One of the forms of liberation, in the practice of philosophy, in which Nie- tzsche’s action has been effective is that of style. After Nietzsche, philosophical writing seems to have freed itself from the need for essayistic articulation, for the demonstration of unhurried arguments, moving towards short, aphoristic, fragmentary forms. During the Twentieth century, three authors seem to have taken this new articulation of thought and writing form literally: Nicolás Gómez Dávila, Emil Cioran, and Andrea Emo. These different authors, com- ing from very distant linguistic and cultural contexts, are united by two funda- mental aspects. The first: a way of undertaking philosophical writing as a soli- tary thought investigation, secluded from the great currents of public and aca- demic debates, recalling the private, existential, solitary dimension of philo- sophical reflection. The second: the need to employ the only form of writing suitable for this private and solitary dimension, i.e., a “short” writing form. This category is to be rethought, to the extent that the “brevity” of these au- thors’ writing is not based on an editorial contingency (the fragment), nor on a gender choice (the aphorism). It is a form of writing that exhibits its re- sistance to demonstrative development, which fixes the discontinuities of thought, and which claims broad areas of silence. It is by preserving these traits that authentic thinking is possible.
|Titolo:||Glosse al pensiero. Gómez Dávila, Cioran, Emo|
|Data di pubblicazione:||2020|
|Appare nelle tipologie:||01.01 Articolo in Rivista|