Heidegger denounces, then, a “spiritual decadence” (geis tigen Verfall). Peoples are in the process of losing their last “spiritual forces” through this. This last expression returns often. The Verfall of spirit cannot allow itself to be thought other than in its relation to the destiny of being. If, in ques tioning, the experience of spirit appears proportional to “danger,” the German people, “our people,” this “metaphys ical people” (das metaphysische Volk) par excellence, is at once the most spiritual (Heidegger speci es this clearly later on in speaking of language), and the most exposed to danger. For it is caught in a vice (p. 29 ), in the middle (in der Mitte) between its European neighbors, Russia and Amer ica.S On it devolves the “great decision” (die grosse Entscheidung) which will engage the destiny of Europe, the deployment of “new spiritual forces from this middle place” (neuer geschichtlich geistiger Krafte aus der Mitte). Empha sis, emphase: the word “spiritual” is again italicized both to mark that the fundamental determination of the relation to being occurs there, and to ward o the possibility of a poli tics other than of spirit. A new commencement is called for. It is called for by the question: “Wie steht es um das Seint” What about Being? And this commencement, which is rst a recommencement, consists in repeating ( ederholen) our historially spiritual existence (Anfang unseres geschicht lich-geistigen Daseins).
–from “of spirit”. Derrida.
The situation is never lost on those who ‘question’. A mistake Derrida outlines earlier in this book is a demand for universal compliance, but as well along this line, the concordance of political reflection, shown here by ‘German’.
The ‘discordance’ then does not reflect into thus ‘world’ (as D and H arguments) but moreso thru the retreat of world from reality; the mark and instigation of this being WW2 and its response of post-modernity. No longer does world connote a ‘people’, eg. ‘Metaphysical people’; a reversal of locality has occurred. Reality now is filled with the metaphysical people in the midst of the confusion of spiritual failure.
So, in this regard, such a notice is not having to do with everyone; this is not or no longer an issue of a ‘common human being’. Rather, And specifically those of a certain ‘temperment’, those of a certain ‘view’ (the view from here is lovely).
The historical repetition occurrs after the ‘expiration’, after the ‘decadence’, after failure, but only within the view that would recognize this motion as such. Otherwise, it is merely ‘real’, merely ‘everyone else’ enacting novel solutions to unique or relative problems in front of them.
So; if we can agree even slightly with Heidegger and Derrida, this issue of world being a spiritual concern, But not that of a subjectivity of capital identities, then we might begin to comprehend what The moment of decisive significance means.
For now it is the end of this spirituality that defines all relation of world.
The crucial mistake is this extension: The concordance of world depends on the faith whereby world and reality coincide. This is then the reflection of (Derrida’s) Goepolitical world that arrives now (and shortly passed) the ‘end of days’ and the insistance of faith, the refusal to relinguish the truth faith provides, fuels and is fueled by fear, anger an ressentment (nietszche).
One arm of the goal, then, is to expose what occurs, and to give humanity the view by which to relinquish the desien, the confusion allowed by the imposition of its stretegem of religious sense.
Leave a Reply