[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.AB: But even so I would like to ask you about the nature of this need.If the question itself, or rather a formulation of the philosophical question has been modified, if it means the possibility of a metaphysics and not on the possibility of constructing a metaphysical system, we can ask ourselves what is the properly philosophical interest of studying the Pre-critical authors, after all?JH: That’s it! Should we begin philosophy with Kant and not to go all the way back to Plato, for example?AB: This seems to me a bit of what results from what you say.JH: It is perhaps difficult to understand what I am saying.I mean to say that the philosophical systems of the past represent a first degree of thinking, if I dare say.This is not thinking itself but gives us a sort of existent metaphysical thinking with this double character and this double character is the link between a matter and a form.I mean the thought of a philosopher is a thought that wants to think being, that wants to think content, unlike mathematical thought, for example, and it is at the same time a thinking that wants to be rigorous and not arbitrary.For them, the knowledge of knowledge and the knowledge of being are coupled together.Simply put, the philosopher of the past does not pose this question of its possibility, or at least, it is only posed implicitly.We are the ones who unearth these latent questions today in these philosophers.AB: I will summarize a bit of what you have said and I may end up caricaturing it a little.Philosophy is a project of thinking being in the current terms of its becoming and has become the thinking of this thinking, that is to say, the attempt to give a foundation, in a critical manner, the very possibility of a thinking of being.This movement is basically, for you, the very movement of the history of philosophy.So I would like to ask again, in sum, a question that I have already asked: is this history in a sense that would not be purely metaphorical or analogical? What is actually historical about this history?JH: You have summarized my thinking in a way that I do not accept, when you say to me (but maybe I really did said this after all!) that we went from the thinking of being to the thinking of the thinking of being.Is this what you said?AB: Yes …JH: This would mean that current philosophy is a purely critical philosophy which examines thoughts which are thoughts of being but that no longer aims to reach being, and absolutely no longer aims to reach content.AB: Yet you were the one who said that that the question “What is metaphysics?” was at the basis of the fundamental question of all contemporary philosophy.JH: Yes, I said that we need to put metaphysics itself into question but this does not mean that the question of being was abandoned.Simply put, the question of being and the thinking of being is perhaps no longer posed in philosophy in the way that it was done by Malebranche, for example, or even like it was posed by Descartes, but this does not mean that the philosopher stops being one who, from the starting point of existence, starting from her existence in her own time, reaches for being in a certain way.Simply put, one no longer thinks being as if God would be the idea of being, it is thought from the position of the human being and from anthropologically existential roots, through a human being which is not cut off from being.But this thinking of being clearly no longer corresponds to the ambition of creating a theory like those of the great metaphysicians.I am not sure that Plato … you know, we have taken him to be a skeptic in different moments in history, someone who did not err, but who wandered, who touched on questions, who doubted, and for whom thinking could not be identified with a system like those we mentioned a moment ago, but instead a sort of philosophical inquiry.AB: Since the intention that animates the earlier systems of philosophy are now according to you impracticable, would you accept us speaking of an error in these systems? Or an error in these philosophers?JH: No, I would not employ the word “error.” I do not use the word “error” because of what interests us a philosophical system.When we contemplate a system of philosophy, it is the path taken by the philosopher, it is the manner in which she gains access to truth, and it is also the way that she touches it [truth] of course! This occurs in such a way that I would nonetheless concede something.I would concede to you that in what concerns metaphysics as such, all that we might want from metaphysics, we might say that something has been overcome, in a certain way, that history has put it into question.But in what concerns the interior of the system, it seems to me too general to speak of an error at the interior of a philosophical system.It seems to me, if you like, difficult, for example, to take a whole class of philosophers and say: “There we go! Descartes was mistaken about doubt.” Or, “Descartes was mistaken about this or that …” I do not think that a philosopher is refuted by another philosopher, even if they take themselves to be refuting one another, I do not think that the refutation of a philosopher by another philosopher is something that makes much sense.AB: So for example, concerning Descartes, yes – you cited him! – what would you draw from him?JH: Listen, I draw two things: as you know, he is a great philosopher and his thought represents a system.A system that has an order of reasons,5 isn’t it, through which thinking is made coherent, shows what our means of understanding are and what we grasp when we reach understanding? I draw from Descartes the total thought of Descartes, the Cartesian oeuvre, the thought that is carried with it [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]