Abstract
The shortest possible definition of theory might read “an eye-opening affair with someone beyond our familiar world”. The Greek word theōrós designated a special envoy of community sent to the inter-communal religious ceremonies to request the divine wisdom and transfer it, with tranquilizing effects, back to community members disquieted by an unexpected occurrence. It is this regained essence of community life, discerned from an authorized distance, that Aristotle dubs the truth. Yet theory was since its Greek origins constantly confronted with misunderstandings of its aspiration to truth. It is as if the theorist’s “adultery with the foreigners”, which enabled such an aspiration to begin with, simultaneously prevented its acknowledgment arousing suspicion. To defy such a mistrust of community’s “simple minds” and foster the necessary consensus for its supposedly divine contemplation, theory was forced to make its sublime vision of the truth available to a broad spectatorship. Due to such a brute exposure to the mob prejudice that was to be exposed itself, theory, instead of providing a privileged personal insight into the divine truth, became a public performance dependent on the confirmation in the earthly gaze. Without ever being able to completely assimilate this benighted peasant or philistine gaze into the illuminating divine truth provided by “adultery” but remaining dependent on the crowd’s uncertain approval, theory was, despite its insistent efforts to deactivate the community’s ignorant self-evidence, constantly threatened to reaffirm it. The suspicion follows “adultery” like a shadow.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Apter, E. (1995). Comparative exile: Competing margins in the history of comparative literature. In C. Bernheimer (Ed.), Comparative literature in the age of multiculturalism (pp. 86–97). Baltimore, London: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Apter, E. (2006). The translation zone. A new comparative literature. Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Arendt, H. (1992). Lectures on Kant's political philosophy. R. Beiner (Ed.). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Blumenberg, H. (1987). Das Lachen der Thrakerin: Eine Urgeschichte der Theorie. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.
Eze, E. C. (1995). “The color of reason: The idea of “race” in Kant's anthropology”. In K. M. Faull (Ed.), Anthropology and the German enlightenment: Perspectives on humanity (pp. 200–241). Lewisburg, London: Bucknell University Press.
Fink, G.-L. (1993). “Kosmopolitismus—Patriotismus—Xenophobie: Eine französisch-deutsche Debatte im Revolutionsjahrzehnt 1789–1799”. In O. Gutjahr, W. Kühlmann, & W. Wucherpfennig (Eds.), Gesellige Vernunft: Zur Kultur der literarischen Aufklärung (pp. 23–42). Königshausen & Neumann: Würzburg.
Gasché, R. (2007). The honor of thinking: Critique, theory, philosophy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Gasché, R. (2009). Europe or the infinite task: A study of a philosophical concept. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Goethe, J.W. (1887–1912). Goethes Werke. Edition commissioned by Archduke Sophie von Sachsen (Vols. 50). Weimar: Böhlau.
Goethe, J.W. (1986–1999). Sämtliche Werke. Briefe, Tagebücher und Gespräche (Vols. 40). F. Apel, H. Birus et al. (Eds.). Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp-Insel.
Goethe, J.W. (1987). Schriften zur Weltliteratur. H. Günther (Ed.). Frankfurt/M.: Fischer.
Herder, J.G. (1991). “Briefe zu Beförderung der Humanität”. In M. Bolacher et al. (Ed.), Werke in zehn Bänden (Vol. 7) (H. D. Irmscher Ed.). Frankfurt/M.: Deutscher Klassiker.
Kant, I. (1956). Critique of practical reason (L. W. Beck Trans.). Indianapolis: Bobs Merrill Company.
Kant, I. (1997). “Physical geography”. In E. C. Eze (Ed.), Race and the enlightenment (pp. 58–65). Oxford, Cambridge, MA: Wiley.
Kant, I. (2006). Political writings (H. S. Reiss, Ed., H. B. Nisbet, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kant, I. (2006). Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view (Ed. & Trans. R. B. Louden). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Koch, M. (2002). Weimarer Weltbewohner: Zur Genese von Goethes Begriff ‘Weltliteratur’. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Lyotard, J.-F. (1991). “Sensus communis”. In E. Cadava, et al. (Eds.), Who comes after the subject? New York, London: Taylor & Francis.
Mayer, H. (1975). Außenseiter. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.
Meyer-Kalkus, R. (2010). “World literature beyond Goethe”. In S. Greenblatt, et al. (Eds.), Cultural mobility: A manifesto (pp. 96–121). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mignolo, W. D. (2000). “The many faces of Cosmo-polis: Border thinking and critical Cosmopolitanism”. Public Culture, 3(12), 721–748.
Novalis von Hardenberg, F. (1983). Schriften: Die Werke Friedrich von Hardenbergs (Vol. 3). P. Kluckhohn & R. Samuel (Eds.). Das philosophische Werk 2. R. Samuel, H.-J. Mähl & G. Schulz (Eds.). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Patočka, J. (1990). Liberté et sacrifice (E. Abrams, Trans.). Grenoble: Millon.
Rabaté, J.-M. (2002). The future of theory. Oxford: Wiley.
Rausch, H. (1982). Theoria: Von ihrer sakralen zur philosophischen Bedeutung. Munich: Fink.
Said, E. (1993). Culture and imperialism. New York: Vintage.
Schiller, F. (1991). “‘Ankündigung’ zu Die Horen” (1794). Vermischte Schriften. M. Herbert (Ed.). Werke. Nationalausgabe (Vol. 22). P. Julius & S. Hermann (Eds.). Weimar: Böhlau, pp. 106–109.
Schlegel, A. W. (1965). “Geschichte der romantischen Literatur”. In E. Lohner (Ed.), Kritische Schriften und Briefe (Vol. 4). Stuttgart: Lohner.
Schlegel, A. W. (1966). “Vorlesungen über dramatische Kunst und Literatur”. In E. Lohner (Ed.), Kritische Schriften und Briefe (Vol. 1). Stuttgart: Lohner.
Taminiaux, J. (1998). The Thracian maid and the professional thinker: Arendt and Heidegger (M. Gendre, Trans.). New York: Suny.
Tihanov, G. (2004). “The birth of modern literary theory in East-Central Europe”. In M. Cornis-Pope & J. Neubauer (Eds.), History of the literary cultures of East-Central Europe. Junctures and disjunctures in the 19th and 20th centuries (Vol. 1, pp. 416–424). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Biti, V. The “adulterous” theory. Neohelicon 40, 11–21 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11059-013-0168-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11059-013-0168-y