Stating that there are lines of resistance simply means that, even if it appears as an effect of language, the World always presents us with something that is already given and not posited by us. What is already given are precisely the lines of resistance.
In Kant and the Platypus, I expressed my opinion that the appearance of these resistances is the closest thing we can find, before any First Philosophy or Theology, to the idea of God or the Law. Certainly, this is a God who manifests Himself as pure Negativity, pure Limit, pure “No”—something quite different from the God of revealed religions, of whom he retains only the severest traits, as exclusive Lord of Interdiction, ever intent only upon repeating “Of this tree thou shalt not eat.” Since, however, a tendentious reader has seen in these affirmations of mine a proposal for a new proof for the existence of God, I find myself obliged to make up for his lack of sensitivity to the stratagems of elocutio by pointing out (as in the most desperate cases we may be obliged to explain we were making a joke) that the lines of resistance are not a metaphor for God, but, on the contrary, the idea of a God who says “No” functions as a metaphor for the lines of resistance.
And, seeing that our need not to be misunderstood compels us to explain even our metaphors, labeling them as such, let me make it clear that it is also a metaphor to say that the lines of resistance confront us with a no. The World says no in the same way a mole would say no if we asked it to fly. It is not as if the mole is aware that he cannot fly. The mole proceeds on his terrestrial and subterranean way, and does not know what it means not to be a mole. He plays the mole to his own moliness.
To be sure, animals run into obstacles too, and struggle to overcome them: think of the dog that barks and scratches at the closed door and bites at the handle. But in a case like this the animal is already approaching a condition similar to our own; it evinces desires and intentions, and the limit is a limit with respect to its desires (or its instincts). A closed door in and of itself is not a no, indeed it could be a yes for someone seeking privacy and protection behind it. It becomes a no only for the dog who wants to come in.
It is we who, since the Mind can also provide imaginary representations of impossible worlds, ask things to be what they are not and, when they continue to be what they are, conclude they are answering no, opposing a limit. But the limit lies in our desire, in our aspiration toward absolute freedom. Death itself appears to us as a limit, when as living creatures we fear it. But at the moment of death it arrives just when things are going exactly the way they must go—the very idea that death arrives is no more than a metaphor: no one arrives, heart and brain simply stop, from the most natural causes.
In the face of the already given, we proceed by conjecture, and we do our best to get others to accept our conjectures. That is to say, we publicly compare our conjectures with what others know of the already given. It may be that this attitude does not define a “strong” thought, in the sense in which the various tribunals of Reason and Faith (more closely related than may appear at first blush) see themselves as strong. But it certainly defines a thought that continually runs up against the “forces” that oppose it. And since racing improves the breed, a conjectural thought, while it may not be strong, may not be weak either, but it will be well-tempered.
If Vattimo were to admit that his “weakness” is also a metaphor for a well-tempered thought, he would be welcome to become a member of my sect. But if a weak thinker should happen to agree with Nietzsche that everything is a metaphor, could we still recognize a metaphor for what it is?
A further revisited version of the paper delivered at the conference, attended by Gianni Vattimo, entitled “Autour d’Umberto Eco: Signes, réprésentations, interprétations,” (“Apropos of Umberto Eco: Signs, Representations, Interpretations”) held in Sofia in November 2004 (originally published as “La notion de limite” [Eco 2005]), and subsequently reelaborated as “Weak Thought and the Limits of Interpretation” (Eco 2007).
1. See Eco (1985c).
2. My review was published in Alfabeta, January 1, 1980, and later reprinted in Eco (1983c).
3. [Translator’s note: Both Eco and Vattimo were students of the philosopher Luigi Pareyson.]
4. For Derrida, deconstruction was not a method of artistic or literary criticism but a method of interrogating philosophical texts, and he always maintained that every reading should respect certain garde-fous or guardrails that would act as philosophical checks on the free drift of interpretation.
5. I realize this hypothesis comes close to Schelling’s notion of the Absolute, in which there is no longer any difference between the subject thinking of the thing in itself and what was previously considered the thing in itself. But perhaps Schelling was much less of an “idealist” (in the negative sense of the term) than has been thought—and was instead something of a Spinozan. I had no intention of saying that nothing exists outside of thought and that the world is the creation of the subject, but that subject and object are two aspects of the same universal substance—and that we (that is, culture) assuredly know the world in the form in which we think it, but we think it in that form precisely because we are part of it.
References
Abelard, Peter. 1956. Dialectica, ed. L. M. de Rijk. Van Gorcum: Assen.
Albano Leoni, F., et al. eds. 1998. Ai limiti del linguaggio. Bari: Laterza.
Alighieri, Dante. 1909. Convivio, trans. William Walrond Jackson. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Angelini, Cesare. 1969. “Introduzione and commento all’Apocalisse.” In Apocalisse Xilografica Estense, trans. Cesare Angelini. Parma: Franco Maria Ricci.
Apel, Karl-Otto. 1975. Der Denkweg von Charles S. Peirce. Frankfurt: Suhramp.
______. 1995. “Transcendental Semiotics and Hypothetical Metaphysics of Evolution: A Peircean or Quasi-Peircean Answer to a Recurrent Problem of Post-Kantian Philosophy.” In Ketner, ed. 1995.
Apresjian, Jurij. D. 1966. “Analyse distributionnelle des significations et des champs sémantiques structurés.” Langages 1: 44–74.
Aquinus, St. Thomas. 1983. On Being and Essence, translated with an introduction and notes by Armand Maurer, C.S.B., 2nd revised edition. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies (Second edition 1968, Reprinted).
Aristotle. 1926. The “Art” of Rhetoric, trans. John Henry Freese. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Assunto, Rosario. 1961. La critica d’arte nel pensiero medievale. Milan: il Saggiatore.
Auerbach, Heinrich. 1944. “Figura.” In Neue Dantenstudien 5.
Balme, David M. 1961. “Aristotle’s Use of Differentiae in Zoology.” In S. Mansion, ed., Aristote and les problèmes de méthode. Leuven: Publications Universitaires de Louvain.