Graduate studies at Western
Philosophy and Social Criticism 30 (2):187-220 (2004)
|Abstract||My argument is that poststructuralist and postmodernist theory carries on and intensifies the main lines of a characteristically modern tradition of aesthetics whose most important point of reference is not French structuralism as the term, poststructuralism, implies but the tradition of 18th-century German romanticism and idealism that culminated in the work of Heidegger during the Weimar period in Germany between the world wars and afterward. What characterizes this modernist tradition of aesthetics is its valorization of language as a mode of being possessed of an ontological status. I place the term ontology in quotes in order to highlight the distinction between metaphysics, with its Aristotelian and neo-Platonic connotations of a chain of being, and the more modern term ontology, which was coined in the 17th century and which became widely used during the 18th century by Leibnizian philosophers Christian Wolff and Alexander Baumgarten; the latter, not incidentally, also helped to establish modern usage of the term aesthetics. Metaphysics and ontology have their roots, respectively, in those two most major currents of our western heritage, the Graeco-Roman and Judaeo-Christian. These currents, although inextricably linked to one another in innumerable ways, have nonetheless been engaged, as Nietzsche put it, in a fearful struggle on earth for thousands of years that has been obscured by Heideggers and Derridas accounts of the history of western philosophy. Such accounts have projected what is basically a romanticist critique of Enlightenment values and thought on to a totalizing account of the history of Western thought since Plato. My purpose in emphasizing the distinction between metaphysics and ontology is to provide a conceptual framework within which our understanding of the development of modern aesthetics, and the concept of language that informed that development, can be related to the larger philosophical issues at hand. Literary theorists in the United States, by endorsing Heideggers and Derridas self-serving accounts of their writings as assaults on the entire history of Western philosophy, and by failing to judge them critically as outgrowths of that history, have not only obscured these developments. They have also sustained the central tenet of American literary theory since the 1960s: that there is such a thing as a Western philosophical tradition on the other side of which, through an endless series of linguistic coinages and erasures, we may maneuver ourselves. My claim is that to the extent that there is such an other side, we are already on it, and that we fundamentally misunderstand our situation if we regard it as other to the Western philosophical tradition. Key Words: Derrida Heidegger language ontology theory.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Iain Thomson (2000). Ontotheology? Understanding Heidegger's Destruktion of Metaphysics. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 8 (3):297 – 327.
Marlène Zarader (2006). The Unthought Debt: Heidegger and the Hebraic Heritage. Stanford University Press.
Kanti Lal Das & Anirban Mukherjee (eds.) (2008). Language and Ontology. Northern Book Centre.
Anthony Kenny (2007/2008). Philosophy in the Modern World. Oxford University Press.
Qiyong Guo (2006). An Exposition of Zhou Yi Studies in Modern Neo-Confucianism. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 1 (2):185-203.
Timothy Clark (2002). Martin Heidegger. Routledge.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads2 ( #248,102 of 754,747 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?