derrida, j - a taste for the secret (polity, 2001)

7/13/2019 Derrida, J - A Taste for the Secret (Polity, 2001)

1/86


2/86

T STE FOR THE SECRET

Jacques errida andMaurizio Ferraris

Translated from the French and Italian byGiacomo onis

Edited by Giacomo onis and avid WebbI

II

.


3/86

Copyright this translation Polity Press 2001. First puhlished as II Gusto delSegreto Gius. Laterza and Figli Spa, Roma-Bari, 1'1')7. English languageedition arranged through the mediation of Eulama Literary Agency.Published with the financial assistance of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.First published in 2001 by Polity Press in association with Blackwell Publishers,a Blackwell Publishing Company.Reprinted 2002Editorial officePolity Press65 Bridge StreetCambridge CB2 1 UR, UKMarketing and production:Blackwell Publishers Ltd108 Cowley RoadOxford OX4 UF, UKPublished in the US yBlackwell Publishers Inc.350 Main StreetMalden, MA 02148, USAAll rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purposesof criticism and review, no part of this publication may be reproduced, storedin a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permissionof the publisher.Except in the United States of America, this book is sold subject to thecondition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hiredout, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form ofbinding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similarcondition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataDerrida, Jacques.[Gusto del segretto. English1

A taste for the secret / Jacques Derrida and Maurizio Ferraris; translatedfrom the French and Italian by Giacomo Donis; edited by Giacomo Donisand David Webb.

p. em.Includes bibliographical references.ISBN 0-7456-2333-6 Calk. paper)-ISBN 0-7456-2334-4 Cphk. : alk. paper)1. Derrida, Jacques-Interviews. 2. Philosopry. I Ferraris, Maurizio,

1956- II Donis, Giacomo. III Wehh, David. IV. Title>.B2430.D4H4 ASI3 ZOO II94-dcZI

Typc.sl'l 111 II 011 1'\ pt Ik,llI,ghv (; 1'111< ,.dt I ,tl 1, I I , , ~ : K gPl l I l tn l l l l (111 ,11 Hllt .lllI I lv ~ l P I H,u,k, I I. HII I I I1I I1I 11111\\ ,all

00 (HiSS7S

,ontents

Secretaire Jacques Derrida and Maurizio Ferraris vii

'I Have a Taste for the Secret Jacques Derrida 1

What is There? Maurizio Ferraris 93

Bibliography 159


4/86


5/86

viii SECRET IRECritique o Pure Reason De nobis ipsis silemus . After all, itis not a question of explaining the script with a transcribedspeech that s still more phenomenic and clarified. The ques-tion, instead, is that of wondering why thought resemblesnot only what is called the life of the mind , but also reality;and above all of questioning the schematism that regulatesthis strange resemblance .

J.D. and M.F.Paris, 12 June 1996

ave a aste for the Secref

Jacques errida


6/86

Form is a trace of the formless; i t is the formless that producesform, not form the formless; and matter is needed for theproducing; matter, in the nature of things, is furthest away,since of itself it has not even the lowest degree of form.Thus lovableness does not belong to matter but to that whichdraws upon form: the form upon matter comes by way ofsoul; soul is more nearly form and therefore more lovable;Intellectual Principle, nearer still, is even more to be loved:by these steps we are led to know that the primary nature ofBeauty must be formless.Plotinus, Enneads, VI, 7, 33, trans. S. Mac Kenna[translation modified]Derrida. If by system is meant - and this is the minimalsense of the word - a sort of consequence, coherence andinsistence - a certain gathering together - there is an injunc-tion to the system that I have never renounced, and neverwished to. This can be seen in the recurrence of motifs andreferences from one text to another in my work, despite thediffering occasions and pretexts - a recurrence that, havingreached 'a certain age, I find rather striking. What I havemanaged to write in the course of these past thirty years hasbeen guided by a certain insistence that others may well finddownright monotonous. System , however, in a philosophicalsense that is mort rigorow. and perhaps more modern, canalso be taken to Illl'all a IlIlali/alion in the configuration, acontinuity of all ,tatc'IlIC II . I / m, l t llllwft nn (not coherenceitself), n v o l v l l ~ ttlC \,1111 :11 II \ III IlIgli. a ll rtain VVH which


7/86


8/86


9/86


10/86


11/86


12/86


13/86


14/86

18 I HAVE A TASTI H)I { Till SECRET'the French institutions - the relation between the university,the Ecole Norma1e, the Collt'ge de France, the Hautes Etudes;all this is not an opposition between the legitimate and theillegitimate, but rather a very complicated distribution ofthe demands of legitimacy.

Paris, 16 July 1993

Justice without strength is powerless. Strength without justice is tyrannical. Justice without strength is a contradictionbecause there are always wicked people. Strength withoutjustice is an indictment. So justice and strength must be joined,and for that, what is just must be made strong, or what isstrong, just.Pascal, Pensees trans. Honor Levi, 125, p. 34

Derrida. In dealing with what-is-to-come [l avenir],Z withthe opening to the to-come [l a-venir] - that is, not only tothe future [JUtur] but to what happens [ce qui arrive], comes[vient], has the form of an event - this opening must certainlybe linked up with what we said yesterday about context: witha movement that consists not only in inscribing itself in acontext - and from this point of view there is nothing butcontext - but thereby also in producing a context, transforming a given [donne] context, opening it up and bringingabout a new contextual giving [donne: hand of cards]. Fromthis point of view, a work [oeuvre] - or, for that matter, aphrase or a gesture, a mark [marque] or a chain of marks -inflects a context and, in so doing, appeals for a new one. Asimple phrase takes its meaning from a given context, andalready makes its appeal to another one in which it will be, Although avenir will usually be translated as 'future', Lkrrida plays throughoutthe text on the st'n,,' of 'c()llling' implicit within it; till' .,,n. of ,i I { / l i r . 'to lOI lHA similar . ' I l . \ ( ' of 1I10VI lIlt 1l1 i., xpressl'd hy f1rril f r, whi, h I all Illt ' ,lll hoth toarrive ilnd to h,II'I '1l Ld,


15/86


16/86


17/86


18/86


19/86


20/86


21/86


22/86


23/86


24/86


25/86


26/86


27/86


28/86


29/86


30/86


31/86


32/86


33/86


34/86


35/86


36/86


37/86


38/86


39/86


40/86


41/86


42/86


43/86


44/86


45/86


46/86


47/86


48/86


49/86


50/86

9 I HAVE A TASTI FOR THE SECRET

fiat. y definition there is no natural violence an earthquake


51/86

is not violent it is only violent insofar as it damages humaninterests. If we agree that there is no natural violence in thesense of naturality then we ought to call violence that whichdoes not let the other be what he is does not leave room forthe other. I have often been reproached, as you know, fornot arguing; I find this reproach very unjust. I think, in factthat I try never to be brutal or dogmatic or to say: that sjust how it is.

Brutality is not only an unrefined violence it is a badviolence impoverishing repetitive, mechanical, that doesnot open the future, does not leave room for the other. Andit is clear that brutality also has an aesthetic connotation,even if I do not wish to give the aesthetic dimension finaljurisdiction here. Nevertheless it s true that brutality reducesto the amorphous, impoverishes form leads to a loss of dif-ferentiation. Perhaps this is all a slightly Apollonian mannerof defending against orgiastic or Dionysian violence whichcan play on the formless the amorphous, fusion but if dif-ference is violence and violence is differentiating brutalityhomogenizes and effaces singularity.

Turin, 19 January 1995

What is ThereMaurizio erraris

92 I HAVE TASTI HI{ THE SECRETatural violence , anearthquake


52/86

fiat. ydefin i tion there isno nis notv iolent, it isonly v io len t insofar asit damages humanin teres ts. Ifwe agree that there isno natural violence in thesenseofnatu ra li ty , thenweoughtto callv io lence thatwhichdoes not let the other bewhath e is, does notleav e room for the other. I have often been reproached, asyou know , fo r not arguing; I f in d th is reproachvery un jus t. I think, in fact,that I try never to be brutal or dogmatic , or to say: thats just how it is.

B ru ta li ty is not only an unrefined violence, it isa badviolence , im poverish ing, repeti tive, mechan ical , that doesnotopen the future, does not leave room for the other. Andit isclear that brutali ty also has an aes the tic connotation,even if I do not wish to giv e the aesthe t ic dimension finalju risd ic tion h ere . Nevertheless , its true thatbrutalityreduces to the amorphous, impoverishes form , leads to a lo ss ofdif-feren tia tion . Perhaps th is isall a slightly Apollonianmannerofdefending again st orgia stic, orDionysian , Violence, which can p lay on the form le ss, th e amorphous, fUSion, but ifdif-ference isv io lence and v io lence is d if feren tia ting , brutalityhomogenizes and eff aces singularity .

Turin, 19 January 1995

What sThere

Maurizio erraris


53/86

1 IndexOntology has wrongly been considered a science of scarcitywhen in fact, from Clauberg on, it has been a science ofabundance. In this sense Quine is perfectly right when, inthe first essay ['On What There Is ] of From a Logical Pointof View to the question he poses - 'What is there? - heanswers, with untroubled irony, Everything . But troublesstart right away, as soon as one attempts to distinguish thedifferent cases implied by such an ecumenical reply. Whatis there, then? There is for example this body, this sheet ofpaper, this fire. A finger, generally the index, gives a signtowards something, and indicates it as this. And this is pres-ence ontology in the simple and hyperbolic sense. Here wehave a primary phainesthai which we would be inclined toname 'presence' in the proper sense - proper as opposed tometaphorical - if it were not for the fact that, as in theMeditations on First Philosophy there is first of all a cogitowith respect to which body, sheet, fire are present (andwhose presence is exposed to hyperbolical doubt). This con-sideration opens a crack (Kant called it the true scandal ofphilosophy) in the most ancient conviction of philosophyand common sense; the kriterion tes aletheias according towhich all sensations are true. ll at once everything is turnedupside down. just as when, in Husserl s example, the man Iwas l o ) k i n ~ at ' till hup willdow shows itself to he amannequin. By till 111\1 tukell. pn'lisely that which is not


54/86


55/86


56/86


57/86


58/86


59/86


60/86


61/86


62/86


63/86

116 WHAT IS THERE?Theaetetus (191ff), taken up by Aristotle De Anima: ~ 4 a17 20 De Memoria, 450a 31-2), and later by traditional


64/86

rhetorical psychology (see, for example, Quintilianus, XI, 2,4) - and which underlies the gnoseol?gical v a ~ u e of thetabula rasa - that which is impressed m the mmd under-stood as tabula or block of wax is not the iron or bronze ?fthe ring, but rather its imprint. This ~ o n : i d e r a t i o n blurs, mparticular, the differentiation between ~ h e m ~ a n ~ phantasma,because, on the basis of this reasonmg, alsthemata them-selves are in no way more material than phantasmata.

1. FormAs a student of philosophy at the lycee Louis-Ie-Grand,Derrida wrote essays described as Plotinian' (Bennington,p. 328). Now, a cardinal statement of the Enneads (VI, 7, 33)runs: to gar ichnos tou amorphou morphe. Although Derridaexplicitly quoted the passage only twice Margins of Philo-sophy, pp. 66, 157), in a number of ways the principleregulates all his reflections: form is that to which the indexrefers and it constitutes itself as presence, as this sensible orintelligible, but, in its presenting itself, it is from the 'beginning' the ichnos of a non-presence that heralds and recallsits other. Forma is the Latin for a complex of Greek valuesrunning the gamut from pure eidos, to morphe as involvedwith and opposed to matter, to schema, which holds forboth the visible and invisible, according to the alternative,still in force in Bacon, between schematismus patens andlatens. In Cuvier, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, Thompson d Arcy,schema is form as principle of the intelligibility of an object,but already in Plato it is connected with both eidos andrythmos, which explains in what sense there can be a formof time. Form is seen, but also heard (the refrain, the sonataform), intuited and thought, presenting itself as a covert andinvariant strlldllfl , which is thus irreducible to the puredimension of till' IIll


65/86


66/86


67/86


68/86


69/86


70/86


71/86


72/86


73/86


74/86


75/86


76/86


77/86


78/86


79/86


80/86


81/86


82/86


83/86


84/86


85/86


86/86

derrida, j - a taste for the secret (polity, 2001)

Documents