In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

240 The Paradoxes of Participatory Reality Lee Trepanier Although neither Eric Voegelin nor Jacques Derrida had ever written about each other’s works, both thinkers were engaged in the same project of creating and sustaining an existential philosophy that was participatory in nature. Opposed to foundational accounts of reality, a philosophy that purports to explain the totality of reality transparently, both Voegelin and Derrida called for a mode of philosophy that was open to the possibilities of existence with its unanswerable mysteries. They were opposed to the claim of Cartesian subjectivity where intentionality is the only operational mode for human existence: reality is understood and spoken of as if it were some sort of object to be grasped in its entirety by human subjectivity.1 The belief that humans can survey the whole of reality and thereby discover and expose its fundamental foundations was rejected by both Voegelin and Derrida. The encounter and experience of reality could be neither exhaustive nor transparent; rather, reality demanded that we approach it in a participatory mode that Voegelin articulates in his theory of symbolization and Derrida describes in his philosophy of deconstruction. Voegelin believed that our encounter with reality was ultimately symbolic in nature. The notion that language could be exhaustive in its account of our encounter with reality and convey it transparently was rejected by him. Language, or more accurately symbols, was merely an incomplete reflection or articulation of human experiences and, at best, could only point to ineffable realities that reside in human consciousness. Language could neither account for all of human encounters with reality nor do so transparently because it was ultimately considered by Voegelin to be dependent on specific historical circumstances. In other words, language was socially constructed. Likewise, Derrida conceived of language as artificial instead of natural and something that continually deferred a finalized meaning forever. Language could never become transparent for Derrida, since the reality it was referencing was continually shifting its ulti10 The Paradoxes of Participatory Reality 241 mate significance. Attempts to fix a finalized meaning unto language were not only doomed to failure but also dishonest efforts to create a “second reality” in order to manipulate and motive people for certain ideological ends. Voegelin’s and Derrida’s similar perspectives on language can be explained by their refusal to accept the premise of Cartesian subjectivity: reality is dichotomous with subjects on one side and objects on the other. Rejecting intentionality as the only acceptable operational mode of epistemology, both Voegelin and Derrida favored one that was participatory in nature. Reality is not divided into subjects and objects but instead conceived as a single entity in which humans participate and therefore can never know objectively or in its entirety. There will always remain aspects of reality that will be mysterious. Voegelin gives this participatory model several names, with the most famous one known as the metaxy, where humans exist in a state of existential and paradoxical tension . For Derrida, diffèrance and messianic are the terms he uses to describe this existential mode of existence that is open to the possibilities of existence. Both accounts are participatory in nature in that they remain open to the possibilities of an unknowable future and reject the idea that a finality of meaning could ever be discovered. The affinities between Voegelin and Derrida on language and epistemology are finally shared in their accounts of ontology where both repudiate a foundational metaphysics. However, this repudiation does not result in passivity for ethical and political action. Just because humans are unable to account for the whole of reality does not mean they are ethically and politically paralyzed. For Voegelin, it is the philosopher’s duty to translate his experiences with reality into a symbolic order that will anchor society. Likewise, Derrida describes the “undecidable leap”that calls people into ethical action, even though it will necessarily contain an aspect of violence. In both cases, there is an appeal for ethical and political action, but it is conditioned by the concrete circumstances of the situation and the knowledge that violence and imperfection are unavoidable when such action is taken. Not subscribing to the certainty of foundational ontology, both Voegelin and Derrida do offer a positive program of ethical and political action as an alternative to the political ideologies that have dominated the twentieth century. Although they approach the problem of presenting an alternative to foundational ontology from different perspectives, both Voegelin’s and Derrida’s philosophies provide answers that share similar features...

Share