Being Different: More Neoplatonism after Derrida

267 Pages·2013·1.85 MB·English

by  Stephen E. Gersh

Being Different
Ancient Mediterranean
and Medieval Texts
and Contexts
Editors
RobertM.Berchman
JacobNeusner
Studies in Platonism, Neoplatonism,
and the Platonic Tradition
Editedby
RobertM.Berchman
DowlingCollegeandBardCollege
JohnF.Finamore
UniversityofIowa
EditorialBoard
JOHNDILLON(TrinityCollege,Dublin)–GARYGURTLER(BostonCollege)
JEAN-MARCNARBONNE(LavalUniversity,Canada)
VOLUME16
Thetitlespublishedinthisseriesarelistedatbrill.com/spnp
Being Different
More Neoplatonism after Derrida
By
StephenGersh
LEIDEN•BOSTON
2014
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Gersh,Stephen.
Beingdifferent:moreNeoplatonismafterDerrida/byStephenGersh.
pagescm.–(AncientMediterraneanandmedievaltextsandcontexts)
(StudiesinPlatonism,Neoplatonism,andthePlatonictradition,ISSN1871-188X;VOLUME16)
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
ISBN978-90-04-26140-2(hardback:alk.paper)–ISBN978-90-04-26164-8(e-book:alk.paper)
1.Neoplatonism.2.Derrida,Jacques.I.Title.
B517.G4852013
141'.2–dc23
2013034217
Thispublicationhasbeentypesetinthemultilingual“Brill”typeface.Withover5,100
characterscoveringLatin,IPA,Greek,andCyrillic,thistypefaceisespeciallysuitablefor
useinthehumanities.Formoreinformation,pleaseseewww.brill.com/brill-typeface.
ISSN1871-188X
ISBN978-90-04-26140-2(hardback)
ISBN978-90-04-26164-8(e-book)
Copyright2014byKoninklijkeBrillNV,Leiden,TheNetherlands.
KoninklijkeBrillNVincorporatestheimprintsBrill,GlobalOriental,HoteiPublishing,
IDCPublishersandMartinusNijhoffPublishers.
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,translated,storedin
aretrievalsystem,ortransmittedinanyformorbyanymeans,electronic,mechanical,
photocopying,recordingorotherwise,withoutpriorwrittenpermissionfromthepublisher.
AuthorizationtophotocopyitemsforinternalorpersonaluseisgrantedbyKoninklijkeBrillNV
providedthattheappropriatefeesarepaiddirectlytoTheCopyrightClearanceCenter,
222RosewoodDrive,Suite910,Danvers,MA01923,USA.
Feesaresubjecttochange.
Thisbookisprintedonacid-freepaper.
CONTENTS
Preface.................................................................. vii
Acknowledgements..................................................... xv
1 NeoplatonicCompulsions
Augustine........................................................... 1
2 Derrida’sParadigmsofNegativeTheology.......................... 29
2.1 BridgingtheGap
Proclus ......................................................... 31
2.2 Prayer(s)
Pseudo-Dionysius............................................... 75
2.3 HearingVoices
MeisterEckhart................................................. 97
2.4 FromtheOnetotheBlank
Damascius...................................................... 115
3 Philosophy[Space]Literature
Proclus—Mallarmé................................................. 169
Bibliography ............................................................ 225
IndexofNames ......................................................... 243
IndexofTermsandConcepts........................................... 246

PREFACE
ThisbookisaboutBeingbecauseitdealswiththeNeoplatonistswhowrite
about “being” (toon). It is about Difference because it deals with Derrida
whowritesabout“difference”(différence).ItisaboutBeingandDifference
becauseitdealswiththeNeoplatonistsandalsowithDerrida.
BeingDifferent.MoreNeoplatonismafterDerridaisthetitleofthesecond
part of a project begun around 2000 of which the first part was entitled
NeoplatonismafterDerrida.Parallelogramsandwaspublishedin2006.1The
reasons for embarking on such a project were explained in the preface
to the earlier volume and, apart from mentioning that a certain crisis in
traditional metaphysics and the response of various modern readers of
Neoplatonismtothatcrisishadgiventhebroaderprojectitsinitialimpetus,
wewillnotrestatethoseargumentsindetailatthispoint.However,itmay
be useful to clarify the nature of the project a little further in the light
ofmisunderstandings that seem tohaveoccurredin theminds of certain
readersoftheearlierbook.
Aboveall,itisnecessarytograspthesignificanceofthephrase“Neopla-
tonismafterDerrida”thatwasthetitleofthefirstvolumeandisthesubtitle
of the second. The project was not labelled “Derrida after Neoplatonism”
becauseitwasnotprimarilyconcernedwithDerrida’sresponsetoNeopla-
tonismortheinfluenceofNeoplatonismuponDerrida:topicsadmittedlyof
someinterestbecauseDerridaisoneofthefewmodernthinkerswhohave
made the effort to comprehend this tradition historically and creatively.
The project was labelled “Neoplatonism after Derrida” in order to under-
linethefactthat,inconsideringtherelationbetweenNeoplatonicthought
andDerrida’swriting,thepossibilityofNeoplatonism’sfutureenrichment
by an encounter with deconstruction is the paramount issue. Despite its
commitmenttowhateverismetaphysicallyprior,stable,andtimeless,the
thinkingtowhichthelabel“Neo-platonism”hasbeenattachedduringthe
1 StephenGersh,NeoplatonismafterDerrida.Parallelograms(Leiden:Brill,2006).For
ananalysisofthisvolumeseethevaluablestudyofD.GregoryMacIsaac,“PlatonicDecon-
struction.AReviewEssayofStephenGersh’sNeoplatonismafterDerrida.Parallelograms,”in
Dionysius27(2009),pp.199–225.
viii preface
last one hundred and fifty years has always been an evolving tradition.2
WhenPlotinusturnedtowardsthephilosophyofPlatohepenetratedtoits
depthsbutalsochangeditradically.Augustinetookthetransformedlegacy
ofPlato—whichwasbynowaPlatonism(orreallyaNeo-Platonism)—and
madeitChristian.MarsilioFicinousedasynthesisofthePlotinianadAugus-
tinianversionstoinitiateanewstyleofthinkingthatbecameanauthorita-
tivecommentaryonPlatohimself.Moreover,thephilosophiesofPlotinus,
Augustine,andFicinosimplyrepresentthreeofthemainstagesofanevolv-
ing tradition that contains many subordinate phases, many interruptions
and reprises, and many deviations. There have also been related and par-
alleltraditionsofthinkingthat,althoughtheyarenotnormallydescribed
withtheterm“Neoplatonism”sharemanyofthattradition’sphilosophical
assumptions.ThisisparticularlytruewithrespecttoGermanyinthelate
eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries and to European Romanticism
moregenerally.ThereappearanceofNeoplatonicconceptsorthemescan
thusbenotedinobviousplacessuchastheobjectiveIdealismofHegelorin
boththeearlierandthelaterphilosophiesofSchellingandinlessobvious
onessuchasSchleiermacher’sreadingofSpinozaandJacobi.Ifthethinking
towhichthelabel“Neoplatonism”hasbeenattachedduringthelastcen-
turyandahalfisindeedanevolvingoneofthekindjustdescribed,there
isabsolutelynoreasontothinkthatthiswillnotcontinuetobethecase.
OnecouldthereforeseeDerrida’squasi-methodofdeconstructionassimply
thelateststimulustowardsthecontinuanceandtransformationofNeopla-
tonism. The project of “Neoplatonism after Derrida” is designed precisely
inordertofacilitateNeoplatonism’spossiblefutureenrichmentfromthat
source—howeverradicalthetransformationofNeoplatonismmayturnout
tobe.
AsexplainedintheprefacetoNeoplatonismafterDerrida:Parallelograms,
foranyoneattemptingtothinktherelationbetweenNeoplatonicthought
andDerrida’swriting,twobasicstrategiesseempossible.Afirstapproach
to the relation between Neoplatonism and Derrida is represented by the
endeavourtodisclose“Neoplatonic”elementswithintheDerrideanenter-
prise,themoststrikingexampleofthisapproachbeingthediscoveryofa
“semiotic square” as a habitual concomitant of the play of différance. The
mannerinwhichformalnecessityhereseeminglyintrudesintoadiscour-
sivepracticebasedoncontingencycanbeunderstoodagainstthebackdrop
2 OnthisquestionseeStephenGersh,“Platonism,PlatonicTradition,”inTheEncyclope-
diaofPhilosophy,2nd.edition,ed.DonaldM.Borchert(Detroit:MacmillanReference,2006).
preface ix
of Neoplatonic thought. The semiotic square had always been familiar to
studentsofAristotle’slogicwhereitgovernsthedistinctionbetweenuni-
versalsubstances,universalaccidents,individualsubstancesandindividual
accidentswithinthetheoryofcategories,andthatbetweenuniversalaffir-
mative, universal negative, particular affirmative, and particular negative
withinthetheoryofpropositions.Itlaterbecamecrucialtotheunderstand-
ing of Neoplatonic metaphysics, since the logical aspect of the process of
causationthatconsistsofaneffect’sremaininginitscause,aneffect’spro-
cession fromits cause, and an effect’sreversionis seen toimply a similar
fourfold pattern when the doubling of an effect’s reversion to itself and
toitscauseistakenintoaccount.Afourfoldstructureofthistypecanbe
discernedasunderlyingDerrida’sdiscussionofnegativetheologyinterms
of three “paradigms” in a text to be examined later in some detail. In the
presentvolume,however,wewillprimarilyconsiderhowthisNeoplatonic
elementwithintheDerrideanenterpriseisdevelopeda.asasub-textwithin
thewritingsoftheNeoplatoniststhemselves—Here,Damascius’interpre-
tationoftheninepropositionsinthesecondpartofPlato’sParmenidesand
itsrelationtotheaporeticdialecticthroughwhichtheIneffableisexperi-
encedwillbeamongthefocusesofattention—;b.asanironicmotifinthe
writingofHeidegger:thatis,wheretheEreignis(“Enowning”)ischaracter-
izedasafourfoldmirror-play.Asecondapproachtotherelationbetween
NeoplatonismandDerridaisconstitutedbytheprojectofrevealing“Der-
ridean”elementswithinNeoplatonicthought,themostnotableexampleof
thisapproachbeingthediscoveryofa“performativeutterance”asaneces-
sarycomplementtothetheoryofBeing.Themannerinwhichcontingency
hereseeminglyintrudesintoametaphysicalsystembasedonformalneces-
sity can be understood against the background of Derridean writing. The
notionofaperformativeutteranceingeneralimpliessomekindofinten-
sified relation between description and enactment that has the effect of
undermining the conventional distinction between language and reality,
andDerridaunderstandsthisperformativityasincludingmorespecifically
on the one hand a linguistic item such as the first person, present tense,
verbs “I promise” and “I bequeath” where description is actually identi-
cal with enactment, and on the other hand a linguistic item such as the
anagrammaticgeneralstructuretrace-écart(“trace/track-deviation”)where
descriptionismerelyparallelwithenactment,thefirsttypeofperformative
oftenbeingcalledthe“Austinian”performativeinhonourofthephilosopher
J.L.Austinwhofirstdrewattentiontoit.Thenotionofaperformativeutter-
anceingeneralcanbeseenasunderlyingDerrida’sdiscussionofthesecond
ofthethree“paradigms”ofnegativetheologyinthetexttobeexaminedin