pseudo (obligatoire)

email

texte (obligatoire)
[quote=mensonge*]Je propose une deuxième version du texte. < à la suite de la première traduction publiée, ci-dessus, et [post=73]déplacée[/post] le 15 janvier 2022 > [b]Difference between reality in common thought and reality in modern teleology[/b] [justify]Nowadays, reality is something that everyone takes for granted, but that very few of our contemporaries would actually be able to define. It is essentially a referent, and this referent is implicitly indisputable. Whereas in modern teleology, reality is what is fundamentally disputable, nay, even the very origin of the dispute itself, in its common meaning, reality presents itself as a positive object, smoothly cut out. In spite of the fact that reality can cover objects so different as a fact, a thing or a judgment, it appears as a positive basis on which we can rely; reality, at least in current thought, behaves like the atomists’ atom: solid and certain, indivisible and foundational, infallible and endowed with effectiveness. And it might almost be possible to say that, on these specific points, the same goes for reality as seen by modern teleology. But only almost, though, because our contemporaries’ reality is confused, through a hypostasis, about the object it is supposed to comprehend. Thus, a historical event or a de facto situation will be considered as “reality”; or a table, a flower, a tool; or furthermore, a choice, a decision. By extending reality to the objects where it manifests itself, we grant it space and time, an apparently clear contour and content, the contour and content of the object as we represent it to ourselves. As a result, in today’s imagination, reality consists in acts and things. But things, especially, are perennial and remain, independently from our imagination and our conception. In this manner, contemporary thought gives a body to reality. Once this body is accepted, reality can become a basis, a given. It is primal and imperative. It is a truth, static, since it is already there, and will be there after us. And the critique against this reality, or more precisely the complaint against this reality, is to show that it is constraining, stubborn and narrow-minded, that its arrogant and indisputable truth impedes the imagination, this poetic human need, which allows us to breathe, through the absurd or through dreams. This opposition dates back to the “realism” professed by the Marxist counter-revolution, opposed to surrealism, equally issued from the Russian counter-revolution. The difference between reality as it is usually understood today and reality as it is theorized in modern teleology is clearly visible in relation to the category of truth. In both cases, reality has a truth value. In the current view, this truth is a given, an a priori: reality is there, indisputable, and so its truth is indisputable. What is subsumed under reality is true by definition, so to speak. This truth is practical, but it validates whole sets of theoretical truths, and particularly categories of thought which, in teleology, are only hypotheses, useful in time, as tools for action in relation to the circumstances. In modern teleology, reality is also the truth, but it is a truth as culmination of a verification. In the current view, thought verifies reality, and so the truth carried by reality is a proposition of consistency with the hypothetical constructions, a theoretical truth. In modern teleology, reality verifies thought, makes thought true by ending it, by destroying it, by accomplishing it. Truth is the result of a practical verification. For modern teleology, reality is a result. There is reality when a thought ends, is destroyed. Now, this end, this destruction itself has no contour or content, and that is why it is ungraspable. Reality forces thought to reconstitute, to interpret, to load the end of a thought with a content that it generally does not have. In this way of seeing reality, there are not real things or real facts – things and facts are only categories by which thought divides itself. Reality is what ends, what destroys thought, and as a result we cannot see, touch or rely on it. Thus, we cannot say that a fact, a thing or a judgment are real, we should say that there is reality in a fact, in a thing, in a judgment. This means that there is an actual destruction, which modifies fact, thing and judgment, and which is irreversible, and as such indisputable. When reality is only what signals such a break, breach or accomplishment, but is itself ungraspable because it has no content (we can only grasp that which has content, even if it is empty), it cannot be the positive basis of the totality. That is why, in the teleological hypothesis, reality is an original reference only in the old dialectical idea of progression towards the origin. Reality is the end of things, and the end of things reveals their meaning to us. Modern teleology continued this reflection through to this conclusion: reality is a break, the limit of thought. Thought is the contradiction to reality. The phenomenon of thought (the phenomenology of spirit is important because it is very precisely the indecisive movement of totality) is the negation of reality. But this negation itself has, as object and aim, that which it negates, reality. Thought is only unrealized, unaccomplished reality. And there is nothing else but thought, unrealized, unaccomplished reality. Whether it is in acting or in what is “realized,” as is mistakenly said, thus in what is done, as should rather be said, reality manifests itself at the same time as what ends and destroys it; but also its negation is manifested, that which is neither ended nor destroyed, and so attempts to negate this end and this destruction. Thought is what builds and rebuilds on the basis of the fragmentary character of reality. As long as reality is not the totality (which can also be phrased: as long as the totality is not realized), thought is its precursory alienation, which can also be expressed like this: as long as the totality is not realized, the totality is the thought whose movement is determined by the breaks, the breaches and the partial accomplishments of reality. The preliminary question to the end of humanity is: will thought and reality split? Can a break or a breach defeat thought? In this case, the end of humanity will be what we call a catastrophe. Or can humans control thought to the point of accomplishing it, to find the reality of the totality by making the content of every thought coincide with the end of every thought? In that case, the debate of humanity on itself may begin: it is about the content of the accomplishment and the forms of its realization, and that is the end recommended by modern teleology.[/justify] Text from 2009 Revised 2021[/quote]

• BBCode : activé
• balise [url] : activé
• balise [img] : activé
• émoticônes : activé