Breaking Bridges in Gadamer's Ontology: Considering the Late Use of Energeia with the Concepts of Play and Organism

Hanifi Laçin

Makale detayları

Breaking Bridges in Gadamer's Ontology: Considering the Late Use of Energeia with the Concepts of Play and Organism

Yazarlar:

Hanifi Laçin

Yayıncı:

Marmara University

Ana Başlıklar:

Sistematik Felsefe (Diğer)

Dergi:

Marmara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.66 Issue 66, pp.101-121

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001321688

pISSN:

1302-4973

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 Although it is considered that Gadamer has rectified some points in his journey of thought, it is acknowledged that there is a continuity in his general philosophical adventure. There is no statement by him that there is a rupture in his ontology and thought. Nevertheless, in the voluminous work written in the early period, he constructs his ontology of art on the basis of play, while in a later article he constructs his ontology on the basis of the Aristotelian concepts of energeia and the related concept of pure energeia. The goal of this article is to check out whether this change actually makes sense. If there is a essential difference between the ontology of the two works, and if this can be shown, it can be argued that there is a disconnection or inconsistency between the early and late period of Gadamers philosophy. In the investigation in this article, both works are read reciprocatively and it is concluded that there is a disharmony between the conceptual frameworks of the works, moreover, the concepts of play and energeia-pure energeia as used by Gadamer cannot be parts of the same ontology. The disagreement of the concept of play with energeia proceed from the fact that the concept of play necessarily implies a distinction between original-representation, essence-appearance. On the other side, the organism is considered to transcend these distinctions  even though in different ways in Gadamer and Hegel - and to have a much closer relationship with the concept of energeia. Therefore, another aim of the article is to show that there is no problem of harmony between the concepts of energeia and organism unlike the relationship between play and energeia, and that substantially nature and art can be thought together. This links Gadamers use of energeia to the debate of the organism, which began with Kant in the modern period and is placed in a much more fundamental context in Hegel. As a result, in certain ways Gadamer became closer to Hegel in his last period than ever before, even though they still disagreed on some fundamental issues. In short, it is possible to say that a disconnect or contradiction can be seen in Gadamers ontology, and that energeia is a concept that is much closer to the concept of organism rather than play.

 Although it is considered that Gadamer has rectified some points in his journey of thought, it is acknowledged that there is a continuity in his general philosophical adventure. There is no statement by him that there is a rupture in his ontology and thought. Nevertheless, in the voluminous work written in the early period, he constructs his ontology of art on the basis of play, while in a later article he constructs his ontology on the basis of the Aristotelian concepts of energeia and the related concept of pure energeia. The goal of this article is to check out whether this change actually makes sense. If there is a essential difference between the ontology of the two works, and if this can be shown, it can be argued that there is a disconnection or inconsistency between the early and late period of Gadamers philosophy. In the investigation in this article, both works are read reciprocatively and it is concluded that there is a disharmony between the conceptual frameworks of the works, moreover, the concepts of play and energeia-pure energeia as used by Gadamer cannot be parts of the same ontology. The disagreement of the concept of play with energeia proceed from the fact that the concept of play necessarily implies a distinction between original-representation, essence-appearance. On the other side, the organism is considered to transcend these distinctions  even though in different ways in Gadamer and Hegel - and to have a much closer relationship with the concept of energeia. Therefore, another aim of the article is to show that there is no problem of harmony between the concepts of energeia and organism unlike the relationship between play and energeia, and that substantially nature and art can be thought together. This links Gadamers use of energeia to the debate of the organism, which began with Kant in the modern period and is placed in a much more fundamental context in Hegel. As a result, in certain ways Gadamer became closer to Hegel in his last period than ever before, even though they still disagreed on some fundamental issues. In short, it is possible to say that a disconnect or contradiction can be seen in Gadamers ontology, and that energeia is a concept that is much closer to the concept of organism rather than play.

 Although it is considered that Gadamer has rectified some points in his journey of thought, it is acknowledged that there is a continuity in his general philosophical adventure. There is no statement by him that there is a rupture in his ontology and thought. Nevertheless, in the voluminous work written in the early period, he constructs his ontology of art on the basis of play, while in a later article he constructs his ontology on the basis of the Aristotelian concepts of energeia and the related concept of pure energeia. The goal of this article is to check out whether this change actually makes sense. If there is a essential difference between the ontology of the two works, and if this can be shown, it can be argued that there is a disconnection or inconsistency between the early and late period of Gadamers philosophy. In the investigation in this article, both works are read reciprocatively and it is concluded that there is a disharmony between the conceptual frameworks of the works, moreover, the concepts of play and energeia-pure energeia as used by Gadamer cannot be parts of the same ontology. The disagreement of the concept of play with energeia proceed from the fact that the concept of play necessarily implies a distinction between original-representation, essence-appearance. On the other side, the organism is considered to transcend these distinctions  even though in different ways in Gadamer and Hegel - and to have a much closer relationship with the concept of energeia. Therefore, another aim of the article is to show that there is no problem of harmony between the concepts of energeia and organism unlike the relationship between play and energeia, and that substantially nature and art can be thought together. This links Gadamers use of energeia to the debate of the organism, which began with Kant in the modern period and is placed in a much more fundamental context in Hegel. As a result, in certain ways Gadamer became closer to Hegel in his last period than ever before, even though they still disagreed on some fundamental issues. In short, it is possible to say that a disconnect or contradiction can be seen in Gadamers ontology, and that energeia is a concept that is much closer to the concept of organism rather than play.

 Gadamerin düşünce yolculuğunda bazı noktaları tashih yoluna gittiği düşünülse de genel felsefi serüveninde bir süreklilik olduğu kabul edilir. Kendisinin de bizzat düşüncesindeontolojisinde kırılma olduğuna yönelik bir ifadesi bulunmamaktadır. Bununla birlikte farklı tarihlerde yazılmış metinlerden erken dönemde kaleme alınmış olan hacimli eserinde sanat ontolojisini oyun, geç dönemde yayınlanan bir makalesinde ise Aristotelesçi kavramlar olan energeia ve bu kavramla ilişkili saf energeia kavramından hareketle kurmaktadır. Bu makalenin amacı bu değişikliğin gerçekten bir anlamının olup olmadığını soruşturmaktır. Şayet iki eserin ontolojisi arasında köklü bir fark varsa ve bu gösterilebilirse Gadamer felsefesinin erken dönemi ve geç dönemi arasında bir kopukluk ya da tutarsızlık olduğu söylenebilir. Bu makaledeki soruşturmada her iki eser karşılıklı okunarak eserlerin kavramsal çerçevesi arasında uyumsuzluk olduğu, bunun da ötesinde Gadamerin kullandığı haliyle oyun ve energeia-saf energeia kavramlarının aynı ontolojinin parçaları olamayacağı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Oyun kavramının energeiayla uygunsuzluğu oyun kavramının zorunlu olarak asıl-temsil, öz-görünüş arasında bir ayrıma gitmeyi zorunlu kılmasından kaynaklanmaktadır. Buna mukabil organizmanın bu ayrımları -Gadamer ve Hegelde farklı şekillerde de olsa- aşarak energeia kavramıyla çok daha yakın bir ilişkiye sahip olabileceği düşünülmektedir. Dolayısıyla makalenin bir diğer gayesi de energeia ve organizma kavramları arasında oyun ve energeiada olduğu gibi bir ahenk probleminin olmadığını, doğa ve sanatın büyük ölçüde birlikte düşünülebileceğini göstermektir. Bu husus Gadamerin energeia kullanımını modern dönemde Kantla birlikte başlayan ve Hegelde çok daha asli bir çehreye bürünen organizma tartışmasına bağlar. Bunun bir sonucu olarak Gadamer bazı yönlerden son döneminde -bazı temel konularda hala anlaşamasalar da- Hegele hiç olmadığı kadar yakın hale gelir. Özetle, Gadamerin ontolojisinde bir kopukluğun ya da tutarsızlığın görülebileceğini, energeianın oyundan ziyade organizma kavramına çok daha yakın duran bir kavram olduğunu söylemek mümkündür.

Makale detayları

Breaking Bridges in Gadamer's Ontology: Considering the Late Use of Energeia with the Concepts of Play and Organism

Yazarlar:

Hanifi Laçin

Yayıncı:

Marmara University

Ana Başlıklar:

Sistematik Felsefe (Diğer)

Dergi:

Marmara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.66 Issue 66, pp.101-121

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001321688

pISSN:

1302-4973

Energeia

Play

Organism

Art

OntologyEnergeia

Oyun

Organizma

Sanat

Ontoloji.

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Hanifi Laçin

Yayıncı: Marmara University

Ana Başlıklar: Sistematik Felsefe (Diğer)

Dergi: Marmara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.66 Issue 66, pp.101-121

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 6/2024

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001321688

pISSN: 1302-4973

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Hanifi Laçin

Yayıncı:

Marmara University

Ana Başlıklar:

Sistematik Felsefe (Diğer)

Dergi:

Marmara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.66 Issue 66, pp.101-121

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001321688

pISSN:

1302-4973