a Deconstruction and Philosophy The Texts of Jacques Derrida Edited by John Sallis10 Ded Wat Notes “sree nen 4a 2. Sec his *Mapbor,in Maaphr and Thor, ed. A. Orton (Carbide: cone PERE meg tpaemenr eae ne ns ne ng Tan Rais te ee ee, Renwecatadna lager St wince han Sita ee pen re sng is eR ra at PP 1 igs Dei, “Signa Eset Coste" in are ot), ‘6. Se, fi tame “Vik et meapsgu” in Lit ftrne Seats ear mcarnee roe” Ears eae eee 1 ap tar nse rf aes Dei, Lt Cauca De Sat 4 red ad (Pas: Fa nig Soest eegeterrgenget pct nn pete ences miocuiecrenvds arate seireeccrmaciaratgee eraoraae Pace 2 Seer 7 ri om pan geal ee eee pS epmennae eco es 16, Se Der x gee pen. Rete) Dele Tes De Pi Pai Mi, 1972); Pin a, Aa Ba (og Gator Chg res 1 Ts. The ety Rod ae, oral in ay vis igh on 0 cols TPN emai” cae above) Fe p11: Eng. Geschlecht I: Heidegger's 12 Hand Jacques Derrida ‘Translated by John P, Leavey, J. 1 ast begin with some precautions. They all ome down to aking sour pardon and indulgence foe what in particular toohes onthe form Ed eh sas ofthis lecture,” his eng, onl de prsuppoitions f ‘sk you to take acount of In fet, presuppose the reading abit and modest essay published under the tte "Gohl: sonal i ference, ontological diflerene:” This ey, publhed and wasted more han a yea go! bepan sone work Ihave ake up gain nl this {ear inthe couse of 2 seminar {am giving in Pars unde the ie =Phtosophicl Navionalty and Nasonalsm’” For lack of une T ean reconatute neither the introductory article ented “Gale” {teas ofthe motif of eval ieenc in a course alos contemporary ‘with Sin wd 2), oral the tha fm, my seminar ‘on “Philosophie! Nanay and Navona” dhe context land ‘cape the elton sal pest o you toy. Nevers shal ‘tre to make the presentation ofthese ow eetons, tl preiinary, Ke Ss ieligibe and Independent ofl hese vile contexts possible “Another precaution, another cll for your pardon and indulgence: for {ack of ine, 1 shal present ony a par oc rather several fragment times abi dicontinvos, ofthe work {a flowing this yes nthe sw don emia eggdeng, oe tht EY ‘would ke to be as mecculeun and carci as possible, of certain Heidegger xs, notably Was esr Denn? and above all telecon Teal Unter ser wane to thank Join Leavy very warmly for he ivaabe and cise ade gave me, once mors, the tranlaton and the present tion of hs unin work We ae going pea hen of eggs a Meme Sabie teat stn, 18112 Ing Dri We are going speak ofthe word “Gale” Tam noe going 0 trast it forthe moment, Doubles {sl transat ta no momen. Jat you know that, according to the contexts that come to determine this word, can be translated by sex ace, pis, ge, gender, tock, Fy, generation or genealogy community Ta thesia on “Plo sophicl Navona and Navona,” before bing certain texts of Marx, Quince, Michel, Toquevile Wingenscin, Adorno, Hannah Arendt, wehad encountered the word Gach in 3 very sketchy read ing of Fite: "mar ae Gemgkt and Pret cer Gest sn, nd ewig Forbin de Gg dare re wi is, ‘auch achen nh and Jn ebr Sprache ered, st unscts eschew wi ih ws tn” ave oe isess tthe Geran Nation (Reden a te Dest Nation). 2 The French ramon neler to waste the word Gece, no doubt beaut the anslron was done during or jue arte war Tink by 5: Jankceith, and under conditions that made the wor “rae” par cular dangerous and moreover ne pertinent for wansaing Fee Ko) Bue wha does Fie mean when be Seclops inthis way what heel, then his fundamental pnp (Grondats), 0 wi, that of # de (re) ora lance (Bnd ofan engagement (we had spoken ich ‘ofthis engagement inthe seminars resting sessions) thar conates precy belonging to our Geet All these who belo ns: Feat and the feeder of tat pial those who want the eel aad progressive formation of hin spray evough freedom (de ‘enge Fortilang: an if ich i nationalisms rather eng ‘matics that we can speak oft here very quis, hei 0 a4 fo resin 4 republican, na cosmopoltnt, one of the themes othe Seminar Tam curently working on eons js the parade but ‘regular sociation of rationals with a cosmipolansm and with 2 Inumanis they all are part of our Ge, the al belong nd have todo busines with uy, wherever thy arbor or whatee ongue Tague they speak So this. Gece snot determined by birth, fave soy or ree, has nothing todo withthe natura or even the linguistic, west inthe wal sens of his term, for we wer ble recognize in Fite Kind of cm of the iiom, of the tho ofthe ‘German dine. Cerin eens, German by bith, remain strangers {hisidion ofthe om certain non Germans ca stain ins eg. ing themes in hi cise or his allan of pra fcodom si ts nite progres they would belong 1 "or Gehlee™ The sole ana. Ijicandunsmpeachabe determination of Gale in ths contexts the "We," the heionging to the “we” who are speaking st chi moment, athe moment when Fhe addres ims this supped ba st (Gohl 163 to be constituted community, 2 community that svi xu is eicher pol nor racah nor ng, tut that ean receive his locaton, Disadrss, or his apostrophe (Rade J, and ean think with im, can say “wo in some langage and ftom whateter bihplae. Gach |San ensemble, a gathering together (one could say Vemma) ‘organic community in a aonnatual bu spual sense, chat believes the infinite progres ofthe spi though freedom. Sot an ifinite Se” "we that announce lt sl fom the infty of aes ‘of fcedom and spirituality, and tat promises, engages, o ales ise Sssording to the cite (Kiri, Bund) ofthis infin Will How is "Gos oe anlaed andr these condions? Fc ses a word that aay asin his anguage avast wealth of semantic deterinar tions and he speaks Gonean Despite what he say: anyone, a whatever Tanguage he oF she speaks, "ir user Gc” he says this in Get~ ‘many and this Goss isan esental Dewthieie Even i the word "Gerce” bs rigoroos content only fom out of the "we asia by that very adds eto includes connotations indispensable ro the ‘minimal intelgily of discourse, and these connotations belong i> ‘dbl to German, toa Geman more sential than ll dhe phenomena of empiric Germannes, but some Geeman. lhe connote senses tre copresent in the use ofthe word “Cex,” they vialy appear that use, but no sense fly satshing How is one wo ranslate? One ‘an resol before the risk and omit the wordy a6 the French tansltor {4 One can abo judge the word so open and undetermined by the concep it designates, to wi, 2 “We" a6 situa feedom engaged 1o- ‘var the infinity ofits progres, tht dhe omision fei word does noe lowe much, The “we” nally comes downto the humanity of man, #0 the lolol csence ofa humanity thi announced par ellen Da “Mowebegaclec” x fen sa for “gore ona,” " ‘mankind “human spose,” "human race” In the Heidegger tat we Shall concerned with in afew minutes, he French tants some times pk of om human for Gace and sorties Very sip of For here the question is nothing es, Te oy han the problem of man, of man’s humanity, and of humanism. Bur sad Shere language o longer ets sl be ace, Aleady for hts, 38 fot the same thing to sy the “hurnany” of man and Mensch, ‘When he says "st unsersGeschlehts," he thinking of Menliiei and not of Himanitt of Latin ancestry, The fourth Dasowne «8 DY far consonant ith those Heidegger texte to cme on Latins. Fite sings the dead lingsage "ct of Eom he ving root andthe living language animated yan inspiring brea. When 2 Inguage,14 Jas Dei fiom is first phonemes, arises fom the common and uninteruped ie ‘oF a people whose intuitions tat language contnacs to espoure, the Invasion ofa foreign people changes nothing, the intruders can rise ‘only up to this pmol language, ures one day dey can asilate the intuitions of the Stamm, ofthe peoplestock for whom these intions ae inseparable from the language: "und so ben nicht Se die Sprache, sondera die Sprache tle vie," they do ot form the language, the language forms them. Conversely, when «people adopts another language [gue developed inthe desigatin of supases [re things, without however tory handing lf vert he ioence ‘ofthis orig language, the senile language [Urge] not altered bythis event nal peoples, Fiche notes, chlden learn chat par ofthe Janguage armed toward sense things as ifthe signs fr thos things were arbieary (will). The children mus reconstitute he past de- ‘opment ofthe ational language But this sense sphere Sem sonicen Umiree, each sign (Zichen) can become aoether ‘er thanks ¢o vison othe immedi contact with the designated oF Sgn thing (Besidineten- Here Tstess the sig (Ztcen), foe in 2 ‘moment esl comet the signa monstroniy- In this pasage Fiche ‘cr the word Gale in the narrow sense of generation: "At most the esl ofthis would be thatthe ise generation as ese Gc) ‘of people which thus changed its language woul be compelled when ‘ulsimen (Mine) co go back tothe yas of chikthood= Here Fhe i beat on distinguishing Humana and Monch lich. or a German dese words of Latin origin (Hmanit, Papn lars, Liberal) resound as if they were vol of sense, even if they appear sublime and make cymmology something of intrest [rede ‘rac mali). Besides, the same inthe Latin or neo Latin peoples who know nothing ofthe etymology and believe dese words cing co dei maternal congue (Mucteprach. But say Menehliet 1a German, you would be understood without any other hore xplanation (le mites hitrche Erkan). Bsies i west fee that a man isa man and to speak of the Memehiee of « man shout whom one knows very well hat he hot an ape or asatage best. ‘A Roman Would not have responded in tht wa, ice bles, be. ‘sei forthe German, Memb or Memehlibe aways emaine 3 Sensible concepe (en snlichrBggrif}) for che Roman oman had become the symbol (Shonblde) of supeassible abso) ea. From thee origins, the Geemans, the too, have joined together con te initons in a intlectal concept of humanity, always opponed ‘animal: and one would surely be wrong to sec inthe inuive relation they preserve with Monch sign of infsity sri epost Geese us to the Romans. Nevertheless, the arial introduction of words of ‘bxegn origi, singularly Roman, ito the Geman tongue risks dbus ing the mural level oftheir own wav of ehinking (este Dew ln benotetinmen), But here concerning language ngage, ‘mage, and Sybol (Sinn) an "ineradiable nature” ofthe “national Imagination (National) “This schemacc recall seme cesar to me for evo reasons. On the one hand, in order to underline the dificleyof waning this sensible, erica, and sensitive [néralmgue] word Gachlel on the tthe hand, inorder indicate siecle bond the question of humanity versus animal, and ofa umanity whose name, the bond ‘ofthe mime to the “thing” foe an say that remains problematic thao the language in which the name wren What does one 39 when one sy Menthe, Haman, Huse, mankind, ct ot ‘wien one says Gahlect or Menschen? sone saying the same ‘hing? Tako clin pasting the cca Marx aescd in The Ger um dey othe stilt Gran whose nationalism appealed, acon ing to Man’s ionic expression, f0 a. "human natonalty” beter sepecsemted by the Geamans (socialists) than by the rer socialists (French, American or Belgian). TInt leer ares n November 1945 tthe Acsemic Restor ‘ate of Albert Ludwig Univesity, Heidegger explains his own atta ‘ring the Naz period. He had thought be sid sar he would be able to ditinguith berwsen the national and nationalism, dat, berween the national and 2 Biologics and racst ideology: “I thoughe hat Hie, afer taking responsibilty in 1933 for the whole people, would ‘entre to etre himself fom the Pary at doctrine sid ha the “whole wold meet on the train of 2 renoation an 9 Externg 0: [eter with view to tesponsiiity for the Wes, This conviction was Inereor that yeopnizd from the crens of 30 June 19341, ofcourse, Ina inervened in 1933 rosy yer eo the asonal nthe socal (and not ‘onationais) and oct the intlectoal and metaphysical grounds on Which the biologism of the Paty doctrine rested, becase the socal and the atonal, ts them, were no ese ted ro biologist and race cology.” The condemnation of bolgism an acim, a8 f the whol ideological discourse af Rosberg, inpies numerous Heide ser tex, whether tbe the Discourse ofthe Rettorate othe courses | Holdem aa Nicasche,ehther bea te quertion of technology, slays pt in erpecive again the wzaton of knowiedge forth. cal and utltarian ends, against the Nai" prfesionalzation and thei making university knowledge profrable hall ot reopen today the down of Heidegger “politic.” [have done that in over sem166 Ines Dei ras, and we have woday a rather large numberof texts avilable for “ciphering he casi an henceforth bir acadeic dimensions of his problem. Bur al dha shall now ate wl keep an inc elation fo another, perhaps ess visible, dimension ofthe sume drama. Toda, shall begin then by speaking OF that monstrosity T announced afew ‘moments ago. This wale another detour through the question of an (Mensch ot bona) and ofthe "we" thar ies enigmatie conten 0 8 Gechicte Why “monster”? Not in order to make the thing pathetic, nor because We are always eae some monstows Unhrinlcswhen we are prowling around the nationalist ching and whe thing named Gee lect Whats wn mone? You kaowthe polssemic gamit ofthis word, the uses one an make oft for example concerning noes and orm, species and genusigender: thus concerning Gackt shall begin by Pileging here another cours aren) Te goes in the icc, the ens, oes known Sens, since in rench a mons (a changing of tsnder, Set Gach) as the postio-musal sense of a iagram that shows [noe] in piece of mic the mimber of cree and the number of sabes signed eo the poet Manse is ontrer (0 show fr demonstrat) and wne mori se monte (a atch). Tam ley Sele inthe untarsrae idiom of my langage, for ceil intend to speak to you about trarltion. La mene, thea, prseribes the div Sons ofa line of verse fora melody. Le monte or ln cre i what Shows in order to warn of put on guard In the past kr mon, i French, was writen le monte T chose his mlo-pocti example because the monster am going to speak to you about tomes from a wellknown porm of Hori “Mnemosyne,” hat Heidegger ofen contemplates interrogates, and incerprets. Inthe second of tye versions, the one tit Heiegget ‘es in Washes Denke? one reads the famosa in Zichen sind wi Seagal, Selmer wr, nd haben as Die Sprachen ey Fed vere Among the three French translations of thi pom, dre the fone by the tansatrs of War hese Dente, Aloys Becker and Gea Granel Trasaing Holder in Heidegger, this rarslaion wes the word mone (oe Zein) isle that ha fire seemed ome at ‘mannered and galing, bet which on efeton seemed to men ay ase to give ocaion for thought. ese ww ‘Now sores ote pr de sent Now sommes hor dou rns sone pd Prope langue 3 Pnger? We ares mans” void of se We ae oui sor [And hve ney et (tr ong i ig nde Leaving aie te allusion to the tongue lost in foreign lands, ‘which wok! lad me bck on quickly the seminar on nationality. Wang sess fist the"we, monster" We areamonster and singular, 2 ‘sgn that shows and wars, but ll the more singular sine, sowing, ‘Sgyng, designating, this ig i oid of seme (detu). e}9 isl vou sense, simply and doubly mons, ths Swe" Weare sigh — showing informing, warning, pointing assign toward, but in truth toward nothing, ign out ofthe way [4 anna gapped ration the ign eda par por au signe, play [monte that dit om “the display or monsation, a monster tha shows [mon] nothing. This |p of the sg to icf and to its sald normal fanctoa, nes Siren a monstrosity of monstaity [monsni, amonstosty of mon “eran? And thas we, we nasmch as we hae neatly ost our tongue in foreign lands, pothap in a transatio. But this we, the monster, it “Thetransltion of Zech by mute has arp vir, Ferecls nota work ver since Sin und Ze: the Bond tctween Zecen and igo or Anfang, been the sign and moastaion. Parageaph 17 (Varna und Zecon) analyzed te Zeige einer Zech, he sho lng of the sign, and ighly touches passing the question ofthe fei In Unter nar Sprache, Zech an Zigen ate linked with Sage, ‘more presely with the High German som Sagan: Sagan bets eg ine sehen hire tage." Eater on: To name the aide Sage) we employ a od word, Wel warranted but no lager in ‘ie Zeige (a momar) wore underlined by Heidegger Who bas ‘moreover ust cited Tall to whom we shall eu i a few minutes. “The second virtue ofthe French translation by “mane” has wake only inthe Latin hom, snc the rasation stress ths gap concerning the formality ofthe gn, of sgn that for once not what shoul e, ‘hows or signifies ncahing, shows the par de ene nosey and an ounces the tos ofthe tongue. The tid tue of his transition poses168 Jas Deda the question of man. 1 omit here along development that seams nose sary to me on what deeply binds certain humanism, cerasn na thnalsm, anda certain Europoceatric universalism, and Thasly move toward the interpretation of “Mnemosyne” by Heidegger. The "we of| “Fin Zein sind "inde a “we men? Numerous indstions ‘woul give one dhe thought that dhe expense of the po femsins ‘ater Smbiguous, IF "we" were “we men,” thie humanity would be eter ina way justly eather monstrous, apart fom the norm, nd ‘otably from the humanist norm. But Heidegger’ interpretation that prepares and giver acces to this Hokelin citation says something Shout man, and then too about Gach, about the Garhi andthe sword “Gach” that ill awaits usin he text on Teal, in Unterngs ar Space. “The hand willbe the (monstrous) sign lemon the proper of ‘man a (metros) sig, im the sense of Zech "The anal eeches and extend, receives an welcomes ~and not ut things: the hand ex ‘ends itself and recess is own welcome in the hand ofthe ahr The hand keps. Te hand cares. The hand designs and signs, presmably because man i a (monstous) sign (Die Hand seme, sortie ser Meh ein Zhen i) 2 ‘This seminar of 1951-52 sar than the “Leer on Humans” that withdaws the queston of being Rom the metaphysical of on tocheologkal horizon of clase humanism Dai not the bam of this humanism. So we ae not going to suspect Heider of simply fling back it hat humanism hee. On ee other hand he de nd the thematic ofthis passage acond ic to tat though ofthe gf of| _Bving, and ofthe gor chat overtlows withou reversing the anterior Formation ofthe question ofthe sense of Bing. {in order to state more precisely what one could cll ire the ‘hought af the hand, bu asta well the hand of thought ofa thought ‘ofthe human Gace, thought clang to be nonmetaphysc lee us remark chat this develops ie none moment ofthe scinat [Reapitulation and Teantions fom the Fst the Second He]! ‘hae repeats the question ofthe teaching of thought, sn particle “university a5 the plac of Sciences and techni. in thi pasge tat eat ou, 0 speak the form andthe pase of the hand the and of | Heidegger. The sve of Lomein which I publshed “Gachiele 1” bore on i cover a photograph of Heidegger showing him, 2st and sgaticant choc, olting his pen with both hans above a ann Script: Even if he never ass, Nectashe was the fis thinker of the West to have 2 ypenricer, whose photograph we know, Hevkgacr himself could wre only with ee pen, with the hand of rafts nd (GeseecheT 169 ta mechani the tein which we ar going to bxome iret pecs Since hen I fave tad al he pushed phox of Heidegger essay nab bought tbr when Tad gen sloth on Hesggerin 197. The ply anh tetrad intarabum woud mest a whole soma HT i ct ogo that, L ‘ul sresthe debra ke aging fh an pay, of themonsron and demonstration hated there wheter te ame ofthe handing [naoxrner] ofthe pon of the manner ‘fa cane that show te than support ro he water buh eat the foun Te emonston of nds piping in the aco fanimen of the dicoune: On the over of he eg th ont ing ‘ha onrons te fame tht ofthe window but ako he pts Hesdgger hand) “Pc hand is mons [mori the proper of man the teing of monseason, Ths tings hi fem evry her Gack Irian hore al rom he ape “The nd amor be spoken abot without peaking of xen idegger ut reall tthe problem of univers aching scl om te fac that the scenes bong te ese of tee snot to exit ote ence fee Tei oma ‘unger fog fr wich noone exponent scence nor {hea norman in genca Spy what ges ete most © {Pking (ts dont at ed nt Yo tink Who, we AO ty Helge specie indding him who peat ere and evn i {ery Speer mit enon er aaron). Tobe i hong thee who do no ye thik ha 0 ink more os he ‘xe o wha gie uc he ow wo inking to wi ta we o not sek Te hes en espe nd sos imei hing ths, dengan ins nee thd person, : Ie the bcc he ae thnk that we do oc yx think a Sealy seso? Or inden fst ot eto then he as 0 think chy ta we donot yet shink, which would not noneekss frevet Rin om speaking none ob the fn o says Tee ‘Bec questons that would most og Sevopnents on the soi ‘tno the speaing tac teach whe speaking of ching and ‘Ein hk what earning an fie ofl ering think. That Spine Henge coo “we te re tempting ahi ing Drum portchn or i, ks Denn 2 re) Ba what ‘ESning. tn French append The reponse, unanatabe in i ee tess fase thugs vey sabe ct wos soko the and and aft pen among the wonlsexprecen,Enopcy,sprcen, earache ie flag, ogy arr: eh,ro Inu Deride apprendre, i to relate what we ate dong toa corespondence (En ‘preg nv ws with theese (aeonby). To strate this accord ‘withthe essen, here i the eraonal example of philosophical dic tis, that ofthe joiner, of the apprentice joiner. Heidegger chooses the ‘word Sein father than ihr, for he intends to speak of an 3p preie joiner (Sebinereing) who works on 3 cabinet (Soni ‘Now he wil say ltr that “Peshaps thinking, too, is jst something ke Dulin 3 cabinc (oe das Bane nom Scien." The apprentice binermaker lars not only toute tool, nor on to fate hi Selfwith the use, te uty the woolness oui] of dings for making. he isa “trae eabincerake eer Shree)” he inclines [fort] for relates himself othe diferene ways ofthe wood ise, acco in Self ih the fens tha seep inthe wood 3 #emes mans dling i» ‘dy Wolnen der Menon). The tre joiner scons hime with the hicdken plenitude of the woods sence, and not with dhe ool and the te value. Bu with he hidden plenitude isote as enters the ina fed pce (ses ere this valve of ple or efor reasons tit will appear late), and inhabited by ma. There Is 90 ctl, mie, of the joiner withour this correspondence between the essence of the wood tna the esence of man as the beng who inhabts. German mii is ‘sid Handnerk work ofthe hand, handiwork, handing, noe mane ‘er. When the French must ansate Hanne by dr, perhaps hat i legitimate and cannot be avoided, bu eis a Bod maneuver, 2 poor état of transition, because in ithe hand is st. And woud thar wanshtion is what Heidegger wants to avoid the serie rendered, ult, the office, the minster, from whic, Ubi, the word ime ores. ander the noble mie, sa manual mer sats not ‘ederd ke any oer profession, o public use or ners or prt ‘of pit. This noble mt, as Hanne wil avo be that of the thnk ‘or the teacher who teaches thinking (the teacher is not necessary the profesor of plosophy). Without this acord withthe esence ofthe Wood, il seconded to man's dveling the activity would be empey ‘wold remain as activity (Behiguy) onented by era (ih), ‘commerce and the ae for pri. mph, the herarchising and the alustion are nos dear an dhe one and, bt alo above, towards the best, handiwork (Handset) guided by the esence of the human «tweling, by the wood ofthe hut [x ite) ater than by the metal or ls ofthe cites onthe other hand, bu lo belo, the acy that ful the hand off fom the eset wef sty, uanani ‘uid by apt, To be sre as Heegece recognizes, che inauthentic fan alvays contaminate the authentic, the authentic eabineemaker can ‘become a rire dels fr “lrg stores” eupermarkes), the artan ‘ofthe dwelling or habitat can become the ingemationl eorporation named, hin, “Habitat” The han isin danger. Always: “All hand fork (Hand, all man dslings (Handel) are consent in that danger The wring of poetry (Da Dien is no mote exepe fom it than i thinking (dar Denken)"!© The analogy is double: between Di ‘heen and Denke on the one hand, bt als, on the other, Berween the to, pocey and thought and the authentic handiwork Hanne). To thin is Handivork, says ekeggerexpicdly. He syst withou any dodge and wiehou even tha “perhaps (lai) that had moses the analogy of thought with the manbfacure ofthe cabinet thats "per haps” ike thought, Here, without analogy and without “perhaps,” Heidegger declares: “AY any ate it thinking, ac Deen) han work (Ei jen in Hand Wert, word of the hand, in t¥0 swords)" “This docs aot mean that one is chinking wit one's hands, a i sain Engl and French that one speaks mith onc hands en ones ‘scours accompanied wth oluble gestures, or that one thinks eth ‘ne’ fet ante pr, when one is 3b French asi, be comme ss ‘es, oo sup or words, What does Heidegger mean then and why ‘oes he choose here the hand, whereas elsewhere he more realy 2 ‘onde thought ro light oto Lug, one would sa tothe ee, o be to hearing andthe woe? “Thre remasks to prepare a esponse her (1) T have chosen his tex it cede ro introduce a reading of Ge. ths tex Heidegger in ff bis inking, and not only Pilbsophy to thought oe toa sitartion ofthe body (i), the body Sf man and of human being (Mowat). That wil permit us limps a dimension of Geel a scx or sexta diivence apropos vat ssid or not (about te and. Thinking sno cecal or ‘sincamate; the ration to the esence of being is certain manner of Din se Li, (Uae the bert to refer to what [sid onthis subject in the Bist ail on Gaic (2) Hedger pegs the hand when, speaking ofthe relations ‘ence though and the raf of caching, he dinguisesbeeween the utentpofesson (an sci, Beta, rented by ust Service [nome ae] an he pursuit of roti, Gx), and on te other hand, theauthen Hand Werk. Now to dine the and Werk which isnot profession, one mus think Werk work, butabo Handand Hand hat ‘hnmot be rans by "desings” or agi” Thehand mus be though Bar the hand cannot be thought a thing being even less an eect ‘Thc hand think before beng thought ts thought thought, inking (teesm InquesDi (2) My hind ema wl be more narrowly doa sc ment of Heiegge pois” inthe nations uiait covtex Ina his Seijutiteion sere wa, elegger presents hs dace on he ssence of technics 4 profs, aha of aon busy ised ‘ior (a) he poesionalation of every sts fo whi he ‘Nethandthiofil desloge surendeed heme Hed ge cll thi concerning hs Reorate Dione tha in ase ‘inthe rolessonalion that alo a echnologiscon of ais. (8 the ssbmison of he atonal sel hnopy othe dominion {bdinperates of exhale. Themeeaon onthe athe {5 Hand Wort a asthe me ofan aan prot gue he han setacmcnto dcascment in thendunralastomaon of msc Iechanaaon. This ategy a one spt, equal fc pens upto an arta reaction toward fe sie aan and «nouns busines orca, tons whose sitions then ae well low In ation, with he diesen of sor what called Se tl work what inp nds ie eared Having si hi, Tanto ndencore ain te oma in wat Heidge ss to abou the and" der Hand Ba ene ‘pene Bevan Wid hand ne dealing wha thingctiey faricularone'sown, pops sigur Uns she part (a thing apr) the Fenelon wie unningthe rakofictngone koa Separstething, ofa eprate stance Descartes achat ite apr body co beste butwasendowed wih sohindepee ence tha cul al be consider rs compe bance pa ad slnos separable Hedge dors ot yin ths tha the anda thing spre. shat the hand has ay proper or parti fs own (eigen) aes par ofthe onan bse common spe ton (antic Voli Cis nd gust which Hesegge ‘esto tink “Thetands being Wace der Hand) des ot eel bd ssned nbd eran of erpping ae ice Green) ot Song pr i boxy ee det] for png cing hold Uprntr, Inded for sratching Ie at ad cen for canon Upon), comprehen, consing fone pas rom Gr fe rein sto Bef Meer couldnt ot eth tig ot tne can flow er, I ave td to doi chewber, te wok prot Iemati f the phsophicl “mtapor” in parca in Hegel who ress th eps the ntleta or ince src “eheng™ {auf the sensible cof grasping, began comping by {Sing ldo by ying ones ands on sein al marplting Ae Gece va thereisathoughtofthchandor ahandofhough, a Hiegger gives to think, it not of the onder of concpetal grasping Rather this ‘houghr ofthe hand belongs to the essence of hea, ofa ging that ‘would give, shi pose, withour taking ola of anehng. IF the yan alto, no ane can deny thin, an organ fo ripping (Grafs), that shoe essence, sno thc hans ence inthe human bmg. This “rite of onganicism and biologi so has the poll destination T Spoke of a moment ago. But does that sie to justi this ctique? re sn fect wars a sentence that at Dorton Ses 10 me Heidegger’s mos sgnifeant, sympromate, and seriously dogmatic. Dogmatic so means metaphysis coming under one of those "com mon presentation: tha rsk compromising the whole ore an acces ‘Sy ofthe discourse right hee. This sentence in sum comes down t0 ‘dscnguishing the human Goeller, our Gachlel, and the animal Gee, called “animal” T think, andl I have ofen thought [must taderscoee his, tat the manne, acral or ental in which thinker or ‘ents spoke ofthe said “animales” conse a decisive symptom onceming the esential asicmatic othe given discourse. Nomore than mjbody ee, asic or moder, does Hevegger seem to me her 1 scape thi rule when he writes: "Apes, example [my emphasis, LD], have organ tha can grasp, but they habe no hand (Greiner = ‘Ber Af aber rb kene Hand). Dogri in is form, this waditional atement presupposes an “empiric or postive knowedge wie tiles, pros, and signs ae ever ‘Show [mon Like most of hose who, as philsophers or persons of ood sense speak of animal, Heidegger takes no account of cra "ological knowledge” tht scumulates, i diferentiated and became more refined concering wat brought together ander this so general Sin onfused word animal. He does not eicz tan does not ever ‘ramine the sors of presuppositions, meaphysial or otherwise, ican batbor Thisnonkeowng rsd toa rang knowing then exbibiedas ‘Seti propoon bur the essence of nape persion ak Spe that Would have no had, this snot only, ih Hs form, 2 ind of | ‘pico dogmatic za hrsjunov mised ormiseaing nthe mide ffs dscourse Keeping incl tothe height ofthe mose demanding thought, beyond pilexophy and science Inte very onten, th propo ‘ston marks the fex’s ental scene, marks ie witha humanism that Svante cersinly toe nonmetaphysieal Heidegger underscores hisin the following pargraph—bat witha humanism tha, berween a human Gastar one wanes to with fom the blogs determination (Or the enon Tus sated) and an aimaty one encloses in ts organicom Jugs Dorie olog programs nies not amedifiencs ban abut opps Sina! nie Ekewhere Ihave cd to show thas cry opponon docs, his abot oppositional mites the iene sh as ick falling the eae restart metaphysical waitin tthe emogencos: Wha Heidegger sy ofthe ape without Randa then, swe ate ging ces without Shining, langage, iis mot ‘nly dognatit fom because Heidegger Knows mshi abou his td want ro know nothing, bas no dub enue cer the slags {Chen wee wo cri them) ® noe the pes nthe Blck Foret et ‘Shown bree what Resp tec a gate of tis win which CSerting he ys mans and ke on some anda. Since ha ‘Limitation is problema, te nae of man, hn Gos, becomes problema oat Fort names what ht te an, an so inking, ‘pect or lnguage, sn opens wo he git. ‘Mans ard thn wl bathing apart nasal organ bt because sified (ade) Rom al ree organs {pas, ctw los) mats hand ea from these ina nine ey Caen) sought ays of bing (ech con Abroad ‘Worn sys specs nd toughe "Only being wh can spk, than thik cana handandanb handy dr land schiving work of handicalt (Nur ein Wem, dai dnt wait land hon ud der Handy Wot der Hand al. Irgen” Man's an is thoxghe eve since thongh, fete thought cer since speaking or langage. Tha the cnr Hsp ‘oppose to metaphysics “nly when man speaks, dos he think {Brother way around, maps stiles (Dad mn er “Monch pre, eke me tng, ee Maple ah ein 2 "The eel mom ofthis mition opens ont what shall calle ands double mam. se the word vescon fea hat it detinaion Bainmangebchand hls on wo sein This wo tions double, tut gathered tote or cose inte sun hand 0 Show [mono pont ot agen, Zid anda se orgie {verde monary (nonstate oof eh pe Butte woe ofthe hand Wort Hanisch ehanweconmonly mapa oe: We hie, ave he ope, The hand dos noon rp and catch rf wd fang ml ar ox ps dp. The and aches a exer eee and WeKOMeS [Pu nd oni: the {Geman onsnanes seer, grr mp and nots dings ie denen ares sor elo nth ano he oer. The ands (al, Te hand cars it? Gebece I vs. “This psage fom the rans gif such can be sid, ro the git of| ‘what gives which gives alfa cing abeto giv, which gives the Bil, hs passage from the hand that gives something tothe hand that [vesiefisevidnay decisive: Wend again a passage ofthe sme type fr the same strocrre inthe flowing sentence: not only does mas ‘hand pone outandshombutiman shins ig, amonstesig [a moma, what Begins the citation and the inerpetasion of "Mnemo- Syne" on the Following page. ‘Then dessa ign (ide), preamably bese mnie ssc) signe Zao), Two bandon oe [fen ic loon {peerage to cary man int the ret sip Eas lane ire of comprehending ieee paso fon a nfl; whether bea mater of ayer ro moreconenon estes what ‘messes he hands an tach each her tc, 3 Mstion cen atte ouch ofthe ohershand inthe otha: is imps tha sh has cana show tome). The and ial is artis isthe ac hand work (det Hand Wot), Erceytig 0k ere tha commonly wm ar anda leet an comely tregomo hr Bute and eres [hid wo woken ery mach by Heidegger acter tx oo] ru eer tough Tange for trough he ong) thr mos eis pty pec sven san pet by Being slr And ony when man peak, dose hik-onot the exer way around, 2 eps sll sees. Exe ton of the han very one of works aes eh ri) though the clamenc of tnking. ry Bes OF the and bear elf (cea ci in that denen the wrk te hae roe a ‘hinkng, Teer inking (le Denen esta’ ses a fo that reson hark, Hand Waki woul be propery scored (Com “The nen ofthe argument seems to me reducible wo the assured ‘opposition oping ands man's nde ands el piesa Sonne like thought o like what gives ise tobe thought and whae we fdrnoe yee hin, wheres the organ of the ape or of man 35a simple nimal, ined as an animal rata, can only tbe Id of rp ay Ind he thing. The organ can ol ake Hol of nd maniplte the thinginsofarayn any case toes ntave deal withthe hinge, ‘dacs not kr the thing be wht isin ts essence. The organ has access to th essence ofthe Being [a] arch Gre Gonna 29130, p 1290), Fo ack of ine L ms eter to a seminar already of ong standing in which we had been able ro problematze this opposition beeenv6 Jaques Dei giving and taking, or two ways of rb, human an animal nly the fhuman would be granted the possibly of giving, Noting i ls sured than he dsinction between grin and ak, a once in che Indo European languages we speak (here Iam eferrng toa famous text of| Benveniste, “Cift and Fachange in the Indo-European Vocabulary.” ‘Problems in General Ling ans. M. , Meck [Corl Gables: Univ ‘of Miami Press, 1971} andi the experience ofan econoamy— symbolic ‘or imaginary, conscious or unconscious ll hese vals remaining pre- ‘ely o be rcaborted from the pectriotsnes ofthat opposition of| the gilt sod ofthe pip othe giftchar present andthe pt ha grip OF okt or takes bac, of the gift that does good and ofthe git dat does td of the present [ade nd of the poston (PGP 0 guano, ec) For lack of tne I shall noe analyze any more the immense ole the hand othe word Hand more orks ety pay inthe whole Heide ‘Bevan concpmly since Sein und Ze, sotbly i the determination Sf presence scoring to the mose of Verhandeni or Zabandonhein. “The fine is ransnted more o ess well in French by “team ncn” and bee in English by "peseaceatand” the second by “2 di ine a “cing aie 3 fool or implement, and beter since the English can keep the hand, by “ready-corhand.” "weadiness10 hand.” Darin i nether rorbanden nor nbn, es de of presence ‘otherwise, butt mus indeed have the hand inorder t relate sel the other modes of presence. “The question pose by Sein snd Zeit (§ 15) gathers together he retest force ot Cconomy inthe German doe and in tha on in fhe Heieggerianiiome so isnot Vorkondebat found (fers) ‘on Zahanden Literal: wh the elation othe hand thar founds the other in the elation of Den vo dhe Being of beings that is aot (Vorkandeucin and Zabendenin)? What hand founds the other? The hand tari elated tothe thing as maneuverable ool or the hand 36 relation to te thing 2 subsisting and independca objec? Here Tea ot reconaiute ither the sake of this question deve forthe whole Strategy of San ad Ze, o Heidegger’ orginal course for decon- structing the lsc onder of foundation (the end of § 15). Burs this whole passage is abo an analysis of Hand, ofthe ation or the pac 'eeas 2 gesture ofthe hand its reation to sght, and th placement in anew perpestive of what is alle che npn Oragi opposiion, lees recall that for Heidegger "racic behavior" not "athe ‘orctieal?™ And Tam only pong to cit some ine in order to deaw ‘out wo guiding threads Geseecbe 7 “The Greeks a an apron em or “Things: eran —that > ‘yt which on he do with (2 in one coer eaing: (in bmpenoy Ung) (4). BoE enol, te seicly “pragmatic character of she roa st what te Grek ein scanty (on Dante) (im the Gres were being 0 ave Zale of he ol in oscityt thebeeit of Verndenb of the abi eet ne cull ay that Uy wee insporing the ‘noe scl nly we ening and in he dar we ing hang bang umage othe the, Whe substring ina ile her sechaing, one hand experience for anothers they thought of thee “proses” ar "mere Things (ne Dig)” We cll tone ein sthich we enone in concer on Baw) eines ZI out ‘eng in common le, Ugo. aly a ol songs] ‘we come snr equpmene or ring eving working ranmporaten, smesoremene [Tce a ser adequate tastation for Sea Nato, Werk, Pair, Meme) The kind of Beng which upc (Zang post must he eid. The ce fo ing hi es moa fie defng [Ungroneanydting} what makes an emo ‘meena equipment Zapbie)2 “This mode of being willbe precsly Zahandenii (readin. shen, And Heidegger begin, in onde to speak about tin the fallow ing parsgraph, bp taking up the empl that he has Way Nese at ands the writing desk (Sealzag), pen (Fer, nk (Tit), paper (Pape), wha is happy called lesnsmain in French, he Bling pd (Wnverlage, te table, lamp, Furniture, and, his eyes looking up 2 bit hove his hands writing, the windows, doors, the room. Here nos ae the two dreads T would like to draw by han, fom this et inorder to make thom guiding treads, cles, or ia onder 1 ‘0 and write leo 2 Bein my manner (1) The ist concerns ngsgand npeyea Thad alcady writen all hs when Tot Salis, whom T wane 10 thank for this drew my tntenton oa much ter passage of Heeger Te puncastss in grip ping way ting maneuver thar make of th pach inky and of [guesion ofthe sms of Being 2 long and comin meditation fie thc hand, Heidegger alway ays of though that t pat, onthe Way (Water, baton te Way, on the march, the thinker is wnceasigly ‘ccuped with thought ofthe hand Long after Sein wd Za, which doce not speak shomatally of the hand wile analyzing Verband and Zaindenbe, ten eas before Was heise Denk? which thematines these, thse that seminar on Parmenides hat, in 1982-43, takes upva Ines Dei again the meditation on xpdqua and nga. Although the German ‘Word Hangs or thelitralansation of sa, just touches fone comprehend well ¢ ects "the primordial essential being of rosy (dae wpinglich meentche Ween von xo,” since tse ‘noc preset chess, as "Varad apd "Zubandoe, in ‘he domain ofthe hand (am Barth der “Hand” 2 All dhe noi of Was Jie Denke? ate already in place, Only the beng that, ike man, “has” speech (Wor, 4005, os) can and must have dhe hand thanks €o ‘hic payer can ocr, bualso murder the saute or wave ofthe hand, nd hank, tout and the sign (Win), Hansverin general Funder Score for rssns hat wll peat later dhe allasion to Hanh (the Jrandshakeorwhatscalledshakingon i withthe hand [dan ai)) thar “grounds” Hekegger sas the allance, the accord, the engagement (Bua) The hand comes to is esece (set only in the movement of truth, n he double movement of what ide nd ese to go out oF ts reserve (Verba Entergy). Moecoer, the whole seminar is dee ‘voted to he history of rath (ae, hf, Aa, ha). When he Says aeady, in this same passage, that he anal has no Rand that 2 Ina can sever upsurge out of pa orcas, bu oly from Spech, Heidegger specifi tat “man ‘hay no hand,” but dat te “hand oc ‘upis, inorder to have in hand, man's esence (Der Mensch ha nicht “Hinde, onder die Hand hat das Weten der Menschen inne)? (2) The second thread lads back o writing. Iman'shand is what ie issince speech or the word (das Wat) the mos immediate, the most Primordial manfesestion of thin origin wl be the handy gestae for raking the word manifesto wit, handwriting, manuscripare (and sex) that shows [mow] and insrbes the word forthe gaze. “The ‘word av dean fo imribo: ciggecishnte) and such that shows ist thos to the gaze (and dem Bik ich onde) the writen word, ‘thats, writing (4. de Sob), Bur the word as wen is handing (Dar Wore al Sct aber dc Handi)” Instead of handri ing et us say ater manasa, or, don forget the writing ofthe ‘typewriter agunse which Heidegger is going to raise an implacable in