Search

This article seeks to firstly demonstrate in which manner the philosophies of history, through the signifiers of crisis and apocalypse, amount to a form of nihilism by persistently surmounting, each in their own manner, the singularity of historical events by integrating and comprehending these in a teleological and eschatological narrative of meaning and truth. In this sense, our attempt is to deploy a novel manner of rethinking our relation to catastrophic historical events where their very singularities engage a historical responsibility which renounces the recourse to the determined logics of crisis and apocalypse in history. Consequently we focus on the spectralityof historical events incessantly returning as occurring singularly to our present, and where each event in history denies its integration in an appeased historical consciousness. This article intends thus to deploy a relation to temporality where the idea of justice provokes a hyperbolical responsibility towards past andfuture deaths and lives in history.

The essay “Heidegger’s Ear. Philopolemology (Geschlecht IV)”, although omitted in the English language edition of the Politics of Friendship, figures as the last chapter in its original French edition (Paris, Galilée, 1994). In this text, Jacques Derrida analyses Heidegger’s interpretation of Heraclitus, most particularly the meaning of the Heraclitean polemos, through which the former proposes an entirely novel reading of the “als Hören der Stimme des Freundes, den jedes Dasein bei sich trägt” in Sein und Zeit (§ 34, p. 163). In our contribution, we will develop a succinct explication of Derrida’s text and mark how it deploys, in relation to the general hypothesis of the Politics of Friendship, a resounding deconstructive critique of Heidegger’s ontological-philosophical project as a whole as well as offer a renewed approach of the intricate relation between the political and friendship. We will also develop how and why this relation intervenes and affects the hyperbolical and “indeconstructible” idea of justice which Derrida, in the same years as the Politics of Friendship, is explicating and deploying in other key texts, such as Force of Law (Paris, Galilée, 1994).

ジョゼフ・コーエン、ラファエル・ザグリ＝オルリ来日講演

ジョゼフ・コーエン、ラファエル・ザグリ＝オルリ来日講演

ジョゼフ・コーエン、ラファエル・ザグリ＝オルリ来日講演

The idea of ‘election’ cannot be approached, it seems, through traditional or classical philosophical conceptuality. This idea requires another type of discourse. Not simply because this idea refers to an entirely other body of texts, that of the Biblical tradition, but more radically since it commands another modality of thought which must at once suspend and pursue philosophical concepts to the point where they express themselves otherwise than according to the rationality of their own deployment. In truth, the idea of ‘election’ calls thus for a redefinition of the rapport between singularity and universality, one no longer structured and circumscribed by ‘truth’, but rather inspired by a novel and irreducible modality of ‘justice’. A ‘justice’ which opens to the possibility for an ‘ethics’, not as ‘communicative dialogue’, ‘mutual recognition’ or a series of established and rationally grounded laws, but a ‘place’ of incessant and irresolute, non-intentional and unconditional exposition to the...

The “…limits of truth” – this passage, retrieved from Diderot’s Essay on the Life of Seneca, opens Jacques Derrida’s Aporias. With this expression, Derrida is not simply placing his reflection under the tutelage of a philosophical heritage, in this case that of Diderot’s and Seneca’s; but also pointing towards the unsettling, ambiguous and equivocal, nature of this tradition. The unsettling nature of this tradition means, as always for Derrida, the aporetic movement which incessantly punctuates any tradition. We shall see that, for Derrida, our own “Western” philosophical tradition– its concepts, motives, intentions and meanings – is always and already engaged in an aporetic movement, never simply resolving or accomplishing itself, never capable of limiting itself to what it manifests or presents itself as. It is thus persistently and incessantly supplementing its ownmost determinations. We must hence assert from the outset of this essay: Derrida does not, as does Hegel or even, to a certain extent, Heidegger, philosophize from a signified endpoint of metaphysical thought or history.

This analysis pursues the formulation of a thinking of messianic time in its difficult but always promising assemblage with political space. Therefore, we should concentrate our reflection on the terms messianism and politics, placing the issue in the core of a « critique » of « religious Zionism ». In this sense, it seems important and necessary to free Zionism of a theological and teleological interpretation, in order to ensure at the same time the risks and odds of both Zionism and Messianism. Keywords : Messianism, Zionism, religious Zionism, teleology, theology, history.