"My death—is it possible?"
That is the question asked, explored, and analyzed in Jacques Derrida's new book. "Is my death possible?" How is this question to be understood? How and by whom can it be asked, can it be quoted, can it be an appropriate question, and can it be asked in the appropriate moment, the moment of "my death"? One of the aporetic experiences touched upon in this seminal essay is the impossible, yet unavoidable experience that "my death" can never subject to an experience that would be properly mine, that I can have, and account for, yet that there is, at the same time, nothing closer to me and more properly mine than "my death."
This book bears a special significance because in it Derrida focuses on an issue that has informed the whole of his work up to the present. For the last thirty years, Derrida has repeatedly, in various contexts and various ways, broached the question of aporia. Making it his central concern here Derrida stakes out a new frontier, at which the debate with his work must take place from now on: the debate about the aporia between singularity and generality, about the national, linguistic, and cultural specificity of experience and the trans-national, trans-cultural law that protects this specificity of experience and of the necessity to continue working in the tradition of critique and of the idea of critique, yet the corresponding necessity to transcend it without compromising it; the aporetical obligation to host the foreigner and the alien and yet to respect him, her, or it as foreign.
The foreign or the foreigner has always been considered a figure of death, and death a figure of the foreign. How this figure has been treated in the analytic of death in Heidegger's Being in Time is explored by Derrida in analytical tour de force that will not fail to set new standards for the discussion of Heidegger and for dealing with philosophical texts, with their limits and their aporias. The detailed discussion of the theoretical presuppositions of recent cultural histories of death (Ariès, for example) and of psychological theorizations of death (including Freud's) broaden the scope of Derrida's investigation and indicate the impact of the aporia of "my death" for any possible theory.
3 有用 kevin 2023-11-28 15:00:34 北京
在德里达的分析中,海将死亡作为此在的界限,却是通过一种aporias的方式达成的,即将死亡同时表述为“最本己的可能性”和“不可能性的可能性”,换言之,海是通过预先跨过死亡再退回来宣称此在跨过死亡的不可能性。海将这种“不可能性的可能性”描述为死亡将自身揭示为不可能,但德里达认为aporias不能作为其本身显现,因为海的问题是,如果你将死亡视作对此在而言不可能的,即此在不可能作为死亡存在,那么有何证词... 在德里达的分析中,海将死亡作为此在的界限,却是通过一种aporias的方式达成的,即将死亡同时表述为“最本己的可能性”和“不可能性的可能性”,换言之,海是通过预先跨过死亡再退回来宣称此在跨过死亡的不可能性。海将这种“不可能性的可能性”描述为死亡将自身揭示为不可能,但德里达认为aporias不能作为其本身显现,因为海的问题是,如果你将死亡视作对此在而言不可能的,即此在不可能作为死亡存在,那么有何证词都够说“死亡揭示自身”或“死亡作为此在最本己的可能性”呢? (展开)
3 有用 theObscure 2019-01-29 09:22:01
以海德格尔对死亡的conception为例讨论语言和知识的边界;以及没有了神学的超验结构&目击了种种概念和实体间不可化约性之后,世俗化的人类社会应该如何沟通差异。一切aporias都是人类在不可能的可能性/可能性的不可能性的怪圈里走来走去。从地理和文化边界开始的哲学问题最后又回到了政治问题。这本书里阿甘本还是非常后现代。
1 有用 丁萌 2013-01-28 06:11:08
a difficult 'must-read' for an intertextual reading, with Agamben's The Open, of the 'problematic closure' of animality
1 有用 波士顿驴 2023-11-19 00:37:13 上海
终于“完整”地读完了一本德里达 只能说前后看的很爽,但对关键的论证处实在是力有不逮。德里达也认为存在与时间其实是一种穿着实际性外衣的先验哲学,虽然在早期马堡课程中已经讨论了发生学问题,但海德格尔仍摆脱不了明见性的阴影 只不过在SuZ中是戴着向死这个面具出场的,依托向死这个地基海才建立了一种有限-内在超越的体系,然而纯粹的有限性在此是不可能的,facticity的elusiveness和向死的明见之... 终于“完整”地读完了一本德里达 只能说前后看的很爽,但对关键的论证处实在是力有不逮。德里达也认为存在与时间其实是一种穿着实际性外衣的先验哲学,虽然在早期马堡课程中已经讨论了发生学问题,但海德格尔仍摆脱不了明见性的阴影 只不过在SuZ中是戴着向死这个面具出场的,依托向死这个地基海才建立了一种有限-内在超越的体系,然而纯粹的有限性在此是不可能的,facticity的elusiveness和向死的明见之间有着绝不可调和的张力 (展开)
2 有用 𝑾𝒂𝒍𝒅𝒆𝒊𝒏𝒔𝒂𝒎𝒌𝒆𝒊𝒕 2024-01-24 15:31:17 江苏
对海德格尔的死亡观所蕴含的一整套分界逻辑的解构,可与阿甘本的《敞开》对读。但真的好难好绕,都快不认识possibility/impossibility这俩词儿了。