Article contents
The Surveying of Hell. On Theatricality and Styles of Thinking
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 January 2009
Extract
In 1529 Agrippa von Nettesheim criticized the ‘futility and uncertainty’ of science. Indeed, the triumphant rise of European culture and science has always been accompanied by shadows of dissent. While, on the one hand, the rhapsodic shattering of reason was heavily criticized, on the other hand, equally sharp criticism was raised against the hermetic spirit of universal systems. The accepted authority of scientific knowledge was continually served a Lenten repast, and mighty edifices built on theory have bowed to the weight of doubt, crumbling into ruins of truths. The path which we call ‘progress’ is overlaid with traces of our own actions in the image of Sisyphus in Hades, who is condemned to push a huge boulder uphill. He is forever forced back to the beginning of his task, because of the perfidious nature of the stone.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © International Federation for Theatre Research 1995
References
Notes
1 Barthes, Roland, L'Aventure sémiologique (Paris: Seuil, 1985).Google Scholar
2 Galilei, Galileo, ‘Erste Lektion vor der florentinischen Akademie über die Gestalt, Lage und Größe von Dantes Hölle’ (Due Lezione all'Accademia Fiorentina circa la Figura, Sito e Grandezza dell'Inferno di Dante. Lezione prima), Galileo Galilei, Schriften, Briefe, Dokumente, ed. Anna, Mudry (Berlin, 1987), p. 50.Google Scholar
3 Ibid. p. 54.
4 A more elaborate description of this concept of theatricality can be found in Helmar Schramm, Carneval des Denkens. Studien zui Entfaltung theatralischer Perspektiven in philosophichen Texten des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts. Forthcoming.
5 Rusterholz, Peter, Theatrum vitae humanae (Berlin, 1970), p. 15.Google Scholar
6 Artaud, Antonin, ‘Fragments d'un journal d'enfer’, Œuvres complètes. Tome 1. Nouvelle édition revue et augmentee (Paris: Gallimard, 1975), pp. 133–44.Google Scholar
7 Derrida, Jacques, ‘Le Théâtre de la cruauté et la clôture de la representation’, L'Écriture et la différence (Paris: Seuil, 1967), pp. 341–68.Google Scholar
8 Ibid., p. 359.
9 Lyotard, Jean François, ‘La peinture comme dispositif libidinal’, Lyotard, J. F., Des dispositifs pulsionnels, (Paris, 1973), pp. 227–68.Google Scholar See also, in the same collection of essays, ‘La dent, la paume’, pp. 89–98, and ‘Plusieurs silences’, pp. 269–90.
10 Feuerbach, Ludwig, ‘Zur Kritik der Hegelischen Philosophie’ (first published in Hallesche Jahrbüchei füi deutsche Wissenschaft und Kunst, 1839), ed. W., Harich, W., Schufenhauer, Gesammelte Werke. Vol. 9, Kleinere Schriften II, (Berlin, 1970), p. 18.Google Scholar
11 Goff, Jacques Le, ‘L'Histoire nouvelle’, in La Nouvelle Histoire, ed. Jacques, Le Goff (Paris: Éditions complexes, 1988), pp. 35–76.Google Scholar
12 Kant, Immanuel, Kritik dei reinen Vernunft, ed. Raymund, Schmidt (Leipzig 1930), p. 24.Google Scholar
13 As Norbert Bolz put it in Die Welt als Chaos und Simulation. Munich 1992, p. 29.Google Scholar See also Bolz, , Eine Kurze Geschichte des Scheins (Munich 1991).Google Scholar
14 Fleck, Ludwik, Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv. (1935) eds. Lothar, Schäfer and Thomas, Schnelle (Frankfurt a.M., 1980).Google Scholar
15 Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structuie of Scientific Revolutions. (Chicago, 1962).Google Scholar
16 Ludwick Fleck, op. cit., p. 40.
17 Ibid., p. 61.
18 Ibid., p. 59.
19 Ibid., p. 127.
- 1
- Cited by