Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 00:02:23 -0700
From: nologos-AT-primenet.com (Sam Vagenas)
Subject: Re: Interpretation vs. Life


Erik Lindberg writes:

>I'm glad you asked, though not because I have something articulated 
>about this, but because I have been vaguely pondering this issue for some 
>time.  I  guess I would say its not inherent as much as culturally 
>endemic to the current state of philosophy, or at least of continental 
>philosophy and American pragmatism.  In short, philosophy has 
>traditionally attempted to transcend or escape or whatever.  Now it has 
>given up this hope, but giving up this hope has transformed itself into 
>the attempt to transcend transcendences (in fact someone used this phrase 
>on one of the SPOON lists recently--perhaps even this one).  Why this 
>"transforming itself" (which is what I think I was referring to when I 
>said "style")?  I don't know, but would like to.  I'll wait for other 
>input and responses before I try to say more.
>
>What do you think about this (or do you disagree with the entire 
>formulation)?

This is the issue I have tried to raise on this thread.     Nietzsche,
Heidegger, Foucault, and Derrida form a philosophical horizon of a sort.
Sure others could be included, but these are the ones most mentioned in the
post-whatever philosophical circles.  What I find interesting in these
thinkers is the rejection of the Truth of tradition, but at the same time a
sense of transcending. 

If everything is permitted, then why don't you just enjoy life?  Why embark
on the quest to overcome slave morality, reified Being, disciplinary
technology, or phono/logocentrism? Or more importantly, even if you embark
on your quest what basis do you have to criticize those who do not join your
journey?

Now, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, and especially Derrida caution us that
we cannot ultimately Overcome in the sense of reaching some new, absolute
exterior state.   However, there is a vector-like sense of transcending --
transcendence within immanence --  despite the fact that there is no ground
to base this flight.   Even if you dismiss this trace of exteriority as
vague, we are still left with the religious critique which provides the
horizon for post-whatever philosphizing.    Call it destruktion,
deconstruction, genealogy, etc. these philosophers have not been called the
"Prophets of Extremity" for nothing (although this is not Megill's thesis).
Meanwhile, we cannot overlook the fact that these authors walk a careful
tightrope to avoid falling into the Truth of tradition.

So philosophy as you say is still transcending, but we might note the line
is much finer.
Transcendents are fracturted and the proud statues of Antiquity fragment
into vectors that dissolve into becoming.  The serenity is now laughter, but
purposeful laughter.  This is the problem: life vs. interpetation or
laughter vs. purposeful laughter.  What could be more dangerous than
purposeful laughter?    

  




     



	--- from list nietzsche-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------