Thursday, March 2, 2017

Determination of the thinking of Fate, which is not Freedom/Autonomy/Authenticity/Spontaneity

Image result for ZAO/standardarchitecture

Paragraph 13

What is the purpose of these remarks which at first seem thoroughly marginal? They serve the purpose of opening up our eyes to the fact that and how the history of thinking stays in relation to the Geschick of being. The history of thinking is something different than the mere chronicle of opinions and doctrines of philosophers. The history of thinking is the bestowing of the essence of humans by the Geschick of being. The essence of humans is bestowed with the wherewithal to bring to language beings in their being. Basically, what has just been said is nothing other than an interpretation, thought through from the point of view of the question of being, of the old definition of human nature: homo est animal rationale; humans are the creatures endowed with Reason. 


Instead of “endowed with Reason”, endowed with the “history of thinking” which is the Fate (Geschick [someone could always object that in the change for the word “Geschick” to the word Fate an interpretation has occurred, at the same time it is correct interpretation, correct so far as it is kept to, and one need only remember that what is correctly interpreted is not what is the same.) What is said in the parenthesis, before this sentence, has to do also with what is said in the first sentence, except that the change from “endowed with Reason”, to “endowed with the “history of thinking””, is not a translation. It is a reception of the Fate of being that manifests in thinking, which is the “essence of humans”. The statement “Basically, what has just been said is nothing other than an interpretation”, is now brought into the haze of the present thinking, as something no longer truly thinkable. If we say “truly”, we say what is true by the measure of the “history of thinking”, as it stands ‘to and in’ (this ‘to and in’ indicates a basic difficulty) the “essence of humans”. 

Now we will say something about how what is said above is to be understood more broadly by thought, because we want to understand what is said. At the same time, in every understanding something is obscured, or shut out of being. A understanding is light in the saying “"Lucidity is a suitable apportionment of light and shadow". Whenever there is light and shadow there is becoming and the become, possibility and contingency, and necessity and freedom. To understand what is said by the Fate of being, we must see that the Fate of being speaks in a way that is unlike these four things. Spontaneity is Freedom, for instance, it is the autonomy in Kant, or the Authenticity in Heidegger, it is, in biological science, unplanned order, it is not taxis, it is a kind of Kairos, it is what the rationality has a window into, in the form of its “bounded rationality” and sense of the order. The thinking, that is language, can speak of the “radically mysterious dispensation of Fate” (which, in what we say above, is to be determined as something distinct from the spontaneity or autonomous ordering) only if identity, as truth, is according to what is said in the phrase: Geschick of Being. Anything that is referred to, such as “the old definition of human nature: homo est animal rationale”, can not be truly thought in the same way. It is then wrong to say that one can construe a notional understanding of what has been in the “Geschick of being”, one can say: a notional understanding of the past of thought, as the present “history of thinking”. Whether or not all this is a kind of sophistry must be judged form the practise of a thinker who comes into the matters through thought that is sensitive to the subject matter of its own existence. According to the finding of the Critique of Pure Reason, the judge had to judge the judge, and the judge turned out not to be a wise judge. This was a finding! Therefore, the judge that is not wise, is the same as the truth that is according to the “Fate of being”. 

The claim that Nietzsche was the last philosopher, reminds one in a certain sense of Alecsander Dugin. Since, so far as one can understand him, he rests on the authenticity, the free choice of the ethnos (or, of the "bourgeois individual identity" that has thought back to its ground, and considers its continuation) after . This is like what Nietzsche says about the Will to Will, the will to will the Life Giving Lie, is not a conscious intention, as much as it is a command of the essence of a being, as autonomy. It is in this way that one comes into the sight of the Thinker, and, so to speak, leaves the philisophic knower behind. It is true that for the philosopher, too, truth, in a certain sense is dispelled, but it is dispelled as a truth. The Truth is that there is no Truth. That is a Truth which Nietzsche owns with the words: “All the better! All the better my friends!”. 

What the Thinker is faced with is a question that can not be handled in the same way as the autonomy. It is only from within thought that the thinking could say that something has illicitly, so to say, come as a "Lucidity is a suitable apportionment of light and shadow" to put a stone in the place of the heart. [One must see, that in ending this way, one does not slip into mythical thinking, but rather admits that, either one is still too clumsy in this thinking, or that, what may be the same, the mysticism of the metaphor is a path in thinking, in so far as it is a way that language steps out of being, and makes Being the "Lucidity is a suitable apportionment of light and shadow".]  

No comments:

Post a Comment