Fragments of the Afternoon Discussion
Pavle Rak
I would like to underline one question which was touched
in two contributions during this afternoon and that is:
what is /the/ faith and what does the almighty God want
from us? Sometimes I have the strong impression that
Shestov and maybe God with him want too much from us and
that this /it/ is something that almost nobody can
accomplish. This sort of absolute faith - sometimes I
have the impression that if we demand that from
ourselves - that then we are in a helpless position.
Matjaž Črnivec
Well, in my opinion Shestov is a very radical
thinker, who could be related to the New Testament in
his understanding of faith. Let us remember Jesus’ words
about moving the mountains with faith. We should take
these words seriously. Obviously, there is a
provocation, just like in Shestov. Jesus is provoking
his disciples saying: If You have faith everything
should be possible for you. I understand that this
creative provocation touches not only the faith … If you
take Jesus’ sermon on the mountain, we find there other
provocations, which are impossible if you take them just
like that. But I believe that there is something behind
that tension or that provocation: something that
revelation demands from us. I mean the fundamental
demand of revelation is losing yourself. The faith
starts when you loose yourself to the point of despair.
Gorazd Kocijančič
I agree with you, Mr. Črnivec. We have sayings like
that you quoted also in New testament - but that only
brings back Pavles question on another level. Those
sayings were namely great problem for the exegesis from
the its very beginning, from the time of the Church
fathers. And it is quite understandable, since they were
in contradiction with the actual experience of the
believers. We are faced here with an eminently practical
problem. Christians were in first centuries often in
horrible situations, they were confronted with death,
with persecutions, with diseases, with wars, with
internal struggles. They prayed and nothing happened.
And they knew that Christ was saying: You just pray to
your Father and it will be given to you. They believed
Christ, they prayed - and nothing happened. What was the
point of that “Shestovian” experience? Only loosing
yourself and waiting? Well, the more obvious solution of
problem was perhaps “loosing my religion”. Christ is
lying; unfulfilment of prayers is a proof that the faith
in Christ is false. But the solution of true believers
took the other course. Church fathers already
insightfully interpreted abovementioned passages in the
sense that they are not meant to be prayers or demands
for material goods or practices. In wider context of
Jesus’ preaching it is obvious that he is taking above
all about spiritual realities. When you are really
praying for impossible, when you’re enacting impossible,
you are disclosed for spiritual reality. But when and if
you are expecting a material things to happen - you are
already on the wrong way. It was a kind of Christian
response to that paradox – which is in my opinion
justifiable move away from Shestovs radicalism …
Matjaž Črnivec
I don’t agree, Mr. Kocijančič. Radical provocation that
we find in New Testament is more than exegetical
accommodations of these very hard sayings. I think that
the good thing about Shestov is that he has brought the
very impossibility, unexplained, unsoftned meaning of
these hard words back to the front. I think that he
challenges us, that he puts us again in this position
that we are naked before God.
Vid Snoj
In my opinion three is another problem in Shestov’s
understanding of faith. It is not my intention to make
thematic New Testament understanding of faith as far as
it is a faith in impossible. I think that the problem is
on the other side. This wish for /of/ the possible
becomes problematic, becomes a problem, when it is a
wish of/for something determined. If we put ourselves in
the situation of Abraham, well and when Kierkegaard for
example explains that Abraham had the faith not that
anything (in particular) happens in that situation but
that he gets his son back. I think that here the problem
begins.
Federico Scodler
There is a contradiction in Shestov according to
Jacques Maritain. He is critisizing Shestov concept of
revelation and his demands of faith as a kind of
revelation of the necessity of the slavery …
Pavel Kuznecov
Well, the passage you have mentioned is very, very
short. So, I think we must look for other texts of
Maritain on revelation and freedom, not just in that
passage related to Shestov but to Maritain’s own
conceptualisations, which should not be taken as pure
gold.
Vid Snoj
Concerning Shesotws concept of freedom - I think that
Shestov agreed with Nietzsche that all truth all
reference?? truth are ?? by reason, and that beyond
reason opens this horizon which is a different kind of
truth or if I change the term: absolute freedom. I think
that we could find a formulation in his magnum opus that
before man has eaten from the tree of knowledge, that he
lived in the state of absolute freedom.
Pavel Kuznecov
Absolute freedom? The point is just degree of freedom …
Nikolaj Ivanov
I would like to introduce here the question of
jewishness of Shestovs thought. Take into the
consideration contemporary Jewish philosophy, its styles
of thought. One can find some basic similarity in
approaches to philosophy, in basic attachment to text.
In Derrida and in smaller degree in Levinas one finds a
secular transposition of rabbinic way of thought, a kind
of expressing yourself in expressing the truth that you
realize through the text of others – just like in
Shestov.
Gorazd Kocijančič
Surely, Mr. Ivanov, we should not forget that Jewish
dimension – but also not understand it as a kind of
pseudo-exegetical, eis-egetical ornament of Shestov’s
texts. You can find in Shestov many, many positive
insights in the texts that he is commenting upon . And -
I would like to emphasise that – not only insights
concerning his themes”, faith and reason etc., but often
intuitions, which are almost separated form the text. I
admire Shestov mostly as I master of detail, of
miniatures, which are samohowet hidden and are not at
all mentioned in broad overviews of his thought. I mean
his - often very dispersed, even contradictory -
intuitions, which are expressed in brilliant aphorisms
and are not linked to the main stream of the argument.
This is his personal transposition of the Jewish way of
thinking: thought which is not united in some way of the
system, of hierarchy, in logical argument. Shestov is an
ideal author for anthologies. Perhaps some important of
the problems of interpretation – an above all
interpretation of his understanding of faith - arise
form the fact that we are still reading Shestov like a
writer of great philosophical story, of the Discourse
with one main thesis. And it is understandable, because
he himself often expresses himself in this way. But I
think that nevertheless Shestov is essentially a writer
of aphorisms. His reasoning, his long thread od
argumentation is just the frame that brings together
these small, profound maxims.
Pavel Kuznecov
I cannot agree. Of course, Shestov has some important
“small” insights, but his famous claims are repeated
time and again, each time in every book in every
article. If he is writing about Abraham or about Luther
or wahever --- he presents his general idea. And that
general idea – it comes from the Old Testament. That is
his distinctive Jewishness.
Gorazd Kocijančič
Is it really so clear? Well, the aim of my short paper
was just that: we should question our knowledge about
Shestovs “general idea” and also about its distinctive
old testament hue. . I don’t think it is all so clear
what is basic meaning of famous basic dichotomy in
Shestov. I suggest that a proper philosophical exegesis
of Shestov should question exactly these basic questions
of our reconstruction of his thought: what is the
meaning of that “obvious” dichotomies and his “claims”?
Is it really that what he is saying us, his self –
styling - or is it perhaps something else? Well, we all
know: to put that kind of questions is a proper task of
interpretation. This author is presenting himself as
this or that, but is this a truth or is this a kind of
self presentation, which does hide/hides, is hiding/
something behind it? I believe that it is very important
to stop understanding Shestov as someone he is
presenting himself to be, but to ask what lies behind
his text.
Pavel Kuznecov
In the morning when we were discussing about Husserl, we
have already started to do this: when Marko Uršič said,
that debatte on irrationalism is something passé, that
it has nothing to do with modern contemporary philosophy
– and triggered a hot debatee … I am persuaded that that
move behind Shestovs text is even connected with basic
problems of ontology today. Our reluctance to dare this
move is significant. During his lifetime, people were
telling Shestov: “Shestov , you are repeating yourself!”
and he answered: “Yes I am repeating myself, but you
should ask yourself: Why do I touch your nerves by doing
that? All people are repeating themselves but they do
not touch the nerve of others, I touch the nerve by
repeating, because I tell something they do not want to
hear. If someone tells two plus two make four or
something like that, well, they say he is repeating it
all the time, but it is OK, but if I say two plus two
may be five and I repeat it time and again, they say:
That is crazy, he is repeating himself …
Gorazd Kocijančič
Mr. Kuznecov, do you agree - to put it very briefly –
that Shestov has discovered neuralgical point of western
philosophy? I personally think that it is really a great
discovery. Shestov was of course writing in the
tradition of great Christian thinkers which somehow
combine radical scepticism and absolute faith, thinkers
like Augustine, Ockham, Pascal, Kierkegaard … But he
was, in a way, discovering something which is totally
strange, very new and completely odd: the radical
fragiliy of the very idea of logical thought. We can of
course pursue philosophy, we can develop beautiful
systems - but doing this, do we have any guarantee, any
warrant, any reason that there isn’t a kind of reality
behind and above thought – utter unconcievable reality
which puts all our dreams and our systems, all our
wishful thinking into nothing, not just in time, or
somehow but you know, he shows that philosophy is a very
human work. He is not writing simply against logic or
philosophy, he is just showing that perhaps it has
nothing to do with reality. Thought itself cannot have
one single reason that guarantees its contact, its touch
with reality. Perhaps reality it is totally different,
it could be wholly other … And that is not all. Shestov
has also developed - well before his time a sense for
absence of identity of the author – which is of course
not unconnected with that first insight.. His authorial
identity is somehow elusive. He said once: people are
criticizing me for my ideas, but I don’t know if I will
have the same ideas one year after, I don’t know if my
ideas will be the same next year. So, he is not
pretending that by writing something he will remain the
always present subject of writing, somehow encoded in
text …
Pavel Kuznecov
Yes, I agree. And before we finish this discussion about
Shestov I would really like to add that I hope we would
soon meet in some other symposium with the same will to
mutually enrich one another with wealth of ideas as we
did today and yesterday. I have the impression that this
symposium was fascinating and thought provoking. Thank
you very much.
