Heidegger, Derrida representationalism.pdf

8/14/2019 Heidegger, Derrida representationalism.pdf

1/14

Man and World 18:65-78 (1985)9 Nifhoff Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands

R E P R E S E N T A T I O N A N D T H E IM A G E : B E T W E E N H E ID E G G E RDERRIDA, AND PLATO

VE RO N IQ UE M F O T INew School for Social Research

I n t r o d u c t i o nHeidegger's de-structive analysis of the history of metaphysics accordscentral importance to representation (Vorstellung) and to the represen-tative world-picture; indeed, he regards the modern epoch (character-ized by the ascendancy of metaphysics and technology) as essentiallythe epoch of representa tion. 1 In a searching and subtle study of thenotion of representation,2 Jacques Derrida asks whether Heideggerdoes not, in fact, remain wedded to representation, in that he tacitlypresupposes a representative pre-interpretation of the very notion ofrepresentation. This presupposition which Derrida finds at work inHeidegger all the way up to his strongest and most necessary displace-ments (p. 321) shows itself less in the presumption of a semantic corefor the term represen tat ion (although Derrida finds Heidegger some-what careless on this point) than in Heidegger's notion of a 'destiny

G e s c h i c k ) of representation according to which modern ity is the dele-gate, envoy, or representative of a more originary envoy of being whichmay be characterizes as presence or A n w e s e n h e i t . In essence, Derridaclaims to find in Heidegger a representational schema of the degenera-tion of a primordial presencing into representation, ' as if the coupleA n w e s e n h e i t / r e p r e s e n t a t i o n still dictated the law of its own inter-pretation. '3

This schema, Derrida alleges, informs Heidegger's understanding ofGreek thought as initiating the destiny of representation without beingitself subject thereto. This turn towards representation consists, onDerrida's reading of Heidegger, specifically in Plato's determination ofreality as form, apprehensible aspect or configuration, as e i d o s - adetermination which ushers in a preoccupation with the image B i l d )which mediates the ascendancy of the representative world-picture.

65


2/14

6 6I f th i n k i n g i s t o d i s e n ta n g l e i ts e l f f r o m t h e w e b o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i t

m u s t , D e r r i d a i n d i c a t e s , t e ll it s o w n h i s t o r y d i f f e r e n t l y : i t m u s t r e g a r d si ts o w n b e g i n n i n g n o t a s p r e s e n c e , b u t a s d i s s e m i n a t i o n , a s t h e e n t r a c i n go f d i f f e r e n c e d i f f d r a n c e ) w h i c h d e c e n t e r s t h e v e r y n o t i o n o f a b e g i n -n in g . A s D e r r i d a p u t s i t in a n o t h e r c o n t e x t , t h a t w h i c h t a k e s t h e p la c eo f t h e o r i g in is n o t a b s e n c e i n s t e a d o f p r e s e n c e , b u t a t r a c e w h i c h r e -p l ac e s a p r e s e n c e w h i c h h a s n e v e r b e e n p r e s e n t , a n o r ig i n b y m e a n s o fw h i c h n o t h i n g h a s b e g u n . ''4 S u c h t h i n k i n g , h e r e m a r k s p a r e n t h e t i c a l -l y , m i g h t b e a b l e t o a r t i c u l a t e i t s e l f w i t h H e i d e g g e r , o r a g a i n i t m i g h tn o t ( p. 3 2 5 ) ; a n d w h i c h o p t i o n h o l d s is u n i m p o r t a n t , f o r t h e c r i ti q u eo f H e i d e g g e r i n c o r p o r a t e s i t se l f in a n e x p l o r a t i o n o f t h e f a r - fl u n g n e to f re p r e s e n t a t i o n i n w h i c h t h i n k i n g h a s r e m a i n e d c a u g h t .

A l t h o u g h I a g re e w i t h D e r r id a i n a t ta c h i n g n o p a r ti c u l a r i m p o r t a n c et o H e i d e g g e r ' s a u t h o r s h i p , I w a n t t o a r g u e i n t h is p a p e r t h a t t h e n e wt h i n k i n g d o e s i n d e e d a r t i c u l a t e i ts e l f w i t h H e i d e g g e r , h e a r i n g t h e

w i t h h e r e as t h e m a r k o f p r o b in g c o n v e r s a t i o n . M y p u r p o s e is n o t tod e f e n d H e i d e g g e r , n o r t o a s s i m i la t e H e i d e g g e r t o D e r r i d a , b u t , f i rs t l y ,t o k e e p a li ve t h e c o m p l e x i t y , t e n s io n , a n d c h a l le n g e o f w h a t H e i d e g g e rg iv e s u s t o t h i n k , o v e r ag a i n st t h e t h r e a t o f f o r e c l o s u r e b y D e r r i d a ' sc r it i q u e, a n d s e c o n d l y , t o i n d i c a t e a p e r s i st e n t i f s e c r et e n c r o a c h m e n to f r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t h i n k i n g o n t h i s c r i ti q u e . I w i ll p u r s u e t h e s e c o n c e r n sw ~ t hi n a li m i t e d c o m p a s s : t h e r e l a ti o n o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t o t h e im a g eo r Bi ld .

D e r r i d a t a k e s f o r g r a n t e d t h a t a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n is a p o s it e d im a g e o rp i c t u r e a n d , f u r t h e r m o r e , t h a t s u c h a n i m a g e m a y a ls o b e u n d e r s t o o d a sa c o p y , s u b s t i t u t e , s c e n e , p a i n t i n g , o r a s t h e o b j e c t i v e r e a l i t y o f a ni d e a i n D e s c a r t e s ' s s e n s e, s s o t h a t m e t a p h y s i c a l / e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l , ae s -t h e t i c , a n d p o l it ic a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a r e h e l d t o g e t h e r a b in i t i o u n d e r t h ea eg is o f t h e s p e c u l a r im a g e . T h a t t h e n o t i o n o f t h e i m a g e b e u n p r o b -l e m a t i c a n d u n i v o c a l i s r e q u i r e d i f t h e P l a t o n i c eiclos i s t o b e u n d e r -s t o o d u n a m b i g u o u s l y a s Bilcl a n d a s th e d i s t a n t a n c e s t o r o f r e p r e s e n t a -t i o n - a n a n c e s t o r , t o b e s u re , w h o w o u l d b e le ss t h e n p l e a s e d t o e n -c o u n t e r h i s o w n o f fs p r in g .

I n H e i d e g g e r ' s t e x t s , b y c o n t r a s t , t h e r e i s a n e g l e c t e d a n d q u i t e u n -t h e m a t i z e d t e n s io n b e t w e e n t w o s en se s o f th e i m a ge o r Bild , 6 s u c ht h a t o n e s e n s e is r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l a n d is e p i t o m i z e d b y t h e w o r l d -p i c t u r e W e l t b i l d ) , w h e r e a s t h e o t h e r a n d m o r e e n i g m a t i c s e ns e h a s ak i n s h ip t o D e r r i d a 's n o t i o n o f t h e t ra c e . A l t h o u g h H e i d e g g e r d o e s in -d i c a t e , i n p a s si n g, t h a t h e c o n s i d e r s t h e l a t t e r s e n se o f B i l d t o b e p r i -m a r y , 7 h e l e a ve s t h e t e n s i o n b e t w e e n t h e t w o s e ns e s q u i t e u n r e s o lv e d .T h i s i s al l t h e m o r e s u r p r is i n g s i n c e b o t h s e n se s b r i n g i n t o p l a y s o m e o f


3/14

67the linguistic complexities which Heidegger stresses with respect to theterm Bild. These comprise the links to the notions o f Bi ldung as theeducation and formation of the person, of shaping and form-givingbilden), and of phantasia and imagining Einbildung), which in turn islinked, through the cognate term Vorstellung, to representation, thetic

positing, Gestell. The representing image can, in any case, not bestraightforwardly regarded as the corruption or degenerate representa-tive of the non-representing one, so that Heidegger's dual thematiza-tion of the image does not necessarily reiterate the schema of presenceand representation.

Both of the Heideggerian senses of the image have an important andcomplex relationship to Greek thought. A consideration of these rela-tionships will be crucial for addressing the problematic of origins,destining, and delegation, which forms the core of Derrida's critique,and for fruit fully exploring the tension between the two senses.

Heidegger's understanding of the representative image is most clearlyarticulated in his essay Die Zeit des Weltbildes ( The Time of theWorld-Picture ), dating from 1938. 8 The representative image, andabove all the world-picture, is a systematic structure, a model or forma-tion Gebi ld) devised by man which serves to explain that which itrepresents. By means of such explanation the alien, uncanny, andseemingly incommensurable is reduced to the compass of the familiarand managable; man establishes and orients himself in a world con-ceived as, in principle, the reach of his mastery. Man takes his bearingsby putting h imse l f in the picture se tzt sich ins Bild); 9 and since thepicture thus allows him to direct his efforts and to allocate his re-sources economically, it sets the standards of what is right and whatcounts as true in the sense of rightness Richt igkei t ) . As a norm foradequation, the picture both presupposes and enjoins the understandingof truth as adequation.

The representative picture and, in particular, the world picture ischaracterized by a systematic coherence which it derives from thepositing activity of man, the subject who determines beings as theobjects of his representation and installs himself at their center. Despiteits claim to encompass the whole and to provide systematically for allpossible perspectives, the world picture characteristically fails to dojustice to any given perspective in its concrete arising. It must bypass


4/14

68the fullness of the concrete because the latter always involves its playof shadows, the incursion of the incalculable which haunts the world-pic ture as its proper but, for it, invisible shadow. 1~

If the representative image or picture is devoid of any visible shadowsand is traced entirely in ethereal light, it is not an image in the sense ofbeing a spontaneously arising, sensuously apprehended aspect of thingswhich, though ephemeral, may be treasured in man's beholding andshaped and transfigured through man's aesthetic response. It is rathera schema, a diagram, a conceptual structure which bears, though oftencovertly, the mark of man's devising. If conceptual representationobliterates shadow-play, the image as sensuous configuration and dis-closive aspect, by contrast, shows but does not represent. It is pert inentto note in this connection that, notwithstanding Derrida's equation be-tween the representative image and the Cartesian objective real ity ofthe idea, Descartes draws a firm distinction between idea and image.The former pertains properly to the intellect, whereas the latter is en-gendered by the rebellious power of imagination which Descartes seeksto subordinate to the intellect and thus to confine within the limits ofrepresentation.1

Greek phantasia Heidegger finds, is unlike the imagination success-fully subordinated to the intellect in that it does not share the work ofobjectifying representation but rather allows for the presencing ofbeings, their coming-to-appearance for man insofar as he remains opento their advent. In virtue of this openness, man is included within theself-disclosing of beings and does not set himself up at their center asthe originator of a tota lity of representation. His position is hence notone of mastery, but of exposure and entanglement.12

Although Heidegger considers representation and the representativeworld-picture to be proper to modernity and to the history of meta-physics, Plato's understanding of the being of beings as eidos as theirquasi-visible aspect or image, constitutes for him, as Derrida empha-sizes, the mediat ion and hidden presupposition of the emergence ofrepresentation. This mediation, which must now be examined, becomesthe more astonishing when one considers that a representation such asthe world-picture is, in virtue of its schematic and systematic character,precisely not an image proper in the sense of being the quasi-visibleaspect o f beings in their presencing.


5/14

6 9I IIn h is s t u d y P l a t o n s L e h r e v o n d e r W a h r h e i t ( P l a t o ' s D o c t r i n e o fT r u t h ) , 13 H e i d e g g e r c l a i m s t h a t t h e e s s e n t ia l u n s a i d in P l a t o ' s t h o u g h tis a c h a n g e i n t h e c o n c e p t i o n o f t r u t h w i t h r e s p e c t t o p r e v i o u s t h i nk e r s .S i n ce P l a to ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t r u t h u n d e r li e s h is n o t i o n o f paideia( e d u c a t i o n , Bildung), i t c o m e s t o t h e f o r e w i t h p a r t i c u l a r c l a r i ty i n t h ep a r a b l e o f t h e c a v e i n Republ ic V I I , w h e r e paideia i s P l a t o ' s f o c a l c o n -c e r n .

P l a t o , a c c o r d i n g t o H e i d eg g e r , m o v e s w i t h in a n d y e t r e t h i n k s t h eG r e e k u n d e r s t a n d in g o f t r u t h a s u n - c o n c e a l m e n t o r alOtheia. H e r e -t h i n k s i t w i t h a v ie w t o t h e s e l f - m a n i f e s t r a d ia n c e o f t h e eidos o r idea.U n - c o n c e a lm e n t b e c o m e s m e d i a te d b y t h e idea w h i c h t h u s g a i n s a s c e n -d a n c y o v e r al~theia a n d r e q u i re s o f m a n a n a d e q u a t e a p p r e h e n s i o n , a ni n t e l l e c t u a l v i s i o n w h i c h h a s b e e n l a b o r i o u s l y a c c u s t o m e d t o t h e s p l e n -d o r o f t h e idea. T h e eidos m a n d a t e s t h e l a b o r o f paideia; b u t i t a l s op r e s u p p o s e s t h e i d e a o f t h e G o o d w h i c h g r a nt s t o t h e eid6 t h e i rm a n i f e s t i n g p o w e r , a n d f i t n e s s a n d c l a r i t y t o t h e a p p r e h e n d i n g i n t e l -l ec t .

T h r o u g h i ts o r i e n t a t i o n t o w a r d s t h e eid~ a n d t o w a r d s t h e G o o d ,t r u t h a c q u i r e s t h e c h a r a c t e r o f ri g h tn e s s o r orthotOs; i t c o m e s t o r e s i d ei n r i gh t a p p r e h e n s i o n a n d r i g h t s p e e c h r a t h e r t h a n i n t h e u n s o l i c i t e da n d u n d i r e c t e d p r e s e n c in g o f b e in g s . P l a t o i n it ia t e s b u t d o e s n o t c o n -s u m m a t e t hi s c h a n g e in t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t r u t h f r o m alOtheia t oorthot~s; a n d H e i d e g g e r f i n d s h is th o u g h t c h a r a c t e r iz e d b y a n a m b i v a -l e n c e b e t w e e n t h e m . T h i s a m b i v a l e n c e s h o w s i t s e lf a l so i n P l a t o ' s n o -t i o n o f paideia o r Bildung: t r u e e d u c a t i o n s e e k s t o f r e e m a n f r o m h isb o n d a g e t o u n w o r t h y c o n c e rn s , t o r e m i n d h im o f w h a t h e a l w a ys al-r e a d y i s, t o a w a k e n a m i n d f u l n e s s o f t h e d i s c l o s u r e o f b e i n g s i n t ow h i c h h e is i m m e m o r i a l l y i n i t ia t e d ; b u t i t c a n d o s o , f o r P l a t o , o n l yt h r o u g h t h e g u id a n c e o f a n im a g e Bild) w h i c h s e t s i t s e l f u p a s a s t a n -d a r d f o r a d e q u a t i o n . O n e m i g h t a d d h e r e t h a t , si n c e t h e st ri v in g a f t e ra n d c o n f o r m i t y t o a n i d e al im a g e i s a f o r m o f m i m e t i c e n a c t m e n t ,t h e p i t f a l l s o f rnem~sis b e c o m e f o r P l a t o a c e n t r al e d u c a t i o n a l c o n -c e r n .

I t is , t h e n , t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t r u t h as orthotYs, a s r e q u i r i n g t h ep r o p e r d i r e c t i o n o f t h e m i n d a n d a n a d e q u a t i o n t o d e t e r m i n a t i v e st an -d a r d s w h i c h , t h o u g h a m b i v a l e n t l y a r t i c u la t e d b y P l a t o , h a s m a r k e d t h ee n t ir e t r a d i ti o n o f m e t a p h y s i c s . H o w e v e r , th a t P l a t o s h o u ld h a v e re -g a r d e d t h e s e s t a n d a r d s , t h e eidO, a s i n s o m e s e n s e a k i n t o t h e i m a g e ,t h a t h e s h o u l d h a v e , a s D e r r i d a p u t s i t ( p . 3 2 1 ) a l l o w e d t h e w o r l d t o


6/14

70become Bild, seems then of no particular importance for the destiny ofrepresentation, unless for the fact that visual metaphors lend them-selves naturally to an emphasis on ideali ty and distance. 14 However,as we have seen, a representation is not properly an image and cannotclaim any direct ancestry in the Platonic idea understood (as Heideggerdoes understand it) as image or aspect Aussehen, Anbl ick) . It is, then,not the image-character of the eidO which is responsible for representa-tion.

One might also point out here that Plato's fascination with luminosi-ty and shadow has a venerable ancestry in the Homeric poems (the un-paralleled sensitivity of which to the modes and forms of light anddarkness has been commented upon by scholars is ), and in Heraclitus'sand Parmenides's concern with fire, light, and darkness. In other words,a fascination with light, if not indeed with the image, bespeaks itselfalready in the Greek articulation of al~theia.

Furthermore, insofar as the eidos is akin to an image or an epiphany,it must, rather like a holy image, be apprehended in its singularity andin its proper situation; it does not readily allow for substitution, repeti-tion, or for being deployed at the discretion of man in the manner of arepresentative. There is more complexity and perhaps more ambiva-lence in Plato's notion of the eidY than even Heidegger is prepared torecognize, and certainly more than Derrida's equation between repre-sentation and the image and his rather simplistic notion of the imageallow for. This is attested, historically, by the fact that Plotinus, in hisrethinking of Plato's understanding of manifestation and beauty, seversall links to representation, 16 thus showing that Plato's thought couldalso lead elsewhere than into the metaphysics of representation.

It is surprising that Heidegger fails to consider, indeed, obliteratesthe play of absence in the Platonic eidos. Thus, whereas Plato speaksof the Sun which the accustomed eye supposedly can behold in its fullradiance as the offspringg and token ekgonos) of the Good Rep.506e-507a), Heidegger, citing this very passage, describes instead thefire burning in the cave as the ekgonos of the Sun (p. 134). The Sunmay be beheld in the splendor of its presence; but the Good, whoseoffspring it is, remains for Plato problematically withdrawn epekeinat~s ousias), casting upon all manifestness the shadow of its absence.The phenomenal self-manifestness of the eidO is thus forever incom-plete; and the orientation which they enjoin points towards an inacces-sible origin, the absence of which tends to be dissimulated, like an em-barassment, by its shining representatives. It is, indeed, in this prob-lematic of the absent origin and, in particular, of the dissimulation of


7/14

71a b s e n c e a n d v o i d n e s s t h a t o n e s h o u l d l o o k f o r t h e p re f ig u r in g o f t h em e t a p h y s i c s o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . I t is t h e n e e d t o d i s si m u l a te , r a t h e r t h a nt h e i m a g e , w h i c h c a ll s f o r r e s t i t u t i o n b y m e a n s o f a s u b s t i t u t e ( D e r r i d a ,p . 3 0 9 ) , a n d i n d e e d a l so f o r t h e f o c u s o n t h e p o s i ti n g a n d r e s t i t u t i n gs u b j e c t w h i c h c h a r a c t e r i z e s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . I f t h is i s s o , t h e s u s p e c ti m a g e h a s c l e a r e d i t s n a m e a n d a w a i t s , p e r h a p s , a n o t h e r t h e m a t i z a t i o n .

I I IH e i d e g g e r o f fe r s s u c h a t h e m a t i z a t i o n o f th e i m a g e i n h is e s s ay . . .P o e t i c a l l y M a n D w e l l s . . . ( 1 9 5 1 ). 1 7 I n h is p o e t i c d w e l l in g , m a n t a k e st h e m e a s u r e o f a d i m e n s i o n ; b u t s u c h m e a s u r i n g is n e i t h e r t h e r e d u c t i o no f al l t h in g s t o t h e r e p r e s e n t a b l e a n d c a l c u la b l e , n o r y e t a P r o t a g o r e a ne s t a b l i s h m e n t o f m e a s u r e w i t h in t h e l im i ts o f h u m a n c o m p e t e n c e a n dc o n c e r n , is R a t h e r , t h e d i m e n s i o n o p e n e d u p b y s u c h m e a s u r i n g is t h es p a n o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e w h i c h a l lo w s f o r th e b e l o n g in g t o g e t h e r o f e a r t ha n d h e a v e n , i n d e e d , o f t h e F o u r f o l d , a n d w h i c h t h u s a ll o w s m a n t oa s s u m e h is m o r t a l i t y . M a n d o e s n o t s o m u c h t a k e n e h m e n ) t h i s m e a -s u r e a s h e , b y a t t e n t i v e l y h e a r k e n i n g , r e c e i v e s i t vernehmen); b u t s i n c eh e m u s t m e a s u r e b y t h e i m m e a s u r a b l e , h is m e a s u r i n g is n e v e r t h e l e s s ,i n a s e n s e , h y b r i s t i c vermessen). 19 W h a t a l l o w s h i m t o t a k e h i s m e a s u r ef r o m t h e i m m e a s u r a b l e is t h e i m a g e u n d e r s t o o d a s t h e a p p e a r a n c e o ra s p e c t o f t h i n g s i n a n d b y w h i c h t h e i m m e a s u r a b l e m a n i f e s t s it s i n-a l i e n a b l e c o rL c e a lm e n t . T h e i m a g e , u n d e r s t o o d a s t h e i r r e c u s a b l e a n de n i g m a t i c a p p e a r a n c e o f th i n g s, i n s o f a r a s i t t r a n s c e n d s t h e p r e - i n te r -p r e t a t i o n s o f p r o f a n e p e r c e p t i o n , w o r k s bildet ein) t h e i n t r i n s i c a l l yh i d d e n i n t o t h e m a n i f e s t w i t h o u t t h e r e b y v i o l a t i n g i t s s e l f - c o n c e a l m e n t .T h e i m a g e i n c o r p o r a t e s t h e h i d d e n a s t h e in v is ib l e p r o p e r t o t h e v is i-b l e , 2~ a s t h e u n c a n n y w h i c h p e r m e a t e s t h e a s p e c t o f t h e fa m i l ia r , ast h e s u r d o f t h e s e n s u o u s w h i c h re s is t s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s c h e m a t a , a s t h ev e r y e n i g m a o f m a n i f e s t a ti o n . S i n ce th e e s s e n ti a ll y n o n - m a n i f e s t c a n n o tb e p ic t u r e d , d i a g r a m m e d , e x p l a in e d , o r r e d u c e d t o t h e c o m p a s s o f t h ef a m i li a r, t h e i m a g e i n th i s s e n s e ( t h e s e n s e w h i c h H e i d e g g e r c o n s i d e r st o b e o r i g i n a r y ) d o e s n o t r e p r e s e n t . I n s t e a d o f c o l l a p si n g t h e e n i g m a t i ci n t o t h e e s t a b l i s h e d a n d k n o w n , t h e i m a g e d i s t e n d s t h e f a m i l i ar i n t ot h e e n i g m a t i c . I t is t h e ta s k o f t h e p o e t a n d a r t is t t o m a i n t a i n t h isd i s t e n s i o n , t o r e s i s t f o r e c l o s u r e , t o s a f e g u a r d t h e im a g e o v e r a g a i n stt h e e n c r o a c h m e n t o f r e p r e s e n ta t i o n , s o t h a t m a n m a y r e m a i n e x p o s e dt o t h e d i f f e r e n c e .

T h e p o e t a n d t h e a r t i s t c a n fu l f il l t h i s t a s k s o l o n g as t h e y c o n s i g n


8/14

72themselves to the immeasurable, so long as their work remains poisedin the tension between silence and articulation. They thus remain re-sponsive to the granting and grace charis , Huld) of all presencing. Thisgrace or charis which marks the image in its arising and which bringsabout the haunting fascination of appearance is, Heidegger remarks,itself poetic dich terisch , t ikto us a). 21 It calls for the work but seeks,through the configurations of the work, to manifest the silence of thegranting.

Heidegger understands beauty, the beauty which marks the originaryimage (and which may be terrible as well as lovely), as the coming to-gether of ravishment B er f i ckung) and transport E nt r f i ckung , E n t -z f i c k u n g ) ? 2 The image ravishes through the assertive passion, the near-perfection, the excess of what is brings to appearance; and it transportsby pointing back towards the enigmatic silence which cradles passionand perfection, and which these rejoin in their very extremity. Thissilence is an emptiness Leer e ) or nothingness N i ch t s ) understood,somewhat speculatively but apart from either nihilism or metaphysics,as perhaps the highest name for being which waits as yet to be foundand spoken, and which the epoch of representation has so far oblit-erated. :3 One may then understand the image, in the originary sense,as the luminous trace of an interplay: the interplay between voidnessand the lawful enchainment of phenomenal arising. Heidegger thema-tizes this interplay, in different texts, with both Greek and Easternleanings, namely as the filial relation of phys i s to hol y chaos, andalso as the reciprocity between color and emptiness, the Japanesenotions of iro and ku . 24

The image shows in that it renders phenomenal and thus allows foran arising into un-concealment. The very presencing and being ofbeings A n w e s e n ) is their arising into un-concealment. If phenomenalarising is thus thought as A n w e s e n and unconcealment,2s however,it is clear that the image is not , for Heidegger, unique or even privilegedin bringing to appear; rather, un-concealment is already and above allthe work of language. Language or, as Heidegger prefers to call it, say-ing die Sage) allows to beings the configurations of their presencingand of their absence, thus bringing them into their own, as it also bringsinto its own the disclosive existence of mortals.

Heidegger characterizes the saying of language as intrinsically her-meneutic in that it first draws man into a hermeneutic relation to thepresencing of beings and into the gap of the difference, thus allowingthe difference to address and claim man. 26 To think language as a her-meneutic un-concealment is, of course, to depart from the metaphysi-


9/14

73cal conception of language as the accomplishment and expression ofthe subject who is its shaper Bildner) and imparts to it its structureand a representative and communicative function. Heidegger, by con-trast, emphasizes the belonging together of saying or of intrinsicallypoetic language and the non-representing image by linking the con-ception of language as Ereignis, as disclosive and eventful appropria-tion, to Er-giugen or bringing into the play of the glance. 27 The showingthus accomplished is not signification, but rather resembles the indi-cating hint and the evocative gesture. 2s

The promise of this new thematization of the image remains never-theless partially unfulfilled, in that Heidegger does not ask whethercertain modes of showing may be proper to the image and set it apartfrom the showing proper to language. The neglect of this question isthe more regrettable since it would take up again the issue of the rela-tion between logos and aisthesis which Heidegger considers in Beingand T ime , where he gives a rather enigmatic priority to aisth~sis as theoriginary locus of tru th. 29 Furthermore, Heidegger notes but bypassesthe differences between the logically articulated and perhaps meta-physically oriented European languages, and certain Eastern languageswhich lack a comparable structure; he does not work through thesedifferences in his effort to indicate the common source of all language.One suspects that the non-Western languages to which Heidegger givesonly brief consideration might come closer to the modes of showingproper to the imageJ ~ Heidegger s neglect of these issues amounts toa slighting of the image which curiously resembles its slighting byrepresentative thought.

This paper, however, must address, not the neglected phenomenolo-gy of the image, 31 but the questions as to how Heidegger s second andadmitt edly shadowy thematization of the image, in its tension with therepresentative notion of the image, bears upon his retrieval of Greekthinking, and how it affects the pertinence of Derrida s critique.

IVThe originary image, as Heidegger thinks it, belongs, like logos, toalbtheia or the happening of un-concealment. Al~the ia unfolds thetwofold of the difference in such a way as to allow beings to comeinto presence and, as presences, to fascinate and enthrall; thereby,however, they also conceal the enigma of their presencing. The fron-tality of images, in particular, tends to foster the illusion of the self-


10/14

74containedness and self-sufficiency of all presence and invites schematicrepresentation in the interest of conceptual mastery. This graspingresponse to appearances which transforms them into representations isnot merely an historical, cultural, or epochal phenomenon; rather, italways already stands in necessary tension with the response of reti-cent awe Scheu) which refuses to absolutize frontality and which rec-ognizes, in the originary image, the circumscription and the figured sealof an infrangible absence. The latter response, Heidegger finds, is theone which shapes early Greek thinking and its key notions of alOtheia,of physis as the unfolding of the twofold of the difference, and ofrnoira as the apportioning law of this unfolding? 2 Plato's understand-ing of eidos and idea, on the other hand, initiates the obscuring ofalOtheia and the displacement of the originary by the representingimage.

Heidegger stresses that the Platonic forms are not aistheta but areaccessible only to a thinking which divorces itself from the sensuous? 3A rift between sensuousness and the supersensory is characteristic ofmetaphysics precisely because everything sensuous, including theimage proper, is permeated by absence and resists full mental approp-riation. Plato, of course, degrades images to the very lowest positionon the divided line and assimilates them to reflections and shadows,the mere vestiges of presence Rep. 510a). The turning which Heideggerfinds in Plato's thought is then not, as Derrida alleges, primarily aturning towards the image (in whatever sense), but a turning away fromall absence towards an ideal presence. This turning obliterates the two-fold of the difference which is the matrix of all phenomenal arising.Once al6theia becomes thus obscured, eidos and idea can emerge asprivileged presences, and vision becomes a metaphor for their intel-lectual grasp.

Heidegger, as already noted, points to an ambivalence betweenalYtheia and orthotOs in Plato's understanding of the forms; but he doesnot bring this ambivalence into clear focus. The ambivalence seemsabove all to reside in Plato's problematic notion of an origin beyondbeing epekeina t~s ousias) which resists logos and intellectual ap-propriation, yet which does not, by its necessary withdrawal, succeedin calling into question the search for pure presence. An ambivalence,by its very nature, cannot mandate or determine the dominance of onealternative. Hence, if Plato's thought is indeed ambivalent at its core,it cannot, as Derrida puts it, prescribe predominance of representa-tion (p. 312); and Heidegger's recognition of the Platonic ambivalenceis precisely a denial o f any such univocal and representative interpreta-


11/14

7 5t i o n o f P l a t o ' s h i s t o r i c a l r o l e .

Q u i t e a p a r t f r o m t h e a m b i v a l e n c e , t h e s h if t f r o m alOtheia o r orthot~sc a n n o t b e u n d e r s t o o d o n t h e m o d e l o f a d i m i n u t i o n o r c o r ru p t i o n o f ap r i m a r y p r e s e n c e Anwesenheit) b y r e p r e s e n t a ti o n , b e c a u s e alOtheia isa p r e s e n c i n g o u t o f a b s e n c e a n d i n t o a b s e n c e , a n d a b s e n c e i s n o t r e p -r e s e n t a b le . R e p r e s e n t a t i v e t h i n k in g d o e s n o t p r e s u p p o s e , f o r i ts v e r yp o s s i b i l i ty , a p re - g iv e n p r e s e n c e w h i c h i t t h e n b r e a k s w i t h a n d s e e k s t or e s t i t u t e ; r a t h e r i t f i rs t i n s t i tu t e s t h e i d e al o f p r e s e n c e . I t d o e s s o b e -c a u s e it r e p u d i a t e s t h e t o g e t h e r n e s s o f p r e s e n c e a n d a b s e n c e , o r w h a tH e i d e g g e r c alls t h e s a m e n e s s ( w i t h o u t i d e n t i t y ) o f s h o w i n g a n d c o n -cea l ing. 34

T h e r e l a t i o n o f t h e o r i g i n a r y im a g e t o t h e r e p r e s e n t i n g i m a g e is n o ta l r e a d y a r e l a ti o n o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o r rnirnOsis; i t i s r a t h e r a n u s u r p a -t i o n . A s a g l a n ce a t p o l i ti c a l e x a m p l e s s h o u l d m a k e e v i d e n t , n o t a l ls u b s t i t u t i o n , l e t a l o n e u s u r p a t i o n , is r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . T h e f a c t t h a tH e i d e g g e r l ea v e s t h e d o u b l e s e n s e o f h is n o t i o n o f Bild s o c u r i o u s l yu n t h e m a t i z e d s er v es p e r h a p s t o e m p h a s i z e t h e c lo s e a n d c o n s t a n td a n g e r o f s u c h u s u r p a t i o n w i t h i ts fa r -r e ac h in g c o n s e q u e n c e s f o r t h eu n d e r s t a n d i n g o f i m a g i n a t i o n Einbildung), f o r t h e f o r m a t i o n o rBildung o f m a n , a n d f o r t h e r e l a ti o n o f p h i l o s o p h y t o t h e a r ts . I t e m -p h a s i z e s a ls o th a t t h e s a v i n g p o w e r is c l o se t o t h e d a n g e r . U n f o r -t u n a t e l y b o t h H e i d e g g e r a n d D e r r id a i g n o r e t h e n e e d f o r an a n a ly s iso f t h e s t r u c t u r e o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ; b u t i t is D e r r i d a r a t h e r t h a n H e i d e g -g e r w h o s t i l l t e n d s t o r e p r e s e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , i n t h a t h e c o n s t r u e s i to n t h e m o d e l o f a r e p r e s e n t a t iv e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e im a g e .

T h e c o n t i n u e d p r o x i m i t y o f r e p r e s e n t a t iv e a n d m e t a p h y s i c a l t h in k -i ng t o a m o r e o r ig i n a ry a w a r e n e s s o f u n - c o n c e a l m e n t , a p r o x i m i t y a t -t e s t e d t o b y P l a t o 's a m b i v a l e n c e a s w e l l a s b y H e i d e g g e r' s d o u b l e u s eo f t h e t e r m B i l d , a l r e a d y i n d i c at e s t h a t H e i d e g g e r ' s e f f o r t t o r e-t r ie v e e a r l y G r e e k t h i n k i n g is n o t b o r n o f n o s t a l g ia f o r a l o s t i d e a lw h i c h o n e m i g h t h o p e m i r a c u l o u s l y t o r e s t o r e in t h e m i d s t o f e x ile .S u c h a p r o j e c t o f r e tr ie v a l w o u l d i n d e e d b e p a r a d o x i c a l , f o r i t w o u l ds e e k t o c o i n c i d e b y r e p r e s e n t a t i o n w i t h t h e v e r y n e g a t i o n o f r e p r e s e n -t a t i o n . H e i d e g g e r ' s p r o j e c t o f r e t r ie v a l d if f e r s f r o m s u c h a f u t i le p r o j e c ti n t w o m a i n a n d r e l a t e d r e s p e c t s : f i r s tl y , it s e e k s t o e n g a g e w h a t re -m a i n s u n t h e m a t i z e d a n d c o n c e a l e d i n e a r ly G r e e k t h i n k in g a n d w h a tis h e n c e n o t a r e p r e s e n t a b l e p r e s e n c e ; a n d s e c o n d l y , it s e e k s t o b e t r u et o t h e G r e e k b e g i n n i n g s b y l e a v in g t h e m s o as t o r e j o i n t h e m i n a n u n -m a p p e d f u t u r e . T h e w a y in t o t h e G r e e k p a s t is a w a y w h i c h l e a d s o n -w a r d , n o t o n w a r d a l o n g th e w a y - s t a g e s o f p ro g r e s s a l r e a d y e s t a b l is h e db y t h e p a s t n o r t o w a r d s a n e n v is a g e d g o a l o f k n o w l e d g e , b u t t o a m i n d -


12/14

7 6f u ln e s s o f t h e e n i gm a o f p r e s e n c in g w h i c h p h i l o s o p h y h a s a s si d u o u s l yb y p a s s e d . W h e r e a s e a r l y G r e e k t h i n k i n g t h i n k s p h e n o m e n a l a p p e a r i n g(Erscheinen, phainesthai) a s p r e s e n c i n g (Anwesen) a n d t h u s a s t o - b e ,t h e r e t r ie v a l m u s t a l so t h i n k s u c h a p p e a r i n g a n d p r e s e n c i n g a s Ereignis,i n it s a p p r o p r i a t i n g e v e n t f u l n e s s . T o r e p e a t o r r e tr i e v e e a r ly G r e e kt h in k i n g is t h u s b o t h t o t h i n k i t, a s H e i d e g g e r p u t s i t, m o r e G r e e k l y ,b y t h i n k i n g a l s o i t s p r o v e n a n c e a n d , b y t h e s a m e t o k e n , t o t h i n k i t i na w a y w h i c h is n o l o n g e r G r e e k . 3s

T h e r e i s t h e n , f o r H e i d e g g e r , n o o r ig i n al e n v o y o f b e i n g w h o ir -r e p e a t a b l y a n d f i rs t o f a ll u n c o v e r s [ h i m ] s e l f a s p r e s e n c e , m o r er i g o r o u s l y a s Anwesenheit ( D e r r id a , p . 3 2 1 ) a n d w h o r e a f f i r m s h i m s e l fin c o u n t l e s s m u t a t i o n s , s o a s t o g a t h e r th e s e t o g e t h e r i n t o a g r o u p e di n d i v i s i b i li t y ( p . 3 2 2 ) . I f t h e r e w e r e s u c h a f i rs t p r e s e n c e , H e i d e g g e r ' sn o t i o n o f t h e o r i g i n a r y i m a g e w o u l d l o s e i ts s e n s e ; a ll i m a g e s w o u l d b er e p r e s e n t a t i v e . Diff~rance is t h e c o n d i t i o n o f t h e H e i d e g g e r ia n i m a g e o rBild n o le ss t h a n o f D e r r i d a 's n o t i o n o f t h e t r a c e , o r o f t h e renvoia s t r a c e ( p . 3 2 4 ) . T h i n k i n g , t h e r e f o r e , is a l w a y s a l r e a d y w i t h i n t h e p l a yo f t h e i m a g e o r w i t h i n t h e p l a y o f t h e t r a c e .

T h i s i s n o t t o s a y t h a t , malgrd lui, D e r r i d a ' s t h i n k i n g h e r e c o i n c i d e se n t i r e l y w i t h H e i d e g g e r ' s . W h e r e a s , f o r D e r r i d a , t h e p l a y a n d re c i -p r o c i t y o f t ra c e s d e f in e s t h e d o m a i n o f s p e a k in g a n d t h i n ki n g , s u c ht h a t t h e e x i t f r o m t h e b o o k , t h e o t h e r an d t h e t h r e s h o l d a r e a lla r t i c u l a t e d w i t h i n t h e b o o k , a6 t h i n k i n g , f o r H e i d e g g e r , r e a c h e s o u t ,b y m e a n s o f th e i m a g e a n d t h e w o r d , i n to t h e d i f f e r e n c e a n d t o w a r d sa v o i d n e s s w h i c h g r an t s p h e n o m e n a l a ris in g b u t w h i c h c a n s h o w i ts e l ft h e r e i n o n l y a s a b s e n c e . T h e H e i d e g g e r ia n i m a g e , t h o u g h a k i n t oD e r r i d a ' s t r a c e , m a r k s o u t a n a l te r n a t i v e a n d s ti ll i n s u f f i c i e n t l y e x -p l o r e d p a t h f o r n o n - r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t h in k i n g .

NOTES1. M artin H eidegger, Die Z eit des W eltbildes, Holzwege (Frankfurt a. M.:Klostermann, 1963), pp. 69 -1 04 . E nglish translation by W. Lo witt , TheAge of the W orld Picture, The Question Concerning Technology and OtherEssays (New York: Harper and Row, 1977). Among other relevant texts, seein particular W hat is M etaphysics? and Th e End of Philosophy and theTask of Thinking, trans. D avid F. K rell in Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings(New York: H arper & Ro w , 1977).2. Jacques Derrida, Sending: O n Re prese ntation, Peter and M ary Ann Caws,tr., Social Research, vol. XLIX (1982), pp . 294 -3 26 .3 . Op.ci t. , p . 32 2;se e pp. 31 8 -2 4 for the whole argument.


13/14

4 . J a c q u e s D e r r i d a , E l l i p s i s , i n Writing and Difference, A l a n B a s s , t r a n s . ( C h i -

c a g o : T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o P r e ss , 1 9 7 8 ) , p . 2 9 5 .5 . S e n d i n g : O n R e p r e s e n t a t i o n , p . 3 1 1 . S e e a l s o p a g e 3 0 8 .6 . B e s id e s D i e Z e i t d e s W e l t b i l d e s , s e e M . H e i d e g g e r , . . . d i c h t e r i s c h w o h n e t

d e r M e n s c h . . . , Vortrdge und Aufsdtze, I I ( P f u l l i n g e n : N e s k e , 1 9 6 7 ) . E n g l is ht r a n s l a t i o n b y A l b e r t H o f s t a d t e r , . . . P o e t i c a l l y M a n D w e l ls . . . , MartinHeidegger: Poetry, Language, Thought ( N e w Y o r k : H a r p e r & R o w , 1 9 7 1 ) ,p p . 2 1 3 - 2 2 9 . S e e a ls o H e i d e g g e r 's d is c u s s io n o f t h r e e K a n t i a n se n s es o f Bildi n h i s Kant und das Problem der Metaphysik ( F r a n k f u r t a . M . : K l o s t e r m a n n ,1 9 7 3 ) , p p . 8 9 - 9 8 .

7 . . . . d i c h t e r is c h w o h n e t d e r M e n s c h . . . , o p . c i t ., p . 7 4 ; H o f s t a d t e r , p . 2 2 6 .8 . S e e n o t e 1 .9 . D i e Z e i t d e s W e l t b i l d e s , o p . c i t . , p . 8 2 . H e i d e g g e r h e r e e l u c i d a t e s t h e G e r m a n

i d i o m s i c h f i b e r e t w a s i n s B i l d s e t z e n , w h i c h m e a n s t o f o r m a c o h e r e n tr e p r e s e n t a t i o n a b o u t s o m e t h i n g s u c h a s t o e n a b l e o n e to t a k e o n e ' s b ea r in g s ,t o k n o w o n e ' s w a y a b o u t i t . I h a v e s tr e s se d t h e u s e o f t h e r e f le x i v e p r o n o u ni n o r d e r to c a l l a t t e n t i o n t o t h e w a y ha w h i c h m a n ' s s e l f - u n d e r s t a n d i n g b e -c o m e s i n f o r m e d b y s u c h a p i c t u r e . O n t h is p o i n t , s e e a l so M a u r i c e M e r l e a u-P o n t y , L 'Oeil et l 'esprit ( P a r i s : G a l l i m a r d , 1 9 6 4 ) , p . 1 2 .

1 0 . H e i d e g g e r , D i e Z e i t d e s W e l t b i l d e s , o p . c i t . , p . 8 8 . H e i d e g g e r s p e a k s h e r e o ft h e g i g a n t ic a s th e i n c a l c u l a b l e .

1 1 . T h e d i s t i n c t i o n is p a r t i c u l a r l y c l e a r i n th e S i x t h M e d i t a t i o n . F o r a d i s c u s s i o n ,s e e m y a s y e t u n p u b l i s h e d a r t i c le , T h e C a r te s i a n I m a g i n a t i o n .

1 2 . O p . c i t . , n o t e 8 , p . 9 8 .1 3 . M . H e i d e g g e r , P l a t o n s L e h r e y o n d e r W a h r h e i t , Wegmarken ( F r a n k f u r t a . M . :K l o s t e r m a n n , 1 9 6 7 ) , p p . 1 0 9 - 4 4 . E n g li sh t r a n s l a ti o n b y J o h n B a r lo w , P l a -

t o ' s D o c t r i n e o f T r u t h , W . B a r r e t t a n d H . D . A i k e n , e d s ., Philosophy in theTwentieth Century ( N e w Y o r k : H a r p e r T o r c h b o o k s , 1 9 7 1 ) .1 4 . O n H e id e g g e r 's r e s is t a n ce t o o c u l a r i s m , s e e J o h n D . C a p u t o , T h e T h o u g h t

o f B e i ng a n d t h e C o n v e r s a t i o n o f M a n k i n d : T h e C a s e o f H e i d e g g e r a n d R o r t y ,The Review of Metaphysics, X X X V I ( 1 9 8 3 ) , p . 6 7 0 . A n i n t e r e s ti n g d i sc u s s io no f v i si o n a n d d i s t a n c e a p p e a r s a ls o i n S e t h B e n a r d e t t e , O n W i s d o m a n dP h i l o s o p h y : T h e F i r s t T w o C h a p t e r s o f A r i s t o t l e ' s Metaphysics A, The Re-view o f Metaphysics, X X X I (1 9 7 8 ), p p . 2 0 5 - 1 5 .

I 5 . S e e C h r i s t o p h e r R o w e , C o n c e p t i o n s o f C o l o r a n d C o l o r S y m b o l i s m i n t h eA n c i e n t W o r l d , Eranos Y e a r b o o k , 4 1 - 1 9 7 2 , p p . 3 2 7 - 6 3 . T h e a r t ic le c o n-t a i n s e x t e n s i v e r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e r e l e v a n t li t e r a t u r e .

1 6 . I a r g u e th i s p o i n t i n m y r e c e n t a n d s t il l u n p u b l i s h e d a r t i c l e B e a u t y a n dM e m o r y i n P l a t o a n d P l o t i n u s . S e e a ls o R e i n e r S c h f i rm a n n , L ' H g n o l o g i ec o m m e d d p a s s e m e n t d e l a m ~ t a p h y s i q u e , Les Etudes Philosophiques ( 1 9 8 2 ) ,p p . 3 3 1 - 3 5 0 .

1 7 . S e e n o t e 6 .1 8 . D i e Z e i t d e s W e l t b f l d e s , o p . c i t . , n o t e 8 .1 9 . . . . d i c h t e r i s c h w o h n e t d e r M e n s c h . . . , o p . c i t . , p . 7 2 ; H o f s t a d t e r , p . 2 2 3 .

T h e d o u b l e s e n s e o f vermessen a s ( 1 ) t o m e a s u r e c o m p l e t e l y , a n d ( 2 ) tr a n s -g r e s si n g m e a s u r e d o e s n o t a p p e a r i n t h e E n g l i s h .2 0 . S e e h e r e M a u r i c e M e r l e a u - P o n W , The Visible and the Invisible, A l p h o n s o

L i n g is , t r a n s . ( E v a n s t o n : N o r t h w e s t e r n U n i v e r s i t y P re s s , 1 9 6 8 ) , c h a p . iv a n dw o r k i n g n o t e s .


14/14

7 82 1 . . . . d i c h t e r i s c h w o h n e t d e r M e n s c h . . . , o p . c i t . , p . 7 8 ; H o f s t a d t e r , p . 2 2 9 .

S e e a l s o M . H e i d e g g e r , A u s e i n e m G e s p r~ ic h y o n d e r S p r a c h e , Unterwegs zurSprache ( P f u l l i n g e n : N e s k e , 1 9 7 5 ) , p . 1 4 3 . E n g l i s h t r a n s l a t i o n b y P e t e r D .H e r t z a n d J o a n S t a m b a u g h i n On the Way to Language ( N e w Y o r k : H a r p e r &R o w , 1 9 7 1 ) .

2 2 . M . H e i d e g g e r , W i e w e n n a m F e i e r t a g e . . . , Erl iuterungen zu H6lderlinsDich tung ( F r a n k f u r t a . M . : K l o s t e r m a n n , 1 9 7 1 ) , p . 5 3 f .2 3 . A u s e i n e m G e sp r~ ic h y o n d e r S p r a c h e , o p . c i t . , p p . 1 0 8 - 1 0 .2 4 . O p . c i t . , p . 1 4 3 f .2 5 . O p . c i t. , p p . 1 3 2 - 3 5 . S e e a ls o M . H e i d e g g e r, M o i r a ( P a r m e n i d e s V I I I , 3 4 -

4 1 ) , Vortrage und Aufsdtze, I . E n g li s h t r a n s l a t i o n b y D a v i d F . K r e l l a n dF r a n k C . C a p u z z i , Early Greek Thinking ( N e w Y o r k : H a r p e r & R o w , 1 9 7 5 ) .

2 6 . A u s e in e m G e sp r~ ic h y o n d e r S p r a c h e , o p . c i t. , p p . 1 2 1 - 2 7 .2 7 . M . H e i d e g g e r , D e r W e g z u r S p r a c h e , Unterwegs zur Sprache, p . 2 6 0 . H o f -

s t a d t e r d i s c u s s e s ereignen/eriiugnen ( s ic ) i n t h e I n t r o d u c t i o n t o o p . c i t . , p . x x i .2 8 . A u s e i n e m G e s p r ~ c h y o n d e r S p r a c h e , o p . c i t . , p p . 1 0 4 - 1 9 .2 9 . M . H e i d e g g e r , Sein und Zeit ( T i i b i n g e n : N i e m e y e r , 1 9 7 2 ) , c h a p . v i i B , p . 3 3 f .

E n g l i s h t r a n s l a t i o n i n K r e l l , Basic Writings, o p . c i t . , p . 8 1 .3 0 . A u s e i n e m G es p r~ ic h y o n d e r S p r a c h e , o p . c i t . , p . 9 4 .3 1 . A p h e n o m e n o l o g y o f th e i m a g e w o u l d r e q u ir e t h e s t u d y o f r e l e v a n t w o r k s b y

H u s s e r l a n d M e r l e a u - P o n t y .3 2 . M o i r a a n d a ls o A l e t h e i a i n Vortr[ige und Aufsdtze, I , a n d i n Early Greek

Thin king.3 3 . M o i r a , i b i d . , p . 3 4 .3 4 . . . . d i c h t e r is c h w o h n e t t ie r M e n s c h . . . , p . 6 7 ; H o f s t a d t e r s , o p . c i t . , p . 2 1 8 .3 5 . A u s e i n em G e s pr /i ch v o n d e r S p r a c h e , o p . c it . , p p . 1 3 2 - 1 3 5 .3 6 . J a c q u e s D e r r i d a , E d m o n d J a b ~ s a n d th e Q u e s t i o n o f t h e B o o k , Writing and

Difference, p . 76 .

Heidegger, Derrida representationalism.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Heidegger, Derrida representationalism.pdf