Customer Reviews

Glas

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Hegel's philosophy claims to be a presuppositionless witnessing to the self-transformations of being: Hegel does not himself speak in his philosophy, does not put forth theses, but simply gives voice to the indwelling expression of being itself. This is quite a claim--unprecedented in the history of philosophy. If Hegel is right, then one should be able to start anywhere, with anything, and, by letting it "speak for itself," one should be able to find the same things Hegel found. Again, if Hegel is right, everything is already spoken for within his philosophy. One way to interpret Derrida's _Glas_ is as a taking up of this invitation. "Is Jean Genet," Derrida might be thought to ask, "already written in Hegel's philosophy?" Derrida's book proceeds by a simple process: reading. He opens Hegel's book, and follows out the demands of reading it. _Glas_ is more or less a documenting of the thoughts that develop in a reading of Hegel: "If this is so, wouldn't this follow? And what about this?" Generally, Derrida's reading raises (progressively more subtle) challenges to Hegel's writing, and then, through continued reading, finds that Hegel's text has already anticipated and accommodated these challenges. And, indeed, as the reading then turns into a reading of Genet, it turns out that Genet's texts themselves give rise to the very dialectic Hegel articulates. This is an exceptionally difficult book. You cannot read it competently without a good knowledge of Hegel and without at least familiarity with Genet. Furthermore, to read it means to make yourself open to having your own views about Hegel (and also about Genet and also about Derrida) change. You must approach this book as Genet approaches the Gospel of John--like a miner entering a mine, unsure he'll get out of the mine again. This book is well worth the read for serious students of Continental Philosophy: both scholars and Hegel and scholars of Derrida will (if they make themselves open to it, and are rigorous) have their presumptions about the other philosopher challenged. Highly recommended, but do some preparation first.

I love this book, and I still cannot understand why this is not reprinted so that others can read it without forking up too much $ (this same thing goes for Cinders and SignSponge).

Bearing in mind Derrida's honey-like style, with which both writes and absents himself, this book shows that in Truth Hegel is the last philosopher of the book and the first thinker of writing owing to his entirely transgressive relationship with his sister (whom he loved) by virtue of the influence of Genet's oeuvre (which is not a work), the latter clearly touching Hegel for the simple reason that his avatars and demons (Sartre, Bataille) misrecognized him, as though he were the sun which they dared not look upon for fear of blindess. The rose pricks the eagle and the eagle tumbles.

Bearing in mind the sweet honey of Derida's style, with which he writes and absents himself, we can say that Derrida has shown Hegel to be the last philosopher of the book and the first thinker of writing by the economic grace of his utterly perverted relationship with his sister, starting with the B column on Genet, who was misconstrued by Bataille and so by Sartre. The rose pricks the eagle.

Inter allya