Castoriadis's Ontology: Being and Creation

General Introduction: Castoriadis in Context

General Introduction Castoriadis in Context Ontological creation was long held to be an extrahuman affair and occupied a central place in philosophical and theological discussions alike. In Western philosophical traditions, the civilizational constellations surrounding Athens and Jerusalem have provided dual cultural sources for its historical elaboration. It was the arrival of modernity, however, that first ushered in the social-historical horizons from which the ontological implications of human creation could be more fully grasped.1 What were the historical preconditions of this turn of events? Hans Blumenberg (2001 [1957]) emphasizes the protracted breakdown of the idea of mimesis as the ‘‘imitation of nature,’’ especially in relation to ‘‘techne’’ as the historical precondition for the consideration of human creation as ontological. Interwoven with these innovations, although less discussed by Blumenberg, was the gradual institution of a subject-centered metaphysics —classically formulated by Descartes—and attendant versions of humanism. In a related vein, Ricoeur highlights the shift toward the modern conception of the imagination as productive, instead of the premodern view of the imagination as reproductive.2 He poses the question: ‘‘Are we not ready to recognise in the power of imagination, no longer the faculty of deriving ‘images’ from our sensory experience, but the capacity for letting new worlds shape our understanding of ourselves?’’ (1981: 181).3 Castoriadis’s ontology of creation is to be understood against this background. Although his elaboration of social-historical being is arguably drawn along philosophical-anthropological lines, its 1 elucidation is made possible by the horizons of modernity through which the ontological significance of human creation can be thought at all.4 In the first instance, Castoriadis’s philosophical elucidation of the being of creation takes a radical view of the novelty and ontological importance of human creation, which he articulated in terms of absolute creation ex nihilo. Although the idea of ‘‘creatio ex nihilo’’ draws on a theologically rich tradition, Castoriadis’s ontology is directed against all forms of theological thinking. In his hands, creation ex nihilo is meant to characterize the specificity of human not divine creation. Indeed, the very notion of ‘‘divine’’ creation was antithetical to his project, as it implies ‘‘creation’’ from a basis external to anthropos. Castoriadis’s intellectual sources are found instead in ancient Greek images of anthropic being as self-creating, as well as in Romantic conceptions of the productive (or creative) imagination. Castoriadis’s philosophy of creation is intimately linked to his project of autonomy. As will become apparent, the connection between autonomy and creation is maintained not only with his first ontological turn in the early 1970s, in which he focused on the being of human creation, but also with his second ontological turn in the early 1980s, in which he reconsidered the creativity of nature in its various regions and modes. In his most systematic work, The Imaginary Institution of Society (1987 [1975]),5 Castoriadis embarks on an elaboration of the ontological preconditions of autonomy, but it metamorphoses along the way into an ontology of the social-historical.6 Integral to Castoriadis’s ontological turn of the 1970s is his link to the imaginary element of the human condition, and, in turn, the elaboration of the creative imagination as the basis of meaning. The imaginary element, as we shall see, points to a fundamental hermeneutical dimension in Castoriadis’s thought that was at odds with his more explicit, ontological program. This is especially evident in his approach to the phenomenological problematic of the world horizon, on the one hand, and social imaginary significations, on the other.7 Castoriadis’s philosophy can be situated within French phenomenological strands that take a hermeneutical or an ontological turn. The former highlights the importance of Ricoeur, the latter Merleau-Ponty. To claim a hermeneutical aspect to Castoriadis’s thought is something he himself repudiated: That his philosophy reveals an implicit hermeneutics, however , is a central contention of the present study.8 Merleau-Ponty must be considered a central intellectual source for the development of Castoriadis ’s thought and merits particular reference. Although the influential connection between Merleau-Ponty and Lefort has been well documented , Merleau-Ponty’s bearing on Castoriadis’s philosophical trajectory has been less discussed.9 In this vein, however, Howard (1988) has 2 General Introduction: Castoriadis in Context noted the importance of Merleau-Ponty not just for Lefort, but also for Castoriadis and Socialisme ou barbarie in general.10 The...