with his animal nature” (2004: 2-3). In effect, the righteous symbolize the end of the anthropological machine and its logic of inclusive exclusion; according to this violent machinating logic, speaking man places his own muteness outside himself, as “the already and not yet human,” and conserves the animal other in the heart of the human (35). Much of proceeds, then, as a critique of philosophies that assign The Open language to man over and against the animal. In its most accessible discussion, Agamben analyzes evolutionary theories of language and their anxiety over a stage of human evolution. In its most extended and complicated engagement, Agamben focuses on and The Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics Heidegger’s attempt to define the world-relation of humans and animals. According to Agamben, Heidegger’s Dasein retains an anthropological gesture, conserving, by suspending, a relation to captivation.” Agamben’s reading of Heidegger “animal elucidates his notion of infancy as a of suspension.” “suspension Because each involves the uncovering of an inclusive exclusion, Agamben’s critique of Heidegger is analogous to his critique of evolutionary theory. In the latter, he finds and follows an anxiety over the human being that cannot speak—the “ape-man.” Demonstrating the contradictions that the presents to Darwin’s readers, “ape-man” Agamben quotes evolutionary linguist Heymann Steinthal: We have invented a stage of man that precedes language. But of course this is only a fiction; for language is so necessary and natural for the human being, that without it man can neither truly exist nor be thought of as existing. Either man has language, or he simply is not. On the other hand—and this justifies the fiction—language nevertheless cannot be regarded as already inherent in the human soul it is a … stage of the soul’s development and requires a deduction from the preceding stages. But why the human soul alone builds this bridge, why man alone and not the animal progresses through language from animality to humanity[?] (Agamben, 2004: 36) According to Agamben (and in the admission of Steinthal several years later), evolutionary theory is unable to answer the question it poses itself regarding the relation between the animal and the That is, evolutionary theorists fail “animal-man.”
with his animal nature” (2004: 2-3). In effect, the righteous symbolize the end of the anthropological machine and its logic of inclusive exclusion; according to this violent machinating logic, “the speaking man places his own muteness outside himself, as already and not yet human,” and conserves the animal other in the heart of the human (35). Much of The Open proceeds, then, as a critique of philosophies that assign language to man over and against the animal. In its most accessible discussion, Agamben analyzes evolutionary theories of language and their anxiety over a stage of human evolution. In its most extended and complicated engagement, Agamben focuses on The Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics and Heidegger’s attempt to define the world-relation of humans and animals. According to Agamben, Heidegger’s Dasein retains an anthropological gesture, conserving, by suspending, a relation to “animal captivation.” Agamben’s reading of Heidegger elucidates his notion of infancy as a “suspension of suspension.” Because each involves the uncovering of an inclusive exclusion, Agamben’s critique of Heidegger is analogous to his critique of evolutionary theory. In the latter, he finds and follows an anxiety over the human being that cannot speak—the “ape-man.” Demonstrating the contradictions that the “ape-man” presents to Darwin’s readers, Agamben quotes evolutionary linguist Heymann Steinthal: We have invented a stage of man that precedes language. But of course this is only a fiction; for language is so necessary and natural for the human being, that without it man can neither truly exist nor be thought of as existing. Either man has language, or he simply is not. On the other hand—and this justifies the fiction—language nevertheless cannot be regarded as already inherent in the human soul … it is a stage of the soul’s development and requires a deduction from the preceding stages. But why the human soul alone builds this bridge, why man alone and not the animal progresses through language from animality to humanity[?] (Agamben, 2004: 36) According to Agamben (and in the admission of Steinthal several years later), evolutionary theory is unable to answer the question it poses itself regarding the relation between the animal and the “animal-man.” That is, evolutionary theorists fail
JCAS-2011-Vol-X1-Issue-1-2Continental-Philosophical-Perspectives-complete-11.docx