![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/yalpertem.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/giorgio-agamben-nesir-fikri.png?resize=275%2C420\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
”<\/p>\n
I.<\/p>\n
Antik d\u00fcnyan\u0131n insan\u0131, ne sefalet duygusunu bilir ne de son kertede insan\u0131n talihsizli\u011finden t\u00fcm azameti s\u00f6k\u00fcp alan \u015fans\u0131. Elbette ne\u015fe,\u00a0\u03cb\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03b6\u00a0gibi, her an tersine d\u00f6n\u00fcp en ac\u0131 yan\u0131lsama haline gelebilir; i\u015fte tam o anda trajik araya girer ve sefalet ihtimalini bertaraf etmek i\u00e7in kahramanca m\u00fcdahale eder. Antik insan\u0131n kader kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda ya\u015fad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131zl\u0131k trajik boyutlardad\u0131r; mutsuzlu\u011fu da mutlulu\u011fu gibi b\u00fcy\u00fckt\u00fcr. Trajik, komedide sa\u00e7ma y\u00fcz\u00fcn\u00fc g\u00f6sterir; gene de, tanr\u0131lar\u0131n ve kahramanlar\u0131n terk etti\u011fi bu d\u00fcnya sefilli\u011fin de\u011fil, zarafetin d\u00fcnyas\u0131d\u0131r: “\u0130nsan nas\u0131l bir zarafete sahip olur.” der Menander’in karakterlerinden biri, “ger\u00e7ekten insan oldu\u011funda”.<\/p>\n
Antiklerin d\u00fcnyas\u0131nda, Stavrogin’in inanc\u0131n\u0131 fel\u00e7 eden utanca ya da Kafka’n\u0131n saraylar\u0131n\u0131n ve \u015fatolar\u0131n\u0131n efsanevi hafifme\u015frepli\u011fi ya da pisli\u011fine zorlanmadan benzetece\u011fimiz bir duygunun ilk ve tek izi komedide de\u011fil, felsefede bulunur. (Antik d\u00fcnyada pislik asla efsanevi olamaz: Cesur Herakles do\u011fan\u0131n g\u00fc\u00e7lerine boyun e\u011fdirerek Augias’\u0131n ah\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131 temizler. Ancak bizler pisli\u011fimizin, mitolojik bir tortunun her daim yap\u0131\u015f\u0131k kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 diplerine hi\u00e7bir zaman varamay\u0131z.) Bu durum \u015fa\u015f\u0131rt\u0131c\u0131 bir bi\u00e7imde, gen\u00e7 Sokrates’in Eleac\u0131 filozofa teorisini a\u00e7\u0131klad\u0131\u011f\u0131 o\u00a0Parmenides<\/em> pasaj\u0131nda \u00e7\u0131kar kar\u015f\u0131m\u0131za. Parmenides’in “k\u0131l, pislik, \u00e7amur ya da do\u011fan\u0131n en de\u011fersiz \u015feylerinden meydana gelmi\u015f” d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncelerin var olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki sorusuyla kar\u015f\u0131la\u015fan Sokrates, \u00f6ylece kalakald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 itiraf eder: “t\u00fcm evreni kapsayacak kadar geni\u015fletilebilecek bu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce can\u0131m\u0131 s\u0131km\u0131\u015ft\u0131. Ama onu kavrar kavramaz, aptall\u0131k kuyusuna d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcp kendimi kaybetme korkusuyla bu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceden kurtuldum.” Ama bu sadece bir an s\u00fcrer. “\u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc daha \u00e7ok gen\u00e7sin,” diye cevap verir Parmenides, “felsefe daha seni avucuna almad\u0131, ama tahminim o ki bir g\u00fcn alacak ve o g\u00fcn geldi\u011finde bu t\u00fcrden \u015feyler kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda titremeyeceksin.”<\/p>\n D\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin nazar\u0131nda, sefaletin yaratt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ba\u015f d\u00f6nmesini bir anl\u0131\u011f\u0131na da olsa a\u00e7\u0131\u011fa \u00e7\u0131karma u\u011fra\u015f\u0131n\u0131n metafizik (ve son kertede teknolojik) bir sorun olarak ele al\u0131nmas\u0131 \u00f6nemlidir. Tanr\u0131n\u0131n kendisi -Demiurgos’un duyular\u0131n d\u00fcnyas\u0131n\u0131 yarat\u0131rken \u00f6rnek ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 model, idealar\u0131n hiper-uranian d\u00fcnyas\u0131 (hakikat alan\u0131)- bug\u00fcn bize son derece tan\u0131d\u0131k gelen bu tiksindirici onay\u0131 verir; paganlarsa bunun kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda bak\u0131\u015flar\u0131n\u0131 ondan sak\u0131n\u0131r, antik d\u00fcnya insan\u0131n dindarl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6steren o\u00a0\u03b1\u03af\u03b4\u03ce\u03b6’y\u0131 hissederlerdi. Tanr\u0131n\u0131n yapt\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 me\u015frula\u015ft\u0131rmaya ihtiyac\u0131 yoktur:\u00a0Devlet<\/em>‘te\u00a0\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03b6 \u03ac\u03c5\u03b1\u03af\u03c0\u03bf\u03b6 bakire Lakhesis’in h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fc hayk\u0131r\u0131r.<\/p>\n Di\u011fer yandan modern insan teodiseye (*) ihtiya\u00e7 duyar, ki bu da en sefilinden bir ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131zl\u0131\u011fa i\u015faret eder. Tanr\u0131 kendi kendini su\u00e7lar ve kendi teolojik pisli\u011fi i\u00e7inde yuvarlan\u0131r; huzursuzlu\u011fumuza gizlenemez niteli\u011fini veren tam da budur. Akl\u0131m\u0131z\u0131n \u00fczerinde sal\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 dipsiz kuyu, zorunlulu\u011fun de\u011fil, ar\u0131zili\u011fin ve k\u00f6t\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn s\u0131radanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kuyusudur. \u0130nsan bir tesad\u00fcften \u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fc su\u00e7lu ya da masum olamaz; sokakta muz kabu\u011funa bas\u0131p kayd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131z zamanlardaki gibi, sadece utan\u00e7 duyar. Bizim Tanr\u0131m\u0131z mahcup bir Tanr\u0131d\u0131r. Ama nas\u0131l her titreyi\u015f tiksinmenin nesnesiyle girilen gizli dayan\u0131\u015fmay\u0131 if\u015fa ediyorsa, utan\u00e7 da duyulmam\u0131\u015f-olan\u0131n i\u015faretidir, insan\u0131n kendisine korkutucu bir bi\u00e7imde yak\u0131n oldu\u011funu g\u00f6sterir. Sefalet duygusu, kendisiyle ba\u015f ba\u015fa kalan insan\u0131n son utanc\u0131d\u0131r; t\u0131pk\u0131 tesad\u00fcf\u00fcn, insanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n kaderini etkileyen biricik insani gayelerin artan a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 gizleyen maske olmas\u0131 gibi.<\/p>\n II.<\/p>\n Kafka’n\u0131n eserlerinde, yaln\u0131zca su\u00e7lu bir insan\u0131n yabanc\u0131 ve uzak bir Tanr\u0131’n\u0131n g\u00fcc\u00fc kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda \u00e7ekti\u011fi \u0131st\u0131rab\u0131n h\u00fclasas\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6ren bir okuma, son derece zay\u0131f bir okumad\u0131r. Aksine, burada as\u0131l kurtar\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken Tanr\u0131’d\u0131r; Kafka’n\u0131n eserleri i\u00e7in hayal edebilece\u011fimiz yegane mutlu son, tozlu koridorlarda bir araya toplanm\u0131\u015f ya da insan\u0131n \u00fczerine \u00fczerine gelen al\u00e7ak tavanlar\u0131n alt\u0131nda iki b\u00fckl\u00fcm olmu\u015f Klamm’\u0131n, Kont’un ve isimsiz yarg\u0131\u00e7lardan, avukatlardan, gardiyanlardan olu\u015fan teolojik toplulu\u011fun \u00fcyelerinin kurtulmas\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n Kafka’n\u0131n dehas\u0131, Tanr\u0131’y\u0131 dolaba kapatm\u0131\u015f, mutfa\u011f\u0131 ve tavan aras\u0131n\u0131 m\u00fckemmelle\u015fmi\u015f teolojik mek\u00e2nlar haline getirmi\u015f olmas\u0131ndan gelir. Nadiren karakterlerinin hareketlerinde beliren b\u00fcy\u00fckl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcyse, sadece utanca yo\u011funla\u015fabilmek i\u00e7in, bir noktadan sonra teodiseden, su\u00e7 ve masumiyet meselesinden vazge\u00e7mi\u015f olmas\u0131ndan gelir.<\/p>\n Kafka’n\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda duran \u015fey, d\u00fcnyan\u0131n d\u00f6rt bir yan\u0131ndaki orta s\u0131n\u0131ft\u0131; utan\u00e7 -en mahrem anlam\u0131yla benli\u011fin saf ve bo\u015f bi\u00e7imi- haricinde t\u00fcm deneyimlerine el konmu\u015f orta s\u0131n\u0131f. B\u00f6yle insanlar i\u00e7in m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olan yeg\u00e2ne masumiyet t\u00fcr\u00fc, tedirginlikten uzak bir utan\u00e7 duygusudur. \u0391\u03af\u03b4\u03ce\u03b6 antikler i\u00e7in utan\u00e7 verici bir duygu de\u011fildi; aksine, bu insanlar utan\u00e7la kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131klar\u0131nda, Hekabe’nin \u00e7\u0131plak g\u00f6\u011fs\u00fc kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda dikilen Hektor gibi, cesaretlerini ve inan\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 geri kazan\u0131rlard\u0131. Kafka insanlara ellerinde kalan tek iyili\u011fi kullanmay\u0131 \u00f6\u011fretir: \u0130nsan\u0131n kendini utan\u00e7tan kurtarmas\u0131 de\u011fil, utanc\u0131 kurtarmas\u0131. Joseph K.’n\u0131n t\u00fcm duru\u015fma boyunca yapmaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015fey tam da budur; en sonda \u0131srarla cellad\u0131n b\u0131\u00e7a\u011f\u0131na uzanmas\u0131 da masumiyetini de\u011fil utanc\u0131n\u0131 kurtarmak i\u00e7indir: “Ona g\u00f6re,” diye yazar tam \u00f6l\u00fcm an\u0131nda, “utanc\u0131 onu ya\u015fatacak.”<\/p>\n Sadece bu vazifeyle, insanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n en az\u0131ndan utanc\u0131n\u0131 muhafaza\u00a0ederek, Kafka antik mutlulu\u011fa benzer bir \u015feyi yeniden\u00a0bulmu\u015f oldu.<\/p>\n ”<\/p>\n