Warum man nicht mehr »ich liebe dich« sagen sollte

by Nicolas Truong (Editor), François Jullien, Erwin Landrichter (Translator )

Das Unbehagen am pathetischen »Ich liebe dich« ist dasselbe wie etwa am Wort »Beziehung«: Der Markt der Liebe ist in der westlichen Welt laut genug, um wesentliche Aspekte der Liebe, wie sie sich im Lauf der Geschichte bereits gezeigt haben, zu übertönen. François Jullien entwickelt nun einen Begriff der »Intimität« gegenüber dem der Liebe und die Idee einer zweiten, anderen Liebe, sogar eines zweiten, anderen Lebens, eines »seconde vie«, das in der Ab- lösung von den Wichtigkeiten und Besorgnissen des bisherigen entstehen kann. In einer »De-Koinzi- denz« zu den Anforderungen des bisherigen Lebens entstehen Möglichkeiten, das »Un-Erhörte« wahr- zunehmen. Julliens Theorien wurden in ihren einzelnen Ausarbeitungen in viele Sprachen übersetzt. Ihre Verbindung in diesem Bändchen macht den Grundzug und den inneren Zusammenhang des Jullien’schen Denkens erkennbar.

53 pages, Paperback

Published November 1, 2020

Reviews

[Philippe · Rating 4 out of 5]

This slim booklet in German translation by François Jullien concisely ties together the reflections from 'De l'Intime' and 'Une Seconde Vie'. Jullien is not in favour of our contemporary worship of 'love' and the accompanying inflation of declarations of love. There are a number of reasons for this, including this one:

"For just look at how the expression 'I love you' grammatically turns the 'you' into an object. That's not neutral. To say "We are intimate" is something completely different, because there "the other" is seen as a subject, just as I am one myself. I could contrast the intimate with love by saying: the intimate is that which does not hurt in love. (...) I would also like to point out that the intimate is not a Greek thing. The term 'intimate' comes from the Latin 'intimus'. This is the superlative of 'within', i.e. 'innermost'. From there, there are two applications, which are interrelated. Because we both say: that is my 'deepest conviction', where it concerns my own inner self, and 'we are intimate', where it concerns sharing with the other. The intimate refers both to the subject's innermost being and to the inscrutability of the relationship with the other. (...) For the intimate does not mean a fusion with the other. It always retains a distance in which the 'in-between' of participation opens up. It is this distance that sustains the encounter and prevents it from sinking into a relationship that is merely assimilation."

The 'intime' is thus linked to the 'écart' (distance), which makes possible the 'égard' (esteem, respect).

The link with 'Une Seconde Vie' by Jullien is not accidental. For in that book he reflects on how a 'second life' can unfold from a first, as a reprise, not a repetition, nor a drastic caesura. The intimate is the breeding ground for that process. See my GR-review under this particular title.

[Dennis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Wie so oft bei französischer Philosophie kann ich mich des Eindrucks nicht erwehren, man hätte das alles auch klarer sagen können.