Has philosophy eroticized the question? Improperly? That is, in a
way that would disguise its true beauty? Or its original difficulty?
You see, I've picked up Caputo's Radical Hermeneutics: Repetition, Deconstruction, and the Hermeneutic Project
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987). The difficulty I'm
going to have is that I'm going to prematurely conclude that the
distinction between metaphysics and hermeneutics is specious, or perhaps
not rigorously followed. Caputo is, it cannot be denied, a true
believer in repetition, a belief redolent of metaphysics. By all means
let's go to Berlin twice and compare notes.
So we have now a kind of ébranler
of the question, a trembling that Caputo and possibly some other
philosophers find exciting. This is why he is passionate in his disdain
of metaphysics, a disdain I could easily agree with given certain
understandings. "Metaphysics always makes a show of beginning with
questions, but no sooner do things begin to waver a bit and look
uncertain than the question is foreclosed. The disruptive force of the
question is contained; the opening it created is closed; the wavering is
stilled" (p. 1). This objection comes from a thinker whose metanarrative demands that all philosophy question majuscular B
Being as presence, as if questions alone weren't demanding enough.
There are reasons, then, to suspect that Caputo's hermeneutics will put a
question or two into foreclosure, despite his being the George Bailey
of philosophical questions.
Can we turn the tables on our
lovely question? Are you androgynous? Are you comfortable with your
sexuality, lovely question? Are you underwater? Just thought I'd ask.
By Fido The Yak
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar