Table Of Content

A Touch of Doubt Studies and Texts in Scepticism Edited on behalf of the Maimonides Centre for Advanced Studies by Giuseppe Veltri Managing Editor: Yoav Meyrav Editorial Board Heidrun Eichner, Talya Fishman, Racheli Haliva, Henrik Lagerlund, Reimund Leicht, Stephan Schmid, Carsten Wilke, Irene Zwiep Volume 9 A Touch of Doubt On Haptic Scepticism Edited by Rachel Aumiller The series Studies and Texts in Scepticism is published on behalf of the Maimonides Centre for Advanced Studies Maimonides Centre for Advanced Studies JEWISH SCEPTICISM ISBN 978-3-11-062395-6 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-062717-6 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-062433-5 ISSN 2568-9614 DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110627176 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. For details go to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Library of Congress Control Number: 2020943768 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2021 Rachel Aumiller, published by Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Cover image: Mark Tansey, Doubting Thomas, 1986, oil on canvas, 65 x 54 inches (165.1 x 137.2 cm.) © Mark Tansey. Courtesy Gagosian Gallery, New York Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com Contents Acknowledgements 1 Rachel Aumiller Sensation & Hesitation: Haptic Scepticismas an Ethics of Touching 2 Jacob Levi “Es wird Leib, es empfindet”: Auto-Affection, Doubt, and the Philosopher’s Hands 30 Robert Pfaller When to Touch and What to Doubt: Zeroing In on the Tactile Surplus 58 Bara Kolenc The (Un)Touchable Touch of Pyramus and Thisbe: Doubt and Desire 78 Bill Rebiger A Magic Touch: Performative Haptic Acts in Biblical and Medieval Jewish Magic 104 Libera Pisano Noli me tangere: The Profaning Touch That Challenges Authority 122 Mirt Komel Touching Doubt: Haptolinguistic Scepticism 138 Goran Vranešević An Atom of Touch: Scepticism from Hegel to Lacan 156 Adi Louria Hayon The Weak Relations of Touch and Sight through the Passage of Lapsed Time 178 List of Contributors 207 List of Figures 211 Index 213 Acknowledgements IamgratefultothedirectorsoftheMaimonidesCentreforAdvancedStudiesforsup- porting my research vision as a member of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft projectonJewishscepticism.Ithanktheauthorsofthisvolumefortheirwillingness to bridge traditional scholarship, experimental methods, and interdisciplinary collaboration. I especially thank my colleagues from the University of Ljubljana—Mirt KomelandthemembersofTOUCHLAN—forourongoingcollaborationonthetopics oflanguage,touch,anddoubt.Ourcommunal researchwasmadepossiblethrough the support of the Slovenian National Agency for Research. The collaborative thinking represented in this volume was developed over the courseoftwoyearsthroughaseriesofworkshopsandeventshostedbytheUniver- sity of Hamburg, the University of Ljubljana, Villanova University, and The New School for Social Research. I thank the communities at each of these institutes for their insight and enthusiasm.Our researchwas further enriched by artistic projects ledbyZackSieversandBaraKolenc(HapticCinematography,seepp.4–5)andBara Kolenc, Mirt Komel, and Atej Tutta (Hegel’s Begriff, see p. 20). MarkTanseyhasgranteduspermissiontousetheimageof “DoubtingThomas” onmultipleoccasions,includingforthiscover.Thisimagehasbeenasourceofcon- ceptualinspiration.Eachchapterofthisvolumewasdevelopedthroughthesupport of anonymous peer reviewers,who provided us with the opportunity to refine and deepen our thinking. I would like to recognise the careful attention of the editorial team at the Maimonides Centre, especially that of Yoav Meyrav, Katharine Handel, and Mikheil Kakabadze. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110627176-001 Fig.1:MarkTansey,DoubtingThomas,1986,oiloncanvas,65x54inches(165.1x137.2cm.)©Mark Tansey.CourtesyGagosianGallery,NewYork. Rachel Aumiller Sensation & Hesitation: Haptic Scepticism as an Ethics of Touching Itissaidthatseeingisbelieving.Typically,thisadageistakentomeanthatsightis the strongest empirical affirmation of what we believe to be true. And yet, as the adagealsoimplies,althoughsightmaystrengthenone’sbelief,itdoesnotguarantee certain knowledge. In opposition to sight,touch presents itself as proof for what is real.Touchcanserveasarealitycheckthatawakensanindividualfromherslumber. We pinch ourselves to confirm we are not dreaming.We slap a comrade across the cheek to bring him to his senses.¹ Thisvolumetracesan alliancedrawn throughout the historyofWesternphilos- ophy and religion between belief and sight on one side and doubt/certainty and touchontheother.Ineverydayspeech,thescepticisoftenassociatedwiththefigure of “DoubtingThomas”:thedisbelieverwiththecompulsiontotouchwhatothersac- cept on appearance alone.Whereas the dogmatist may be satisfied with believing what she sees, the sceptic is not satisfied until she has thrust her finger into the very site of her uncertainty. Although the sceptic has been framed as the doubter with the compulsion to touch and thus overcome doubt, the history of philosophical scepticism questions thereliabilityofthesenses,givingparticularattentiontotouch.Wefindscepticalac- counts of touch in Pyrrho’s modes,which describe the inconsistencies and idiosyn- crasies of our tactile sensations (our pleasure and pain, our sense of coolness and warmth).² We may also consider René Descartes’s suspicion of the parchment that he holds in his own hands (not to mention the existence of his own hands),which he performs as an exercise in scepticism.³ Other classical sceptical arguments about touch abound: Perhaps I am dreaming (dreaming even of the sensation of pinching myself awake). Perhaps I am not the active knower—the one who touch- es—perhaps I am instead the one who is touched—by spirits, by an evil genius, by illness,by madness.⁴  ThroughoutthischapterIalternatebetweendifferentpronouns:she,he,they.Mypronounchoice reflectsbothacriticalandplayfulperspectiveongender.  SextusEmpiricus,OutlinesofScepticism,trans.JuliaAnnasandJonathanBarnes(Cambridge:Cam- bridgeUniversityPress,1994):hapticsensationassubjectiveandsituational(I.56,80–87,109,210–11; II.52);hapticsensationascontradictoryorparadoxical(I.91–94;III.194–97).  René Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, trans. Donald A. Cress (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1993).  Plato’sTheaetetusaddressesdebatessurroundingthereliabilityofsensationinconnectiontothe characterizationofknowledgeitselfasadream(Plato,Theaetetus,inTheaetetusandSophist,trans. ChristopherRowe[Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2015],201d8–6c2).Thescepticaltropeof questioningsensationasaproductofdreams,illness,ormadnessstretchesfromPlatonismtomod- https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110627176-002 4 RachelAumiller Sometimes, the sceptic openly confesses to her compulsion to touch or to be touched; at other times,this accusation is made against the insatiable sceptic who is not content with faith alone. This leads me to the questions that inspired the topicofthisvolume:Howdidthescepticgainthereputationnotonlyasthedoubter, but also as the toucher? Has she been falsely framed? Or is there some truth to the characterisation of the sceptic as one who pokes holes in every dogma with which she comes into contact? Why does the sceptic get off on sticking her hands into the sticky cracks of reason itself? Does the sceptic get her hands dirty in order to overcome her doubt, or does touching only complicate the matter at hand further? In order to pursue these questions, the Maimonides Centre’s research team on Jewish Scepticism at the University of Hamburg joined powers with a research team oriented in the Ljubljana School of Psychoanalysis called “The Language of Touch: Linguistic Perspectives in Haptic Studies.” This most unusual collaboration gave rise to a series of workshops and lectures held in Germany, Slovenia, and the United States. It also inspired several unconventional research initiatives, such as an international project in philosophy and film called Haptic Cinematography and an interactive installation called Hegel’s Begriff. Our investigations led us to identify the prominent theme of touch throughout the history of philosophical scepticism and its intersections with religion, politics, art,andculture.Wegosofarastoclaimthatthethemeoftouch—shapedbyshifting cultural attitudes towards touching—drives major shifts in the questions posed by philosophy. Andyet, despite the persistent question of touch at each philosophical stage, this key aspect of scepticism had not yet been named or acknowledged in mainstream philosophical scholarship or in haptic studies. Icointheterm“hapticscepticism”tomarktouchasasiteofepistemicandeth- icalquestioningandcrisis.Hapticscepticismdenotesexperiencesoftouchthatcall touchitselfintoquestionandapossibleresponsethisexperience.Thestudyofhap- tic scepticism thus pursues two questions:What kinds of personal or shared haptic experiencesthrowusintocrisis?Whatkindsofresponsestothecrisisoftouchallow for transformation: the transformation of those who experience crisis, of those we touch, and of touch itself as a mediator between self and others? In addition to “haptic scepticism,” I introduce “haptic dogmatism” to identify unquestionedbeliefsandpracticesinvolvingtouch.Hapticdogmatismisembedded inpersonalandculturalvalues,rituals,andhabit.Itisalsoexpressedbythosewho cling to their “right” to touch or the rightness of their touch. Haptic scepticism dis- rupts haptic dogmatism, creating the opportunity for transformed ways of coming ernpsychoanalysis.Freud,notably,claimsthatourinabilitytodrawaclearlinebetweenwakefulness anddream-statescanyieldexcessivedoubtakintoneurosis,whiledogmaticcertaintyinwhatone senses to be true is a kind of psychosis. Aclassiccase of doubt as obsessionalneurosis is found inFreud’sanalysisofRatMan:seeTheStandardEditionoftheCompletePsychologicalWorksofSig- mundFreud.VolumeX(1909):TwoCaseHistories(LittleHansandtheRatMan),trans.JamesStrachey andAnnaFreud(London:HogarthPress,1962).