Variable Approaches to the Border of the Interpretation
Kant is guilty of ‘unnecessary multiplication’, adding more presuppositions than one must have. This is proscribed as much by Occam as by Husserl. Husserl wants to refuse the basic datum be “multiplied”. The clumsy construction involving the negative, refuse, metaphorically expresses the bias of the tradition. ‘Naturally’, taken from the clarity of Husserl, one might simply say, the datum is sufficient. What is there is the basis or principle. What becomes at issue is the logic. The relation of the discussion to the datum. The way of observing, and of describing, is not straightforward but variable. The datum is radically open to the description. The datum is only known through the way it is uncovered by the observation. But, the “knowing” is so much a part of the manifestation of the datum as not to stand away from it in the manner of a ‘world picture’ or of a representation.
In Kant one may speak of epistemology by cause of the doctrine of consciousness. Consciousness is the legislation of beings. Kant says, the rational legislates the laws of reality. Both body, and reason as cause. These vestigial features of the transcendental “legislation” refer, ultimately, to the presupposition which called forth philosophy in the West. To the principle of natural law. The dividual conceptions nomos and phusis are combined and begin to ‘multiply’.
The Historial is called ‘mystical’ and in the technical sense this would be correct. Or almost correct. If mystical says, unlike opinion, this ‘showing of the things’ is true, i.e., it doesn't come from confusion or from a smoke screen, then the primordial datum wants to be ‘mystical’. It is not natural, and it is not lawlike. The natural is a concept of what happens on its own. Whereas the lawlike wants to say, through convention or by the disciplining of the human will. The natural in this sense is not the genuinely philosophical view. It is not the human being as the first beginning. The Greeks understand themselves better, because they find the human as the first one who ‘raises their eyes’, after the Darwinian doctrine attempts to found the human prior to itself. The sense of the primordial is heightened by what the modern doctrine of genetics says. Genetics as the claim about the principle, the first step.
The thinker is not the intellectual but the one who describes the impromptu. The description of the impromptu must decide whether there is a “close reading”. Is there the possibility of reading out of what is there, or is, as Strauss says, the interpretation always the “sui generis”? The interpretation is something that is supposed to happen when there is nothing there. Otherwise, according to the doctrine of “close reading” one should speak out from the evidence. But in the case that the speaking out is itself the “what’s there’, or at least a part of it, there is a challenge mounted by the datum. Is the challenge from the datum or is it willfully brought to the datum? Literally, the datum, is only what it is through the disclosure by some ‘observing speech’.