theEvent,thehorrorwhich comes upon thehistorian s his gaze fixeson the documents fhisresearch, nters nto traditionf the neffabilityhich attends ppearances fthedivine.The toposof neffabilitys associatedbothwith heexperience fhorrorand with thatof the sublime. What I wish to designate,however,precedesthatdistinction: heirruptionsntohuman ifeof the divineas thatwhich s awesome,thatwhichstrikes s with error,nexplicable ecause of theunpredictabilityf itsviolence as well as theforce f that iolence.Divinity eremight e thenamegiventhatviolence WalterBenjaminconsidered onstitutivea reference lso notedbyDerrida)'10.This,claimsHaidu, s a notion fdivinity hichpreexistshe moralisa-

tionofdivinitynder he ignofmonotheism.t is a concept fdivinity,e conclu-des, that s pre- udaic,ntractablenmoral erms,nwhichdivinity ypasseshuman

understanding,otnecessarily s desirableperfection,ut equally as an object of

profound epugnance.t is a concept fdivinity hich ulture nd civilisation s weknowthem, old atbay,renderingt lso unspeakable'

1 .

Himmler nd his Nazi acoylites ndorsed uchan ominous pophasis f themon-

strous,whenthey pokeof the holocaust s a sublime nd sacredglory hat ouldneverbe written,pokenor representedein niemalsgeschriebenes ndniemals uschreibendes uhmesblatt nsererGeschichte). he order o exterminateheJews,Himmlermaintained, artakes f an 'unspeakablesacredorder'Heiligkeit es Be-

fehls)12. y this ccount, erversely,heexemption f theholocaust rom heexperi-enceofhumanhistoricity,ndits bsolution rom ll limits f human omprehensionand context,makeit a 'sacred' event, n absolute ecretwhosevery trangenessnduncanninessUnheimlichkeit)onstitutetsgloriously pophaticmonstrosity13.neshudders efore uch ogic.

Postmodern hinkers ikeZizek, Kristevaor Lyotardcould not,of course,befurtheremoved, olitically, romNationalSocialism.My point s rather hat heirversions f thesublime re such as to leave one speechlessattimesbefore hehor-rorof evil.By way ofunpacking omeunsettlingonsequencesof suchspeechless-ness, etmesaya word abouteach inturn.

a) Kristevand theHorrificublime

'The abject s edged with hesublime',writesKristeva n Powers ofHorror14.

Abjection s defined yKristeva s an experience f the abominablereal' prior o

any sense of an ego or of identifiablebjects.As such it s an objectless nd bor-

10Peter aidu,TheDialecticsfUnspeakability'nProbinghe imitsfRepresentation,p.284.11

Ibid,p.284.

^ Ibid., .288.13Ibid,p.292.Julia risteva,owers fHorror: nEssay nAbjection,olumbia niversityress,

1982, . 11.





derlineexperienceof somethingmonstrouslylien and disturbingwhich fills uswithbothrepulsion nd a perverse ttraction. his mixture f disgust nd fascina-tionbefore he bject s close to Kant's descriptionf the sublime' in TheCritiqueof Judgments a melangeof terrornd exultationthough he does notexplicitlymentionKant). The terror omes from he fact that he abjectrefers o no-thing,that s, to an archaicand unnameablenon-object hatdefies language.The symp-tom of abjection s described ccordingly s 'a languagethatgives up, a structurewithin hebody, a non-assimilable lien,a monster...thathe listening evices oftheunconsciousdo nothear'15.And theway in which most aesthetic r religiousmovements ry o deal withthis defiance s to sublimate'theabjecttion y trying

to find name for t. n thecase ofthe ymptom, am invaded ndpervadedbytheabject, myself ecome abject In thecase of sublimation, y contrast, somehow

manageto give a kind of quasi-presentationo theunpresentable. insist n nam-

ingwhat cannotbe named.Rather ike Marlowe in Heart ofDarknesswhen he re-lates hefinalwordsof Kurtz: The horror,hehorror!'

Kristevagoes on to definethe sublime as 'objectless' or at best as a kindof

pseudo-object hatdissolves into bottomlessand archaiclyrepressed)memories

strikings witha sense of both oss and dazzlement, f alienation nd exaltation.The sublime, he explains, is somethingdded that xpandsus,overstrainss, andcauses us to be bothhere, s dejects, nd there, s others... verythingmisses, oy-

fascination'6. he thengoes on to link this ublimeexperience f theabjectas anexperience f thatwhichwe are forbidden o experienceby the ncest aboo- the

repressedmaternal ody.The primordial eceptacle f fusionwith he ndetermina-ble (m)Other.Khora. Pre-being.Death. 'The abjectshattershewall of repressionand its udgments.t takestheego back to itssourceon the abominable imits rom

which, n order o be, theego has broken way- itassigns t a sourceinthenon-

ego, drive, nd death'17. hat s why abjection s intrinsicallyelated operversionand transgression. he repudiation f moralitynd law. The allureof criminalityand corruptions thesocialized equivalenceof theabject.Whatwe witness n thesublimecult oftheabject- witnessed or nstance n popularculture'sfascination

withoutlaws,felonsand psychopaths is the crossingover of the dichotomouscategories f Pureand Impure, rohibitionnd Sin,Morality nd Immorality'18.rwemightdd,withoutwishing o be moralistic, ood and evil.

In thereligiousdomaintheabject takes the formof thatwhich is defiled or

polluted, hereforevil and to be excludedandpurified. s suchabjection s linkedtothatmoment foriginaryacrificial iolence ntegralo all religious oundations

(according o FreudandKristeva);but tremainshidden ndrepressed ythe sub-

limating' aws and liturgies f thesereligions, nly remergingn all itsestrangingmonstrosityhenthese amebegintofall part.The collapseof religion and the

15Ibid, p.1-12.10Ibid, .12." Ibid, .15.l*Ibid, .16.




492 Richard Kearney

Law of the ather hichnscribest markshe ollapse f theOthers such; ndthereforeriggersreturnotheprimordialusionndconfusionpriorosubjectandobject) f the bject. orthe bject s noneother han herepressedlostob-ject' itself,he abominableeal', heunnameablething' das Ding)which s theother aceof that aradisewe lostwhenwe enteredheworld fegosand others.Wecannot nderstandocialorethicalttitudeso evilunlesswegrasp he rchaicprocess fabjectionnd sublimationhichiesat theunconsciousoot ftheLawas such.Taking s example he nihilisticpossessed'of Dostoyevsky'samousnovel of thesamename,Kristevawrites:Abjectionhenwaversbetweenhefading wayofall meaningndall humanity,urnts bytheflames fa con-

flagration,ndtheecstasy fan ego that, avingost ts Other nditsobjects,reaches,tthe recisemomentf this uicide,heheightfharmonyith he ro-mised and'19. nceagain,we encountervilportrayeds a sublime dmixturefterrorndexhuberance.hatwhichs beneath eing ising p from ts bysmaldepthso high,o manic,o excessivendtransgressivehat tpassesbeyond e-ing ltogether.romnon-beingonon-being.rivatio oni.Returnf the epres-sed.Vengeancefthe allen. heveryore fmodern ihilism.

b) Lyotardnd theAestheticublime

Lyotard's pproach o thesublime s more esthetichanpsychoanalytic.truns omethingikethis: he sublime' s a categoryordealingwith xperienceswhichrebeyond ategories.t sa sort f elf-negatingame or he xperiencefanalterityo 'unnameable'hat tmaybe ascribedo eitherbsolute ranscendence(Lyotard,ollowingarnett ewman, ites heexample f theHebrewmakom,which etells s is one ofthenames iven ytheTorah o the ord, heUnname-able'20.As such the ublime ellsus nothingboutwhathappens utonlythatsomethingappened,hat n event einEreignisnHeidegger'sanguage) ookplace. thas more o do with he uodthanwith he uid.Thesublimes indeter-minate nd ndeterminablend nspiresnus,as Kant ndBurke ndother heo-rists romhe eventeenth

enturynargue,

hepeculiarlyontradictoryeeling

f'pleasure ndpain, oy andanxiety,xaltationnddepression'21.hesublime sthatmark ftheunforeseeablend ncommensurable,f the nexplicablend n-comprehensible,hich efies ll rules ndreasons,ndultimatelyeduces s tosilence thatmost ndeterminateffigures'22.artingompany ith he elebra-ted riteriaf tscounterpartbeauty' namely armony,urposiveness,aste ndmeaning,heone whoexperiencesrbearswitness o the ublime ecomeswhatKantandtheromanticsall a genius: he involuntaryddressee' f some ns-

19Ibid, p. 18.

Jean-Francoisyotard,The Sublimeand theAvant-Garde' n TheInhuman, tanfordUniversityress,1988,pp. 89-90.21

Ibid.,p. 92.22Ibid.,p. 95.





pirationcome to him/her roman 'I know not what'23.Citing the claim inBoileau's formativereatise u Sublime 1674), that he sublime s notthatwhichcan be provenor demonstatedut a 'marvel whichseizes and strikes ne', Lyotardoffers iis specifically esthetic op-spin: The very mperfections,hedistortionsof taste, ven ugliness,have their harein the shock-effect. rtdoes not imitate

nature,t creates worldapart... ineNebenwelt, nemight ay inwhichthemons-trousand the formlesshave theirrightsbecause theycan be sublime'24.Beforesuchsublimity,hehuman elf finds tself educed onothing,xposedto the nhu-manfeeling fbeing dumb, mmobilized,s good as dead'25.

And lastly, romBurke's Philosophical nquiry ntotheOriginofour Ideas of

the Sublimeand theBeautiful 1757), Lyotardretains he curious associationofsublimity ith terror' a terror hich s in turn inkedwith hedangerof impen-dingdeath or destruction. e offers hefollowing nventoryf examples: priva-tion of light, errorf darkness; rivation f others, error f solitude;privation f

objects,terror f emptiness; rivation f life,terror f death'26.And one cannot

help addingthe most obvious of all privations theprivation f good (privatioboni), terror f evil! What is terrifying,bove all, explains Lyotard, s thatthatevents no longerhappenor stop happening, hat s, cease to be. An echo of Au-

gustine'sequationof evil with radicalnon-being r nothingness.ndeed Lyotardhimself ellingly itesBurke's allusionto the evil 'universeof death' whereends

theourney f fallen ngels nMilton'sParadise Lost.Butwhile thepostmodernublime hareswithBurke,Kant and the romantics

sense ofontological islocation,ogether ith he bandonmentfourpowersto un-

derstand,here s something ifferentbout t. For whileKant and Burke tillheld tothe dea that he hocking ndrupturingharacterf the ublimemight e somehowrenderedn 'sublimeobjects'whichtook some of thepain out of theterrornd of-fered s somecatharticompensationhowever intense' nd agitated'), hepostmo-dern vant-gardeffers o such solace. Today sublime esthetics rides tself n its

incomprehensibilityothepublic,preserving ostmodern orks n museumsorgal-leries s 'tracesof offensiveshatbearwitness o thc.privation f thespirit'27.he

postmodernublime estifiesoan increasinglyobjectless' rt, e itperformancert,minimalism,appenings, luxus,mmaterialismr artepovera. In each case we areconfronted ith negative ialectic fprivation. yotards aware of how such anaestheticsfsublime hockand disorientationan be convertednto certain ult ofthemarvellously onstrousührer, esidingikea Messianicdeity eyondgood andevil. 'The aesthetics f the sublime',he concedes, ... converted ntoa politicsof

myth,was able to come and build its architecturesf human formations' n the

23Ibid.,p.96.24Ibid.,p. 97.25

Ibid.,p. 100.26Ibid. .99."Ibid., . 101.




494 Richard Kea rney

Zeppelin Feld in Numberg'28.He even acknowledges certainperverse lliancebetween heaesthetics f thesublime nd theimmaterializingendencies f globalcapitalismwhich makes 'reality ncreasingly ngraspable, ubject to doubt, un-

steady',and replaceshistorical enerational xperiencewithshort-lived,upturinginformation-data29.n bothcases, eclecticism, astiche nd simulation revail.ButwhatLyotard ails o grasp, n all this, s that hesamepostmodernult of the sub-lime which can degeneratento the inhuman rtifices f fascism nd limitless on-sumer apitalism an also depriveus of anyaccess - narrative,maginativer intel-lectual totherealityfevil that heholocaust mbodies.

In short, yotard's postmodern eadingof Kant's notionof thesublimehas it

aiming not to supplyreality utto invent llusions to (that)which cannotbe pre-sented'30. t is because the terror' f the holocausthas become absolute',by vir-tue of its incomparable ingularity,hat t cannotbe said or represented. ua un-

speakabletrauma,trequires pparently ota 'talking ure' but silence. A silencewhichLyotard elates xplicitlyo a postmodernesthetic f thesublime.Lyotard'spost-holocaust oetics husradicalisesAdorno's dictum hat fterAuschwitzpoetryis impossible.His impossible oetics signalsan uncompromisingavant-gardist'e-

jectionofall modes of narrativeepresentationnd discourse.Whathe proposes s

actually loser owhat would call a post-poeticsf silence31.

Finally, t s surely omewhatronic, fnotdisquieting,hat yotard an attribute

the same model of the sublime to theunspeakable vil of the Holocaust and theequally unspeakable lterityf the HebrewLord. CitingKant's famous llusiontothe biblicalprohibitionn images,Lyotardwrites: The dislocation f thefaculties

amongthemselves ivesriseto theextremeensionKantcalls itagitation)hat har-acterizes hepathosofthesublime...At theedge ofthebreak, nfinity,r the abso-luteness f the dea can be revealed n whatKant calls a negativepresentation,reven a non-presentation.e citestheJewish awbanning magesas an eminent x-

ample of negativepresentation:ptical pleasurewhen reduced o nearnothingnesspromotes n infiniteontemplationf infinity... vant-gardisms thuspresent n

germ nthe Kantian esthetic f thesublime'32. his capacity, oweverunremarked

28Ibid.,p. 104.29Ibid.,p. 105.

30J.-F.Lyotard,ThePostmodernCondition,MinnesotaUniv. Press,Minneapolis,1984,pp.79f.

For a moresympatheticeading f Lyotard'spost-Holocaustesthetics f thesublime,see Geoffrey artman,The Book of Destruction',nProbingtheLimites f Representation,pp. 320 f.

J.-F.Lyotard,The Sublime and theAvant-Garde', . 98. One should also notehere

Lyotard's ttempto link thical onsiderations ith heunspeakabilityf the hoah inHeideg-ger and theJews,UniversityfMinnesotaPress,Minneapolis, 990. We comment n this t-

temptn ouressay, Narrative nd theEthics ofRemembrance' n Questioning thics, d. R.Kearney nd M. Dooley,Routledge, ondon andNew York, 1999,pp. 27-3 1.On therelation-

shipbetweenmonstrosityndthe esthetics f thesublime ee also Derrida, he Truth nPain-

ting, hicago Universityress,Chicago,1987,pp. 142-3,349-351. Here Derrida xplores inks




Evil, Monstrosity nd The Sublime 495

byLyotardimself,oequate he nspeakabilityf heMostHigh ordmakom)ndof hemostbyssalvil prìvatìooni) ives oom or ause.

c) Zizek and the MonstrousSublime

Zizek, for his part,drives this postmodern esthetic f the sublime furtherstill33. bserving hat orKantboththemonstrousdas Ungeheure) nd thesupra-sensiblerealm of thegood/lawbelong to the domain of thenoumenal,Zizek sur-misesthat hey re thereforehesame. As soon as we come too close to theLaw,'its sublimemajesty urns nto obscene abhorrentmonstrosity'34.hatappearsas

good from ursubjectivehumanist erspectives in fact, n itself, vil. 'What ourfinitemindperceives s thesublimemajesty fthemoralLaw is in itself he mon-

strosityf a crazysadisticGod'35.Which is perhapsone reasonwhyLacan, Zi-zek's mentor, as so obsessedwith herelation etweenKant and de Sade.

In Kant,thesepostmodernsrgue,thesublimeLaw comes tooccupytheplaceof thenoumenalGod of Exodus. We know that heLaw is butnot what t s. Lawsomehowwithdraws rom ts varioustemporal ncarnations,eavingus guilty ndoftenterrified36.itingKant's equation of 'diabolical evil' with themonstroussublime in the ThirdCritique,Zizek claims that the impossiblecontent f the

betweenhemonstrous,he ublimendthe ncalculable/incommensurable/incomparableha-racterfalterity.hese inks reteased ut nsection of thiswork ntitled,TheColossal',where erridaevisitsant's nalyticfthe ublimen TheCritiquefJudgment.e exploresKant'sdefinitionfthemonstrows'fangeheuer)s anythinghose ize defeatshe ndthatformsts oncept'.herelatedotionfthecolossalkolossalisch)s understoods 'themere

presentationfa concept hichs almost oogreat or resentation,.e. bordersn therela-

tivelymonstrous'.he sublimend themonstrousoth perateccordingoa double enti-ment fattraction/recoilhich cknowledgeshe ublimeharacterfthe ollosal/monstrousas bothn excess',surplus'nd superabundance'nthe nehand,nd implosive,egative

'abyss'nthe ther.n ordero

tryoapprehend

hatsuncontainablendunpresentableyour magination,e are ompelledorecoil,ake distance,rom he ublime/monstrous/co-

lossal.Andhere, uriously,t theveryimit fperception,omprehensionnd magination,Derridaeems orecognizecertainemand or arrative:does not hedistanceequiredorthe xperiencef he ublimepen pperceptiono he pace fnarrative?'(p.42).

33Slavoj izek, he lague f antasies, erso, ondon, 997, p.218-229.S. Zizek,TheUnconsciousaw' inThe lague f antasies,.21 .

35Ibid.See Gilíes eleuze, notheradical ostmodernheoristn this ubject:By establishing

THE LAW as anultimateround. the bject fthe aw s bydefinitionnknowablendelusive. learly HE LAW,as definedy tspure orm, ithoutubstancerobject fanydeterminationhatsoever,s such hat ooneknows or anknowwhat t s. toperates ith-

outmakingtselfnown.t defines realm ftransgressionhere ne is already uiltyndwhereneoverstepshe oundswithoutnowing hat heyre...' (GilíesDeleuze, oldnessandCruelty,oneBooks,NewYork, 991,pp.82-83. ee Zizek'spsychoanalyticommen-

tarynthis,bid., p. 25-227).




496 Rich a rd Kea rney

moralLaw as pure orm s 'diabolical evil"37. n otherwords, nthehighestnstan-ce of noumenal xperience contactwith heLaw - the human ubjectfinds tselfobliteratedn a sortof Kafkaesque confusion f sublimeproportions. or what tencounters ere is nothing ther hanthe unconscious' of the Good: that s, themonstrous. The subjectdisintegrates,bliteratestself, hemoment t comes tooclose to the mpossibleThingwhose symbolic tand-in s in theempty aw'38.Ex-

posureto thenoumenal God leads to madness. If we gaineddirect ccess to thenoumenal phere',Zizek contends,we wouldbe confronted ith he terriblema-

jesty' of God inhis Ungeheure, orrifyingeal'39.Here we discoverthat Sade isthe ruthfKant', forKant is compelled oformulatehe hypothesis f a perverse,

diabolicalGod' and make the ethicalGood and Evil indistinguishable'. he logicof Kant's monstrous ublime follows thatof Milton's Satan: 'Evil be thoumygood'40.Or thatof Conrad's Kurtz faced with theheart of darkness.Or thatofMelville's Pip inMobyDick who cast to thebottom f theocean, spiedthe demonGod: '...carrieddown alive to wondrousdepths,wherestrange hapes of theun-

warped primalworldglidedto and frobeforehis passive eyes... Pip saw the mul-

titudinous, od-omnipresent,oral insects,thatout of the firmament f watersheaved thecolossal orbs.He saw God's footupon thetreadleof the loom, and

spoke t;andtherefore isshipmates alled himmad'.

Kanthimself topped hort fthe abyssof theMonstrous', ealisinghat o sus-

pend the limit eparating ood and evil would be to embracea formof amoralnihilism. ut Zizek has no such compunctions.Mixinga postmodern ocktailofLacan andHegel,he follows he ogicof themonstrous ublime hroughoitsdark,unbearable nd. What Kant calledradicalor diabolicalevil is just anotherword, nZizek's psychoanalyticeading, or he death drive'- a drivewhichembraces he

negativehorror f the real', an anarchywhich existsbefore nd beyondthe Law.Lacan alreadymade a movebeyond he thics fgood andevil. As didHegelbefore

37Zizek, p.cit.,p.27.

"Ibid.3yIbid, .229.w Ibid.p. 229-230. ee, from very ifferenthilosophicaliewpoint, illiam es-

mond's eadingfKant'snotion f genius',terror'nd transgression'n theThird ritique.In spite f thedifferencefperspective,esmond's onclusions remarkablyimilaro thepostmodernsncertainoints,.g.his onclusion:Ifwesay omethingtherives he ule othe elf,hen itherheresaninwardthernessf selfhood hichsbeyondompleteuton-omy, r he elf sa manifestationf omethingore rimordial,ndwhatsprimordials notitselfawlike ndorderedndregulanhe rimoridalsbeyondhe aw... when elf roclaimsits ompleteutonomy,t sonlymaskingromtselfts ssuefromomethinghatsnot ea-sonable,r ntelligible,rmorallyenign. More ftent swildness,renzy,he rimitive,heugly,he xcremental,he enseless. enius ndmadness ecomendistinguishable.nd we

seemhardputto discriminateetween ivinemadness nd madmadness''Kantand theTerrorfGenius'nKant'sAesthetics,altereGruyter,erlinndNewYork, 998, .614).Unlike izek ndfellow evoteesfthe quivocalublime,esmondsclearlyneasy eforesuchndiscrimination.





himwhenhis dialectics f thenegative everted o the pagan fascination ith darkGod whodemands acrifices'41.utZizek's conclusion s moreunblinkingnits u-

dacity: Hegel's (and Lacan's..) point s thatt s possible o move beyondgood and

evil', beyondthehorizon f the Law and constitutiveuilt, ntodrive which s theFreudian erm or heHegelian infinite layof the dea with tself). The) implicitthesis s that iabolicalEvil is anothernamefortheGood itself; or heconcept in

itself,the two are indistinguishable;hedifferences purelyformal,nd concerns

only hepoint fview oftheperceiving ubject'42.But as soon as the humansubject dissolves into the void of theMonstrous

'real', it seems to me we no longerhave a stay againstregression o the radical

indifferentiationf the il y a ofpure drive. Do we not thusregressto the mutetraumatism f tohubohu- the condition ftheReal before he ethical God spokethesymbolicWord andtheworlddivided ntogood and evil?43

41Ibid.p. 228.42Ibid.pp.228-229.

See also hereLevinas'sdescriptionf the there s' as radically odless nhisearly ssay'There s: Existencewithout xistents', irstublishedn 1946 as a section f De ¡'existenceVexistantVrin,Paris) andreprintedn The LevinasReader,ed. S. Hand, Blackwell,London,1989. Levinastalksof the there s' or // a as a 'mute, bsolutelyndeterminateenace',a

nocturnalpacewithout xitorresponse ndutterlymperviouso God. 'Rather han oa Godthenotion f the theres leads us to the absenceofGod, the bsenceofany being...before he

lightcomes'(p. 32-33). Derrida's discussionsof Khora and of 'the Name' sometimes endthemselvesoa certain adicalisationf Levinas's notions f II y a' and 'Illeity', enderinghetwo poles of sublime,unspeakable experiencevirtually ndecidable. n On theName, for

example,Derridaconfrontss with theradicallyunindentifiableharacterf God's alterity,beyond ll horizons fhumanor historicalnticipation:The other,hat s,God and no matterwho... as soon as everyother s whollyother.For the mostdifficult,ndeed theimpossible,dwellsthere: herewhere he other oses hisname or is able to change t n order o become nomatter hatother'(J. errida,On TheName,edited nd translatedyT. Dutoit, tanford ni-

versityress,1995,p. 74). Here God becomes so unrecognizablenhisirreduciblethernesssto become

ndistinguishable,irtually,rom

nythingtall. There s no

wayof

telling.o in the

lastanalysis, heremaybe no way ofdiscerningetweenmonstersnd Messiahs. n thenameofpure openness owards heother,his pproach rguesthat the newcomermaybe good or

evil,butifyou exclude thepossibilityhat henewcomer s comingtodestroy ourhouse, f

you want to control hisand exclude this terrible ossibilityn advance,there s no hospi-tality.theother, ike theMessiah,must arrivewherever e or shewants' (J.Derrida,Hos-

pitality, ustice nd Responsibility'n Questioning thics,ed. R. Kearneyand M. Dooley,Routledge, ondonandNY, 1999,pp. 70-71). Some commentators,otably imonCritchley,pushthisdeconstructiveogicto theropes. Does the mpossible xperience f thees spukt,he

spectralityf themessianic',he asks, look upwards o a divinity, ivine ustice,or even the

starryeaventhat rameshe moral aw?' Or does itnot ratherlook into heradically theistictranscendencef the ly a, theabsence,dis-asterndpure energy fthenight hat s beyond

law?' (Simon Critchley,On Derrida'sSpecters fMarx', inPhilosophy nd Social Criticism,Voi 21, No 3, 1995,p. 19). In short, ow arewe to linkDerrida's theological ndecidabilitywithdecision ndaction,f God is not somehowpresentnhisabsence, s he is intheBurningBushfromwhichHe speaks nExodus, dentifyingimself s a God ofmemory,ovenant nd


6



498 Richard Kearney

Bycontrast,emay ake omecourage romhefact hatMoses did notdis-solve nto voidwhen econfrontedheBurningush.No,he camebefore deitywhocalledhispeople oanethical ask namely,he schatologicaluest fa pro-misedand, he truggleorustice.

d) TheNewAgeSublime

Suchdialecticalonflationsfthe acred nd hemonstrousrenot, owever,heprerogativefa few sotericostmodernheorists.nefindsimilar vocationsfthe ublimeransgressionfgoodand evil ntheneo-gnosticest ellers fseveral

NewAgeauthors.ndthis epresentshatwemightall a fourth,ore opulist,approacho hemonstrousod.Josephampbell,neof heeadingheoristsfnewage mysticismndmyth,pitomiseshis onflationfthe nknowableeity ith heMonstrous hen e writes:Bymonstermean omehorrendousresencerappa-rition hat xplodes ll your tandardsorharmony,rder nd ethical onduct...That'sGod intheroleofdestroyer.uchexperienceso past thicaludgements.Ethics s wiped ut...Gods horrific'44.he book n which his tatementppears,ThePower fMyth, asnot omeoccult uriosityut henumbernebestsellern

promise?What can deconstructionltimatelyay about the xodicGod who can be seen (as aburning ush),heard as onewhopromises o liberate ispeople) and believed as God ofpastand future)?f theGod of Exodus were to remain s anonymous s the ly a of primordialconfusion nd disasterthetohubohu of Genesis),surelyMoses would nothave been mobi-lised to go and emancipate ispeople from lavery nd lead them owards promisedand of

justice?To overemphasiseheundecidable, nspeakable nd ultimatelyimpossible'characterof theexodicdeitymay ead, suspect, ess topraxis han o paralysis,ess towardsnew tasksof communal iberationhanto a certain edazzlement efore hemystical ublimity f theevent tselfas non-eventd et maintenantans presence).A return o thenight nwhichall

gods are black.Khora.Although errida tops hort fequating he lterityfGod with hat ftheMonster,ome of hispostmodernontempories ave no such hesitations.n all,Derrida'streatmentf the

eschatological-God

(a-dieu)is

highly uggestive,fcharacteristically

lusive.

Writing f the open circumcisedword' in Paul Célan's poetry, errida offershefollowingcomment n thecomplexand often isturbingelation etween lterity, onstrositynd whathe calls the messianicor eschatological rophet', lijah: Ou verted'abord comme une porte,ouverte Fétranger, l'autre, u prochain, Fhòte ou à quiconque.A quiconque sans doutedans la figurede l'avenirabsolu (celui qui viendra,plus precisémentui viendrait ar cetavenir, elui à venir, a venuene doitpas ètre ssuréeni calculable),done dans la figure e lacreaturemonstrueuse. 'avenirabsolune peuts'annoncer ue sous Fespècede la monstruosité,au-délà de toutes es forme u les normes nticipates,au-délàdes genres. t e passe ici surce

que Fapparition u Rabbi Loew nous rappelledu Golem, Finventeur u monstre.... aroleouverte quiconquedans la figureussi,peut-étre,e quelque prophète lie, de son fantomeou de son double. Il estméconnaissable, travers ertemonstratione monstre,mais il faut

savoir e reconnaitre.lie est celui à qui l'hospitalitéstdue,promise, résente.l peutvenir,on doit e savoir, toutmoment. Ici-mème emonstre,u Elie,Fhòteou l'autre e tient evantla porte...' (Schibboleth, alilee,Paris,1986, pp.102-103).

Joseph ampbell,ThePowerofMyth, oubleday,NewYork, 1988,p. 222.





northAmericafor hreeyearsand thebasis of an extraordinarilyopularTV series,broadcastnternationallyn the ateeighties nd nineties. uch a return o themythicindistinctionfmonstrositys also evidenced, s noted n ouropening tudy,n the

growing ascination fHollywoodand the nternet ith aliens' - a high-techreedof extraterrestialonsters ho confound heboundaries fgood andevil, xploit urobsessionwith thehystericalublime, nd blurdistinctionsetweenGods and de-mons45. here s much work to be done to try oretrievend cultivateuch distinc-tions nddiscernments,owevermodestlynd withwhatever imited esultswe mayreasonably opetoachieve.

III.

The postmodernultofthe sublime s not,happily, heonly contemporarycon-tinental' esponse o thechallenge f evil.There he ritical hilosophy f actionpro-posed by hermeneutichinkersike Ricoeur nd others. or ifcertain inds ofpsy-choanalytic ostmodernism,nspired yFreud'spivotalnotion f the uncanny'(dasUnheimliche), ake us more ntellectuallyensitive o thecomplexand oftennter-

changeablenature f strangersnd selves,sublimitynd normality,hereby emin-

ding us of the enduringlynigmatic haracter f evil, hermeneuticsddressestheneed for riticallynformedthico-politicaludgements.t's notenough o be opento

radical lterirythough his s sometimesssential oethics oo);onemust lso be care-ful odiscern,nsomeprovisional ashiont east, etween oodand evil.And totry o

take thicalction,ccordingly,nkeepingwith uchdiscernments.

But how does such a hermeneuticsf actionrespond o theaporiasof evil en-

countered bove? How maywe acknowledge heenigmaof evil, aid bareby our

detourhroughWestern enres fthoughtrommythopostmodernity,hile ddres-

singTolstoy'squestion:what s tobe done?Taking furtherue from icoeur'sher-meneutic eading, will propose a two-fold pproach:a) practicalunderstanding

(phronesis-mimesis-praxis);ndb) working-throughcatharsis-Durcharbeitung).

a) Practical Understanding

Practical nderstandings thenameI give to that imited apacity f the human

mindto think heenigmaof evil. I draw herefrom uch varied models as biblical

'wisdom' (discussedabove), Aristotle'spracticalwisdom'phronesis),Kant's prac-tical reason' (indeterminateudgement), nd Ricoeur's 'narrative nderstanding'.Whateach of thesemodelshas in common s an ability o transferhe poriaof evil

from he phere ftheorytheoria) proper o theexactknowledge riteriaf logic,science nd speculativemetaphysics to the phere fa morepractical rtofunder-

45Seemydiscussionfthis uestionn Others ndAliens: etween oodand Evil' inEvilafter ostmodernism,dited yJennifereddes,Rouüedge, ondon ndNewYork,2001; see also ourconclusiono Desire f God' inOfGod,TheGiftndPostmodernism,editedyJ.D.CaputondM.Scanlon,ndiana niversityress, inneapolis,999.




500 Richard Kearney

standing techne/praxis)hich allows foran approximative raspof phenomena:whatAristotle alls 'the flexiblerule of the architect'.Where speculative heory,epitomised ytheodicy, xplained vil in terms f ultimate ausal or creationistri-

gins,practical nderstandings gearedtowards more hermeneuticomprehensionof the ndeterminate,ontingentnd singular haracteristicsf evil- while not aban-

doningall claimto quasi-universal riteriathatwould account for t leasta mini-

mallysharedsense of evil). Such practical nderstandingorrowsfrom ctiontheconvictionhat vil is somethinghat ughtnot to be andmustbe struggled gainst.In that ense, tresists hefatalism f archeologies fevil- mythicalnd theodicalinfavour f a future-orientedraxis.Theresponse though ynomeansthe olution)

offeredypractical nderstandings to actagainst vil. nstead facquiescing n thefate f an origin hat recedesus, action urns urunderstandingowards hefuture

'by the dea of a task to be accomplished'.The moral-politicalequiremento actdoes not thereforebandon the egitimateuestfor ome minimalmodelofreason-nable discernment;t in factdemands t For how could we act againstevil if wecouldnot dentifyt, hat s, f we couldnotcriticallyiscern etween ood and evil.In this espect,hegenuine trugglegainst vilpresupposes critical ermeneuticf

suspicion.And suchhermeneuticnderstandingetains ant's insistence n a practi-cal reason whichseeks to think omehowtheunthinkable. nd to do so withthe

'sobrietyfa thinkinglwayscareful ot otransgresshe imitsfknowledge'46.

Our critical nderstandingf evil may neversurpasstheprovisional ature fKant's indeterminatei.e.'aestheticeflective')udgementBut t at leastudges,and ina manner lert o both he ingularlterityfevilandto tsquasi-universalharacters

graspedby the sensus communis.Not exact or adequate udgement ut a formof

judgement orall that, ased on thepracticalwisdomconveyedby narrativesnddriven ymoralustice.We may say,accordingly,hat racticaludgements notonly'phronetic' ut narrative'n character. n overlapping fphronesis Aristotle)nd

judgement(Kant)eatly apturednRicoeur's account f the ethical ole ofnarrative:'Ethics s Aristotleonceived tandas itcan still e conceived oday, peaks bstractlyof therelation etween irtuendthepursuitfhappiness.t sthefunctionfpoetryn

itsnarrativend dramatic orm, o proposeto theimaginationnd to itsmediationvarious igureshat onstituteo many houghtxperimentsywhichwe learn o link

togetherhe thical spects f human onduct ndhappinessndmisfortune.ymeansofpoetrywe learnhowreversals f fortuneesult rom his r that onduct, s this sconstructedy theplot n thenarrative.t is due to thefamiliaritye havewith he

types fplotreceived rom urculture hatwe learn o relate irtues,r rather ormsf

excellence,withhappiness r unhappiness. hese 'lessons' of poetry onstitutehe'universals' f whichAristotlepoke;but hese reuniversalshat re of a lowerdegreethan hose f logicandtheoreticalhoughtWe mustnonethelesspeakof understand-

ingbut n thesensethatAristotleave tophronesis...n this ense I am prepared o

*P.Ricoeur/Evil\p.259.





speakofphroneticnderstandingnorder ocontrastt with heoreticalnderstanding.Narrativeelongs otheformernd not othe atter'47.

b) Working-through

Ifpractical nderstandingddresses heaction-responseo evil, tsometimes e-

glects he uffering-response.vil is notust something e strugglegainst,t s also

(as noted bove) somethingwe undergo.To ignore hispassivity fevil sufferedsto ignore heextent owhichevil strikes s as shockingly trange nd disempower-ing. t is also to underestimatehat rreduciblelterityf evilwhichmythnd theo-

dicytendto overestimate. ne of thewisestresponsesto evil is, on thiscount, oacknowledge its traumatisingffects nd work-them-throughdurcharbeiten) sbest we can. Practicalunderstandingan only redirect s toward action if it has

alreadyrecognised hat n element f alteritylmost lwaysattaches o evil,espe-ciallywhen tconcerns llness,horror,atastropher death.No matter owpreparedwe aretomake senseof evil we arenever repared nough.That swhythe work of

mourning's so importants a way ofnotallowing he nhuman ature f sufferingresult n a complete loss of self whatFreud called 'melancholia'). Some kindofcatharsis s necessary oprevent he slide intofatalismwhichall too often ssuesin

despairingelf-destruction.he critical etachmentroughtboutby cathartic our-

ning licits wisdomwhich urns assive lament nto hepossibilityf active omp-laint, hatsprotest*.

The roleplayedbynarrative estimoniess crucial n thisrespect,whether t bethose of survivors f the Holocaust or of trauma-abuse. or such narrative e-

memberingsnvite hevictim oescape the lienation fevil,that s,to move from

positionof mutehelplessness o speech-acts f revolt nd (wherepossible) self-renewal. ome kindof narrative orking-throughs necessary,tseems,for urvi-vors of evil not to feelcrippledby guilt about the death of others nd their wn

survival) or to succumb o thegameof the expiatory ictim'.Whatthe atharsis f

mourning-narrativellows is thatnew actionsare stillpossible inspite ofevil uf-

fered. tdetaches s from he obsessionalrepetitionsnd repressionsf thepastandfrees s for future. or onlythus anwe escape thedisabling yclesofretribution,fate nd destiny: ycleswhichestrangeus from ur powerto actby instillingheview that vil is overpoweringlylien- that s, rresistible. orking-throughheex-

perience f evil- narratively,ractically,atharticallyenablesus to take he lllureoutofevil so thatwe canbegintodistinguishetween ossible ndimpossiblemodes

47P. Ricoeur,Life nQuest fNarrative*n On Paul Ricoeur: arrativend nterpreta-tion,d.DavidWood,Routledge,ondon, 991, .23.

See P. Ricoeur,MemoryndForgetting'n Questioningthics, p. 5-12, ndLaMèmoire, Histoire, Oubli,d.du euil, aris, 000,pp.See also S. Freud,Remembering,Repeating,ndWorking-Through'n TheStandard dition ftheCompletesychologicalWorksf igmundreud, ogarthress, ondon, 955,Voi 12.

RevistaPortuguesa de Filosofìa, 57 (2001), 485-502



502 Richard Kearney

of protestnd resistance.Working-throughs central o a hermeneuticsf action. tmakes vilresistible.

In sum,by transforminghe alienation nd victimisationf lament ntoa moral

response f ust struggle,hehermeneuticsf actionoffers, submit, ome kindofanswer ifbyno means solution) o the hallenge f evil.


Documents

FilosofiaEvil Monstrosity