CATHERINE
FI
. ZUCKERT
0st Í1l0d BIÍl
PL AT
[l Btrsrhe H
I ideUUor
I fl damer S
t ratl$$
I I rrida
I
,i ;i'¿ ...
31 downloads
1020 Views
133MB Size
Report
This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form
CATHERINE
FI
. ZUCKERT
0st Í1l0d BIÍl
PL AT
[l Btrsrhe H
I ideUUor
I fl damer S
t ratl$$
I I rrida
I
,i ;i'¿
¿!
'
TIIE UNIVE,RSITY OF CH]CAGO PRESS ( llt('A(;() ANt) t.()Nt)()N
S
(
hnteilt$
l¡rhcrine tl. Zuckert is professor of political science at Carleton
(irllege.
The University of Chicago press. Chicago 60632 The University of Chicago press, Ltd.. London @ 7996by The University of Chicago All rights ¡eserved. published 1996 Printed in the United States of America 05 04 03 02 01 00 99 98 97 96 5 43 27
ISBN (cloth): 0-226-99330-2 ISBN (paper): 0-226-9933t-0
An earlier version of chapter 1, ,,Nietzsche,s Rereadings of Plato," appeared inPoliticalTheory L3, no.2 (1985): ítS_lZ,
copyright
@ 1985
permission.
by Sage publications, Inc. Reprinted with
Acknowledgments oii
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-publication Data
INrnooucrroN
Zuckert, Catherine H., 7942-
Postmodern Platos
Postmodern Platos : Nietzsche, Heidegge¡, Gadame4 / Catherine H. Zuckert.
Strauss, Derrida
P.
cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-226-99330-2.-ISBN 0-226-99331_0 (pbk.) 1. Plato. 2. Philosophy, Modern-19th.".rtoiy. 3. Philosophy, Modern-2Oth century. 4. postmádernism.
I. Title.
B395.278 t996
190-dc20
95_3s118
One Two
Nrtrzscur's Rrnneprxcs oF PLATo 10
Three
Gepevrrn's PerH 70
Materials, ANSI 239.48-1984.
Hrlpncctn's Nrw BrcrNNrNc j3 From Heidegger to Plato
Four Fipe
CIP @ The paper used in this publication meets rhe minimum requirements of the American National Standard fo¡ Information Sciences-Permanence of paper for printed Library
1
Srneuss's Wey B¡cx
ro PLATo ro4
"PRIMrrrvE PLAToNISM" az9 Strauss's Response to Radical Historicism
Six
R¡corvc¡rvrNc rHE Strauss's Studies
WESTERN
ThADrrroN a69
in Platonic Political Philosophy
Seaen Dtnnrods DncoNsrnucrroN or PLATo
Eight Nine
zor-
D¡nnruls Nrw [Hdsrony zz6 Thr Tnner P.¡rHs rnou NrErzscHr AND HETDEGGER 254 List ot' Abbreztiations 277
Nofes Ind.ex
279 345
Acknuwledgments
I would like to begin by thanking the organizations that made it possible for me to complete this study: Carleton College, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the H. B. Earhart Foundation, the Social philosophy and Policy Cenrer at Bowling Green State University, and last, but by no means least, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. Without their support I could never have written it. Certain individuals have also helped. Jacques Derrida graciously granted me an interview in Paris in July 1993 to discuss his reading of Plato. Michael Davis, Michael Gillespie, Mary P. Nichols, and Vickie Sullivan were kind enough to read and comment on parts of the text. The readers for the University of Chicago Press suggested ways in which the manuscript could be improved. The editors of PoliticalTheory granted me permission to reprint parts of "Nietzsche's Re-reading of Plato." Most of all, howeve¡, I want to thank my husband Michael. Not only did he generously share his ideas and reactions in discussing the contents and argument of this book; he also carefully read reread, and commented upon each chapter. I find it hard to imagine what, if anything I would have done without the combination of affectionate support and intelligent criticism he has bestowed upon me and my work for many, many years. Words fail to describe gifts born of love.
lltroductiun
Postmodern Platos
lfred North Whitehead once quipped that all philosophy is a footnote to Plato. That is the problem, according to the thinkers treated
in this volume; the scholarly apparatus has gradually covered over and so obscured the original. These thinkers all see themselves engaged, therefore, in an excavation project, seeking to uncover the original character of philosophy in new, emphatically nontraditional studies of Plato. The repeated returns to Plato inaugurated by Friedrich Nietzsche do not represent exercises in antiquarian history, however. On the contrary,
when Martin Heidegge¡, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Leo Strauss, and Jacques Derrida follow Nietzsche in seeking to discover what philosophy was originally like, they reread Plato in an attempt to reconceive the character of the Western tradition as a whole. I call these thinkers "Postmodern Platos" for two reasons. First, I am arguing that their understanding of Plato is a central, if not the defining, factor in their thought as a whole. When these thinkers return to plato to find out what the character of philosophy originally was, they understand themseives to be inquiring into the roots of their own activity. Their interpretations of Plato thus constitute essential parts of their own selfunderstanding. The second reason I refer to these thinkers as "Postmodern platos,, is that they look back to the origins of philosophy from an explicitly "postmodern" position. That is, they return to Plato and ask what the character of philosophy was at i.ts origins explicitly on the basis of a conviction that modern rationalism has exhausted its promise and its possibilities.r They are all seeking a way of making a new beginning, of movrng bcyontl "rrrorlcrniry" ro sn is impossible unless the economy of scarcity is r,'¡,1¡¡11'11 [,y irn ccononry of plenty and that replacement requires, in turn, tlr,' lrt't'i.g'i tcchn.logy from all moral and political control. And it is l,1 r¡,r rrrt'rrrrs clc¡r th¡t the ernancipation of technology from moral and ¡,,'lrrir',rl tontrol will ltot Pro.lucc tlrt- disasters or dehulnanization the , 1.r..,,r,:, irrr¡,lrrirly l)rr(li(.tc(1.." LJnlilic l li'idc¡;ge.r; howr.ver., Strauss did not tl'r¡rl. lri:, (unlr,nrl¡rriuir'';,r¡ulrl ,,' ,rlr,,trl,l givc rrP techrrology cntirely l, rr t lrt' r,,rli.' ol , lr,.r r';lrirr¡i t lrr, r,;rr t lr; lr', lrrrt,l,,¡,,y i:; too inr¡lor.tltnt lirr clcl,'r¡',,',.ttt,l,l,'1,'l¡.,,'t,,.ut(,nlio¡¡¡¡'¡rrrl¡1lr,rll¡t,rr..;,;ilV.""llt,:;ittt¡rlyinsistcrl ¡ r(':;.
200
cHAPTER sIx
that people should not think technology will solve their problems, that it overcome the fundamental limitations or contradictions of human existence. Strauss sought to revive the premodern understanding of the tension between philosophy and politics; in marked contrast to Machiavelli, he
did not advocate a return to ancient political Practice. By reviving the ancient understanding of politics, Strauss hoped, first, to convince both his fellow Jews and his philosophically minded readers they needed to take account of the political preconditions of their more spiritual, transpolitical endeavors. In the twentieth century, both roots or sources of Western intellectual life were threatened with extinction; defensive action was necessary. By reminding his readers not only of the pressing importance but also of the essential limitations of politics, Strauss also sought to show them the character of the transpolitical religious and philosophical alternatives in their pure form. "Even the trans-political cannot be understood as such except if the city is understood," Strauss concluded in his study of "Plato," "and the city is completely intelligible because its limits can be made perfectly manifest: to see these limits, one need not have answered the question regarding the whole; it is sufficient for the purpose to have raised the question regarding the whole."8' Since Strauss's death, the value of the Western intellectual tradition he wished to preserve has itself become a political issue. Critics of the racist, sexist, or generally exclusionary character of the great books or the West have drawn extensively on the writings of facques Derrida for support. Yet, when we compare Derrida and Strauss, we seem to confront an irony, if not a paradox. By showing that the roots of the Western tradition are fundamentally incompatible, Strauss thought he was preserving the secret core or nerve of its vitality. By revealing a fundamental fissure, cleft, or instability at its roott Derrida thinks he is showing how the West is necessarily deconstructing itself. To what extent, we are led to ask, do Derrida and Strauss actually have different views of the West, in general, and its Platonic origins, in particular? To what extent do they use similar literary and philosophical insights in different ways, because they have different understandings of politics?
Seven
D erri da's Decon
struction
of Plato
t first
glance, no two thinkers appear to have less in common than Leo Strauss and Jacques Derrida. Whereas Strauss sought to revive the Western tradition in the face of the radical critique leveled by Nietzsche and Heidegge4 Derrida wants ro carry that critique even further.t Strauss was politically conservative; Derrida,s sympathies .'rr.'e.xplicitly with the left., The first and necessary step in reading any l',,r1