Derrida, Ricoeur, Kearney
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Applied Hermeneutics June 5, 2012 Translating God: The Author 2012 Derrida, Ricoeur, Kearney Sebastian Purcell Abstract The purpose of the present essay is to defend two related notions. The more specific notion that I seek to defend is Richard Kearney’s conception of God as posse, of God as a possible God. His position has recently been criticized for three separate reasons: that it is not radical enough, that it is crypto-metaphysical, and that it forecloses the most profound aims of ethics. At a broader level what seems to be at stake is the opposition between partisans of radical finitude, those who hold that the most profound questions are encountered at the limits of thought, and an alternative “infinite” conception that Kearney shares with Paul Ricoeur, which maintains that fidelity to un- predictable events opens the way to what is most profound about the human condition. In re- sponse, I argue that the criticisms fail to hit their mark because they presuppose a broadly Der- ridean or post-modern position in order to make their argument, when it is just those presupposi- tions that are in question. Keywords deconstruction, Derrida, ethics, eros, events, finitude, God, hermeneutics, infinity, Kearney, Ric- oeur, translation Whether one chooses to lead one’s life by Stephen Hawking are but two of the most means of a belief in a god or not, and how well-known of many recent authors to have one does so in light of such commitments, is engaged this topic.1 Yet philosophy as a dis- a central existential and practical matter for cipline has stood at some distance from this anyone’s life. This question orients our discussion, despite the clear public interest sense of what goals we deem worthy of pur- in it. The reason for this is that philosophical suing, what codes of conduct - at least in discussions on God tend to suffer from a fa- part - we deem necessary to observe, and tal defect: they deadlock almost immediately. above all it provides a distinct sense of our Atheists are likely never to accept any proof human place in the universe. Perhaps it is for God’s existence, and theists are likely for these reasons that one finds a broad pub- lic interest in question of religious belief in our modern world. Richard Dawkins and Corresponding Author: Sebastian Purcell, PhD Assistant Professor of Philosophy SUNY Cortland, NY Email: [email protected] 2 Purcell Journal of Applied Hermeneutics 2012 Article 5 never to accept that their proofs are incorrect. following him, further linked both of these It would seem, as a result, that despite the aspects to a metaphysical view on the world. public interest in the matter, there is little The metaphysics of presence is a view on scholarly interest in it. As intense, personal, the world that is taken to be exemplified in and practical as the discussion might be, it the works of Plato, Aristotle, and St. Thom- would appear that philosophy has almost as Aquinas, and which at the same time gave nothing new to say about the topic. rise to the scientific approach to reality that denies any place to existential meaning.2 It It is in light of this deadlock that Conti- maintains that being is to be defined in terms nental philosophy as a whole, and herme- of its presence, in terms of what it is here neutics in particular, has something of spe- and now, in its actuality, and thus allows one cific value to contribute. This tradition of to manipulate it maximally according to thought has followed a path that Søren Kier- one’s best use of instrumental reason - as kegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche opened. one finds, for example in cost-benefit analy- Rather than pursue the question “does God sis. Such a view on reality has no place for exist?” it has instead pursued “what kind of existential meaning. The implication for the god would be worth believing in, would be philosophy of religion, then, is that even if worth hoping for, should such a being exist?” one were to believe in God’s existence, one This is the sort of question that theists and would have to do so within a framework that atheists alike can pursue, so that it does not did not draw upon the traditional metaphysi- result in an immediate deadlock, and it has cal accounts, on the metaphysics of presence, equally proven to be of both scholarly and since it is just those accounts that resulted in public value. Charles Taylor’s A Secular both the secularization of our contemporary Age (2007), for example, has renewed this culture and the broader problem of absurdity scholarly discussion, and Hubert Dreyfus in modern life. and Sean Kelly’s All Things Shining (2011), which pursues a defense of polytheism on Two of the most robust accounts of God existentialist grounds, has become a national that have been provided in response to the best seller. problem of nihilism are those by Jacques Derrida and Richard Kearney, though they The key problem, when one takes up this have not thus far seen eye-to-eye. My spe- approach, is what has come to be known as cific aim of the present essay, then, is to the problem “nihilism.” Nietzsche’s provide a defense of two related philosophi- (in)famous statement that “God is dead. God cal notions. At one level, I seek to defend remains dead. And we have killed him.” Richard Kearney’s conception of a possible compresses the two related aspects of this God, God understood as “posse,” the God matter (1974, p. 181). One aspect concerns who may be, from some recent Derridean the annihilation of Christian values, the fact criticisms, notably John Caputo’s and Mark that the Christian God does not provide Dooley’s, which suggest that his conception meaning for “Western” culture as He did belongs to the tradition of the metaphysics around 1500. The other concerns the distinct of presence. At a more general level, be- possibility that all our lives are but much cause the criticism Kearney’s work has re- sound and fury signifying nothing - a total ceived is of a distinctively Derridean kind, annihilation of meaning - which might be what is at stake in this defense concerns the termed the problem of absurdity. Nietzsche viability of an alternative to Derridean and the tradition of Continental philosophy thought, the viability of a program of 3 Purcell Journal of Applied Hermeneutics 2012 Article 5 thought that is not committed to radical and Mark Dooley, while always friendly and finitude in the way that he is. Insofar as Der- appreciative in their responses, have made rida’s commitment to radical finitude may the strongest case in this regard. Taken to- be understood to be shared by Giorgio gether, one finds that they have leveled three Agamben, Martin Heidegger, even Slavoj separate charges: that Kearney’s work is Not Žižek, and insofar as Kearney’s commitment Radical Enough, that it is Crypto- to an alternative, one could call it: the pro- Metaphysical, and that it Forecloses Ethics, gram of infinite thought, is shared by think- or at least the most profound point of ethical ers as diverse as Alain Badiou and Paul Ric- responsibility. I take up these charges each oeur, the stakes of this opposition are signif- in turn. icant for Continental philosophy as a whole, and not only the philosophy of religion.3 The First Charge: Not Radical Enough The argument that I pursue in what fol- Caputo has argued in a number of essays lows, then, makes the case both that there is and in several presentations that Kearney’s a viable alternative to the program of radical diacritical hermeneutics, along with Ric- finitude, and that Kearney’s conception of oeur’s reflective hermeneutics, is simply not God as “posse” is part of that alternative. radical enough to twist free from the meta- One result of this argument is thus to sug- physics of presence. He has made his case gest that it is not possible, as Derrideans against Ricoeur as early as Radical Herme- have done, simply to assume that because neutics (Caputo, 1984) and has expanded it Kearney does not share their basic philo- to include Kearney in his more recent work sophical commitments that his conclusions (Caputo, 2006, 2010, 2011). Incidentally, I are misguided. A second result is that it note that he is not the only Derridean to ar- might be possible to lead one’s life mean- gue that Ricoeur failed to meet the challenge ingfully if guided by a conception of God as posed by the metaphysics of presence. To posse, which, following Kearney, entails an mention but one other prominent scholar on ethical task for human living, a kind of eth- Derrida who has addressed the relation of ics of translation. Ricoeur and Derrida one could look to Leonard Lawlor’s work (1992).5 This line of Because exegetical points have in some critique, then, broaches a deep tension be- ways resulted in the current disagreement, tween Derrida and Ricoeur, indeed to my the present investigation will be served well mind, it broaches one of the most fundamen- by proceeding slowly and with clarity. I tal disagreements in contemporary Conti- begin, then, with a thorough review of the nental philosophy, and I shall gesture in that three charges that Derrideans have leveled direction below (section 3). Nevertheless, I against Kearney, specifically, and Ricoeur, begin with the Derridean criticism. from whom he draws, more generally. Caputo’s most recent argument is that 1.