![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/yalpertem.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/04\/jean-luc-nancy-ozgurluk-deneyimi.jpg?resize=250%2C392\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
”<\/p>\n
Bu \u00f6teki d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce ile y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc olan kimdir? \u0130\u015flemcisi, memuru ya da “uzman\u0131” olan kimse yoktur. Her d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncede bu \u00f6teki d\u00fc\u00ad\u015f\u00fcnce d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcr -ve bu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceyi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcr, yani onu tartar, onu dener, onu \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn s\u0131nav\u0131na sokar. “Her d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncede” d\u00fc\u015f\u00fc\u00adn\u00fcr: bu, bir matematik d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesinde bir oyun olabilir, ya da bir politika, teknik, g\u00fcndelik ya\u015fam vs d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesinde bir oyun. Bu, birini d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcrken, “hi\u00e7bir \u015fey d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmez”ken, karar verme kayg\u0131\u00ads\u0131ndayken, ya da ac\u0131n\u0131n s\u0131k\u0131nt\u0131s\u0131 i\u00e7indeyken, ya da zorunlulu\u011fun zorluklar\u0131 ya da tats\u0131zl\u0131klar\u0131 i\u00e7indeyken de olabilir, kavram olu\u015f\u00adtururken, derin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcrken, bir s\u00f6ylev d\u00fczenlerken de. Daha \u00f6nce s\u00f6ylemi\u015ftik: her t\u00fcrl\u00fc d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceyi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce olarak \u00f6zg\u00fcr\u00adle\u015ftiren \u00f6teki d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce, hi\u00e7bir tan\u0131ml\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce formu i\u00e7inde bulunmaz [se tient] -ve belki de her t\u00fcrl\u00fc d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin formsuz\u00adlu\u011fudur- ve bunun sonucu olarak “felsefe” olarak adland\u0131r\u0131lan \u015feyin i\u00e7inde de bulunmaz. Bir anlamda daha da fazlas\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6y\u00adlemek gerekir: “felsefe”yi ba\u015f\u0131m\u0131zdan att\u0131k \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc o zorunlulu\u011funun imparatorlu\u011funu \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn \u00fczerine kapatt\u0131 ve b\u00f6y\u00adlelikle \u00f6teki d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceden ya da d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncedeki \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckten ka\u00e7t\u0131. Felsefenin \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc bir sorun<\/em> olarak kurmas\u0131 b\u00f6yle oldu, oysa \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck her\u015fey olabilir ama bir “sorun” de\u011fil. D\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin i\u00e7in\u00adde d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceye hitap eden ve d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceyi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceye y\u00f6nelten \u015fey bir “sorun” te\u015fkil edemez”: o bir “olgu”dur, ya da bir “arma\u011fan”d\u0131r, ya da bir “g\u00f6rev”dir.<\/p>\n \u00d6yleyse neden felsefe -ya da nas\u0131l adland\u0131rmak isteniliyorsa? (Heidegger istedi\u011fi kadar bu ad\u0131n yerine “d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce” ad\u0131n\u0131 -ve hatta burada bizim s\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fcz\u00fc de y\u00f6neten en ala sebeplerden dolay\u0131 koymu\u015f olsun, bizim i\u00e7in yine de, b\u00f6yle bir ikame etmenin zorunlulu\u011funu ve olas\u0131 kay\u0131p ve kazan\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131 felsefeden itibaren belirlemi\u015f olan bir filozoftur<\/em> ve “felsefe” bizim i\u00e7in hala d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin en ele al\u0131namaz \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce olarak oyuna sokma olana\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6ndermektedir -en az\u0131ndan teknik ya da pratik olarak, ya da \u00f6rne\u011fin kurumsal olarak.) \u00d6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn felsefesi gerekli mi\u00addir? Ama daha \u00f6nce s\u00f6ylemi\u015ftik: bu oldu, felsefenin b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcnde ve b\u00fct\u00fcn felsefe olarak<\/em>. \u015eu s\u00f6ylenebilirdi: “\u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck” felsefe i\u00e7inde belirmi\u015f ve felsefenin kapan\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n tutsa\u011f\u0131 olarak kalm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r, t\u0131pk\u0131 bizzat \u0130deas\u0131’n\u0131n kendi has idealli\u011fi \u00fczerine katlanm\u0131\u015f oldu\u00ad\u011fu gibi -ve buna felsefenin kendini a\u015fmaya ya da ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmeye \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 yer de dahildir. Bu y\u00fczdendir ki, felsefe terkedilmedi\u011fi zamanlarda, felsefede \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck terkedilmi\u015ftir. O derece ki, bu\u00adg\u00fcn \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck \u00fczerine felsefi bir s\u00f6ylevde bulunmakta g\u00fcl\u00fcn\u00e7 ya da edepsizce bir yan vard\u0131r.<\/p>\n Nitekim \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckle hi\u00e7 bir al\u0131p verece\u011fi yoksa “felsefe”nin bir \u00f6nemi yoktur; ya da daha ziyade, “felsefe”, \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn \u0130dea’s\u0131n\u0131n anla\u015f\u0131l(ma)mas\u0131 olmak yerine \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck olgu<\/em>sunun kayda d\u00fc\u015f\u00fclmesi olmayacaksa, \u00f6nemsizdir. Oysa \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck, “o” bizim i\u00e7in \u00f6nemlidir. Arzulad\u0131\u011f\u0131m\u0131z ve keyfini s\u00fcrme hakk\u0131na sahip oldu\u00ad\u011fumuz bir mal<\/em> oldu\u011fu i\u00e7in de\u011fil, \u00f6teden beri kendimizi onunla tan\u0131mlad\u0131\u011f\u0131m\u0131z ve ona yazg\u0131lad\u0131\u011f\u0131m\u0131z i\u00e7in. \u00d6teden beri: yani Bat\u0131’\u00adn\u0131n kurulu\u015fundan, yani demektir ki felsefenin kurulu\u015fundan bu yana.<\/p>\n Bizim bat\u0131l\u0131 felsefi kurulu\u015fumuz -her ne kadar \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn temeli ve temel olarak \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck felsefenin eline s\u0131\u011fm\u0131yor olsalar da (ve belki de \u00f6zellikle bundan dolay\u0131)- ayn\u0131 zamanda bizim \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckte kurulu\u015fumuzdur.<\/p>\n \u0130mdi, felsefe daima “felsefe”den, yani genel anlamda temel\u00adlendirmenin disiplini olarak kavramlar\u0131n kat\u0131ks\u0131z disiplininden daha fazla ve ba\u015fka bir \u015feyi imlemi\u015f, ya da en az\u0131ndan i\u015faret etmi\u015ftir. (“Varl\u0131k d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesi” ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 bile \u00f6ncelikle<\/em> bir kavram\u0131n incelemeye al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131 ve bu kavram\u0131n temel ile ili\u015fkisinin sistemli olarak sorgulanmas\u0131n\u0131 tarif eder.) Nitekim kavramlar\u0131n kat\u0131ks\u0131z disiplini diye bir \u015feyin fikrinin var olmas\u0131n\u0131n tek nedeni, bizzat kavram\u0131n d\u00fczeninin, k\u00f6keni ve \u00f6z\u00fc gere\u011fi, \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck unsuruna ait oldu\u011funun \u00f6n-anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n -felsefenin zorunlu olarak kendini \u00f6nceledi\u011fi ve kendi d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131 yer olan bir t\u00fcr mutlak \u00f6nko\u015ful sayesinde- var olmas\u0131d\u0131r. Kavram\u0131n kendisi pekala temsili soyut\u00adlama olarak g\u00f6r\u00fcnebilir: ama kavram\u0131n kavram\u0131, e\u011fer b\u00f6yle s\u00f6yle\u00adnebilirse, temsilin kendisine -ve hem temelin temsiline hem de temsilin temeline: yani varolu\u015f<\/em> uyar\u0131nca olma tarz\u0131, ya da bir d\u00fcnyas\u0131 olman\u0131n \u00f6zg\u00fcr olanakl\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 olarak, ya da bir d\u00fcnyaya haz\u0131r olma niteli\u011fi olarak (isterse bu d\u00fcnya, felsefede oldu\u011fu gibi, yaln\u0131zca bir temsil d\u00fcnyas\u0131 olsun)- eri\u015fimi var k\u0131lan \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckten ba\u015fka bir \u015fey olamaz. \u00d6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn olgusall\u0131\u011f\u0131 –bu<\/em> ayn\u0131 zamanda d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin de olgusudur. Ve \u00f6yleyse “insan”\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceyle tan\u0131m\u00adlamam\u0131z olgusunda -felsefeyi a\u00e7an ve dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ayn\u0131 zamanda onu \u00f6nceleyen olgu- da mevcuttur: yani insan\u0131 bir evrensel d\u00fc\u00adzenin par\u00e7as\u0131 olarak de\u011fil, Tanr\u0131’n\u0131n yarat\u0131s\u0131 ya da miras\u00e7\u0131s\u0131 ya da onun has soyunun aktanc\u0131s\u0131 olarak da de\u011fil, z\u00f4on logo nekon<\/em> [dili ve evi olan hayvan] olarak tan\u0131mlamam\u0131z. D\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce logos<\/em> olarak \u00f6zg\u00fclle\u015fir ve logos<\/em>, –logos<\/em>un diyalojisinin ve diyalekti\u011finin yazg\u0131l\u0131 olduklar\u0131 bu “kavram\u0131n kavram\u0131” ve “temelin temeli” d\u00fczeninde\u00ad hen\u00fcz herhangi bir kavram kombinatuar\u0131 ya da temsiliyet temeli tarif etmeden \u00f6nce, \u00f6z\u00fcnde kendi has \u00f6z\u00fcne eri\u015fme \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u00ad\u011f\u00fc<\/em>n\u00fc tarif eder. Logos<\/em> ilk olarak bir “sebep”in [raison] bulunmas\u0131, al\u0131mlanmas\u0131 ya da tayin edilmesi de\u011fil, her\u015feyden \u00f6nce \u00f6zg\u00fcr\u00adl\u00fckt\u00fcr: her t\u00fcrl\u00fc “sebep”in “sebep”inin kendini sunmas\u0131n\u0131 ya da bah\u015fetmesini sa\u011flayan \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck. Zira ak\u0131l yaln\u0131zca logos<\/em>‘a ba\u011f\u0131m\u00adl\u0131d\u0131r; logos<\/em> ise herhangi bir “sebepler d\u00fczeni”ne de\u011fil bir “mad\u00addeler d\u00fczeni”ne ba\u011fl\u0131d\u0131r ve bu d\u00fczenin birinci maddesi, \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckten ya da d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin bir d\u00fcnya i\u00e7in \u00f6zg\u00fcrle\u015fmesinden ba\u015fka bir \u015fey de\u011fildir. \u00d6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcks\u00fcz logos<\/em>, kavram olarak kavram, temel olarak temel, ya da temsil olarak temsil (ne de logos<\/em> olarak logos<\/em>) sorusunu asla soramazd\u0131. \u0130\u015fte b\u00f6yle, logos<\/em>, her t\u00fcrl\u00fc “mant\u0131k”tan \u00f6nce, ama kendi has mant\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ba\u015flatarak, kendi has\u00a0\u00f6z\u00fcne \u00f6zg\u00fcrce eri\u015fir -bu herhangi bir \u00f6ze has olarak ula\u015fmak olmayan bir tarzda olsa bile. Logos<\/em> hem “\u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck”e belli bir “mant\u0131k” i\u00e7inde hakim olmaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 zaman, hem de bu \u00f6zg\u00fcr\u00adl\u00fc\u011fe herhangi bir “sebep” tahsis etmekten vazge\u00e7ti\u011fi zaman, bu eri\u015fim -ki ayn\u0131 zamanda logos<\/em>‘un kayna\u011f\u0131d\u0131r -durmaks\u0131z\u0131n oyuna dahil olur.<\/p>\n Ama ister (kendine) hakim olsun ister (kendinden) vazge\u00e7sin, logos<\/em> pe\u015finen \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck taraf\u0131ndan kap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck logos<\/em>‘\u00ad un bile<\/em> hakimiyetini ya da feragatini bozar. Bu \u015funu demeye gelir: \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck, d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceyi, felsefe i\u00e7inde, logos<\/em>‘un Kavram\u0131 ya da Te\u00admeli olarak kendini kavramla\u015ft\u0131ran<\/em> “felsefe”nin daima \u00f6tesine f\u0131rlat\u0131r. Bundan dolay\u0131, hi\u00e7bir felsef’ tamamlanma ya da kapanma yoktur ki, tam olarak “felsefe”yi olmasa bile, her t\u00fcrl\u00fc felsefeden daha kadim ve daha gen\u00e7 bir felsefi \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc yeniden talep etmesin ve k\u0131\u015fk\u0131rtmas\u0131n. \u00d6yleyse, “felsefe, \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck i\u00e7inde d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00adcedir<\/em>”, demiyoruz; diyoruz ki, “\u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck” fikrinin ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131lmaz ola\u00adrak ait oldu\u011fu (\u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc onu temellendirir, ya da onun temeli olarak anla\u015f\u0131l\u0131r(maz)) b\u00fct\u00fcn Bat\u0131 gelene\u011fi i\u00e7in, d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin varolan a\u00e7\u0131kl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fka hi\u00e7bir \u015feye kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k vermeyen \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn mant\u0131\u011f\u0131 yaln\u0131zca felsefenin \u00fczerinden<\/em> (ya da felsefenin i\u00e7inde<\/em> doktrin olarak, d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce g\u00f6vdesi olarak, kavram in\u015fas\u0131 olarak) ge\u00e7er. D\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce ile \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck felsefede kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 ili\u015fki i\u00e7inde belir\u00adlenmi\u015f ve yazg\u0131lanm\u0131\u015flard\u0131r. Bu belirlenimden \u00f6zg\u00fcrle\u015fmemiz gerekse bile bu, tan\u0131m gere\u011fi, basit\u00e7e felsefenin “d\u0131\u015far\u0131s\u0131”nda ger\u00e7ekle\u015femez. (Bu demek de\u011fil ki felsefenin “d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda” d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce ya da \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck yoktur: ama logos<\/em> i\u00e7inde kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 olarak belirlen\u00admeleri anlam\u0131nda ne biri vard\u0131r ne de \u00f6teki.)<\/p>\n \u00d6yleyse, do\u011frulanamaz fikirler, nesnelli\u011fin ve prati\u011fin k\u0131s\u0131t\u00adlamalar\u0131ndan ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131zca \u00fcretilmi\u015f “b\u00fcy\u00fck fikirler”, ya da bilgi\u00admizin yoksulluk b\u00f6lgesini i\u015fgal eden serbest pazar\u0131yla “d\u00fcnya g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fleri” anlam\u0131nda bir kat\u0131ks\u0131z kavramlar disiplini yoktur -ki felsefe ve felsefi \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck pek s\u0131k olarak b\u00f6yle anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r (bizzat “\u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck” fikri de bu felsefi serbest m\u00fcbadelede ilk tedav\u00fcle sokulan \u00fcr\u00fcnlerden biri olaraktan). Ama genel anlamda “hakikat”, “nesnellik”, “bilgi”, logos<\/em>‘ ta temellen(me)mi\u015f olarak, \u00f6zg\u00fcrl \u00fckte temellen(me)mi\u015ftirler. Felsefe ya kavramlar disipli\u00adnini bu temelin deneyimlenmesine geri g\u00f6t\u00fcren d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncedir, ya da kendi has kurulu\u015funun unutulmas\u0131 ya da silinerek ge\u00e7ersiz\u00adle\u015fmesidir.<\/p>\n Felsefe hi\u00e7bir bi\u00e7imde temellendirici bir disiplin de\u011fil, (b\u00f6yle bir \u015feyin olmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir),\u00a0logos<\/em>‘u kendi has \u00f6z\u00fcne eri\u015fim i\u00e7inde tan\u0131mlayan \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn s\u00f6ylem i\u00e7inde kendi has k\u0131vr\u0131lmas\u0131d\u0131r. Felsefe = d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin \u00f6z\u00fcnde varolu\u015fun bir d\u00fcnya i\u00e7in \u00f6zg\u00fcrle\u015fmesi ve bu \u00f6zg\u00fcrle\u015fmenin \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn “d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce nesnesi” olarak temell\u00fck edilememesi, ama d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin icras\u0131\u00adn\u0131 silinemez bir \u00e7izgiyle i\u015faretlemesi<\/em>. Felsefe, d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin kendi kendine dokundu\u011fu, kendini denedi\u011fi, ya da \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn dene\u00adyimi uyar\u0131nca kendi has \u00f6z\u00fcne eri\u015fti\u011fi k\u0131vr\u0131md\u0131r -bu deneyim olmaks\u0131z\u0131n, d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce “d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce” olamazd\u0131, kendi has \u00f6z\u00fcne ser\u00adbest eri\u015fim anlam\u0131nda logos<\/em> hi\u00e7 olmazd\u0131.<\/p>\n \u0130\u015fte b\u00f6yle, felsefe hi\u00e7bir “\u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck” te\u015fkil etmez, hi\u00e7bir \u00f6zg\u00fcr\u00adl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc temin etmez ve felsefe olarak hi\u00e7bir \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc savunamaz (fiili m\u00fccadelelerde ba\u015fka t\u00fcm disiplinler gibi oynayabilece\u011fi dalayl\u0131 roller ne olursa olsun). Ama, tarihi ve k\u0131l\u0131k de\u011fi\u015ftirmi\u015f hallerinde, logos’un \u00f6z\u00fcne eri\u015fimi a\u00e7\u0131k tutar<\/em>. \u0130\u015fte b\u00f6yledir ki, bundan b\u00f6yle, \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn felsefi ya da metafizik kapan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6tesinde bu eri\u015fimi -\u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck- a\u00e7\u0131k tutmal\u0131d\u0131r. Felsefe durmak\u00ads\u0131z\u0131n kendisinin -yani bizzat “felsefe” kavram\u0131n\u0131n sorgulanmas\u0131yla tematik bilgisine sahip oldu\u011fu \u015feyin \u00f6tesindedir, bilgilerin Anka ku\u015fu olaca\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in de\u011fil, “felsefe yapmak” logos<\/em>‘un \u00f6z\u00fcne -onsuz en k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck bir “mant\u0131k” fikrimiz (s\u00f6ylemsel, anlat\u0131sal, matematik\u00adsel, metafiziksel, vs) olamazd\u0131- ba\u015fd\u00f6nd\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc eri\u015fimi a\u00e7\u0131k tut\u00admaktan ibarettir. Ama bu tutma bir kuvvet i\u015flemi de\u011fildir, ne de bir muhafaza i\u015flemi: d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin i\u00e7inde bizzat d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceyi eklem\u00adleyen \u015fu \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck k\u0131vr\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 deneyimlemekten ibarettir (bunun anlam\u0131 \u015fudur: d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceyi eklemleyen ve onu asla temell\u00fck etme\u00adyen \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc dilin i\u00e7ine kaydetmek).<\/p>\n Bunun sonucu olarak, hakiki felsefe “bilgide ayn\u0131 zamanda b\u00fct\u00fcn varolu\u015fun felsefenin arad\u0131\u011f\u0131 k\u00f6k\u00fcnde -\u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckte- bulun\u00addu\u011fu” yerde oldu\u011fu; ya da, felsefenin “varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n kesin kavramsal\u00a0bilgisi [oldu\u011fu]; ama ancak bu kavraman\u0131n (Begriefen<\/em>), kendin\u00adde, Dasein’<\/em>\u0131n hakikat i\u00e7inde felsefi olarak ele ge\u00e7irilmesi (Ergriefen<\/em>) demek oldu\u011funda b\u00f6yle” oldu\u011fu s\u00f6ylendi\u011finde, felsefi kavram\u0131n varolu\u015fu \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc i\u00e7inde anlad\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6ylenmi\u015f olmaz, daha ziyade \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn kavram\u0131 “kavramas\u0131”nda ele ge\u00e7irdi\u011fi s\u00f6ylenmi\u015f olur. Bu bir “varolu\u015f kavramla\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131” de\u011fildir, bir \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck kavramla\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131” (bu m\u00fcmk\u00fcnse) hi\u00e7 de\u011fildir; bu, kav\u00adram\u0131n \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc icra eden varolu\u015ftur, bu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce olarak varolu\u015ftur -ama d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce, yaln\u0131zca d\u00fcnyada-varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc i\u00e7in d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce olmak kayd\u0131yla herhangi bir \u015feyin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesidir.Nihayetinde bu logos<\/em>‘un praxis’<\/em>idir (ya da “pratik ak\u0131l”); bir “teori prati\u011fi”nden ziyade logos<\/em>‘u kendi s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131na, bizzat varolu\u015fun s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131na ta\u015f\u0131yan \u015feydir; logos<\/em> bunu “ele ge\u00e7irir”, ama so\u011furarak yada alt\u0131na alarak de\u011fil, tersine ona logos<\/em> \u00f6z\u00fcn\u00fc veren -ve ondan ka\u00e7\u0131ran- \u015feyin varolu\u015fun \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc oldu\u011fu olgusunu \u00fcstlenerek.<\/p>\n Felsefe genel anlamda d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin \u00f6zg\u00fcr alan\u0131 de\u011fildir, \u00f6zg\u00fcr\u00adl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn ahlaksal, siyasal ya da estetik pratiklerininin “teorik” vardi\u00adyas\u0131 [relais] da de\u011fildir ve maddi \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fckten mahrumiyeti ruhun ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131yla telafi etmez. Ama felsefede \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn mant\u0131\u011f\u0131 hi\u00e7 durmadan onu ba\u015flatan pratik aksiyomla basit\u00e7e yeniden ili\u015fki kurar: d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce kendini varolu\u015fun \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden al\u0131r.<\/p>\n ”<\/p>\n Jean-Luc Nancy, \u00d6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck Deneyimi, \u00e7ev. Aziz Ufuk K\u0131l\u0131\u00e7, Aral\u0131k Yay\u0131nlar\u0131, 2006 [1988] s. 82-7.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"