Metaphysics of Presence

Mikie

The phrase “metaphysics of presence” was popularized by Derrida, but comes out of Heidegger — Metaphysik der Anwesenheit. Despite much derision directed at both men, I think it’s not only an interesting and challenging idea, but also still relevant. So I feel like it needs a thread of its own.

There’s much more detail involved which I can get into depending on how the thread develops, but I wanted to keep this relatively brief. Also, I’m not interested in Twitter-level responses here.

Two questions should stand out:

(1) What does the phrase mean?

and

(2) Why is it important?

I will give my own answer to both, but I also welcome others’ interpretations — and criticisms of mine.

(1) The phrase essentially means that our general way of understanding the world — at least tacitly — privileges one dimension of time; namely, the present, and that this privileging began with Plato and has influenced all ontology (and philosophy generally) since. It manifests itself especially with “substance ontology.”

(2) We’re in a period of technological nihilism, where we view human beings as essentially machines. The world itself is thought of as a machine, one reduced to substances — a collection of atoms. Our current variant of materialism, where humans are animals with language who go through life with needs to satisfy (inevitably leading to the human being as consumer), is particularly harmful. One consequence is capitalism in various forms. These ideas permeate politics, religion, and business. We did not get here by accident— the objectification of the world (in its modern form starting with Descartes) is an outgrowth of substance ontology.

If we’re to face our current set of problems, which are unprecedented, one piece should arguably be a moral awakening and spiritual reevaluation. Understanding the metaphysics of presence can assist in this effort. In my view, a decent dose of Eastern ideas can also help, but only to a degree. It may do humanity a service to bring back some of the values (and gods) of the Presocratics as well.

Wayfarer

↪Mikie

Well said.

I suppose I could add that one of the themes I've been exploring was suggested by John Vervaeke, with his 'participatory ontology'. That is the idea that 'the world' (or being or existenz) is something we're immersed in and part of, in a way that the modern sense of individuality tends to occlude. We each feel like little island-subjects confronting an indifferent world, whereas in the participatory ontology, we are not just spectators any more, but also participants. Religion obviously provided a means to that by the symbolic re-enactment of creation, but many of these mythical forms are no longer reconciliable with the discoveries of the natural sciences (although physicist John Wheeler's 'participatory universe' suggests something like it.)

That is all I have time to contribute at this moment, but I'll be interested to see what develops.

Joshs

The phrase “metaphysics of presence” was popularized by Derrida, but comes out of Heidegger — Metaphysik der Anwesenheit. Despite much derision directed at both men, I think it’s not only an interesting and challenging idea, but also still relevant. So I feel like it needs a thread of its own. There’s much more detail involved which I can get into depending on how the thread develops, but I wanted to keep this relatively brief. Also, I’m not interested in Twitter-level responses here.

Two questions should stand out:

(1) What does the phrase mean? — Mikie

We encounter the metaphysics of presence in Heidegger primarily in the guise of the present-to-hand (Vorhandenheit), which he contrasts with the ready-to-hand (Zuhandenheit). We encounter things as present-to-hand when we treat them as simply persisting in time self-identically. He argues that this ‘theoretical’ stance is a derivative mode of encountering things. Our primary mode of engagement with things is in terms of what we are using them for, how they matter to us in relation to our larger goals and projects.

The disadvantage of treating the world in terms of the metaphysics of presence is that it conceals from us the relevant connection between ourselves and our world.

Mikie

↪Wayfarer

That’s interesting. I’ve never heard of Vervaeke, but I’ll take a look. But the idea — as you describe it —I like. See also Michael Albert’s participatory economics.

↪Joshs

Thanks for that elaboration Josh. I failed to make that connection, but it’s an excellent point.

Metaphysician Undercover

(2) Why is it important? — Mikie

I believe that determinism obscures the importance of the present by establishing continuity between past and future. This makes understanding our experience of being present impossible. That is because the need to choose is fundamental to our experience.

L'éléphant

One way to open a thread on this topic is to define "presence" the way it is defined within the confines of philosophy. Philosophers do not re-invent the wheel, but rather try to build on what's already been presented by past thinkers.

So, metaphysics of presence as opposed to what? By providing this piece of information, it would be clearer to understand. And just to add to this understanding, the metaphysics of presence is a critique against the privilege that we put on the 'now'-- the world as we experience it in real time.

So what are they arguing about?

180 Proof

Understanding the metaphysics of presence can assist in this effort. — Mikie

So, metaphysics of presence as opposed to what? — L'éléphant

:chin:

Mikie

Philosophers do not re-invent the wheel, but rather try to build on what's already been presented by past thinkers. — L'éléphant

Like Aristotle and Plato, yes. But if that presentation obscures something, we should think about it anew.

So, metaphysics of presence as opposed to what? — L'éléphant

As opposed to what is absent, hidden, concealed. Which is far greater than what’s merely present before us.

I like to think of it as studying unconscious (absence) behavior as opposed to conscious behavior. Human beings have been essential defined as thinking things — the res cogitans. But “thinking” is worth understanding a bit more. Descartes was very clear about what he meant, and it’s telling.

↪Joshs

’s post is relevant here I think.

You’re right to mention the “now” — that’s how we generally see time, as a series of “now” points, dating back to Aristotle’s essay on time. But this conception itself is based on an understanding of being as substance, as ousia, and so privileges the present as well, the “now” point.

Questioner

“metaphysics of presence” — Mikie

(1) What does the phrase mean? — Mikie

From what I have read, one important aspect of Derrida’s position was to question the traditional view that speech has presence over writing. He termed it logocentrism – the idea that speech is primary, more connected to thoughts – and writing is secondary – just a copy of speech, and therefore prone to incompleteness and misunderstanding.

That view goes back to Plato’s argument against writing, expressed in dialogue between Socrates and Phaedrus:

You know, Phaedrus, that is the strange thing about writing, which makes it truly correspond to painting. The painter’s products stand before us as though they were alive. But if you question them, they maintain a most majestic silence. It is the same with written words. They seem to talk to you as though they were intelligent, but if you ask them anything about what they say from a desire to be instructed they go on telling just the same thing forever.

Derrida did not agree. He did not think that only speech was pure presence. He redefines writing as foundational, alongside speech. Both have access to meaning.

As he writes in Of Grammatology:

“the operation that substitutes writing for speech also replaces presence by value: to the I am or to the I am present thus sacrificed, a what I am or a what I am worth is preferred. “If I were present, one would never know what I was worth.” I renounce my present life, my present and concrete existence in order to make myself known in the ideality of truth and value. A well known schema. The battle by which I wish to raise myself above my life even while I retain it, in order to enjoy recognition, is in this case within myself, and writing is indeed the phenomenon of this battle.”

As a writer of short stories, this quote really resonates with me. I am very much present in my writing. I imbue my writing with meaning, which is taken up by the reader, and often they put their own spin on it, find meaning in it I did not even intend. But above all, it brings writer and reader together.

It calls to mind Tolstoy’s definition of art (Chapter 5, What is Art?):

If only the spectators or auditors are infected by the feelings which the author has felt, it is art.

To evoke in oneself a feeling one has once experienced, and having evoked it in oneself then, by means of movements, lines, colours, sounds, or forms expressed in words, so to transmit that feeling that others may experience the same feeling—this is the activity of art.

Art is a human activity, consisting in this, that one man consciously, by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through, and that other people are infected by these feelings, and also experience them.

Art is not, as the metaphysicians say, the manifestation of some mysterious Idea of beauty, or God; it is not, as the æsthetical physiologists say, a game in which man lets off his excess of stored-up energy; it is not the expression of man’s emotions by external signs; it is not the production of pleasing objects; and, above all, it is not pleasure; but it is a means of union among men, joining them together in the same feelings, and indispensable for the life and progress towards well-being of individuals and of humanity.

180 Proof

Understanding the metaphysics of presence can assist in this effort.
— Mikie
So, metaphysics of presence as opposed to what?
— L'éléphant — 180 Proof

As opposed to what is absent, hidden, concealed. Which is far greater than what’s merely present before us.

I like to think of it as studying unconscious (absence) behavior as opposed to conscious behavior. — Mikie

:fire:

Punshhh

↪Mikie

When I saw the thread title, my first thought was as in communion in Christianity. The presence of spirit. Then I saw that it was really about time.
Surely presence would include the idea of place as well as of time. Because for something to be present in the present, it would also be present in a place?

Mikie

Surely presence would include the idea of place as well as of time. Because for something to be present in the present, it would also be present in a place? — Punshhh

That’s true, although like in the case of time, the concept of space is also a little murky. The “here and now” is a well known phrase, and seemingly go together— no question. But exactly why that is privileged over what isn’t here (or now) is the theme of this thread.

Punshhh

↪Mikie

That’s true, although like in the case of time, the concept of space is also a little murky. The “here and now” is a well known phrase, and seemingly go together— no question. But exactly why that is privileged over what isn’t here (or now) is the theme of this thread.

Yes that’s interesting, my first thought is that almost everything (that could be here and now), isn’t. While the only thing(s) we can be sure of is. It looks like we have the horns of a dilemma.

1, How come we are compelled to believe that almost everything that could be here and now isn’t. Whilst the only things we can be certain about are what are here and now?
2, How can we know, that there is something which isn’t here? Or in other words, how can we say that there really is something which isn’t here and now, whilst the only things we can be certain about (say something about) are what is here and now?

Mikie

↪Punshhh

Those are excellent questions. (It may take me a little time to respond today, so I wanted to at least acknowledge the response.)

Constance

The phrase “metaphysics of presence” was popularized by Derrida, but comes out of Heidegger — Metaphysik der Anwesenheit. Despite much derision directed at both men, I think it’s not only an interesting and challenging idea, but also still relevant. So I feel like it needs a thread of its own. There’s much more detail involved which I can get into depending on how the thread develops, but I wanted to keep this relatively brief. Also, I’m not interested in Twitter-level responses here. — Mikie

Just as a reminder, those who speak derisively about Heidegger or Derrida, haven't read them. It just generally goes like that. Fear of the unfamiliar.

(1) The phrase essentially means that our general way of understanding the world — at least tacitly — privileges one dimension of time; namely, the present, and that this privileging began with Plato and has influenced all ontology (and philosophy generally) since. It manifests itself especially with “substance ontology.” — Mikie

If you bring up time and Heidegger in the same thought, you have to understand that what you call 'now' is part of an existential ecstatic temporality/ Plainly put, can you at all conceive of the past apart from the present and future? The past is necessarily a recollection, and a recollection is an event of recalling, and this is an anticipation of the content of the past brought into act of recalling into a what-will-be of the anticipation. Crudely put here, these familiar time terms are really a unity. Derrida would say that the language deployed to give this very analysis cannot reach into affairs beyond its own structure. Language does not talk about the world in traditional way. Rather, when it talks about the world, "the world' itself belong to language. This leaves the actuality that sits before you, the park benches and clouds and other people, and everything, really, a delimited intra-referential system in which meanings defer to other meanings. Derrida is like Heidegger on steroids, a radical hermeneutics.

So the, well, "real" metaphysical issue has to do with a kind of non linguistic insight of a world that clearly is NOT language. Meister Eckhart comes to mind, where mysticism begins??

(2) We’re in a period of technological nihilism, where we view human beings as essentially machines. The world itself is thought of as a machine, one reduced to substances — a collection of atoms. Our current variant of materialism, where humans are animals with language who go through life with needs to satisfy (inevitably leading to the human being as consumer), is particularly harmful. One consequence is capitalism in various forms. These ideas permeate politics, religion, and business. We did not get here by accident— the objectification of the world (in its modern form starting with Descartes) is an outgrowth of substance ontology. — Mikie

Not sure what this has to do with the metaphysics of presence. I mean, I find what you say fairly right, but how does, but are you suggesting that our culture's "present" state of affairs is reductive towards something less than human, a mere consumer of high tech "things"? Perhaps, but the metaphysics of presence is a more radical idea. Imagine beholding a world which is not wholly determined by the finitude of what Heidegger (since you brought him up) called, "the they"/

Joshs

I believe that determinism obscures the importance of the present by establishing continuity between past and future. This makes understanding our experience of being present impossible. That is because the need to choose is fundamental to our experience — Metaphysician Undercover

Determinism makes not only the present but the past and future incomprehensible. By treating time as the linear succession of punctual nows, only the present is actual, but the present is meaningless isolated from a historical context. For Derrida, the present is ‘specious’. It includes within itself past and future, not as sequentially separate but as simultaneous.

Joshs

So, metaphysics of presence as opposed to what? By providing this piece of information, it would be clearer to understand. And just to add to this understanding, the metaphysics of presence is a critique against the privilege that we put on the 'now'-- the world as we experience it in real time.

So what are they arguing about? — L'éléphant

They’re arguing about the tendency to treat presence as self-affecting presence to self, A=A. What is colloquially called ‘real time’ is treated as a metric placed over events.

Joshs

↪Constance

Derrida would say that the language deployed to give this very analysis cannot reach into affairs beyond its own structure. Language does not talk about the world in traditional way. Rather, when it talks about the world, "the world' itself belong to language. This leaves the actuality that sits before you, the park benches and clouds and other people, and everything, really, a delimited intra-referential system in which meanings defer to other meanings. Derrida is like Heidegger on steroids, a radical hermeneutics.

So the, well, "real" metaphysical issue has to do with a kind of non linguistic insight of a world that clearly is NOT language. Meister Eckhart comes to mind, where mysticism begins?? — Constance

Derrida understands concepts like language and writing in his own peculiar way. Language is simply the repeatability of a mark, and the fact that i. repeating it we are altering its sense. This alteration that inhabits iteration is what Derrida means by writing. Language for him is not an enclosed structure. it is the contamination by an outside which infects a mark of meaning from inside of it.

(2) We’re in a period of technological nihilism, where we view human beings as essentially machines. The world itself is thought of as a machine, one reduced to substances — Mikie

Not sure what this has to do with the metaphysics of presence. I mean, I find what you say fairly right, but how does, but are you suggesting that our culture's "present" state of affairs is reductive towards something less than human, a mere consumer of high tech "things"? Perhaps, but the metaphysics of presence is a more radical idea. Imagine beholding a world which is not wholly determined by the finitude of what Heidegger (since you brought him up) called, "the they"/ — Constance

Heidegger’s analysis of technological thinking in terms of enframing reveals the ultimate consequence of treating time and beings as present at hand. The present at hand becomes thought as orderability. Everything, including ourselves, becomes instrumentalized as a mere means to a pre-figured end.

“The subject-object relation thus reaches, for the first time, its pure "relational," ie., ordering, character in which both the subject and the object are sucked up as standing-reserves. That does not mean that the subject- object relation vanishes, but rather the opposite: it now attains to its most extreme dominance, which is predetermined from out of Enframing. It becomes a standing-reserve to be commanded and set in order.”

Joshs

↪Questioner

Derrida did not agree. He did not think that only speech was pure presence. He redefines writing as foundational, alongside speech. Both have access to meaning.
As a writer of short stories, this quote really resonates with me. I am very much present in my writing. I imbue my writing with meaning, which is taken up by the reader, and often they put their own spin on it, find meaning in it I did not even intend. But above all, it brings writer and reader together. — Questioner

You put your finger on it here. It is not just when someone else reads my writing that they find meaning you didnt intend. The very structure of intention guarantees that you will end up meaning something other than what you intended in the very act of intending to mean something.
The act of meaning is never purely present to itself. It is always contaminated by something other than itself.

"Through the possibility of repeating every mark as the same, [iterability] makes way for an idealization that seems to deliver the full presence of ideal objects..., but this repeatability itself ensures that the full presence of a singularity thus repeated comports in itself the reference to something else, thus rending the full presence that it nevertheless announces"(LI29)). ...the possibility of its being repeated another time-breaches, divides, expropriates the "ideal" plenitude or self-presence of intention,...of all adequation between meaning and saying. Iterability alters...leaves us no room but to mean (to say) something that is (already, always, also) other than what we mean (to say) (Limited, Inc,p.61)." "The break intervenes from the moment that there is a mark, at once. It is iterability itself, ..passing between the re- of the repeated and the re- of the repeating, traversing and transforming repetition(p.53)( Limited, Inc)

Questioner

It is not just when someone else reads my writing that they find meaning you didnt intend. The very structure of intention guarantees that you will end up meaning something other than what you intended in the very act of intending to mean something. — Joshs

Art is in the eye of the beholder

The act of meaning is never purely present to itself. It is always contaminated by something other than itself. — Joshs

In this case, seen through the prism of the reader's experience

frank

↪Joshs

↪L'éléphant

↪180 Proof

If you look at a sculpture and notice the negative space around it, it may occur to you that this negative space makes the statue possible.

The statue is your virtue. The negative space is your monstrousness.

The statue is the self-righteous spirit of the ego. The negative space is the evil within you that you refuse to recognize as your own, so you project it across the world out to the horizon.

The statue is Heidegger's Nazi sympathy. The negative space is that he was Plato reincarnated.

Metaphysician Undercover

For Derrida, the present is ‘specious’. It includes within itself past and future, not as sequentially separate but as simultaneous. — Joshs

I'm inclined to agree with Derrida on this. I believe that I experience the present as the simultaneity of the past (as memory) and the future (as anticipation. That seems to be the foundation of experience for me.

I really don't think that the present is specious for Derrida though. Years back, we did a reading group on Derrida's "Voice and Phenomenology". I just did a brief review of the part where he talked about "now" and I see that he described it as "pure actuality". So I don't agree that "now" is specious for Derrida.

Joshs

↪Metaphysician Undercover

I just did a brief review of the part where he talked about "now" and I see that he described it as "pure actuality". So I don't agree that "now" is specious for Derrida. — Metaphysician Undercover

What do you think Derrida means by ‘pure actuality’? You dont think it includes what has just passed and what is just about to occur? Derrida wrote on Heidegger's formulation of anxiety as being-towards-death:

“…the point is not to resign oneself to one's mortality…but to constitute the present as the past of a future: that is, to live the present not as the origin and absolute form of lived experience (of ek-sistence), but as the product, as what is constituted, derived, constituted in return on the basis of the horizon of the future and the ek- stasis of the future, this latter being able to be authentically anticipated as such only as finite to- come, that is, on the basis of the insuperability of possible death, death not being simply at the end like a contingent event befalling at the far end of a line of life, but determining at every — let's say moment — the opening of the future in which is constituted as past what we call the present and which never appears as such

Metaphysics of Presence

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions