Philosophers
deal with truth. Linguistically, we may aspect what Searle calls
representative speech acts from them. They assert, they affirm, they
conclude, they explain. When Hegel opens his enchanting preface to
the Phenomenology with "Eine Erklärung, wie sie einer Schrift
in einer Vorrede nach der Gewohnheit vorausgeschickt wird", the
English translator (Pinkard) writes: "to begin, as writers
usually do in a preface, by explaining", or (A.V. Miller): "It
is customary to preface a work with an explanation" .
What
kind of explanation? "über den Zweck, den der Verfasser sich in
ihr vorgesetzt": "of the author's aim" ("sich
vorsetzen" means: put in front of himself, like a glass), and about
tendencies and relations to other thinkers. Indeed, the preface could
contain an explanation. Certainly not a causal derivation of the
theoretical work. Maybe a conceptually clear exposition of the
author's point of view? But that would be the text in itself, not the
preface. Explanation? If we take a look at the German word
"Erklärung", we immediately see that it derives from "klar",
Latin "clarus, a" (therefore Cicero, in his admirable
Italian translation, chooses "chiarimento", wrongly).
The
English correspondent would be "to declare". In fact, the
German "erklären" can also be used in this sense: "to
declare war": "Krieg erklären".
Hegel
writes: "Erklärung über den Zweck", not "des
Zwecks". "A declaration of the author's aim", that is
what he is talking about.
Later
on, Hegel asserts: "Die Forderung von dergleichen
Erklärungen sowie die Befriedigungen derselben gelten leicht
dafür, das Wesentliche zu betreiben": "The demand for such
explanations, as also the attempts to satisfy this demand, very
easily pass for the essential business philosophy has to undertake".
Again, these are "Erklärungen" of "aims and results",
which in a preface necessarily are not developed through the movement
of thought, as Hegel critically remarks: these are declarations.
In
his preface, Hegel is talking about the problem of declaring aims and
results. Philosophers explain, that is sure, but they declare as
well. What is the difference? An explanation remains true and clear
independently of the author. A declaration instead does only make
sense if we see the subject behind: somebody declares something, and
indeed we continue treating philosophical thought as linked to
historical persons, whatever the constant reference to something like
"Hegel" or "Kant" may mean.
