{"title":"在黑暗中摸索","authors":"Jan Ifversen, Christoffer Kølvraa","doi":"10.3167/choc.2023.180101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nWhile Reinhart Koselleck articulated the limits of conceptual history in relation to social history, and the limits of historiographical understanding in his discussion of the event, his thinking about the limits of the conceptual as such is harder to trace. However, a close reading of key texts where he discusses situations or events marked as “meaningless” or absurd, allows us to uncover both his ethics and analytics of the limit of meaning, of what we call “the ungraspable.” It is further argued that Koselleck's conceptual mapping of European modernity can be fruitfully extended by bringing it into contact with the ideas of thinkers such as Michel De Certeau, Edourd Glissant, and Francis Affergan who have contemplated how especially “the colonial” both represents the outside to and is the site from which the limit of European modernity and its conceptual universe might be (re)thought.","PeriodicalId":42746,"journal":{"name":"Contributions to the History of Concepts","volume":"57 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Groping in the Dark\",\"authors\":\"Jan Ifversen, Christoffer Kølvraa\",\"doi\":\"10.3167/choc.2023.180101\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nWhile Reinhart Koselleck articulated the limits of conceptual history in relation to social history, and the limits of historiographical understanding in his discussion of the event, his thinking about the limits of the conceptual as such is harder to trace. However, a close reading of key texts where he discusses situations or events marked as “meaningless” or absurd, allows us to uncover both his ethics and analytics of the limit of meaning, of what we call “the ungraspable.” It is further argued that Koselleck's conceptual mapping of European modernity can be fruitfully extended by bringing it into contact with the ideas of thinkers such as Michel De Certeau, Edourd Glissant, and Francis Affergan who have contemplated how especially “the colonial” both represents the outside to and is the site from which the limit of European modernity and its conceptual universe might be (re)thought.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42746,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contributions to the History of Concepts\",\"volume\":\"57 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contributions to the History of Concepts\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3167/choc.2023.180101\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contributions to the History of Concepts","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3167/choc.2023.180101","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
虽然莱因哈特·科塞莱克(Reinhart Koselleck)在与社会史的关系中阐明了概念史的局限性,在他对事件的讨论中阐明了史学理解的局限性,但他对概念史局限性的思考却很难追踪。然而,仔细阅读他讨论被标记为“无意义”或荒谬的情况或事件的关键文本,可以让我们发现他对意义限制的伦理和分析,我们称之为“不可理解的”。进一步认为,科塞莱克对欧洲现代性的概念映射可以通过与Michel De Certeau、Edourd Glissant和Francis Affergan等思想家的思想接触而得到富有成效的扩展,这些思想家思考了“殖民地”如何既代表了欧洲现代性的外部,又代表了欧洲现代性及其概念宇宙的限制可能被(重新)思考的场所。
While Reinhart Koselleck articulated the limits of conceptual history in relation to social history, and the limits of historiographical understanding in his discussion of the event, his thinking about the limits of the conceptual as such is harder to trace. However, a close reading of key texts where he discusses situations or events marked as “meaningless” or absurd, allows us to uncover both his ethics and analytics of the limit of meaning, of what we call “the ungraspable.” It is further argued that Koselleck's conceptual mapping of European modernity can be fruitfully extended by bringing it into contact with the ideas of thinkers such as Michel De Certeau, Edourd Glissant, and Francis Affergan who have contemplated how especially “the colonial” both represents the outside to and is the site from which the limit of European modernity and its conceptual universe might be (re)thought.