Skip to main content

Severino and Aletheia

In Heidegger's narrative of the first movements of metaphysics, physis is associated with aletheia (and with atrekeia) and ultimately to the will-to-aletheia that paves the way for understanding things in terms of underlying (and ultimately transparent) ousiai. That last move turns aletheia into adequacy (truth as correspondence, truth as identity etc) for what matters more in physis is the very disclosure that it provides. Aristotle then states than in the fifth book of his Metaphysics that ultimately physis is ousia. The separation between the showing and concealing of what exists on the one hand and what is present, subsists and is constant is completed. The world is already replaced by a collection of entities.

Severino's neo-parmenidism has that there is no non-metaphysical nothing. That is, there are presences of absence and absences of presence but there is no ultimately nothingness beyond what is not presented. Disappearing is not annihilation unless we consider that only what is permanently exposed (ousia) counts. To depart from presence is nothing but a disappearance - and this is the pre-parricide thought that metaphysics cannot afford. Parmenides had championed an image that verges on the unintelligible for us who think in a presence-oriented key.

Object-orientation tries to leave this key aside by bringing concealment (and withdrawal) to the fore. Only objects that persist in presence, however, can afford to have real objects that are permanent. Severino's take can be approximated by the idea of a general permanentism, there is no nothingness that can be thought through in non-metaphysical terms.

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Giving Birth

This is a month of giving birth: 1. On the first day of the month (my birthday) I sent out my book BUG (Being Up for Grabs) to publisher. A birth-giving moment. 2. On the forth, we started the Journal, called Journal of Questions. It is a Jabèsian and Jarryian endeavor that intends to reflect in many languages about the gaps between thought and translation. It will be available soon. 3. On the 10th, day before yesterday, offspring Devrim A. B. was born. Her name means revolution in Turkish and is a roughly common name. She's very attentive and concentrated - especially on her own fingers that she learned to molest in her youth during her womb months. She was gestated together with BUG. Hope the world enjoys.

My responses to (some) talks in the Book Symposium

Indexicalism is out: l https://edinburghuniversitypress.com/book-indexicalism.html   The book symposium took place two weeks ago with talks by Sofya Gevorkyan/Carlos Segovia, Paul Livingston, Gerson Brea, Steven Shaviro, Chris RayAlexander, Janina Moninska, Germán Prosperi, Gabriela Lafetá, Andrea Vidal, Elzahrã Osman, Graham Harman, Charles Johns, Jon Cogburn, Otavio Maciel, Aha Else, JP Caron, Michel Weber and John Bova. My very preliminary response to some of their talks about the book follows. (Texts will appear in a special issue of Cosmos & History soon). RESPONSES : ON SAYING PARADOXICAL THINGS Hilan Bensusan First of all, I want to thank everyone for their contributions. You all created a network of discussions that made the book worth publishing. Thanks. Response to Shaviro: To engage in a general account of how things are is to risk paradox. Totality, with its different figures including the impersonal one that enables a symmetrical view from nowhere

Hunky, Gunky and Junky - all Funky Metaphysics

Been reading Bohn's recent papers on the possibility of junky worlds (and therefore of hunky worlds as hunky worlds are those that are gunky and junky - quite funky, as I said in the other post). He cites Whitehead (process philosophy tends to go hunky) but also Leibniz in his company - he wouldn't take up gunk as he believed in monads but would accept junky worlds (where everything that exists is a part of something). Bohn quotes Leibniz in On Nature Itself «For, although there are atoms of substance, namely monads, which lack parts, there are no atoms of bulk, that is, atoms of the least possible extension, nor are there any ultimate elements, since a continuum cannot be composed out of points. In just the same way, there is nothing greatest in bulk nor infinite in extension, even if there is always something bigger than anything else, though there is a being greatest in the intensity of its perfection, that is, a being infinite in power.» And New Essays: ... for there is ne