Inconsistesis
Cargando...
Archivos
Fecha
2020-12
Autores
Profesor/a Guía
Facultad/escuela
Idioma
es
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Universidad Andrés Bello
Nombre de Curso
Licencia CC
Licencia CC
Resumen
En un texto precrítico de 1763, Kant arguye que “el concepto de
posición o de postura [Position oder Setzung] es completamente
simple e idéntico con el del ser”. En estas líneas, Werner Hamacher
identifica la fórmula que cifra la metafísica moderna en cuanto
“ontoteseología” –es decir, en cuanto determinación del ser
como posición, posicionamiento o tesis–, la que implica, según
demuestra, una aporía inconfesable y originaria: la aporía de la
posición. Esta aporía es concomitante con una inconsistencia
estructural –que sugiero llamar inconsistesis– que no solo afecta
a la subjetividad trascendental sino también al concepto de
soberanía. La inconsistesis soberana es el asunto de este artículo.
Para abordarlo, se específica la difícil lógica de la inconsistesis con
recurso al análisis que Hamacher lleva a cabo del acto lingüístico
de “prometer”, paradójica premisa del posicionamiento en general,
toda vez que la promesa solo posibilita el acto posicionante al
interrumpirlo. En vista del carácter lingual de la posición como de su aporía explicitado en el acto originario de prometer, se
propone leer la inconsistesis soberana a la luz de la noción de
“justicia lingüística” (Sprachgerechtigkeit) que Hamacher moviliza
en su interpretación de la filosofía política de Hobbes.
In a precritical text of 1763, Kant argues that “the concept of position or positing [Position oder Setzung] is completely simple and is the same as the concept of Being”. Werner Hamacher identifies in these lines the fundamental formulation of modern metaphysics understood as “ontotheseology”, i.e. the determination of being as position, positing, or thesis, which he demonstrates entails an unspeakable and originary aporia—the aporia of positing. This aporia is concomitant with a structural inconsistency, which I term inconsisthesis, that affects not only transcendental subjectivity but also the concept of sovereignty. Sovereign inconsisthesis is the subject of this article. To address it, I flesh out the difficult logic of inconsisthesis by turning to Hamacher’s account of the linguistic act of “promising”, which he understands as the paradoxical premise of positing in general, since promising only makes possible a positing act by interrupting it. In light of the linguistic character of both positing and its aporia disclosed in the originary act of promising, the article pursues sovereign inconsisthesis in the notion of “linguistic justice” (Sprachgerechtigkeit) that Hamacher mobilizes in his reading of Hobbes’s political philosophy.
In a precritical text of 1763, Kant argues that “the concept of position or positing [Position oder Setzung] is completely simple and is the same as the concept of Being”. Werner Hamacher identifies in these lines the fundamental formulation of modern metaphysics understood as “ontotheseology”, i.e. the determination of being as position, positing, or thesis, which he demonstrates entails an unspeakable and originary aporia—the aporia of positing. This aporia is concomitant with a structural inconsistency, which I term inconsisthesis, that affects not only transcendental subjectivity but also the concept of sovereignty. Sovereign inconsisthesis is the subject of this article. To address it, I flesh out the difficult logic of inconsisthesis by turning to Hamacher’s account of the linguistic act of “promising”, which he understands as the paradoxical premise of positing in general, since promising only makes possible a positing act by interrupting it. In light of the linguistic character of both positing and its aporia disclosed in the originary act of promising, the article pursues sovereign inconsisthesis in the notion of “linguistic justice” (Sprachgerechtigkeit) that Hamacher mobilizes in his reading of Hobbes’s political philosophy.
Notas
Indexación: Revista UNAB.
Palabras clave
Hamacher, Ontoteseología, Promesa, Soberanía, Justicia Lingüística
Citación
Revista de Humanidades Nº42 (julio-diciembre 2020): 89-125