{"id":3090,"date":"2020-06-19T05:58:50","date_gmt":"2020-06-19T05:58:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2020\/06\/19\/deleuze-and-his-chiasmus\/"},"modified":"2020-06-19T05:58:50","modified_gmt":"2020-06-19T05:58:50","slug":"deleuze-and-his-chiasmus","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2020\/06\/19\/deleuze-and-his-chiasmus\/","title":{"rendered":"Deleuze and his Chiasmus"},"content":{"rendered":"

This excellent missive just over the transom from a long-time correspondent, the erudite Claude Boisson.  He is responding to yesterday's On Gilles Deleuze<\/a>.  <\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Many French philosophers can surely be infuriating. They are to me too, even though I am French. In fact *because* I am French and I remember that there was a time when the French philosophers were not infatuated with Heidegger and did not try to ape his silly mannerisms. Why I mention Heidegger is explained below.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

The French used to be praised for their clarity of expression. They are now known for their pretentious preciosity and complete lack of rigor. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I agree entirely.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

The empty chiasmus structure that you found in Deleuze (the A of B and the B of A) has indeed become fashionable in French academic writing, particularly in the literature departments.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Where does this fad come from? It is a fact that there has long been a rather strong rhetorical tradition in the French schools and universities. We have all been taught to write cleverly, as if we were all aspiring Voltaires. And this may conceal a lack of substance at times. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

But in the case of Deleuze, I suspect there may be another explanation. The post-war philosophical scene in France saw the rise of Hegel, Heidegger and Marx. And Heidegger was particularly influential in the so-called \u00ab kh\u00e2gnes \u00bb, which are preparations for the prestigious Ecole normale sup\u00e9rieure, which, de facto, does the piloting or philosophical studies in my highly centralised country. I won\u2019t go into this extremely exotic system. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

So Heidegger may bear some responsibility for the love of chiasmus, at least that is my hunch. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

See for instance (italics in the original, as Heidegger seems to be quite pleased with himself for the profundity of his \u2018thought\u2019):<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u00ab Wahrheit bedeutet lichtendes Bergen als Grundzug des Seyns. Die Frage nach dem Wesen der Wahrheit findet ihre Antwort in dem Satz: <\/span>das Wesen der Wahrheit ist die Wahrheit des Wesens<\/span> \u00bb <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

(Vom Wesen der Wahrheit, 1930, Gesamtausgabe Band 9, Anmerkung, page 201).<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The reference checks out!  I just now re-read the Anmerkung<\/em> in question. I have a whole shelf of Heidegger's Gesamtausgabe<\/em> in my personal library which I will defend with my AR-15 and Remington 870 should any Antifa\/BLM thugs attempt to de-colonize or de-nazify it.  (Heidegger was a member of the the Nazi Party for a time.  Does that shock you? Then it should shock you that the later Sartre was a Stalinist.)<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

German post-Hegelian bullshit, if you want my opinion. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

I am now writing an amateurish monograph on Heidegger, and I have numerous passages devoted to Heidegger\u2019s infamous sophistical tricks. Heidegger sure asks big questions, but he never answers them, so, instead, he keeps writing nonsense. On four-dimensional Zetilichkeit, Beyng, Lichtung, Ereignis, Geviert, das Nichts (Das Nichts ist das abgr\u00fcndig Verschiedene vom Seyn als Nichtung und deshalb? – seines Wesens), the whole lot, and more. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Und deshalb !!!<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

While I sympathize with Professor Boisson's animadversions, I myself  do not consider Heidegger's work to be bullshit. Portentous, yes, and perhaps needlessly obscure in places; but he raises legitimate questions.  But to be able to follow him, you have to have done your 'homework' in Aristotle, the scholastics, Kant, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, Wilhelm Dilthey, Franz Brentano and Edmund Husserl.   Sein und Zeit<\/em> (1927), for example, blends transcendental philosophy, phenomenology, Lebensphilosophie<\/em>, and existentialism in an assault on the being question raised by Aristotle as this question was transmitted to Heidegger by the dissertation Brentano wrote on Aristotle and the several senses of 'being' under Trendelenburg.  There is a lot going on, just as in the preceding sentence, but both make sense to those who are willing to put in the time.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Now the typical analytic philosopher simply won't do that. He will seize upon a passage taken out of context and proceed to mock and deride. What is not instantly comprehensible to them, they dismiss as meaningless.  I expand upon this theme,  with clarity and rigor, in Heidegger, Carnap, Das Nichts, and the Analytic-Continental Schism<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Germans are too serious and dour to be bullshitters in philosophy; I can't think of a well-known German philosopher who bullshits. The French, on the other hand . . . .  Amiel:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

The thirst for truth is not a French passion. In everything, what appears is more relished than what is, the outside than the inside, the style than the stuff, the glittering than the useful, opinion than conscience. . . .<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

From Henri Frederic Amiel on the French Mind<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This excellent missive just over the transom from a long-time correspondent, the erudite Claude Boisson.  He is responding to yesterday's On Gilles Deleuze.  Many French philosophers can surely be infuriating. They are to me too, even though I am French. In fact *because* I am French and I remember that there was a time when the French … Continue reading “Deleuze and his Chiasmus”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[325,283],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3090","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-continental-philosophy-criticized","category-heidegger"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3090","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3090"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3090\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3090"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3090"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3090"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}