|
|
本帖最后由 Reader86 于 2024-10-3 01:13 AM 编辑
将马丁·海德格尔安排为导游：雅克·德里达的“指向[pointure]中真理的恢复” （在鞋带中恢复真理）
Staging Martin Heidegger as a tourist guide: Jacques Derrida‘s ”Restitutions of the truth in pointing [pointure]”
Nico Daniel Schlösser
尼科·丹尼尔·施洛瑟
1，I have always admired the beautiful eloquence with which Jacques Derrida, in the short passage quoted above, molds his philosophical critique of Martin Heidegger’s The Origin of the Work of Art (1935/36) into a genuinely literary form.
1，我一直很欣赏雅克·德里达在上面引用的那段短文中的优美口才，他把他对马丁·海德格尔《艺术作品的起源》（1935/36）的哲学批判塑造成一种真正的文学形式。
2，The passage is an excerpt from Derrida’s text “Restitutions of the truth in pointing [pointure],” the last chapter of the book The Truth in painting, originally published by Derrida in 1978. In this chapter, Derrida restages and comments on a sort of duel which takes place between Heidegger and Meyer Schapiro, an American art historian. In his article “The Still Life as a Personal Object,” Schapiro argues that Heidegger, in The Origin of the Work of Art, projects his (national socialist) ideology of the primordial and earthy into Vincent Van Gogh’s painting Vieux souliers aux lacets (1886) by attributing the shoes depicted to a peasant woman. Schapiro, on his part, claims: ”They are the shoes of the artist“ (Schapiro 205), that is, they are Van Gogh’s own shoes.
2，这段话摘自德里达的文本“Restitutions of the Truth in pointing [pointure]”，该书是德里达于1978年出版的《绘画中的真理》一书的最后一章。在这一章中，德里达对一个海德格尔和美国艺术史学家迈耶·夏皮罗之间发生了某种决斗。夏皮罗在他的文章《作为个人对象的静物》中指出，海德格尔在《艺术作品的起源》中将他的（国家社会主义）原始和朴实的意识形态投射到文森特·梵高的画作《有鞋带的旧鞋》中。（1886）把所描绘的鞋子归因于一位农妇。夏皮罗则声称：“它们是艺术家的鞋子”（夏皮罗 205），也就是说，它们是梵高自己的鞋子。
3，For Derrida (or Derrida‘s text), there is projection on both sides. He agrees with Schapiro to the extent that Heidegger’s pathetic verbalization of the truth disclosed in the painting reveals his proximity to national socialist ideology: ”From the dark opening of the worn insides of the shoes“ [ ] (Heidegger 159). The projection, Derrida asserts, rests on Heidegger‘s choice of object. The assumed content of the canvas meets Heidegger’s ideological tendency, he ”can find himself in it“ (Derrida 293). However, Derrida‘s critique of Heidegger goes further. He points out that Heidegger breaches his own philosophical stance.
3，对于德里达（或德里达的文本）来说，两边都有投影。他同意夏皮罗的观点，即海德格尔对画作中揭示的真相可悲的言语揭示了他与国家社会主义意识形态的接近：“来自鞋子磨损内部的黑暗开口”[]（Heidegger 159）。德里达断言，这种投射符合海德格尔对意识形态趋向的选择。画布的假定内容符合海德格尔的意识形态倾向，他“可以在其中找到自己”（德里达293）。然而，德里达对海德格尔的批判更进一步。他指出海德格尔违背了他自己的哲学立场。
4，As Derrida writes, Heidegger, in his endeavor to define the origin of the work of art, reaches back through the whole history of occidental philosophical thought in order to get beyond what he calls its ”rootlessness”[Bodenlosigkeit] (Heidegger 149). In his example of Van Gogh’s painting ‘and Heidegger does not specify which canvas he means“, ”the equipmental being of equipment“ (158), its truth, discloses itself in the moment of the isolation from its context of equipment. This is only possible in the work of art. Heidegger writes: “The essence of art would then be this: the truth of beings setting itself to work” (162). Later, Heidegger resolutely aims to distinguish his thoughts from (rootless) subjectivism: ”Modern subjectivism, to be sure, immediately misinterprets creation, taking it as the sovereign subject‘s performance of genius“ (200). He asserts: ”The truth that discloses itself in the work can never be proved or derived from what went before“ (200).
4，正如德里达所写，海德格尔在努力定义艺术作品的起源时，追溯了整个西方哲学思想的历史，以超越他所说的“无根性”[Bodenlosigkeit] (Heidegger 149) 。在他以梵高的画作为例时，“海德格尔并没有具体说明他指的是哪一幅画布”，“装备的装备存在”（158），它的真理在与装备背景分离的时刻显现出来。这只有在艺术作品中才有可能。海德格尔写道：“艺术的本质就是这样：存在让自己发挥作用的真理(存在的真理自行发挥作用)”（162）。后来，海德格尔坚决致力于将自己的思想与（无根的）主观主义区分开来：“现代主观主义无疑立即误解了创造，将其视为主权主体天才的表现”（200）。他断言：“作品中揭示的真相永远无法被证明或从之前发生的事情中推导出来”（200）。
5，Nevertheless, without any further explication and, in Derrida’s words, ”with massive self-assurance” (Derrida 293), Heidegger dictates the content of the painting: “a pair of peasant shoes“(Heidegger 158). Heidegger, the interpreting subject, is able to easily and clearly identify the object which Van Gogh, the creating subject, had intended to represent. Moreover, he refers to Van Gogh's canvas as ”pictorial representation“ [bildliche Darstellung] (158), thereby evoking the abolished theory of art as mimetic representation. Satirizing his analysis of Heidegger‘s aberration, Derrida adopts an everyday concept and transforms it into the embodiment of both the Cartesian subject par excellence and the most adequate representative of mimetic theory: He stages Martin Heidegger as a tourist guide.
5，尽管如此，在没有任何进一步解释的情况下，用德里达的话说，“带着巨大的自信”（德里达293），海德格尔口述了画作的内容：“一双农民鞋”（海德格尔158）。作为解释主体的海德格尔能够轻松、清晰地识别作为创造主体的梵高所要再现的客体。此外，他将梵高的画布称为“绘画再现”[bildliche Darstellung]（158），从而唤起了已被废除的艺术理论作为模仿再现。德里达讽刺了他对海德格尔失常的分析，采用了一个日常概念，并将其转化为笛卡尔主体的卓越体现和模仿理论的最充分代表：他将马丁·海德格尔塑造为一名导游。
6，Derrida skillfully plays with Heidegger's personality. Heidegger, not exactly of a modest but serious character, had a preference for pathos, and he was very attached to Germany's Black Forest region (for instance, Heidegger did not accept several calls to Berlin). In the ridiculous role of a tourist guide, Heidegger performs as the knowing subject, revealing the truth to his listeners by anchoring the representation to its origin, enriching his speech with details and associations. Heidegger trembles, regularly overwhelmed by his own performance.
6，德里达巧妙地发挥了海德格尔的个性。海德格尔的性格并不谦虚，但却很严肃，偏爱悲情，而且他对德国的黑森林地区非常依恋（例如，海德格尔多次没有接听去柏林的电话）。在导游这一荒唐的角色中，海德格尔扮演了认知主体，通过将表征锚定在其起源上，向听众揭示真相，用细节和联想丰富了他的演讲。海德格尔浑身颤抖，经常被自己的表现压垮。
7，However, one could make objections against Derrida's critique of Heidegger's use of aesthetic theories he aims to overthrow. Heidegger explicitly points out that he is describing his example “without any philosophical theory” (158). Still, Derrida’s critique concerns Heidegger‘s general philosophical approach. He is opposed to Heidegger’s somehow mythical attempt to define the origin of the work of art, he questions his claim of a totally determinable truth. As Derrida comments: [] ”nothing in all this is fortuitous“ (Derrida 293).
7，然而，人们可以对德里达对海德格尔使用他旨在推翻的美学理论的批评提出异议。海德格尔明确指出，他在描述他的例子时“没有任何哲学理论”（158）。尽管如此，德里达的批评涉及海德格尔的一般哲学方法。他反对海德格尔以某种神秘的方式来定义艺术作品的起源，他质疑海德格尔关于完全可确定的真理的主张。正如德里达评论的那样：[]“这一切都不是偶然的”（德里达 293）。
8, For Derrida, the term pointure, due to its polysemy, is a synonym for rest, for something which is annexed to any substantialistic assertion. That is his fundamental opposition to Heidegger. The truth, to use Van Gogh's painting as allegory, is always leaking, has always holes (see the shoes), and is process-related (see the coming and going of the shoelaces). Derrida's text, written as a discussion between several non-identifiable speakers, inscribes itself into the platonic tradition of maieutics. There too, only a partial truth is revealed, the end is always open.
8，对于德里达来说，由于 pointure 一词具有多义性，因此它是 rest 的同义词，是任何实体论断所附加的东西。这是他与海德格尔的根本对立。用梵高的画作为寓言，真理总是在泄漏，总是有洞（见鞋子），并且与过程有关（见鞋带的来来去去）。德里达的文本是几位无法辨认的说话者之间的讨论，它把自己铭刻在柏拉图式的助产术传统中。在那里，也只有部分真相被揭示，结局总是开放的。
9, The appropriate literary means for this philosophical stance is digression. The whole satirical paragraph about Heidegger as tourist guide can be read in that sense. It seems as if Derrida is drifting away from his comment on the duel between Heidegger and Schapiro. But in doing so, he is able to elaborate his philosophical critique of Heidegger. The use of the literary form of digression itself is its expression.
9，这种哲学立场的适当文学手段是离题。关于海德格尔作为导游的整个讽刺段落都可以从这个意义上来理解。德里达似乎正在偏离他对海德格尔和夏皮罗决斗的评论。但这样做，他却能够详细阐述他对海德格尔的哲学批判。离题这一文学形式的运用本身就是其表达。
10, Given Derridas stance, it is obvious that my reading can merely be one possible understanding of Derrida's beautiful text. Always incomplete, it has to be continued. Just as Derrida puts it at the very end of the text:
10，鉴于德里达的立场，显然我的解读只能是对德里达优美文本的一种可能的理解。它永远不完整，必须继续。正如德里达在文本的最后所说的那样：
A. 它只是消失了。A. Ça vient de partir。
B. 它又回来了。B. Ça revient de partir。
C. 它只是又消失了。（德里达 382）C. Ça vient de repartir。
Jacques Derrida: The truth in painting. Translated by Geoff Bennington and Ian McLeod. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press 1987.
雅克·德里达：绘画中的真理。由 Geoff Bennington 和 Ian McLeod 翻译。芝加哥和伦敦：芝加哥大学出版社 1987 年。
Jacques Derrida: The truth in painting. Translated by Geoff Bennington and Ian McLeod. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press 1987.
马丁·海德格尔：从《存在与时间》（1927 年）到《思考的任务》（1964 年）的基本著作。大卫·法雷尔·克雷尔编辑。修订和扩充版。旧金山：哈珀出版社 1993 年。
Meyer Schapiro: "The Still Life as a Personal Object" A Note on Heidegger and van Gogh." In: The Reach of Mind. Essays in Memory of Kurt Goldstein. Edited by Marianne L. Simmel. New York: Springer 1968, S. 203-209.
迈耶·夏皮罗：“静物作为个人物品”——关于海德格尔和梵高的注释。”在：《心灵的延伸》。纪念库尔特·戈德斯坦的论文集。玛丽安·齐美尔编辑。纽约：斯普林格出版社 1968 年，第 203-209 页。 |
|
发表于 
楼主