Shapiro Resenha Sublime Nancy

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


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


3/5


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


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

Documents

Shapiro Resenha Sublime Nancy