Scribd
Upload
48 views

Foucault Nietzsche Freud Marx

Uploaded by

alex
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
48 views

Foucault Nietzsche Freud Marx

Uploaded by

alex
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6
fom: . feameencubre. Omcbroct. Nietzsche, Freud, Marx* Bon We poate C0.) Foyle L. Barmy’ s ho Michel Foucault All An D. Shajt. Many « SUN, (FPO SINT ‘his plan for a “round table,"* when it was proposed 0 me, ap- eared very interesting, but clearly quite puzling. {Suggest a subteruge: Some themes concerning the techniques of inerpretation ia Matt, Nic cesche, and Frew. a In reality, behind these themes cher is ream that one dat wl be Psibe to make a kind of general corpus, an encyclopedia of al the tech ‘hiqus of interpretation that we ean know from the Grek gr¢mmatans to ‘ut te. 1 think that few of the chapers of this reat corpus of ll the 'echniques of interpretation have ths far Been drawn up. It seems to me ‘at one could say, as a general inrodvtion to this dea of history of techniques of interpretation, that language, at least language in lndo- European eutres, has always given ete fo two kinds of suspicions Fist of al, the uspicion that language dace nol say exacly what * means fle langage ne alt pas exactement ce qu'il di. The meaning Les] thao rasan. hati inmeditety-manietfpeapeinseai-ly « feser meaning aide ses] ing “ i" (den des. sour". Ths is what the Greks cae eegria and hyponola ene woy Lassa s_popery cen -and-taltberearenasy cher things inthe Hrd hats and that sto lagguaee. Afterall, nigh be hat ate, these, esting re, smal Tees, masa, ged ‘swords ll speak Perhaps thee is sme language articulating tellin way that would nt be veal This would be, i you with very eadely, he semainon of he Gress. ‘These two suspicions, which we sce appearing aleady in Grek texts, have nt cssppeare, They ae sill or conemporais, a one gain we have come to belive, precisely snc the ninetcnt century. tha mate gee "res illness, all the confsion around we can speak aswell, More shanTRANSFORMING THE HERMENEUTIC CONTEXT ver we are atthe Henig post of all his possible language. gain 12 r beneth the onde 8. dieaure thal would be mors seen Think tht cach eulture, Lean cach cultural fornia Wester evi aio, hash is sStem of interpretation, is echnigues, i meds, sory of specing nt iage Hears Smet a and of spacing that tere is language elsewhere than lngvage. i Semin fet that there was ah aemp to establish the sytem or the tbl, 18 they used 0 sty inthe seveneenth century ofall these systems of Inerpeation, To understand what sort of system of iterpretation the nineteenth century Founded and, a x result, to what srt of system of incerpretation we others, even now, belong, it Seems ro me tat it would be necessary «0 lake a distant reference, a type of teehniqa 3s may have existed, for ex ple, nthe sistent eenury Al that Lie, semblance was what gave rise to laceration, atone and the sre tee it general site aad the minioal tunity tht inlerpretation had to teat. There, sere things were hike each ‘ter, there, where ferpettion would resemble sel, something wanted to be said and could be deciphered. The important role played by resem bance and all the notion that revolved Ike satel around i inthe cos mology, the botany, the 200I0g). and the philsopiy of the sixteenth entury a well kaown. To tell the uth, 19 our eyes as people of the twenith entry this whole network of simiitudes i fey confosed ard nangled. In fat this corpus of resemblance in the siteems conor wis Berfecly organized. There were atlas five exactly defined notions Te notion of convenience [convenance, propriety. expediency, fie es], convencnia, which is agieement (for example, 0 he soul 10 the ody, o the ania series yo the vegetable seria). The notion of sympathia, sympathy, whichis the Went of sci ents in distin substances, he notion of emulatio, whichis the very curios parallels of ibs in substances or in distne beings such thatthe abuts of one bing ae ike the reflection ofthe other's atrbutes. (Thus Porta explains thatthe human fe, with the seven pars that distinguish it the mula tion of the sky with seven planets.) —The notion of signatra. the signature. which is the image of an invisible and hidden property among the visible properties ofan individual And thea, of couse, the notion of enalogie, which i he identity ‘ofthe relations between two or more distinct substances [AL ha time, the teary of the sign and the tebnigues of interpret io rested fact on perfectly clear definition of al the possible types of resemblance, and they had established (wo types of completely dst Miewsche, Freud, Mare @ Foucault 6 bance to another; and dvinai, which was the deep knowledge [con ‘nassance en profondenr. going fiom 3 superficial resemblance to more ‘movound resemblance. ll these resemblances manifest the concent ofthe ‘worl that lays their foundation: they resist the simalacram, the alte 16> semblance which rests on the discord belween Gad und the Devi these techniques of interpretation of the sinteenthcentcy were left suspended by the evolution of Wester thought inthe seventeenth and igh- ‘ecnth centuries ifthe Baconian and Cartesian critique of resemblance cer tainly played» inge art in their being pt ia parentheses, the nineteenth ‘century, and quite singularly Mara, Nietesche, and Freud, placed ws once ‘again i the presence of anew possiblity of interpretation, They founded anew the possibility of a hermeneu ‘The fist book of Capital ad texts like The Birth of Tagedy, On the Genealogy of Moras, andthe Inerprettion of Dreams place uti the pret ‘nce of these interpretive techniques. And the shock effect, the type of wound provoked in Westen thought by these works, comes probably fom something they econstied before out eyes that Marx, himself, moreover, called “hiroglyphs." This has pu us in tn uncomfortable situation, since ‘ese techniques of interpretation concern ourselves: since we interpret, we imexprt ourselves according to these techniques. Ii with these teetniques of interpretation, in return, that we must question these interpreters who were Fre, Nietzsche, and Mars, s0 that we ae always retuned in a per ‘petal play of mire Fredo says somewhere that there are thee great narcissistic wounds in ‘ester culture: the wound imposed by Copernicus; that made by Darwin, when he discovered that man was descended from the ape: andthe wound ‘made by Feud hse when he, in his turn, discovered that conciousness was ised on the unconscious. 1 wonder whether we could ao say that by ‘involving usin an interpretive task that always reflects upon iset, Fred, [Nictsehe, and Mare did ot consti around ut, and fr us, those irre hich refiect tous the images whose inexhaustible wouds form our con- {temporary narisism. In any case, and it ito this proposal that I would ike to make some suggestions, it seems to me that Mars, Nitseho, and Freud have not sometiow multiplied the signs inthe Western world They ave not given anew meaning to things which didnot have any meaning, 1a realty they have tinged the nature ofthe sign, and mosiied the way ia which te signin general could be interpreted. ‘The fist question hat I want to pose i his: have not Mare, Freud, sod Neiacke wolouly aliial We dave se rparon Sessnent in whichgeneous way in space that was sll i all directions homogeneous. Signs ft the earth trned back 4 the sky, bu they tuned back as wel 10 the Underground world: they Turned back reciprocally. from man 10 animal, from animal to plant, From th nineteenth century on, that is, fram Fre Mars, and Nietsche, signs are themselves stages in a much mote differen lined pce, according to 4 dimension that we could call depth, on the Condition tht oe understand by that not ileririty bu, on the contrary. Ta thinking in particular of the tong. debate with depth that Ni ‘exsche never Hopped maiaaiang. There isin the works of Nietzsche Exitigue of Mal dept, the depth of consciousness tht he denounces ws an invention of the philtophers. This depth would bea pure, intern search for truth. Nictzsche shows how dep implies resignation, hypocrisy, the ‘mask, 30th the interpreter, when He surveys signs in eer to denounce them, most descend the length ofthe vertical ie and show that sis dept fof inerivity isin tality something other than what appears. I is neces Sary, therefore, hat the interpreter descend, that he Be. a5 he says. "the ead excavator of the underworld."* ‘Bur when one inerpets, one can in really waves this descending line only 19 restore the sparkling exerioriy that has been covered up and ‘uted. The fc is that whereas the interpreter most go himself to the bot- tom of things like an excavator the movement of interpretation i, onthe ‘conzay, one tha projects out over the depth, raised more and more above the depth always faving the depth below, exposed 10 ever greater viii ity. The depth i now restored a8 an absoluely supetcial secret, in such tray thatthe eagle's taking Might, the ascent ofthe mountain all the vert ality so important in Zarabusra is, in the src sense, the reveal epi, the dscinery tha depth wes only & game, and a erease [pl] the Surface.'As the world Becomes more profound ender our gaze, ane watces that eveything that exeeed the profundity of an was only chil’ play. T wonder whether this spataity, Nietsche's play with profanity, ‘could be compared to the apparently dieret gue that Marx conducted With platitudes The concept of palit" is very important inthe works (Of Marx. Atthe begining of Capital,” be explains how, coirary wo Per Seus, he shoud bury himelf inthe wncertinty o show in eet shat there fe either monsters nor profound enigma. Instead one Finds that al there is fof profundity in the conception that the bourgeoisie have of money of caps ital of va, and so forth i in eeality only plate "And, ofcourse, i would be necessary to recall the interpretive space that Freud constituted, not only inthe elebrated topotogy of Consciousness tnd the Unconscious, but equally in the rules that he formulated for ps ‘hoanalyte tention, andthe deciphering by the analyst of what is sid all, | i | | | | | ‘long the spoken "‘chain.” One should recall the spatiality, after all quite Thatta, (0 which Fread atached so much importance, and which exposes the patient under the watchfl gaze ofthe paychoanaly “The second theme # woul lke to propose fo you, which fs moreover somewhat tied to the former, would be to indiefe hat, beyining with thse he men who now sak io v, interpretation a as became an end- ee IS ah nas acady a nh ie ety, Bt tiessom were exchanged tate ad forth, quite simply because rst (Siti be ite From the nineteenth century 08 signs were links ‘Finerfatibie as wall a infinite network, ot becuse they ested on 3 sree without bide, but becnise thre ae iveduible gaps ad ones Sp Te °7 Me ngs Lice, We fet ta “y sd and italy remain spend on (oe ina alien sim orks of Mara, Natgce, eee eae erie eal of craton [onmencement: the deal SP bade sid Moray tbe tition, so important i te front a Teiveen te andthe vey Jneomplete characerof the regressive and analyte practice inthe works of Feud Iti above all ig the work TRS cys approached some sbslute pomntof interpretation would be the same Ce that of 2 breaking point (point de rupture) Tr ihe orks of Fred it well krown bow progressively the discov- cy ofthis actly open character oftrpetation is Freed structrally Su open. Iwas dove fist ina very allusive wy, quite hidden by isl in the Inerpretaion of Dreams, when Freud analyzed his own dreams, and Ne tvs reson of oenty or mondivlgence of a personal secret in ordet to intra himself nthe analysis of Dora one sees appear this idea that lnverpetation must sop Hilf, anabl 10 go 10 is conchision in consider. ion of someigg-tat some yeas ater wil be calle wanserence. And thon the tnextaustiility of analysis ffi itself across the entire study of (cunference inthe infinite and nfiitely problematic character of the rela- ons of the analyzed and the analyst, a elatoeship which is clearly ‘onatucat fr paychoanalysis—one that open the space in which i never Stops deploying self without ever Being able tobe Finished,re {In the works of Nigtajghe also itis clear that interpretation is always buck {remvoel to weaning, as the sipier woul refer [renverrai) to the fished. Whats phlsopty far bin int 3 se glo slg nied bt ong a ie. 35 japon nest slr 0h fant Sausends» phiblogy shot sodas father Sms a any ‘iho he false mtr et, hich ene an ine, which is Shih woul nse tally Ca Why If as hea neon! aka in io ping Ba. Tat why Gd id ot Bnei Good and Ev becuse psi om okie inadedge ih be cL what his ates ofereo him ag symptoms a busi characterise of existence" And yet he showed in Ecce Hoa how pat bis pat bi sie ine Ae was tea This sole Knowledge which makes up a prt uf the oun ‘on, he term a } dation of Being Youenent de PErel—likewse, ding Ain, 185 J " he day hen a paint said sd his constant analy f pakes himself master of interpretations san_wondsr which have aleady seized one another. These is orginal signified for Tone decipher in the correspondence of F from the moment when he discovered, poychoanalysis, wher neesnsicece of Freud # no at baton quis Svar fo hat Nigusche. Words’ themselves are nating. olber than iterpretation; Niewsche Atha sw qutstin-oLie sabi pal uesuctaaatah Uhaghoot thee istry, they interpret btore being signs, and in the Fong Pie convergence af inlersistion sada soi tha seals ay ae. | 0 ‘un they signify ly Because thy are only extetia eterpetations, Look somerhing ike the experience ol socnise poll be south = | Na the famous etyznalogy of ggathgs.* Thisis_alua_what Nietzsche says, ‘gains which Niewiche rUgGIET and by which he wantaemed, exper: | snl au Sas te intend by the woos clases: Stiinta inte aici | |. Sewage pe Teowret S snnuish. Dhascaseitges of madness would be the peouly (or massing | (As not Becaase there are primary and enigmatic signs that we are now ded of ineroefation cache ihe figgy of is Teer and which cot / Ji? sted (outs wigan of interpretation, bu becawe thee ar interpre pet ggg ms elo Sh teh deere oie tht_aset sp bing hth 1 cape te nat esata TA re ee at "belie tht thi ese incompleteness of interpretation i inked iee ae sg. igs wich peri ow the inerpeation oti ter thet Ihave jst mentioned, would Conte the poste of nora be sid that Alegria, Hyponein, we atthe ounation of lange Sed hermeneutics. This one Tat: i inerpetation can never be bret To 28 before not what esd ude the words afer ware (non par qe 29 end, i is simply Beease thre 1 wohing to ntl There raking {Fin pres coup sous les matin ede 0 dplace them td make them absolutely primary © iteret, because at btm everthing alicey i iba, bt what give bith to word, what cause them to ating ih a terretation [tout x dt inerpréain), Each sign isin self the thing brllance ta ave ae Tis also wy, nthe works of Nletshe, that preseas ise to iterpetation, bu the interpretation of otber sign. the neopterin oe ["aéidigue“l he sabe“ genuine one Thetis never if ou wil, an Unerpretanio which smo aey a9 (erable Gauss be aks himself mater of» seeping Jahn dnerpreans. 50 that thee is exalished in nerpeation 2 reaion of oe wer.) bea declares the in _ lene as mich as of ehldton. In fat, ierretacon does wot nt tbe uncon ogee Peis ths premnence of Inept an interpretive topic that would offer ise passively ta it i can only vir ‘elation o signs is what most decisive in modern hermeneutes, Henly seize an interpretation alieady there, which it must revere. eur 7h hing eee hei imps ag) shater with Blows ofa hammer This i seen already inthe works of Mars ‘may 20 ad eee Bing We war i ecco Theo which do no inferprt the histry of rations tan, ba which ‘cnthentay, when the plethora OT sijm—the fact that things were inerpet a elation that, inasmuch a presents ise ss nite. lead alike—simply paved the banevolence of God, and only transparent ell hig isl asa nerpettion Likewise, Gud ds a incu ss separated the sgn fom the sid. On the oe had, fom te nine DyLinerectin ned, what dos Fred cover ter syplona He tent try on ain eh Esa Mat andacheen o don dove ane, main" Engr fs tn ha the gn sina sue plat nean te a wiht bes ofc pee abies onsale ates of wil pd "al," ar Moeser nor the unis sale ae eaten ohon ieas such, signs are interpretations which ty 19 theses “Ths fonctions money a one sees it dine inthe Crue of Palit ‘cal Economy, and above alin the fat book of Copia. Sygtoms sho function inthe sate way nthe works of Frew, And i the work Ni tute, yore, tie, the Binary clacton of God and Ev, ta to say. gps. ae mast By aequing this ewan of eovering op Ieee ee trea gh ot sie 2 sie hati ill pobeied atthe time ofthe Renaissance. is own ihgkness cones Tella al-he negative ences which gd. unt he semaine frien he theory ofthe sign ea shite the ing. Thi theory bad known oly Te aniparen moran sed the ng ve pealy [pie ofthe vei. Now th whole pay of zeptine concep eect intr ees py af tne forces thal Delcuze-has analyzed so well in his Book qo Nictasche® has the owe tw onan lL inte itr of he si. To pt the ete Back on sft” Wis expression must have a meaning, i i not 0 have jl replaced in the thickness of the sign, in that ‘open, faping space without end, im tht space without real content or ree ‘onelation, allthis play of negativity thatthe dialetie Finally wocapped in ‘Biving ti a positive sense? tify themselves, and not Finally, the lst characteristic of hermeneutics: self before hs ligation of inlerpting set endlessly. 9 lng sell From here, vo important consequenes follow. [Ty Tugs intrpeation wil be henceforth always interpretation by the’ who (alu ron 5, which isa time when payments all dv, and in opposition to the age ofthe cialectic, which despte every. thing is linear, one has an age of interpretation whichis cele The age ts cbliged wo pass again where it has already patted, which on the whole Imakes thatthe only danger which interpretation really rons, but iis ypreme danger, for it i paradoxically the signs which make it run the ink, Ws tg belive hat ern (ad stem a sieve that shar ie gig but ierpretatons. It seems to me that one must understand wel ‘hat which muny of our contemporaries forget, that hermeneutics and semi- ‘ology ae two ferocious enemies. A termencute that in fac wads sll sound 2 semiology, belie eee Ty A Noes vga -evoumont (ais Les Elis de Mina lished as Nise, Freud, Maa" l Metsche, Cas di 1860), pp. i3-52—ED. 1 The “round tbl Focal refer to was dciton belé daring the Seveth interatioealPhiotptial Callum at Royeuont, Jy 4-8, B64. AL ‘he Calloqiam on Nise, papers were presented by Foucault, Jean Beau Hens Brault, Girpo Coll and Marino Monta, Giller Dslesse, Edouard (tie, Dante Gre, Pierre Kiszawat, Kar Lith, Gabriel Marl, Hetbert W, Reichert, Boris de Sclaeter, Gina Vaigo ad Jean Wabl—TRANS. 2. iedich Niewshe, Daybreat, Section 46 2. Te reference Fees appear in the preface othe Gt Gera efton 06 Capt “TRANS 4. I. Fetch Nietsche, Beyond Good and Bil, Setion 39. [The German text, which vend "ee limi bu ur Grandeahaferet det Daten fe Ice ditt mon on seiner wdlien Ertemnis mre ginge

You might also like