Professional Documents
Culture Documents
AGAMBEN-the Idea of Language PDF
AGAMBEN-the Idea of Language PDF
that the revelation of God is his name. When Saint Paul wants to ex
plain to the Colossians the economy of divine revelation, he writes:"...
to fulfill the word of God, even the mystery which hath been hid from
ages and from generations, but is now made manifest to his saints"
(Col.1, 26-27). In these lines, "the mystery" is in apposition to "the word
of God" (6 Xoyoq xou sou). The mystery that was hidden and is now
revealed does not concern this or that natural or supernatural event,
but simply the word of God.
So if the theological tradition has always understood revelation as
something human reason cannot know on its own, this means only that
the content of revelation is not a truth that can be expressed in the form
of linguistic propositions regarding that which exists (even if a su
preme being), but is rather a truth that concerns language itself: the
very fact that language (and hence knowledge) exists. The meaning of
revelation is that man can reveal what exists through language, but
cannot reveal language itself. In other words, man sees the world
through language, but does not see language. This invisibility of the re
vealing in what it reveals is the word of God, it is revelation.
Therefore theologians say that the revelation of God is at the same
time his concealment or, further, that in the word God is revealed in his
very incomprehensibility. It is not simply a matter of a negative deter
mination or of a lack of knowledge, but of an essential determination of
divine revelation, which a theologian has expressed in these terms: "su
preme visibility in the deepest obscurity" and "revelation of something
unknowable." Once again, this simply means, what is here revealed is
not an object about which there would be much to be known, but that
cannot be known for lack of adequate instruments of knowledge. What
is revealed here is the unveiling itself, the very fact that knowledge
and the opening of a world exist.
In this horizon, the construction of trinitarian theology seems to be
the most rigorous and coherent attempt to conceive the paradox of that
primordial statute of the word that the prologue of the Gospel according
to John expresses by saying: tv Ctpxtl T\v 6 Xovoq , In the beginning
was the Word. The unitrinitarian movement of God that has become
familiar to us through the Nicaean symbol {Credo in unum Dominum
Iesum Christum filium dei unigenitum et ex patre natum ante omnia
saecula, Deum de Deo, lumen de lumine ... genitum non factum, con-
substantialem Patri ...") says nothing about worldly reality, has no
ontic content, but takes into account the new experience of the word
which Christianity has brought to the world. To use Wittgenstein's
terms, the symbol says nothing about how the world is, but reveals that
the world is, that there is language. The word, which is absolutely in
142
AGAMBEN/THE IDEA OF LANGUAGE
It is from this point of view that we must take a look at the locus clas-
sicus wherein the problem of the relationship between revelation and
reason has been debated: namely, the ontological argument of Anselm.
For, as many promptly pointed out to him, it is not true that the mere
uttering of the name God, of quid maius cogitari nequit, necessarily im
plies the existence of God. Yet a being whose mere linguistic naming
implies existence does exist, and this being is language. The fact that I
speak and someone listens does not imply the existence of anything
except of language. Language is that which must necessarily presup
pose itself. What the ontological argument proves, therefore, is that if
men speak, if there are reasoning animals, then there is a divine word.
Which means simply that the signifying function always pre-exists.
(Provided that God is the name of the pre-existence of language, of its
dwelling in the arche then, and only then, does the ontological argu
ment prove the existence of God.) But this pre-existence, contrary to
what Anselm thought, does not belong to the realm of significant
speech; it is not a proposition endowed with meaning, but a pure event
of language before or beyond all particular meaning. In this light, it is
useful to reread the objection that a great but little-known logician of
the eleventh century, Gaunilo, opposes to Anselm's argument. When
Anselm declared that the uttering of the word God necessarily implies
for the person who understands it the existence of God, Guanilo posited,
in objection, the experience of an ignoramus (an idiot, as he says) or a
143
GRADUATE FACULTY PHILOSOPHY JOURNAL
the voice itself, that is, the sound of the syllables and of the letters,
which is a thing somehow true, so much as he thinks of the meaning of
the heard voice; and not as it is conceived of by those who know what
is usually signified by that voice (and who conceived of it, therefore,
according to the thing [secundum rem]); but rather, he thinks of it as
it is thought of by those who do not know the meaning and who think
only according to the movement of the mind that tries to represent to
itself the effect and the meaning of the heard voice.
The perception no more of a mere sound but not yet of a meaning, this
"thought of the voice alone" (cogitatio secundum vocem solam, as
Gaunilo calls it) opens up a primeval logical dimension that, denoting
the pure "taking place" of language, without any specific event of
meaning, shows that there is still a possibility of thought beyond sig
nifying propositions. The most original logical dimension that is in
volved in revelation is not, therefore, that of the signifying word, but
that of a voice which, without signifying anything, signifies signifi
cance itself. (This is the sense of theories like that of Roscellinus, of
whom it was said that he had discovered "the meaning of the voice" and
had affirmed that the universal essences were only flatus vocis. Here
flatus vocis is not the simple sound, but in the sense explained above,
the voice as a pure indication of an event of language. And this voice
coincides with the most universal dimension of meaning, with being.)
This endowment of a voice for language is God; is the divine word. The
name of God, that is, the name that names language, is hence (as the
mystical tradition has never tired of repeating) a meaningless word.
In the terms of contemporary logic, we could then say that revelation
means that, if such a thing as a metalanguage exists, it is not a signify
ing statement, but a pure non-signifying voice. That there is language
is equally certain and incomprehensible, and this incomprehensibility
and this certainty constitute faith and revelation.
says, says above all language itself. (Hence the proximity, but also the
separation, between philosophy and theology, a link at least as old as
the Aristotelian definition of first philosophy as 9eo\oyiKr|, theologi
cal.)
All of this could also be expressed by saying that philosophy is not a
view of the world, but a view of language, and, in fact, contemporary
thought has followed this path with all too much enthusiasm. However,
a difficulty arises here from the fact that (as is implicit in Gaunilo's def
inition of voice) a philosophical exposition cannot be simply a discourse
that has language as its subject, a metalanguage that speaks of lan
guage. The voice says nothing, but shows itself precisely as logical
form, according to Wittgenstein, and therefore cannot become the sub
ject of discourse. Philosophy can lead thought only to the boundaries of
the voice: it cannot say the voice (or at least, so it seems).
Contemporary thought is resolutely aware of the fact that an ul
timate and absolute metalanguage does not exist and that any con
struction of a metalanguage remains trapped in a regression to infin
ity. All the same, the paradox of philosophy's intention is precisely that
of an utterance that would speak of language and show its limits with
out having a metalanguage at its disposal. In this way, philosophy
comes up against what is represented as the essential content of revela
tion (and, perhaps, also of poetry): logos en arche, the word is absolutely
in the beginning, it is the absolute premise, or, as Mallarme once wrote,
"the word is the beginning developed through the negation of every be
ginning." And it is against this dwelling of the word in the beginning
that a logic and a philosophy (as well as a poetry) aware of their tasks
must always again be measured.
145
GRADUATE FACULTY PHILOSOPHY JOURNAL
146
AGAMBEN/THE IDEA OF LANGUAGE
148
AGAMBEN/THE IDEA OF LANGUAGE
149
A.