Subject: Re: MB: Concepts
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 16:28:21 +0200


Stawla wrote:
 
> But to we have to think about concepts in the Hegelian manner.  That   
> would make every philosopher who was not Hegelian a non-philosopher.  I  

> know that in Derrida we have to be careful of the presuppositions that   
> words already contain.  But such a carefulness has always been part of   
> philosophy.  What about a philosopher like Deleuze who is quite happy to 
 
> use words like essence concept being and so on.  Would we accuse him, if 
 
> accuse is the right word, of Hegelianism?
> 

I would have thought the beginning of an answer might be this (WD, 46-47)

"One cannot read Hegel except by not reading him. To read, not to read him
-- to understand, to misunderstand him, to reject him -- all this falls
under the authority of Hegel or doesn't take place at all. Only the
intensity of this nonoccurence, in the impossibility that there be such a
thing, prepares us for death -- the death of reading, the death of writing
-- which leaves Hegel living: the living travesty of completed Meaning.
(Hegel the impostor: this is what makes him invincible, mad with his
seriousness, counterfeiter of truth: "putting one over to the point of
becoming, all unbeknown to him, master of irony -- Sylvaine Agacinski)"

Nicholas Dawes