These are: a. Caputo, Radical Hermeneutics.
Heidegger and the Question, trans. Bennington and R.
See a Problem?
In terms of general methodology, Heidegger is opposed to the formalizing tendency of philosophies like Neoplatonism cf. These oppositions are so frequent and so striking that one is tempted to think of deliberate inversion or parody. In terms of general methodology, Heidegger is less antagonistic to the totalizing tendency of philosophies like Neoplatonism cf.
II, 6—8 and IV, Among books which present a structural confrontation between Heidegger and Neoplatonism in general see John D. Atti del Colloquio Internazionale Cassino 10—13 maggio , eds. Hofstadter Bloomington: Indiana U. At BPP, pp. Neoplatonism was the source of this doctrine as developed by the Arabs; ii. Krell and F.
Being Different: More Neoplatonism after Derrida - Stephen E. Gersh - Google Books
Capuzzi New York: Harper and Row, , pp. Young and K.
- The Sacred Hoop: Recovering the Feminine in American Indian Traditions.
- Get A Copy.
- The Mostly True Story of Jack.
- Post navigation.
- Games and Information;
Haynes Cambridge: Cambridge U. For a discussion of Heideggerian texts relative to this paragraph see John D. Caputo, Heidegger and Aquinas.
- To Cherish All Life: A Buddhist Case for Becoming Vegetarian.
- Catalogue Search?
- Ruling Passions: A Theory of Practical Reasoning?
- Studies in Platonism, Neoplatonism, and the Platonic Tradition?
- The Soul and the Virtues in Proclus’ Commentary on the Republic of Plato!
- Neoplatonism after Derrida - PDF Free Download;
- Neoplatonism after Derrida – Parallelograms | brill!
- Being Different: More Neoplatonism after Derrida by Stephen E. Gersh, Hardcover | Barnes & Noble®.
- Le Corbusier. The Villa Savoye.
- Fighting for Franco: International Volunteers in Nationalist Spain During the Spanish Civil War.
An Essay on Overcoming Metaphysics, pp. Derrida argues a. On this text see also the discussion of John D. Caputo, Radical Hermeneutics, pp. For another reading of this passage, see pp.
On Heidegger and Plato, see William J. Such is the nature of intertextuality. McNeill, in Pathmarks, ed.
Studies in Platonism, Neoplatonism, and the Platonic Tradition
Another important philosopheme subjected to critique and imitation from the standpoint of proximity is the notion that one can give what one does not have. As applied to the giving of a name, according to Derrida, this formula haunts the entire philosophical tradition. He would prefer to speak of the three strategies as 1. First, there is what one might call the schema of self, God, and other. When Derrida cites from Augustine and Silesius the metaphysical notion that the movement of turning toward the self in a certain manner coincides with the movement of turning towards God,40 his strategy is an imitative and proximate one.
But when he develops this independently of such sources into a suggestion that the movement of turning towards an other somehow coincides with the movement of turning towards God, the strategy shifts from proximity to distance. Finally, there is what one might call the structure of divine substantiality and accidentality. The unfolding of the polysemy of an axiom or proposition is now complemented by the unfolding of the polysemy of a phrase or description.
In order to allow precise citation, we shall henceforth add a letter indicating dialogic item to the page-numbers of SLN. These two trajectories, these two paths thus arrowed would cross each other in the heart of what we call negative theology.
Such a crossing. Even if one line is then always crossed, this line is situated in that place. Whatever the translations, analogies, transpositions, transferences, metaphors, never has any discourse expressly given itself this title negative theology, apophatic method, via negativa in the thoughts of Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist culture. McNeill, in Pathm. The quotation of Heidegger at what we take to be the pivotal point of the argument—at least structurally speaking—underlines the importance of the German philosopher for the programme of Sauf le Nom as a whole.
Carlson Chicago: University of Chicago Press, , p. Greimas: a tool of discoursive analysis originally developed for the literary sphere. On this notion see Stephen Gersh, Concord in Discourse. Although the precise nature and function of the semiotic square will emerge as we proceed, in order to avoid potential misconceptions regarding its application here, certain initial precisions are required: 1. The structure of the square itself can be interpreted in various ways. This is because neither a. Moreover, The structure of the square cannot be separated from processes involving the square.
The latter involve a. Case i represents movement which Aristotle goes on to classify in relation to three of his categories: alteration in respect of quality, increase-decrease in respect of quantity, and transportation in respect of place. In fact, this type of conceptualization is relatively com- 54 Aristotle, Physics I.
The Neoplatonists constructed many of their doctrines by transposing conceptual elements from the physical sphere described by Aristotle to the metaphysical sphere described by Plato. With respect to the nature of the items, we are dealing with unconnected terms in the cases of physical change and the categories and with connected terms in that of propositions. Further with respect to the nature of the terms, we are dealing with a combination of meta- physical and logical features in the cases of physical change and the categories but with logical features only in that of propositions.
Moreover, the physical theory alone introduces the notion of a transition between terms. For a compact example of the exploitation of all four terms within the semiotic square see Plato, Parm. It is interesting to note that the transition between terms becomes an issue at Parm. These examples are particularly important in demonstrating that the square can be applied to the non-semantic sphere of accidence and to the organization of semantic properties alike.
On this last point see n. This critique develops around a distinction between two kinds of repetition discussed by Husserl: one which is reproductive of presence and another which is productive of presence with respect to consciousness. Here, Derrida reverses the priorities—shifting the emphasis from a process where ideality or repeatability forms the basis of repetition to a process where repeatability or repetition forms the basis of ideality—in a deconstructive move.
Derrida argues that Husserl should have gone further. Understanding of both object and 60 John D. See especially, pp. Here, we shall leave this term to be understood in its everyday sense. Allison, pref. Garver Evanston: Northwestern U. Edmund Husserl, Logical Investigations, trans. Reconciliation of the theory of expression and indication with the theory of internal time-consciousness. But this position is inconsistent with ideas stated elsewhere. See John D. On God and the Gift in Derrida and Marion. Scanlon, pp. Edmund Husserl, Ideas. General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology, trans.
Churchill Bloomington: Indiana U. An Introduction, trans. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, , pp.
Being Different: More Neoplatonism after Derrida
This argument will have important repercussions when the results of this deconstruction are applied to negative theology. See Derrida, HAS, pp. The result is something which is undecidably present and absent, visible and invisible, etc. Kamuf New York-London: Routledge, , pp. Our juxtaposition of Aristotle and Derrida naturally raises certain questions.
Bennington and I. It is precisely this approach which seems to be shared by Aristotle and Derrida. For him, the combinatory mechanism is equally applicable to elements functioning in the non-semantic sphere—the phonemes and morphemes—, to elements operating in the semantic sphere—the denotations and connotations—, and to the various processes serving to connect or disconnect these two spheres. This is why it is better henceforth to speak of an a semiotic square. See below pp.
Our hypothesis does not represent a formalistic parody of deconstruction, since the semiotic square is not only an exhibition of formalism but also an exhibition of the relation between formalism and non-formalism—just as it is not only an exhibition of ideality but also an exhibition of the relation between ideality and non-ideality, and since deconstruction is precisely concerned with such a relation.
Since negative theology is a complex variety of polysemous textuality—perhaps alphabetic letters at Theaetetus e—b—raises but cannot resolve the same issue.
See Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses I. In a general sense, doubling is prior to voice. As something which has the closest possible relation to repetition—the latter requiring a minimal doubling in order to exist at all—it constitutes the beginning and end of textuality. This means that doubling is a beginning which is a nonbeginning. This means that doubling is itself always doubled.
At SLN, p. Derrida makes the same point in criticizing the Platonic theory of Forms. See Derrida, Pharm.