El sistema filosófico de Spinoza no puede ser considerado en rigor como panteísta, sino panenteísta. Este artículo intenta reforzar esta tesis analizando los conceptos de Natura naturans y Natura naturata, a veces confundidos en la obra de Spinoza. Se establece además una comparación de ambos conceptos en Spinoza y en David Nieto, autor de una obra titulada De la divina providencia, o sea naturaleza universal o natura naturante, al tiempo que se señalan las diferencias entre (...) las concepciones inmanentes de la divinidad de ambos autores. (shrink)

We aim to compile some means for a rational reconstruction of a named part of the start-over of Baruch (Benedictus) de Spinoza's metaphysics in 'de deo' (which is 'pars prima' of the 'ethica, ordine geometrico demonstrata' ) in terms of 1st order model theory. In so far, as our approach will be judged successful, it may, besides providing some help in understanding Spinoza, also contribute to the discussion of some or other philosophical evergreen, e.g. 'ontological commitment'. For this text we (...) assume the reader familiar with 'de deo' as well as with some basic concepts and results of 1st order model theory. Before we start reconstruction, we will first revisit shortly the concept of 'attributum' (definitio IV) in it's setting in 'de deo' , next scan for formalizable aspects of 'in suo genere finita' ('de deo', definitio II), subsequently list the model theoretic constructs we will make use of. Then we begin reconstruction by stating "coordinative definitions" for the notions of 'attribute (of a substance)', 'modus (as conceived via an attribute)' and 'substance (as conceived via an attribute)', reasoning shortly for each of them. The "coordinative definitions", we will arrive at, must not be understood as literal translations of Spinoza's concepts - of course, there can't be such a thing as a literal translation - they are meant as formal analoga of these concepts, mapping some logical structure. But even with this caveat they may seem strange to the reader at this stage of discussion. Additional justification for them then should be found in our endeavour, to map some argumentation of Spinoza's proofs of some of his propositions from this starting point. -/- [ Version 1 of this paper originated from 2020-03-14. This is version 2 from 2021-09-12 with some readability amendments. ]. (shrink)

Introduction:Can nature be controlled?. Autonomous nature -- Greco-Roman concepts of nature -- Christianity and nature -- Nature personified : Renaissance ideas of nature -- Controlling nature. Vexing nature : Francis Bacon and the origins of experimentation -- Natural law : Spinoza on natura naturans and natura naturata -- Laws of nature :Lleibniz and Newton -- Epilogue : rambunctious nature in the twenty-first century.

I use Jonathan Bennett’s, Gilles Deleuze’s and Pierre Macherey’s interpretations of Spinoza to extract a theory of time and duration from Spinoza. I argue that although time can be considered a product of the imagination, duration is a real property of existing things and corresponds to their essence, taking essence (as Deleuze does) as a degree of power of existing. The article then explores the relations among time, duration, essence and eternity, arguing against the idea that Spinoza’s essences or Spinoza’s (...) eternity are atemporal. Essences and eternity both involve necessary references to time, but the time involved is not that of the “fortuitous sequence of events” apprehended through sensory experience. Rather, the “time” is that implicit in the necessity of God’s self-determination through God’s differentiation into natura naturans and natura naturata, which is involved in the production and differentiation of eternal essences. (shrink)

The article considers L.N. Tolstoy not only as a thinker who represents but also accomplishes Enlightenment. Through a comparison of his ideas with philosophy of Spinoza and Diderot, the author clarifies the aspects of the transition from Enlightenment to the unique Tolstoy’s religious and philosophical doctrine. A special attention is paid to the way of thinking, the relation to science and the specifics of the worldview of Tolstoy and Diderot. The contradiction between the way of thinking and the way of (...) life of the three philosophers is revealed. The author also researches their philosophical interpretations of the nature of creative thought. Diderot describes the nature through the concept of paradoxism, Spinoza describes it with the concept of integrity, and Tolstoy uses the method of cohesion that he founds in literary works. If for the philosophers of European Enlightenment, the way of thinking is directly related to human nature, which is presented as a unity of natura naturans and natura naturata, then Tolstoy considers that the most important is a certain a priori sense of life, which is imbued with faith in God and with an instinct of self-giving that is love for the Supreme and other people. The method of cohesion leads Tolstoy away from the direct continuation of educational ideas, stressing the significance of appealing not only to reason but also to creative intuition. Tolstoy gradually moves away from rational perception of Life to its religious and existential foundations. Tolstoy’s worldview undergoes transition from the idea of a natural man to the idea of a human being who lives by commandments of Christ. Starting from the worldview of Enlightenment, Tolstoy comes to the creation of religious and philosophical doctrine, which is relevant to early 20th century. (shrink)

One of the most peculiar features of Spinoza’s philosophy is his radical interpretation of the notion of freedom. Even though it plays a significant role in his metaethics and political philosophy, freedom is, for Spinoza, a deeply metaphysical notion, rooted in the most fundamental features of his ontology. In this paper, I analyze the internal structure that identifies a being as “free” within Spinoza’s metaphysics. I argue that this structure leads to an internal paradox, entailing that the very component that (...) allows a being its freedom – its essence or nature – is itself externally determined. I further proceed to resolve this issue indicating how Spinoza’s metaphysics of freedom can accommodate this paradox. I conclude by presenting possible solutions for both Natura naturans and Natura naturata, attempting to integrate the notion of metaphysical freedom with more familiar images of ethical and epistemological freedom. (shrink)

La homogeneidad de la Naturaleza, concebida como un todo racional y la universalidad del método se implican en Spinoza. Del principio de la unidad de la sustancia, o sea de la unidad de la Naturaleza tomada como natura naturans y natura naturata, se sigue que no puede existir un método que preceda al conocimiento filosófico. Ahora, si el carácter indisociable de la filosofía y del mos geometricus es efectivo, se debe a la total inteligibilidad para el (...) hombre de la esencia de Dios y de las cosas, ya que de ella se sigue que el conocimiento verdadero, es decir, adecuado, procede del todo a las partes. Con Spinoza, el racionalismo absoluto quiere acabar con el misterio que rodea la razón o que le subyace, misterio que hacía afirmar a Descartes en su tercera meditación que “es propio de la naturaleza de lo infinito que yo,siendo finito, no pueda comprenderlo”. La filosofía de Spinoza se presenta como un intelectualismo íntegro, una doctrina de la necesidad y de la libertad. Mas, podemos preguntarnos: ¿no hay aquí una contradicción entre necesidad y libertad? ¿Será que la filosofía de Spinoza es incoherente? O, dicho en otros términos, ¿es posible para el hombre actuar dentro de un determinismo tan estricto? (shrink)

Existence has its own essence. A grasp of that essence is of course not yet a grasp of Existence itself. The fact that a grasp of an essence is not yet a grasp of that of which it is the essence is not peculiar to Existence. Nothing--not only Existence--is identical with its essence. The essence of an Actuality is distinct from the Actuality, and he who, with Aristotle, holds that knowledge is confined to a grasp of eternal essences is forced (...) to hold that the Actuality, as over against these, is possessed of non-graspable accidents. Nor is the essence of an Ideal identical with that Ideal. The Ideal is normative, intrudes on other modes of being, and has a temporal role. He who with Hegel views the Ideal as an essence, is forced to distinguish it from itself as working through time to constitute history. There is for Hegel a "cunning" to reason which makes it operate as an agency and foil for itself; but this is but to say that there is a real distinction for him between reason as an unchanging essence, and reason as a changing, effective, historically significant Ideal. And finally the essence of God is distinct from God himself. God is active, a judge and preserver, whereas his essence is but his unity as distinct from him, the being who has unity. He who, with Spinoza, tries to identify God and his essence must, in order to take account of what has been termed God's will, providence, creative activity, and his footstool the world, distinguish between God in himself and God's multiple transitory modes, or between natura naturans and natura naturata, the essence of God and the being of God. (shrink)

The concern of this work is with developing an alternative to standard categories in theology and philosophy, especially in terms of how they deal with nature. Avoiding the polemics of much contemporary reflection on nature, it shows how we are connected to nature through the unconscious and its unique way of reading and processing signs. Spinoza's key distinction between natura naturans and natura naturata serves as the governing framework for the treatise. Suggestions are made for a (...) post-Christian way of understanding religion. Robert S. Corrington's work represents the first sustained attempt to bring together the fields of semiotics, depth-psychology, pragmaticism, and a post-Monotheistic theology of nature. Its focus is on how signification functions in human and non-human orders of infinite nature. Our connection with the infinite is described in detail, especially as it relates to the use of sign systems. (shrink)

We seem to be living through an animist revival.1 The term “new animism” first appeared in 2005, in Graham Harvey’s Animism: Respect for the Living World. Harvey’s work draws heavily on Irving Hall...

Este artículo pretende señalar la importancia de la causa inmanente al interior de la doctrina de Baruch Spinoza. La ética es el tratado más importante de Spinoza y reúne el pensamiento maduro del filósofo holandés. La prop. XVIII del libro I tiene un rol fundamental y articula el mundo de la Naturaleza Naturante y la Naturaleza Naturada, mostrando por primera vez la manera en que la causa única se produce y produce todo: de forma inmanente. Intentamos, así, mostrar el rol (...) articulador de la causa immanens en el pensamiento de Spinoza y la importancia de la ética. (shrink)

Les énoncés philosophiques spéculatifs matérialistes de Diderot constituent une ontologie que Diderot expose dans une métaphysique où se nouent trois plans. Le premier est dominé par la catégorie de possible. Diderot pense le possible en termes de possibilité non téléologique : elle concerne le mode de manifestation de l'être. Le deuxième, portant sur la natura naturata et sa connaissance scientifique, s'adosse à la nécessité. Le troisième, s’inscrivant au cœur de la natura naturans et concernant le statut (...) de l'existence des êtres, est l’aléatoire. Comment ces trois plans et ces trois catégories s'articulent-ils rationnellement ? Comment se réalisent-ils dans l’écriture même de la philosophie ?Diderot’s philosophical pronouncements are both speculative and materialist. They make up an ontology and Diderot sets this out in a metaphysics which has three levels. The category of the possible dominates the first level. Diderot thinks the possible in terms of a non-teleological possibiliy, one concerned with the mode in which being manifests itself. The second level, concerned with « natural naturata » and the scientific knowledge that can be had of it, relies on necessity. The third, operating at the very heart of « natura naturans » is concerned with the status of the existence of beings, and is random. How do these three levels and these three categories relate to each other rationally ? How are they realised in the very way that philosophy is written ? (shrink)

In the course of his studies on Kabbalah, Moshe Idel has written on the influence of Kabbalists on philosophy. He suggests that Spinoza was influenced by the Kabbalah regarding his expressions “Deus sive Natura“ and “amor Dei intellectualis.” The 13th-century ecstatic Kabbalist Rabbi Abraham Abulafia and many authors after him cited the numerical equivalence of the Hebrew words for God and Nature: elohim = ha-teba` = 86. This striking numerical equivalence may be one of the sources of Spinoza’s expression (...) “Deus sive Natura.” The same Kabbalist used the Hebrew expression “ahabah elohit sikhlit“ (“divine intellectual love”), which may underlie Spinoza’s expression “amor Dei intellectualis.” Abulafia’s expression “ahabah elohit sikhlit“ is repeated by the popular 15th-century Maimonidean philosopher, Rabbi Abraham Shalom. (shrink)

Running back then, we can collect a few salient facts about the Invisible World:While things in it are visible, the World itself upon which they are conditioned is not and can not be in principle.Among things in the world, contingency or surprize is a central feature, making possible both the content of perception and the possibility of action, and is in effect some sort of synonym for life. The contingency means both the nondeducibility of what happens as well as the (...) dependence of each thing upon the others in varying degrees of relevance.The World of events and things, certainly ourselves, is composed of singulars, unrepeatable and unique occurrences or things; singularity also derives from the World Itself, the invisible singular condition of Fact.Within the world, each thing appears within a horizon, a last limit of visibility for us wherever we are, but that horizon is itself movable as we move our existential point of view. Beyond one horizon there are other things not too unlike ontologically the ones we see, and so emerges what Jaspers calls a ‘horizon of horizons.’ In short, we remeet that famous ‘etc.’ almost invariably bound up with what the world of things is for us. This ‘horizon of horizons’ itself derives from another aspect of the World as Invisible: its absolute self-enclosed infinity. How else could such an absolute cause or condition express itself seriatim except through endlessness?The last feature we noted was the fracture within the world of things: to wit, that while complete in one sense, in another our world is far from constituting a whole. We are there, too, and are not members of it no matter how much some would like to be so.Singular, unique condition of what is in the world, a world of essential surprize, interdependence, increasingly the Invisible World begins to take on the characteristics of the old philosopher's God, something of the order of Spinoza's God, natura naturans, the world of things being the same substance but taken bit by bit, natura naturata. And if this identity of God and the World seems and has always seemed slightly blasphemous, since God is usually opposed to the World, to soften the blow we might only consider their point of resolution: the Soul, or Transcendental Ego, has the possibility of knowing all this, or at least exploring their unity. To revert to Spinoza again, each Attribute, in his case Extention and Thought, is infinite, but infinite in its own kind. The world of things appears to us indeed infinite, but then it is only a ‘kind’; there is also Thought, or infinite Subjectivity, also infinite in its own kind. And what does thought think about? Well, most usually the world into which it was born; but then it is not long before it perceives the absolute condition of that, and then also there is its reflexivity upon itself. Together, though not by way of summation, the Absolute Source as described is the philosopher's God. Spinoza also said that our Idea of God is identical with God's idea of Himself. (shrink)

This article examines Baruch Benedictus Spinoza conceptual understanding of the proofs for the existence of God. It traces the evolution of this theme pursuant to the metaphysical studies of Moderns Philosophy. Тhe concept of God in the philosophy of Spinoza is considered by exploring the nature of the relations between the transcendent sphere of God and the spiritual world of the human person. Spinoza argues from the possibility of God's existence to God's necessary existence. God is an absolutely infinite substance, (...) necessarily exists, qua Natura Naturans is immutable. God or Nature. The universe is an expression of God's nature, qua Natura Naturata - God is its immanent cause. Spinoza's God is synonymous with Nature. Substance is defined as "in itself". Spinoza understands a substance to be something that is self-caused and self-explained. The transcendence is understood as an ontological category, being discussed in connection with the key themes of Christian philosophy, such as time and eternity, person and history, creation and God etc. Spinoza's concept of God is referring to the God of the monotheistic religions, God as One Substance, pertains to a concept of the oneness of God, is transcendent and therefore "unknowable". Spinoza's definition of God found on the first page of the Ethics: Being absolutely infinite. From the point of view of historiography, the role of the book "Ehtics" by Spinoza is highlighted. (shrink)

Nature and Spirit: An Essay in Ecstatic Naturalism develops an enlarged conception of nature that in turn calls for a transformed naturalism. Unline more descriptive naturalisms, such as those by Dewey, Santayana, and Buchler, ecstatic naturalism works out of the fundamental ontological difference between nature naturing(natura naturans) and nature natured (natura naturata). This difference underlies all other variations within a generic conception of nature. The spirit operates within a generic conception of nature. The spirit operates within (...) a fragmented nature and has its own unique locations. Ecstatic naturalism does not eulogize spirit nor impose a process theodicy upon nature as a whole but carefully describes the ways in which spirit emerges from finite locations within the world. Methodologically, the text radically regrounds phenomenology so that it can work more closely with a metaphysics seeking the most generic forms of nature. The move from a transcendental phenomenology, which rests upon a profound misconception of the parcel of a radicalized naturalism, makes it possible to show how all orders of relevance are related to nature and to the spirit. This, in turn relocates the human process, with its dialectical tension between finitude and transendence, and places the self fully within the emergent structures of the community of interpreters as that community lives out of hope. The concept of worldhood is regrounded in pragmatic and semiotic terms, thus putting pressure on Heidegger's formulations. Peirce's pragmatic categorical structure is used to show how worldhood differs from any other order within the world. The correlation of the potencies of nature, which are presemiotic and preordinal, wit the orders of the world itself, is possible only through an ordinal phenomenology that remains attuned to the fundamental difference between nature naturing (the potencies) and nature natured (the orders of the world). Finally, the text redefines the divine natures in the light of an ecstatic naturalism that sees god as an order within the world that experiences the fragmented quality of nature. Process theology is challenged for its inability to grasp the tensions between god and the encompassing. Four divine natures are laid bare as they relate to nature and to each other. The work concludes with a description of the divine life in the face of the encompassing. (shrink)

Meaning and nature are this book’s principal topics. They seem an odd couple, like raisins and numbers, though they elide when meanings of a global sort—ideologies and religions, for example—promote ontologies that subordinate nature. Setting one against the other makes reality contentious. It signifies workmates and a coal face to miners, gluons to physicists, prayer and redemption to priests. Are there many realities, or many perspectives on one? The answer I prefer is the comprehensive naturalism anticipated by Aristotle and Spinoza: (...) "natura naturans, natura naturata." Nature naturing is an array of mutually conditioning material processes in spacetime. Each structure or event—storm clouds forming, nature natured—is self-differentiating, self-stabilizing, and sometimes self-disassembling; each alters or transforms a pre-existing state of affairs. This surmise anticipated discoveries and analyses to which neither thinker had access, though physics and biology confirm their hypothesis beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the question this book considers: Is reality divided:nature vrs. lived experience? Or is experience, with all its meanings and values, the complex expression of natural processes? (shrink)

Ecstatic naturalism believes that a rich conceptualization of nature should emphasize the reality of a basic ontological difference between a ground that is responsible for generating the world and the encompassing yet incarnate processes of the world. The ontological difference mentioned here is a difference between "nature naturing" (natura naturans) and "nature natured" (natura naturata).1 Ecstatic naturalism takes seriously the difference between nature naturing and nature natured because it is a philosophy that recognizes nature's immanent or (...) incarnate processes of semiotic generation as well as the reality of nature's transcendental generative ground (a ground that "natures" via sign processes).2 Thus .. (shrink)

This paper argues that Spinoza makes a distinction between the constitutive essence of God (the totality of His attributes) and the essence of God per se (His power and causal efficacy). Using this distinction, I explain how Spinoza can conceive of God as being both an immutable simple unity and a subject for constantly changing modes. Spinoza believes that God qua Natura Naturans is immutable, while God qua Natura Naturata is not. With this point established, Curley’s (...) claim that Spinozistic modes are causally dependent on but not properties of God loses much of its attraction. In conclusion, I suggest how God’s essence is related to His attributes and His modes. (shrink)

Este artigo pensa as contingências decorrentes das máquinas autônomas da natureza no universo das utopias concretas. Pensa como artefatos podem ganhar autonomia diante da irracionalidade da matéria? É sabido que as máquinas utópicas podem exteriorizar um poder desconhecido do ser humano e alcançar uma condição autárquica diante do descaso de seu criador. Ernst Bloch situa tais utopias no 3.º nível da categoria, um ainda-não-ser, que na sua ontologia responde a “possibilidade conforme estrutura do objeto real”. Contingências e imprevisibilidades advindas neste (...) nível determinam a dimensão autônoma das utopias técnicas. A evolução do processo dinâmico e complexo da matéria – natura naturata que se acha velada, uma vez desperta assume a dimensão de natura naturans. A natureza que produz natureza revela que a ação do homem sobre a matéria transforma sonhos utópicos acordados em pesadelos distópicos acordados, determinando uma diversidade de utopias autárquicas que ameaçam a humanidade. Esse contexto recepciona o alvorecer de novas utopias técnicas, que aponta uma não conformidade na geração das máquinas autárquicas bem como, a ausência de uma linguagem ética entre homo utopicus e natura naturans. (shrink)

The version of religious naturalism sketched here is called naturism to distinguish it from conceptions of religious naturalism that make fundamental appeal to some idea of deity, deities, or the divine, however immanental, functional, nonontological, or purely valuational or existential such notions may be claimed to be. The focus of naturism is on nature itself as both metaphysically and religiously ultimate. Nature is sacred in its own right, not because of its derivation from some more–ultimate religious principle, state, being, beings, (...) or order of being. Humans, their cultures, and their histories are conceived as integral parts of nature, manifestations of potentialities that lie within it and have been actualized by biological evolution. While there is no purpose of nature, the natural order contains beings capable of purposive behavior. With this purposive behavior, and the goals and ideals implicit in it, humans have the capacity to give significant direction to their ongoing cultural evolution and to discover and maintain their appropriate place within the community of creatures. (shrink)

Este artículo pretende señalar la importancia de la causa inmanente al interior de la doctrina de Baruch Spinoza. La ética es el tratado más importante de Spinoza y reúne el pensamiento maduro del filósofo holandés. La prop. XVIII del libro I tiene un rol fundamental y articula el mundo de la Naturaleza Naturante y la Naturaleza Naturada, mostrando por primera vez la manera en que la causa única se produce y produce todo: de forma inmanente. Intentamos, así, mostrar el rol (...) articulador de la causa immanens en el pensamiento de Spinoza y la importancia de la ética. (shrink)

A critical survey of the main metaphysical theories concerning the nature of material objects (substratum theories, bundle theories, substance theories, stuff theories) and their identity conditions, both synchronic (monist vs. pluralist theories) and diachronic (three-dimensionalism, four-dimensionalism, sequentialism).

This essay examines the way in which the modal concept of necessity was discussed and analyzed in some eleventh- and early twelfth-century sources, such as Peter Damian’s De divina omnipotentia, Anselm of Canterbury’s Cur deus homo and several anonymous commentaries on Aristotle’s De interpretatione that were presumably composed in the first two decades of the twelfth century by logicians connected to William of Champeaux’s and Peter Abelard’s milieu. My aim is to offer a comparison of these different sources with respect (...) to their use of the Boethian distinction between two types or kinds of necessity, namely, the “absolute” or “simple” necessity that is involved in statements like “God is necessarily immortal” or “it is necessary for humans to be animals”, and the “conditional” or “temporal” necessity that is at stake when we say, for instance, that someone necessarily walks when he is walking. (shrink)

Any historical and critical appreciation of Hegel's basic thesis of the identity of metaphysics with logic cannot fail to compare it with his charging Kant and Fichte with attaching a merely subjective meaning to logical determinations, as well as Schelling with spinozism and extrinsicalness in conceiving the absolute indifference of subject with object. This paper aims to give an account of Hegel's notion of nature as it arises from the fulfillment of the logical idea (as the Anderssein of the idea (...) in which it is in the form of the alienation (Entaeusserung)) by focussing attention on the logical pathway of the notion of externality (Aeusserlichkeit) in the Doctrine of Being. I argue for an alternative to the received view on the outcome of the Logic of Being, by pointing out two different meanings, overlooked so far, attached to the category of measure vs. the notion of Mode and to Spinoza's substance in 1812 and 1832. (shrink)

This paper argues for a comprehensive conception of empathy as comprising epistemic, affective, and motivational elements and introduces the ancient Stoic theory of attachment as a model for describing the embodied, emotional response to others that we take to be distinctive of empathy. Our argument entails that in order to provide a suitable conceptual framework for the interdisciplinary study of empathy one must extend the scope of recent “simulationalist” and “enactivist” accounts of empathy in two important respects. First, against the (...) enactivist assumption that human mindreading capacities primarily rely on an immediate, quasi-perceptual understanding of other’s intentional states, we draw on Alfred Schutz’ analysis of social understanding to argue that reflective types of understanding play a distinct, but equally fundamental role in empathic engagements. Second, we insist that empathy also involves an affective response toward the other and their situation. We suggest analyzing this response in terms of the Stoic concepts of attachment, concern, and a fundamental type of prosocial motivation, that can best be described as an “extended partiality.” By way of conclusion, we integrate the above concepts into a comprehensive conceptual framework for the study of empathy and briefly relate them to current debates about empathic perception and prosocial motivation. The result, we argue, is an account that stays neutral with regard to the exact nature of the processes involved in producing empathy and can therefore accommodate discussion across theoretical divides—e.g., those between enactivist, simulationalist, and so-called theory-theorist approaches. (shrink)

Спочатку один «голий і самотній» факт: ніхто не бачив, щоб філософія закінчилася. Відтак, принаймні, індуктивно, ми можемо стверджувати, що філософія _ніколи не закінчується_. Не завершується. Вона не завершується, незалежно від того, що протягом усієї історії її існування, її супроводжують підсумкові фінальні об’яви – з середини філософії і ззовні ― про остаточне завершення, про кінець, про кінець кінців, про смерть філософії тощо. З цієї точки зору, Людвіґ Вітґенштайн видається мені не фігурою «минулого», фігурою _архіву_ – фігурою історичної реконструкції. Ба більше, навіть, (...) фігурою професійної концептуальної деконструкції, ― впливової і поважної традиції філософської роботи – аналітичної філософії. Навіть при тому, що це фігура одного з її «отців-засновників». Як раз, навпаки. Людвіґ Вітґенштайн видається фігурою _майбутнього_ філософії, її чистого й простого _просуву_. Фігурою символічною і також актуальною – фігурою «ніколи-не-завершення» філософії. Фігурою, яка підписує не слово сказане у філософії, але точку потенційованої напруженості відбутися і пролунати справжньому філософському слову – не позначенню деяких _речей_, але реєстрації _слідів істини_ у до межі доведених індивідуальних станах... Важливо розуміти, що ця стаття не про філософську традицію аналітичної філософії. І не про самого філософа, чи філософію Вітґенштайна – у плані хронології-доксографії, чи ейдетико-історичного огляду, чи деякої теоретичної реконструкції у контексті деякого, того чи іншого «філософського сьогодення», чи навіть, у самому (ви)значному режимі – як «універсальне з підписом». Хоча певні змісти щодо і першого, і другого, – просто як робоча необхідність, «машинальним чином» – тут, звичайно, є. У цій статті, насправді відкривається намагання показати, що аналітична філософія (як певний спосіб дії щодо реалізації події мислення – спосіб дії, до речі, досить точно ідентифікований, причому, таким чином, що ці ідентифікація і демаркація є не результатом деяких спеціальних теоретичних чи методологічних зусиль, але видається _частиною події_ ) – уся аналітична філософія, як спроба, як запровада, як «рух», як справа, як діяльність, – є феноменальним “natura naturans”. Є таким саме як «топос відтворення мислення» у суто онтологічному сенсі, в обміні з яким, власне, Людвіґ Вітґенштайн, також, унікальний і один-єдиний – як «подія думки» – знов таки, у цілком онтологічному сенсі, «демонструє», тобто, _саме і є_ актуальне, «живе», можливо, незамінне подання, розгортання, місце входження (до) проблеми конечності, доступу, філософського слова, змісту й акту. Можливо, отримати доступ до «самого Саме» і є правильно поставити проблему доступу? Відтак, говорячи за допомогою самого Метра, філософія це робота і вдача правильно підібрати _приклади_. (shrink)