Skip to main content
Log in

The “adulterous” theory

On the adventurous character of theoretical truth

  • Published:
Neohelicon Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gasché, R. (2007). The honor of thinking: Critique, theory, philosophy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gasché, R. (2009). Europe or the infinite task: A study of a philosophical concept. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lyotard, J.-F. (1991). “Sensus communis”. In E. Cadava, et al. (Eds.), Who comes after the subject? New York, London: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, H. (1975). Außenseiter. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mignolo, W. D. (2000). “The many faces of Cosmo-polis: Border thinking and critical Cosmopolitanism”. Public Culture, 3(12), 721–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rausch, H. (1982). Theoria: Von ihrer sakralen zur philosophischen Bedeutung. Munich: Fink.

    Google Scholar 

  • Said, E. (1993). Culture and imperialism. New York: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlegel, A. W. (1966). “Vorlesungen über dramatische Kunst und Literatur”. In E. Lohner (Ed.), Kritische Schriften und Briefe (Vol. 1). Stuttgart: Lohner.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vladimir Biti.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11059-013-0168-y

Keywords

Navigation