Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

A Philosopher of Small Things

A new book on ‘antiphilosophy’ revives interest in Lev Shestov, a seminal but largely forgotten thinker

Print Email
Lev Shestov in Kiev, 1916. (© Private collection, courtesy of Lev Shestov Studies Society [Société d’Etudes Léon Chestov])

It is thus one of the strangest features of Shestov’s work that it is so unfamiliar to contemporary students of philosophy, literature, and religion. Why this has been the case is ultimately mysterious. (As Daniel Rynhold, professor of Jewish philosophy at Yeshiva University, told me: “Who gets picked up in academia and not is often a result of contingencies and serendipity, rather than the value of the person’s work.”) The work being done by Fotiade (she is currently editing a new French edition of Shestov’s work, Le Bruit du Temps) and her colleagues at the Lev Shestov Society aims to increase knowledge and interest, and Groys’ chapter on Shestov in Introduction to Antiphilosophy might mark a turning point in reviving Shestov’s reputation.

Antiphilosophy was not an available term in Shestov’s day—its use in this context is Groys’ invention—but it is a label that Shestov, in my opinion, would have liked. The term antiphilosophy is intended to echo anti-art, an early 20th-century movement that argued that art has less to do with the framed things one finds in a museum or gallery than with the attitude one brings to those particular objects. The best example of anti-art, Groys writes, is Marcel Duchamp’s 1917 “Readymade Fountain.” Duchamp signed (under the name R. Mutt) and dated a store-bought, mass-made, porcelain urinal and then exhibited it. Is the urinal art? Does it do what art is supposed to do? Once it’s been moved into a gallery space, Duchamp suggests, the answer is decisively yes. And what is art supposed to do, anyway? If a viewer gives the urinal—or fountain, rather—the same kind of concentrated attention one gives a work by Monet, is it any less of an aesthetic experience? Duchamp seems to be saying that the creativity and craftsmanship one sees in excellent works of fine art can be found lining the walls of public restrooms, if only one is able to look at those urinals in a certain way. Beauty is not just in the eye of the beholder, anti-art points out, but is invented in the eye of the beholder.

Anti-art’s aim is not to rob art of its purpose but to democratize it, to make it clear that the bathroom has as much aesthetic interest as the gallery if only one is able to change one’s mindset. Shestov’s work aims to do something similar, to achieve a comparable shift in attitude. Shestov’s philosophy seeks to escape the potentially paralyzing strictures of the rational mind and return man to a state of awe. To accomplish this, Shestov did the philosophical equivalent of bringing a urinal into a gallery: His work is not systematic, it does not advance traditional arguments, and it does not hope to speak of a truth that is objectively verifiable. Instead, it is personal, spontaneous, and ironic. It invites readers to think along with him, to understand that using philosophy is not always the best way to be philosophical and that there is much to be learned by means other than the reasoning mind. These qualities and interests would become increasingly popular over the remainder of the 20th century, and it is thus fair to say that Shestov is one of the founding fathers, along with Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, of what can now be dubbed antiphilosophy.

As Shestov wrote: “A belch interrupts the loftiest meditation. You may draw a conclusion if you like; if you don’t like, you needn’t.” Shestov’s work has a similar effect; those who think it strange, or even silly, will find plenty of reasons to write it off—admittedly fair ones. Those to whom it speaks, however, will find wonders.

***

Like this article? Sign up for our Daily Digest to get Tablet Magazine’s new content in your inbox each morning.

1 2View as single page
Print Email

MenachemD says:

Very interesting. Without being familiar with anything Shestov wrote beyond what is written in this review, it strikes me as somewhat ironic that ultimately his interests appear to be located in the same general sphere as conventional philosophy – even if he concludes that its goals are misguided and restrictive. In summarizing his thought you still end up talking about metaphysics, epistomology, theism and not urinals. Maybe that is part of what he had in mind in saying that knowledge deprives one of freedom. 

KateGladstone says:

So Shestov thought he knew that “We know nothing of the ultimate realities of our existence, nor shall we ever know anything … ” —

… I want to ask him: “How do you ‘know’ that?”

Saint_Etienne says:

Very nice article. I have read some of Shestov’s books and they had a most profound influence on me, so it’s nice to see one of one’s intellectual heroes introduced to a wider audience.

People who are interested in Shestov’s work might also want to look up (i.e. google) Arieh Baratz – a modern Israeli religious philospher, a deep and original thinker from whose columns on parashat hashavua I had originally learnt about Lev Shestov.

gwhepner says:

BASING FAITH ON EXPERIENCES
OF AWE AND GUILT

 

Marcel Duchamp’s urinal, framed when placed

in a museum, turned into a work of art,

proving art is not based on good taste,

but by experiences once it’s been set apart.

 

Like art, faith maybe also should be based

not on reason on which it is based and built,

keeping it in church museums chaste,

but on experiences like awe as well as guilt.

gwhepner@yahoo.com

Eden19567 says:

It should be mentioned that although Chestov spoke of  meta-religious God, he  embraced Christianity.

What a nice packing machine. I prefer using it over my old hand wrapper crappy machine.

It also makes a great tray wrapper. It´s great wrapper thing.

Why wrap him up in a neat package for our own peace of mind? He isn’t “Christian” “Observant” “Orthodox” “Conservative” “Existentialist” “Kierkgaardian”… He’s a simple yid-a complex and paradoxical seeker of truth

HayyimRothman says:

I spent the whole of last summer reading all of shestov’s work.  In my view, his earlier writing is basically imitative of Nietzsche but, unlike Nietszche, places the “critique of reason” at the height of his concern rather than the revaluation of values which this critique was to serve.  His later work, particularly Athens and Jerusalem, becomes more interesting but basically amounts to a more original elaboration of his earlier writing.  There is, however, a very interesting article he wrote on Husserl wherein one sees a rather passionate side of Husserl: he vehemently recommends that Shestov read Kierkegaard (apparently, and this is also interesting, Shestov had not even heard of Kierkegaard until that point).

The issue, as I see it, is as follows.  On the one hand the views Shestov espouses are, as he intended them to be, extremely liberating.  On the other hand, they are profoundly unfruitful.  It is the same with the post-modern fascination with the “impossible” – once one has cast aside reason and possibility there is actually very little one can do other than continually re-emphasize this move.  Philosophy, human creativity in general, thrives on what is thinkable and what is possible.  While the unthinkable and impossible may – and that is a large “may” – function as its end, it ought to function as an eschatological end, an end that never arrives because its arrival is fundamentally destructive, an end that serves only to make the progression toward it possible.  Shestov tries, so to speak, to hasten the coming of the messiah – always an unwise choice.

Personally, I think that the answer as to why he was ultimately forgotten is that his work, due precisely to the theoretical position it forwards, did not and does not open up new vistas of thought for exploration.  It is a negation without a corresponding assertion.  Once the negation has been made or acknowledged what else can the text which recommended it offer to us if it does not gesture toward what happens next?  It is the same sort of argument I have against another forgotten – and, as I see it, forgotten for the same reason-  Jewish philosopher, Shmuel Alexandrov.

Jacob Arnon says:

Shestov’s importnace is due in large part because of his influence on Emanuel Levinas the French Jewish Philosopher and one of the great philosophers of the 20th c.

I found the following on line:

“Beyond the Self, Beyond Ontology: Levinas’ Reading of
Shestov’s Reading of Kierkegaard”

By James M. McLachlan

 

“In 1937, Emmanuel Levinas published a review of Lev
Shestov’s Kierkegaard et la philosophie existentielle in the journal Revue des
Études Juives. This essay includes a translation of his review as well as an
introductory essay that contextualizes it. In her Emmanuel Levinas: The Problem
of Ethical Metaphysics (1972), Edith Wyschogrod contended that Levinas’ short
review contains what “might well be taken as the program of his own future
work.” Both seek a way out of ontology, but Shestov seeks his escape through a
violent wrenching out of the tradition of Western ontology. Levinas would later
dub this attempt “the wound that bleeds throughout Shestov’s work.” Unlike
Shestov, Levinas does not seek a lost primordial freedom that existed before
being and has been lost ever since. Because Levinas’ ethics takes its rise in
the relation to the other person, he does not suffer from Shestov’s continual
wound that cannot be escaped..”Shestov’s philosophy has noting  to do with “urinals.”  The original of the thought about the significance of urinals can be found in Cervantes’ Don Quixote  where a Barber is wearing a basin on his head to protect him from the rain and the hero argues that one object can have many functions and meanings. It can be a basin, a hat and imaginatively?Membrino’s Hamlet.”Membrino is the name of a legendary and mythic hero which Don Quixote assumes to be real. Shestov was no doubt familiar with this work. In any case these views go back many centuries and are not new and certainly not just Nitzschean.   

Jacob Arnon says:

This web site edits my posts in ways I didn’t intend. 

Everything after “escaped” was my own commentary on the article posted above:

Shestov’s philosophy has noting  to do with “urinals.”  The original of the thought about the significance of urinals can be found in Cervantes’ Don Quixote  where a Barber is wearing a basin on his head to protect him from the rain and the hero argues that one object can have many functions and meanings. It can be a basin, a hat and imaginatively?Membrino’s Hamlet.”Membrino is the name of a legendary and mythic hero which Don Quixote assumes to be real. Shestov was no doubt familiar with this work. In any case these views go back many centuries and are not new and certainly not just Nitzschean.    

HayyimRothman says:

i think that this is a good response.   although i am not convinced by levinas, he, unlike shestov, did not flee but, on the contrary, faced the problem and attempted to offer a resolution.  this is a fruitful and productive approach and this is why philosophers constantly draw on levinas and – with the exception of a few passing remarks here and there – never on shestov.

Jacob Arnon says:

Did he know that?   Did he say that it’s all we know?
Can you quote where he said that, Kate?

Rozzer says:

As someone new to Shestov I’d appreciate you folks giving your opinions on which work should be the first Shestov one reads. In either English or French.

2000

Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

A Philosopher of Small Things

A new book on ‘antiphilosophy’ revives interest in Lev Shestov, a seminal but largely forgotten thinker

More on Tablet:

Breathing New Life Into Greece’s Small but Historic Jewish Community

By Suzanne Selengut — Gabriel Negrin, 25, the new head rabbi of Athens, will soon become the country’s chief rabbi—with an eye on renewing traditions