HUIT THSES SUR L'UNIVERSEL

Centre d'tude de la Philosophie Franaise Conteporaine ! "# no$e%re &''(

") TH*U+HT IS THE PR*PER ,E-IU, *F THE UNIVERS.L
/0 1thou2ht13 I ean the su%4e5t in so 6ar as it is 5onstituted throu2h a pro5ess
that is trans$ersal relati$e to the totalit0 o6 a$aila%le 6ors o6 7no8led2e) *r3
as La5an puts it3 the su%4e5t in so 6ar as it 5onstitutes a hole in 7no8led2e)
Rear7s9
a) That thou2ht is the proper ediu o6 the uni$ersal eans that nothin2
e:ists as uni$ersal i6 it ta7es the 6or o6 the o%4e5t or o6 o%4e5ti$e le2alit0)
The uni$ersal is essentiall0 'ano%4e5ti$e') It 5an %e e:perien5ed onl0 throu2h
the produ5tion ;or reprodu5tion< o6 a tra4e5tor0 o6 thou2ht3 and this tra4e5tor0
5onstitutes ;or re5onstitutes< a su%4e5ti$e disposition)
Here are t8o t0pi5al e:aples9 the uni$ersalit0 o6 a atheati5al proposition
5an onl0 %e e:perien5ed %0 in$entin2 or e66e5ti$el0 reprodu5in2 its proo63 the
situated uni$ersalit0 o6 a politi5al stateent 5an onl0 %e e:perien5ed throu2h
the ilitant pra5ti5e that e66e5tuates it)
%) That thou2ht3 as su%4e5t!thou2ht3 is 5onstituted throu2h a pro5ess eans
that the uni$ersal is in no 8a0 the result o6 a trans5endental 5onstitution3
8hi5h 8ould presuppose a 5onstitutin2 su%4e5t) *n the 5ontrar03 the openin2
up o6 the possi%ilit0 o6 a uni$ersal is the pre5ondition 6or there %ein2 a
su%4e5t!thou2ht at the lo5al le$el) The su%4e5t is in$aria%l0 suoned as
thou2ht at a spe5i6i5 point o6 that pro5edure throu2h 8hi5h the uni$ersal is
5onstituted) The uni$ersal is at on5e 8hat deterines its o8n points as
su%4e5t!thou2hts and the $irtual re5olle5tion o6 those points) Thus the 5entral
diale5ti5 at 8or7 in the uni$ersal is that o6 the lo5al3 as su%4e5t3 and the 2lo%al3
as in6inite pro5edure) This diale5ti5 is 5onstituti$e o6 thou2ht as su5h)
Conse=uentl03 the uni$ersalit0 o6 the proposition 1the series o6 prie nu%ers
2oes on 6ore$er1 resides %oth in the 8a0 it suons us to repeat ;or
redis5o$er< in thou2ht a uni=ue proo6 6or it3 %ut also in the 2lo%al pro5edure
that3 6ro the +ree7s to the present da03 o%ili>es nu%er theor0 alon2 8ith
its underl0in2 a:ioati5) To put it another 8a03 the uni$ersalit0 o6 the
pra5ti5al stateent 1a 5ountr0's ille2al ii2rant 8or7ers ust ha$e their
ri2hts re5o2ni>ed %0 that 5ountr01 resides in all sorts o6 ilitant e66e5tuations
throu2h 8hi5h politi5al su%4e5ti$it0 is a5ti$el0 5onstituted3 %ut also in the
2lo%al pro5ess o6 a politi5s3 in ters o6 8hat it pres5ri%es 5on5ernin2 the State
and its de5isions3 rules and la8s)
5) That the pro5ess o6 the uni$ersal or truth ! the0 are one and the sae ! is
trans$ersal relati$e to all a$aila%le instan5es o6 7no8led2e eans that the
uni$ersal is al8a0s an in5al5ula%le eer2en5e3 rather than a des5ri%a%le
stru5ture) /0 the sae to7en3 I 8ill sa0 that a truth is intransiti$e to
7no8led2e3 and e$en that it is essentiall0 un7no8n) This is another 8a0 o6
e:plainin2 8hat I ean 8hen I 5hara5teri>e truth as un5ons5ious)
I 8ill 5all particular 8hate$er 5an %e dis5erned in 7no8led2e %0 eans o6
des5ripti$e predi5ates) /ut I 8ill 5all singular that 8hi5h3 althou2h
identi6ia%le as a pro5edure at 8or7 in a situation3 is ne$ertheless su%tra5ted
6ro e$er0 predi5ati$e des5ription) Thus the 5ultural traits o6 this or that
population are parti5ular) /ut that 8hi5h3 tra$ersin2 these traits and
dea5ti$atin2 e$er0 re2istered des5ription3 uni$ersall0 suons a thou2ht!
su%4e5t3 is sin2ular) ?hen5e thesis &9
&) EVER@ UNIVERS.L IS SIN+UL.R3 *R IS . SIN+UL.RIT@
Rear7s9
There is no possi%le uni$ersal su%lation o6 parti5ularit0 as su5h) It is
5oonl0 5laied no8ada0s that the onl0 2enuinel0 uni$ersal pres5ription
5onsists in respe5tin2 parti5ularities) In 0 opinion3 this thesis is in5onsistent)
This is deonstrated %0 the 6a5t that an0 attept to put it into pra5ti5e
in$aria%l0 runs up a2ainst parti5ularities 8hi5h the ad$o5ates o6 6oral
uni$ersalit0 6ind intolera%le) The truth is that in order to aintain that respe5t
6or parti5ularit0 is a uni$ersal $alue3 it is ne5essar0 to ha$e 6irst distin2uished
%et8een 2ood parti5ularities and %ad ones) In other 8ords3 it is ne5essar0 to
ha$e esta%lished a hierar5h0 in the list o6 des5ripti$e predi5ates) It 8ill %e
5laied3 6or e:aple3 that a 5ultural or reli2ious parti5ularit0 is %ad i6 it does
not in5lude 8ithin itsel6 respe5t 6or other parti5ularities) /ut this is o%$iousl0
to stipulate that the 6oral uni$ersal alread0 %e in5luded in the parti5ularit0)
Ultiatel03 the uni$ersalit0 o6 respe5t 6or parti5ularities is onl0 the
uni$ersalit0 o6 uni$ersalit0) This de6inition is 6atall0 tautolo2i5al) It is the
ne5essar0 5ounterpart o6 a proto5ol ! usuall0 a $iolent one ! that 8ants to
eradi5ate 2enuinel0 parti5ular parti5ularities ;i)e) ianent parti5ularities<
%e5ause it 6ree>es the predi5ates o6 the latter into sel6!su66i5ient identitarian
5o%inations)
Thus it is ne5essar0 to aintain that e$er0 uni$ersal presents itsel6 not as a
re2ulari>ation o6 the parti5ular or o6 di66eren5es3 %ut as a sin2ularit0 that is
su%tra5ted 6ro identitarian predi5atesA althou2h o%$iousl0 it pro5eeds $ia
those predi5ates) The su%tra5tion o6 parti5ularities ust %e opposed to their
supposition) /ut i6 a sin2ularit0 5an la0 5lai to the uni$ersal %0 su%tra5tion3
it is %e5ause the pla0 o6 identitarian predi5ates3 or the lo2i5 o6 those 6ors o6
7no8led2e that des5ri%e parti5ularit03 pre5ludes an0 possi%ilit0 o6 6oreseein2
or 5on5ei$in2 it)
Conse=uentl03 a uni$ersal sin2ularit0 is not o6 the order o6 %ein23 %ut o6 the
order o6 a sudden eer2en5e) ?hen5e thesis B9
B) EVER@ UNIVERS.L *RI+IN.TES IN .N EVENT3 .N- THE EVENT
IS INTR.NSITIVE T* THE P.RTICUL.RIT@ *F THE SITU.TI*N
The 5orrelation %et8een uni$ersal and e$ent is 6undaental) /asi5all03 it is
5lear that the =uestion o6 politi5al uni$ersalis depends entirel0 on the re2ie
o6 6idelit0 or in6idelit0 aintained3 not to this or that do5trine3 %ut to the
Fren5h Re$olution3 or the Paris 5oune3 or *5to%er "#"C3 or the stru22les
6or national li%eration3 or ,a0 "#DE) A contrario3 the ne2ation o6 politi5al
uni$ersalis3 the ne2ation o6 the $er0 thee o6 ean5ipation3 re=uires ore
than ere rea5tionar0 propa2anda) It re=uires 8hat 5ould %e 5alled an 1e$ental
re$isionis1) Thus3 6or e:aple3 Furet's attept to sho8 that the Fren5h
Re$olution 8as entirel0 6utileA or the innuera%le attepts to redu5e ,a0
"#DE to a student stapede to8ard se:ual li%eration) E$ental re$isionis
tar2ets the 5onne5tion %et8een uni$ersalit0 and sin2ularit0) Nothin2 too7
pla5e %ut the pla5e3 predi5ati$e des5riptions are su66i5ient3 and 8hate$er is
uni$ersall0 $alua%le is stri5tl0 o%4e5ti$e) In fine3 this aounts to the 5lai that
8hate$er is uni$ersall0 $alua%le resides in the e5haniss and po8er o6
5apital3 alon2 8ith its statist 2uarantees)
In that 5ase3 the 6ate o6 the huan anial is sealed %0 the relation %et8een
predi5ati$e parti5ularities and le2islati$e 2eneralities)
For an e$ent to initiate a sin2ular pro5edure o6 uni$ersali>ation3 and to
5onstitute its su%4e5t throu2h that pro5edure3 is 5ontrar0 to the positi$ist
5ouplin2 o6 parti5ularit0 and 2eneralit0)
In this re2ard3 the 5ase o6 se:ual di66eren5e is si2ni6i5ant) The predi5ati$e
parti5ularities identi60in2 the positions 1an1 and 18oan1 8ithin a 2i$en
so5iet0 5an %e 5on5ei$ed in an a%stra5t 6ashion) . 2eneral prin5iple 5an %e
posited 8here%0 the ri2hts3 status3 5hara5teristi5s and hierar5hies asso5iated
8ith these positions should %e su%4e5t to e2alitarian re2ulation %0 the la8)
This is all 8ell and 2ood3 %ut it does not pro$ide a 2round 6or an0 sort o6
uni$ersalit0 as 6ar as the predi5ati$e distri%ution o6 2ender roles is 5on5erned)
For this to %e the 5ase3 there has to %e the suddenl0 eer2in2 sin2ularit0 o6 an
en5ounter or de5larationA one that 5r0stalli>es a su%4e5t 8hose ani6estation is
pre5isel0 its su%tra5ti$e e:perien5e o6 se:ual di66eren5e) Su5h a su%4e5t 5oes
a%out throu2h an aorous en5ounter in 8hi5h there o55urs a dis4un5ti$e
s0nthesis o6 se:uated positions) Thus the aorous s5ene is the onl0 2enuine
s5ene in 8hi5h a uni$ersal sin2ularit0 pertainin2 to the T8o o6 the se:es ! and
ultiatel0 pertainin2 to di66eren5e as su5h ! is pro5laied) This is 8here an
undi$ided su%4e5ti$e e:perien5e o6 a%solute di66eren5e ta7es pla5e) ?e all
7no8 that3 8here the interpla0 %et8een the se:es is 5on5erned3 people are
in$aria%l0 6as5inated %0 lo$e storiesA and this 6as5ination is dire5tl0
proportional to the $arious spe5i6i5 o%sta5les throu2h 8hi5h so5ial 6orations
tr0 to th8art lo$e) In this instan5e3 it is per6e5tl0 5lear that the attra5tion
e:erted %0 the uni$ersal lies pre5isel0 in the 6a5t that it su%tra5ts itsel6 ;or tries
to su%tra5t itsel6< as an aso5ial sin2ularit0 6ro the predi5ates o6 7no8led2e)
Thus it is ne5essar0 to aintain that the uni$ersal eer2es as a sin2ularit0 and
that all 8e ha$e to %e2in 8ith is a pre5arious suppleent 8hose sole stren2th
resides in there %ein2 no a$aila%le predi5ate 5apa%le o6 su%4e5tin2 it to
7no8led2e)
The =uestion then is9 8hat aterial instan5e3 8hat un5lassi6ia%le e66e5t o6
presen5e3 pro$ides the %asis 6or the su%4e5ti$atin2 pro5edure 8hose 2lo%al
oti6 is a uni$ersalF
() . UNIVERS.L INITI.LL@ PRESENTS ITSELF .S . -ECISI*N
./*UT .N UN-ECI-./LE This point re=uires 5are6ul elu5idation)
I 5all 1en505lopedia1 the 2eneral s0ste o6 predi5ati$e 7no8led2e internal to a
situation9 i)e) 8hat e$er0one 7no8s a%out politi5s3 se:ual di66eren5e3 5ulture3
art3 te5hnolo203 et5) There are 5ertain thin2s3 stateents3 5on6i2urations or
dis5ursi$e 6ra2ents 8hose $alen5e is not de5ida%le in ters o6 the
en505lopedia) Their $alen5e is un5ertain3 6loatin23 anon0ous9 the0 e:ist at
the ar2ins o6 the en505lopedia) The0 5oprise e$er0thin2 8hose status
reains 5onstituti$el0 un5ertainA e$er0thin2 that eli5its a 'a0%e3 a0%e not'A
e$er0thin2 8hose status 5an %e endlessl0 de%ated a55ordin2 to the rule o6 non!
de5ision3 8hi5h is itsel6 en505lopedi5A e$er0thin2 a%out 8hi5h 7no8led2e
en4oins us not to de5ide) No8ada0s3 6or instan5e3 7no8led2e en4oins us not to
de5ide a%out +od9 it is =uite a55epta%le to aintain that perhaps 'soethin2'
e:ists3 or perhaps it does not) ?e li$e in a so5iet0 in 8hi5h no $alen5e 5an %e
as5ri%ed to +od's e:isten5eA a so5iet0 that la0s 5lai to a $a2ue spiritualit0)
Siilarl03 7no8led2e en4oins us not to de5ide a%out the possi%le e:isten5e o6
1another polities19 it is tal7ed a%out3 %ut nothin2 5oes o6 it) .nother
e:aple9 are those 8or7ers 8ho do not ha$e proper papers %ut 8ho are
8or7in2 here3 in Fran5e ;or the United Gin2do3 or the United States )))< part
o6 this 5ountr0F -o the0 %elon2 hereF @es3 pro%a%l03 sin5e the0 li$e and 8or7
here) No3 sin5e the0 don't ha$e the ne5essar0 papers to sho8 that the0 are
Fren5h ;or /ritish3 or .eri5an )))<3 or li$in2 here le2all0) The e:pression
1ille2al ii2rant1 desi2nates the un5ertaint0 o6 $alen5e3 or the non!$alen5e
o6 $alen5e9 it desi2nates people 8ho are li$in2 here3 %ut don't reall0 %elon2
here3 and hen5e people 8ho 5an %e thro8n out o6 the 5ountr03 people 8ho 5an
%e e:posed to the non!$alen5e o6 the $alen5e o6 their presen5e here as
8or7ers)
/asi5all03 an e$ent is 8hat de5ides a%out a >one o6 en505lopedi5 indis5ern!
i%ilit0) ,ore pre5isel03 there is an ipli5ati$e 6or o6 the t0pe9 E !!H d; <3
8hi5h reads as9 e$er0 real su%4e5ti$ation %rou2ht a%out %0 an e$ent3 8hi5h
disappears in its appearan5e3 iplies that 3 8hi5h is unde5ida%le 8ithin the
situation3 has %een de5ided) This 8as the 5ase3 6or e:aple3 8hen ille2al
ii2rant 8or7ers o55upied the 5hur5h o6 St) /ernard in Paris9 the0 pu%li5l0
de5lared the e:isten5e and $alen5e o6 8hat had %een 8ithout $alen5e3 there%0
de5idin2 that those 8ho are here %elon2 here and en4oinin2 people to drop the
e:pression 1ille2al ii2rant1)
I 8ill 5all the e$ental stateent) /0 $irtue o6 the lo2i5al rule o6 deta5hent3
8e see that the a%olition o6 the e$ent3 8hose entire %ein2 5onsists in
disappearin23 lea$es %ehind the e$ental stateent 3 8hi5h is iplied %0 the
e$ent3 as soethin2 that is at on5e9
! a real o6 the situation ;sin5e it 8as alread0 there<A
! %ut soethin2 8hose $alen5e under2oes radi5al 5han2e3 sin5e it 8as
unde5ida%le %ut has %een de5ided) It is soethin2 that had no $alen5e %ut no8
does)
Conse=uentl03 I 8ill sa0 that the inau2ural aterialit0 6or an0 uni$ersal
sin2ularit0 is the e$ental stateent) It 6i:es the present 6or the su%4e5t!thou2ht
out o6 8hi5h the uni$ersal is 8o$en)
Su5h is the 5ase in an aorous en5ounter3 8hose su%4e5ti$e present is 6i:ed in
one 6or or another %0 the stateent 1I lo$e 0ou13 e$en as the 5ir5ustan5e o6
the en5ounter is erased) Thus an unde5ida%le dis4un5ti$e s0nthesis is de5ided
and the inau2uration o6 its su%4e5t is tied to the 5onse=uen5es o6 the e$ental
stateent)
Note that e$er0 e$ental stateent has a de5larati$e stru5ture3 re2ardless o6
8hether the stateent ta7es the 6or o6 a proposition3 a 8or73 a 5on6i2uration
or an a:io) The e$ental stateent is iplied %0 the e$ent's appearin2!
disappearin2 and de5lares that an unde5ida%le has %een de5ided or that 8hat
8as 8ithout $alen5e no8 has a $alen5e) The 5onstituted su%4e5t 6ollo8s in the
8a7e o6 this de5laration3 8hi5h opens up a possi%le spa5e 6or the uni$ersal)
.55ordin2l03 all that is re=uired in order 6or the uni$ersal to un6old is to dra8
all the 5onse=uen5es3 8ithin the situation3 o6 the e$ental stateent)
I) THE UNIVERS.L H.S .N I,PLIC.TIVE STRUCTURE
*ne 5oon o%4e5tion to the idea o6 uni$ersalit0 is that e$er0thin2 that e:ists
or is represented relates %a57 to parti5ular 5onditions and interpretations
2o$erned %0 disparate 6or5es or interests) Thus3 6or instan5e3 soe aintain it
is ipossi%le to attain a uni$ersal 2rasp o6 di66eren5e %e5ause o6 the a%0ss
%et8een the 8a0 the latter is 2rasped3 dependin2 on 8hether one o55upies the
position o6 1an1 or the position o6 '8oan') Still others insist that there is no
5oon denoinator underl0in2 8hat $arious 5ultural 2roups 5hoose to 5all
1artisti5 a5ti$it01A or that not e$en a atheati5al proposition is intrinsi5all0
uni$ersal3 sin5e its $alidit0 is entirel0 dependent upon the a:ios that support
it)
?hat this hereneuti5 perspe5ti$alis o$erloo7s is that e$er0 uni$ersal
sin2ularit0 is presented as the net8or7 o6 5onse=uen5es entailed %0 an e$ental
de5ision) ?hat is uni$ersal al8a0s ta7es the 6or !!H 3 8here e is the
e$ental stateent and is a 5onse=uen5e3 or a 6idelit0) It 2oes 8ithout sa0in2
that i6 soeone re6uses the de5ision a%out 3 or insists3 in rea5ti$e 6ashion3
on redu5in2 e to its unde5ida%le status3 or aintains that 8hat has ta7en on a
$alen5e should reain 8ithout $alen5e3 then the ipli5ati$e 6or in no 8a0
en4oins the to a55ept the $alidit0 o6 the 5onse=uen5e3 titi) Ne$ertheless3 e$en
the0 8ill ha$e to adit the uni$ersalit0 o6 the 6or o6 ipli5ation as su5h) In
other 8ords3 e$en the0 8ill ha$e to adit that i6 the e$ent is su%4e5ti$ated on
the %asis o6 its stateent3 8hate$er 5onse=uen5es 5oe to %e in$ented as a
result 8ill %e ne5essar0)
*n this point3 Plato's apolo2ia in the ,eno reains irre6uta%le) I6 a sla$e
7no8s nothin2 a%out the e$ental 6oundation o6 2eoetr03 he reains
in5apa%le o6 $alidatin2 the 5onstru5tion o6 the s=uare o6 the sur6a5e that
dou%les a 2i$en s=uare) /ut i6 one pro$ides hi 8ith the %asi5 data and he
a2rees to su%4e5ti$ate it he 8ill also su%4e5ti$ate the 5onstru5tion under
5onsideration) Thus the ipli5ation that ins5ri%es this 5onstru5tion in the
present inau2urated %0 2eoetr0's +ree7 eer2en5e is uni$ersall0 $alid)
Soeone i2ht o%4e5t9 1@ou're a7in2 thin2s too eas0 6or 0oursel6 %0
in$o7in2 the authorit0 o6 atheati5al in6eren5e)1 /ut the0 8ould %e 8ron2)
E$er0 uni$ersali>in2 pro5edure is ipli5ati$e) It $eri6ies the 5onse=uen5es
that 6ollo8 6ro the e$ental stateent to 8hi5h the $anished e$ent is inde:ed)
I6 the proto5ol o6 su%4e5ti$ation is initiated under the ae2is o6 this stateent3 it
%e5oes 5apa%le o6 in$entin2 and esta%lishin2 a set o6 uni$ersall0
re5o2ni>a%le 5onse=uen5es)
The rea5ti$e denial that the e$ent too7 pla5e3 as e:pressed in the a:i
1nothin2 too7 pla5e %ut the pla5e13 is pro%a%l0 the onl0 8a0 o6 underinin2 a
uni$ersal sin2ularit0) It re6uses to re5o2ni>e its 5onse=uen5es and 5an5els
8hate$er present is proper to the e$ental pro5edure)
@et e$en this re6usal 5annot 5an5el the uni$ersalit0 o6 ipli5ation as su5h)
Ta7e the Fren5h Re$olution9 i63 6ro "C#& on3 this 5onstitutes a radi5al e$ent3
as indi5ated %0 the ianent de5laration 8hi5h states that re$olution as su5h
is no8 a politi5al 5ate2or03 then it is true that the 5iti>en 5an onl0 %e
5onstituted in a55ordan5e 8ith the diale5ti5 o6 Virtue and Terror) This
ipli5ation is %oth undenia%le and uni$ersall0 transissi%le ! in the 8ritin2s
o6 Saint!Just3 6or instan5e) /ut o%$iousl03 i6 one thin7s there 8as no
Re$olution3 then Virtue as a su%4e5ti$e disposition does not e:ist either and all
that reains is the Terror as an out%urst o6 insanit0 in$itin2 oral
5ondenation) @et e$en i6 politi5s disappears3 the uni$ersalit0 o6 the
ipli5ation that puts it into e66e5t reains)
There is no need to in$o7e a 5on6li5t o6 interpretations here) This is the nu% o6
0 si:th thesis9
D) THE UNIVERS.L IS UNIV*C.L
In so 6ar as su%4e5ti$ation o55urs throu2h the 5onse=uen5es o6 the e$ent3 there
is a uni$o5al lo2i5 proper to the 6idelit0 that 5onstitutes a uni$ersal sin2ularit0)
Here 8e ha$e to 2o %a57 to the e$ental stateent) Re5all that the stateent
5ir5ulates 8ithin a situation as soethin2 unde5ida%le) There is a2reeent
%oth a%out its e:isten5e and its unde5ida%ilit0) Fro an ontolo2i5al point o6
$ie83 it is one o6 the ultipli5ities o6 8hi5h the situation is 5oposed) Fro a
lo2i5al point o6 $ie83 its $alen5e is interediar0 or unde5ided) ?hat o55urs
throu2h the e$ent does not ha$e to do 8ith the %ein2 that is at sta7e in the
e$ent3 nor 8ith the eanin2 o6 the e$ental stateent) It pertains e:5lusi$el0 to
the 6a5t that3 8hereas pre$iousl0 the e$ental stateent had %een unde5id!a%le3
hen5e6orth it 8ill ha$e %een de5ided3 or de5ided as true) ?hereas pre$iousl0
the e$ental stateent had %een de$oid o6 si2ni6i5an5e3 it no8 possesses an
e:5eptional $alen5e) This is 8hat happened 8ith the ille2al ii2rant
8or7ers3 8ho deonstrated their e:isten5e at the St) /ernard 5hur5h)
In other 8ords3 8hat a66e5ts the stateent3 in so 6ar as the latter is %ound up in
an ipli5ati$e anner 8ith the e$ental disappearan5e3 is o6 the order o6 the
a5t3 rather than o6 %ein2 or eanin2) It is pre5isel0 the re2ister o6 the a5t that
is uni$o5al) It 4ust so happened that the stateent 8as de5ided3 and this
de5ision reains su%tra5ted 6ro all interpretation) It relates to the 0es or the
no3 not to the e=ui$o5al pluralit0 o6 eanin2)
?hat 8e are tal7in2 a%out here is a lo2i5al a5t3 or e$en3 as one i2ht sa0
e5hoin2 Ri%aud3 a lo2i5al re$olt) The e$ent de5ides in 6a$our o6 the truth or
einent $alen5e o6 that 8hi5h the pre$ious lo2i5 had 5on6ined to the real o6
the unde5ida%le or o6 non!$alen5e) /ut 6or this to %e possi%le3 the uni$o5al a5t
that odi6ies the $alen5e o6 one o6 the 5oponents o6 the situation ust
2raduall0 %e2in to trans6or the lo2i5 o6 the situation in its entiret0) .lthou2h
the %ein2!ultiple o6 the situation reains unaltered3 the lo2i5 o6 its
appearan5e ! the s0ste that e$aluates and 5onne5ts all the ultipli5ities
%elon2in2 to the situation ! 5an under2o a pro6ound trans6oration) It is the
tra4e5tor0 o6 this utation that 5oposes the en505lopedia's uni$ersali>in2
dia2onal)
The thesis o6 the e=ui$o5it0 o6 the uni$ersal re6ers the uni$ersal sin2ularit0
%a57 to those 2eneralities 8hose la8 holds s8a0 o$er parti5ularities) It 6ails to
2rasp the lo2i5al a5t that uni$ersall0 and uni$o5all0 inau2urates a
trans6oration in the entire stru5ture o6 appearan5e)
For e$er0 uni$ersal sin2ularit0 5an %e de6ined as 6ollo8s9 it is the a5t to 8hi5h
a su%4e5t!thou2ht %e5oes %ound in su5h a 8a0 as to render that a5t 5apa%le
o6 initiatin2 a pro5edure 8hi5h e66e5ts a radi5al odi6i5ation o6 the lo2i5 o6
the situation3 and hen5e o6 8hat appears in so 6ar as it appears) *%$iousl03 this
odi6i5ation 5an ne$er %e 6ull0 a55oplished) For the initial uni$o5al a5t3
8hi5h is al8a0s lo5ali>ed3 inau2urates a 6idelit03 i)e) an in$ention o6
5onse=uen5es3 that 8ill pro$e to %e as in6inite as the situation itsel6) ?hen5e
thesis C9
C) EVER@ UNIVERS.L SIN+UL.RIT@ RE,.INS INC*,PLET./LE
*R *PEN
.ll this thesis re=uires %0 8a0 o6 5oentar0 5on5erns the anner in 8hi5h
the su%4e5t3 the lo5ali>ation o6 a uni$ersal sin2ularit03 is %ound up 8ith the
in6inite3 the ontolo2i5al la8 o6 %ein2!ultiple) *n this parti5ular issue3 it is
possi%le to sho8 that there is an essential 5opli5it0 %et8een the philosophies
o6 6initude3 on the one hand3 and relati$is3 or the ne2ation o6 the uni$ersal
and the dis5reditin2 o6 the notion o6 truth3 on the other) Let e put it in ters
o6 a sin2le a:i9 The latent $iolen5e3 the presuptuous arro2an5e inherent
in the 5urrentl0 pre$alent 5on5eption o6 huan ri2hts deri$es 6ro the 6a5t
that these are a5tuall0 the ri2hts o6 6initude and ultiatel0 ! as the insistent
thee o6 deo5rati5 euthanasia indi5ates ! the ri2hts o6 death) /0 8a0 o6
5ontrast3 the e$ental 5on5eption o6 uni$ersal sin2ularities3 as Jean!Fran5ois
L0otard rear7ed in The Differend3 re=uires that huan ri2hts %e thou2ht o6
as the ri2hts o6 the in6inite)
E) UNIVERS.LIT@ IS N*THIN+ *THER TH.N THE F.ITHFUL
C*NSTRUCTI*N *F .N INFINITE +ENERIC ,ULTIPLE
?hat do I ean %0 2eneri5 ultipli5it0F Kuite sipl03 a su%set o6 the
situation that is not deterined %0 an0 o6 the predi5ates o6 en505lopedi5
7no8led2eA that is to sa03 a ultiple su5h that to %elon2 to it3 to %e one o6 its
eleents3 5annot %e the result o6 ha$in2 an identit03 o6 possessin2 an0
parti5ular propert0) I6 the uni$ersal is 6or e$er0one3 this is in the pre5ise sense
that to %e ins5ri%ed 8ithin it is not a atter o6 possessin2 an0 parti5ular
deterination) This is the 5ase 8ith politi5al 2atherin2s3 8hose uni$ersalit0
6ollo8s 6ro their indi66eren5e to so5ial3 national3 se:ual or 2enerational
ori2inA 8ith the aorous 5ouple3 8hi5h is uni$ersal %e5ause it produ5es an
undi$ided truth a%out the di66eren5e %et8een se:uated positionsA 8ith
s5ienti6i5 theor03 8hi5h is uni$ersal to the e:tent that it reo$es e$er0 tra5e o6
its pro$enan5e in its ela%orationA or 8ith artisti5 5on6i2urations 8hose su%4e5ts
are 8or7s3 and in 8hi5h3 as ,allare rear7ed3 the parti5ularit0 o6 the author
has %een a%olished3 so u5h so that in e:eplar0 inau2ural 5on6i2urations3
su5h as The Iliad and The Odyssey3 the proper nae that underlies the !
Hoer ! ultiatel0 re6ers %a57 to nothin2 %ut the $oid o6 an0 and e$er0
su%4e5t)
Thus the uni$ersal arises a55ordin2 to the 5han5e o6 an aleator0 suppleent) It
lea$es %ehind it a siple deta5hed stateent as a tra5e o6 the dis!appearan5e
o6 the e$ent that 6ounds it) It initiates its pro5edure in the uni$o5al a5t throu2h
8hi5h the $alen5e o6 8hat 8as de$oid o6 $alen5e 5oes to %e de5ided) It
%inds to this a5t a su%4e5t!thou2ht that 8ill in$ent 5onse=uen5es 6or it) It
6aith6ull0 5onstru5ts an in6inite 2eneri5 ultipli5it03 8hi5h3 %0 its $er0
openin23 is 8hat Thu50dides de5lared his 8ritten histor0 o6 the Peloponnesian
8ar ! unli7e the latter's histori5al parti5ularit0 ! 8ould %e9
3 1soethin2 6or all tie1)