Secrets of European Responsibility

[Blueskyboris]

Derrida wrote:

"In one of his Heretical Essays on the Philosophy of History Jan Patocka relates secrecy, or more precisely the mystery of the sacred, to responsibility."


Gift of Death, Jaques Derrida, page 1, Chicago Press, 1995.

I know most people have trouble reading Derrida, so I want to go through this one line at a time.

[Blueskyboris]

Jan Patocka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Pato%C4%8Dka)

So, the connection between "the mystery of the sacred" and "responsibility" was explored by Patocka in his book Heretical Essays on the Philosophy of History.

[Blueskyboris]

"Sacred" means: devoted exclusively to one service or use (as of a person or purpose) This definition is basically what secrecy is, so we can say that "secrecy" and "the mystery of the sacred" are roughly the same.

[Blueskyboris]

Derrida wrote, next line:

"He opposes one to the other; or rather underscores their heterogeneity."



Gift of Death; page 1, paragraph 1, line 2
So, Patocka thought that "the mystery of the sacred" and "responsibility" were different.

Incredibly confusing.

[Quizalufagus]

Perhaps unnecessarily obtuse, but not particularly confusing. What's your point, though?

[Blueskyboris]

No, point, really. Just want to examine a Derrida to see how much of it is bullshit, as it is often asserted. Could you tell me why you think it's obtuse?

[Quizalufagus]

Because the idea Derrida is trying to convey is ostensibly very simple, but he chooses to use incredibly opaque language to convey said idea.

[Blueskyboris]

Fair enough, but that doesn't mean that the content of what he wrote is obtuse.

[Quizalufagus]

The content of what he wrote seems trivial. Where is he going with this, anyhow?

[Blueskyboris]

Don't know. I find Derrida hard to understand, lol. :)

[Blueskyboris]

Derrida wrote:

Somewhat in the manner of Levinas he [Patocka] warns against an experience of the sacred as an enthusiasm or fervor for fusion, cautioning in particular against a form of demonic rapture that has its effect, and often as its first intention, the removal of responsibility, the loss of the sense of consciousness of responsibility.

Wanting to experience the sacred (secrecy) does not mean that that person wants to combine it with responsiblity or to lose responsibility to the mystical experience of the sacred. The mystery of the sacred and responsibility are mutually exclusive.

[Quizalufagus]

Derrida wrote:

Somewhat in the manner of Levinas he [Patocka] warns against an experience of the sacred as an enthusiasm or fervor for fusion, cautioning in particular against a form of demonic rapture that has its effect, and often as its first intention, the removal of responsibility, the loss of the sense of consciousness of responsibility.

Wanting to experience the sacred (secrecy) does not mean that that person wants to combine it with responsiblity or to lose responsibility to the mystical experience of the sacred. The mystery of the sacred and responsibility are mutually exclusive.

I believe he is saying quite the opposite of that. The point is that we do often find outselves tempted to abandon responsibility in our experiences of the sacred, and that we should resist this temptation. This is rather bad misinterpretation of our reasons for rejecting responsibility in the context of sacred experiences AFAICT; we do not generally so abandon responsibility (as Derrida says Patocka implies) out of poorly managed enthusiasm but rather out of an honest reappraisal of where one's obligations lie in light of the sacred.

[Blueskyboris]

I believe he is saying quite the opposite of that. The point is that we do often find outselves tempted to abandon responsibility in our experiences of the sacred, and that we should resist this temptation. No, the point is that they are mutually exclusive to begin with. We may have to resist the urge to abandon responsibility, but they are still different.

This is rather bad misinterpretation of our reasons for rejecting responsibility in the context of sacred experiences AFAICT; we do not generally so abandon responsibility (as Derrida says Patocka implies) out of poorly managed enthusiasm but rather out of an honest reappraisal of where one's obligations lie in light of the sacred. I agree here, partially, mainly because I'm an agnostic.

[Quizalufagus]

No, the point is that they are mutually exclusive to begin with. We may have to resist the urge to abandon responsibility, but they are still different.

Derrida makes a point of saying that the two are not mutually exclusive: "He opposes one to the other; or rather underscores their heterogeneity." Derrida is saying that Patočka regards the mystery of the sacred and responsibility as distinct but not mutually exclusive.

I agree here, partially, mainly because I'm an agnostic.

What does agnosticism have to do with it?

[Blueskyboris]

Let us be slaves to pedantic definitions in this thread. It is Derrida, afterall!

Heterogeneity means: comprising different parts or qualities; diverse. So, "the mystery of the sacred" (secrecy) and "responsibility" are different. You can only wish to fuse those things that are different or separate.

[Blueskyboris]

I'm wondering if you know what the word "underscores" and the phrase "mutually exclusive" mean.

Underscore: to underline, stress, make evident.
Mutually exclusive: being related such that each excludes or precludes the other <mutually exclusive events>; also : incompatible

[Blueskyboris]

Derrida wrote:

At the same time Patocka wants to distinguish religion from the demonic form of sacralization.

page 2, The Gift of Death Here Derrida interprets Patocka as saying that religion and demonic rituals are different, because demonic ritual, while including the mystery of the sacred, lacks responsibility.

[Quizalufagus]

I'm wondering if you know what the word "underscores" and the phrase "mutually exclusive" mean.

Underscore: to underline, stress, make evident.
Mutually exclusive: being related such that each excludes or precludes the other <mutually exclusive events>; also : incompatible

I'm wondering whether you know what those phrases mean, because it's readily apparent that heterogeneity does not imply mutual exclusivity.

Here Derrida interprets Patocka as saying that religion and demonic rituals are different, because demonic ritual, while including the mystery of the sacred, lacks responsibility.

I more or less agree with interpretation.

[Blueskyboris]

I'm wondering if you know what the word "underscores" and the phrase "mutually exclusive" mean.

Underscore: to underline, stress, make evident.
Mutually exclusive: being related such that each excludes or precludes the other <mutually exclusive events>; also : incompatible

I'm wondering whether you know what those phrases mean, because it's readily apparent that heterogeneity does not imply mutual exclusivity.

Which is exactly the problem I have with your assertions. You have not shown where in the definition of "heterogeneity" it implies non-mutual exclusitivity or where in the essay Derrida has supported non-mutual exclusivity. No where in the sentences that we have examined does Derrida imply a non-mutual exclusivity.

[Quizalufagus]

So what? You're making a logical leap from "A fails to assert not X" to "A asserts X".

[Blueskyboris]

No, the point is that they are mutually exclusive to begin with. We may have to resist the urge to abandon responsibility, but they are still different.

Derrida makes a point of saying that the two are not mutually exclusive: "He opposes one to the other; or rather underscores their heterogeneity." Derrida is saying that Patočka regards the mystery of the sacred and responsibility as distinct but not mutually exclusive.
I don't know where you lifted "not mutually exclusive" from "opposes one to the other" and "comprising different parts or qualities; diverse". If anything, "heterogeneity" is as close as you can get to mutual exclusivity without actually being mutually exclusive. In order for different parts or qualities to be different, the two things in questions have to be exclusive (different) from one another, mutually.

[Blueskyboris]

No, the point is that they are mutually exclusive to begin with. We may have to resist the urge to abandon responsibility, but they are still different.

Derrida makes a point of saying that the two are not mutually exclusive: "He opposes one to the other; or rather underscores their heterogeneity." Derrida is saying that Patočka regards the mystery of the sacred and responsibility as distinct but not mutually exclusive.
I don't know where you lifted "not mutually exclusive" from "opposes one to the other" and "comprising different parts or qualities; diverse". If anything, "heterogeneity" is as close as as a definition gets to mutual exclusivity without actually using "mutually exclusive" in its definition. In order for different parts or qualities to be different, the two things in questions have to be exclusive (different) from one another, mutually.


Please show me where Derrida says they are not mutually exclusive, but distinct. I think you are reading something into the text that is not there.

[Quizalufagus]

If Derrida had indicated Patočka opposes the mystery of the sacred to responsibility and left it at that, I would agree that the point is that the two are mutually exclusive. However, from Derrida's syntax it seems that he feels the need to correct that point--to point out that Patočka doesn't oppose one to the other so much as he places an emphasis on the difference between the two. Of course, Derrida would prefer it if Patočka were to properly set up a dichotomy--post-structuralist critiques typically involve the establishment of such a binary opposition, which the post-structuralist author then attempts to tear apart. In some ways it's an assault on straw men.

[Quizalufagus]

Of interest: Derrida's Gift of Death (http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap0401/pg_DERR.htm)

[Blueskyboris]

If Derrida had indicated Patočka opposes the mystery of the sacred to responsibility and left it at that, I would agree that the point is that the two are mutually exclusive. However, from Derrida's syntax it seems that he feels the need to correct that point--to point out that Patočka doesn't oppose one to the other so much as he places an emphasis on the difference between the two. Of course, Derrida would prefer it if Patočka were to properly set up a dichotomy--post-structuralist critiques typically involve the establishment of such a binary opposition, which the post-structuralist author then attempts to tear apart. In some ways it's an assault on straw men. Thanks for the link, but I don't read professional opinions. I want to dissect the text sentence by sentence.

So far, I do not see where Derrida has departed from Patocka, but it must be me, because you have not provided text proving your assertion.

[Quizalufagus]

I didn't say that Derrida had departed from Patočka in the text you referenced.

[Blueskyboris]

Good. That was my point.