Skip to main content

On Prefaces

Let me do here something that I rarely--because I do not like to--do. I'd like to explain my work Heidegger and the Destruction of the History of the Metaphysics of the Will in Modern Philosophy from Descartes to Nietzsche: A Prolegomena to Gelassenheit.

As the title says, it was a prolegomena or a praefatio or a preface; and this is the key word in any attempt to understand what the work tried to say. In a word, the work as a word before the proper saying of the word Gelassenheit.

To be sure, a preface only makes sense when it fulfills its "function" in preparing for that to which it is an introduction. Logically, a preface, unlike the main text, cannot stand on its own: a preface is only preparatory, a first step, as it were. Or to put it ontologically, the being of the preface derives only from the being of what is said after it; on its own, its status will not only be vague but also negligible, or what comes to the same, it amounts to nothing.

What we usually look into when we read a work is the "body" itself, the matter, the main text where what may perhaps have been hinted upon in the preface is fully worked out. In this sense, one can bypass the preface of any work and go straight to the text; this is usually done, and at times even advised.

But what is it in prefaces which makes it possible to be disregarded or put aside or even, perhaps worst of all, makes it vulnerable to misinterpretation?

Is it because the writer delights too much in her own work, seeing it finished and whole, and thus still riding on a terrible high that only she can feel? Sometimes we do see prefaces where the writer tells us how difficult and long and gruesome the whole experience of writing was; but only to tell us at the same time that look, it's finished, that it was all worth it, and that, hey, I succeeded. There may be some sense in this; and perhaps, we readers can at least give her that --given that she does not repeat her monologue the rest of the way. Nietzsche, after all, said that it was acceptable for a writer to speak about himself in a preface, to assume the voice of the "I." Kant, in contrast to the mad thinker, dryly and snobbishly wrote in his preface to Critique of Pure Reason: "Of myself, I speak nothing."

Or perhaps, we consciously do not give prefaces any value because, as prefaces are usually written last, they tend to summarize too much what will eventually be said in the work; they already narrow the horizon or field of meaning which some of us wish to discover on our own; or in plain words, prefaces can be real spoilers. Imagine a novel which has a preface; or a movie which tells you beforehand what to expect. Some of us do want the reading experience to be a lot easier so we ask for clues and guides--something like a cheat book. But some, still, want to go it alone; because in the act of writing, the writer already lost all claims as to how she should be read and understood--she now falls listlessly into the waiting hands of the reader. The writer dies when the text is born: so the reader couldn't care less about the writer's own thoughts, reflections, insights, which all necessarily come ex post facto and are written in the preface.

Hegel himself, arguably the master of prefaces, said that one should not take a writer seriously in the preface as she--inevitably--will have to say a lot of generalizations which when read alone will not make sense, look silly, and seem pretentious. In his preface to The Phenomenology of Mind, he says
In the case of a philosophical work it seems not only superfluous, but, in view of the nature of philosophy, even inappropriate and misleading to begin, as writers usually do in a preface, by explaining the end the author had in mind, the circumstances which gave rise to the work, and the relation in which the writer takes it to stand to other treatises on the same subject, written by his predecessors or his contemporaries. For whatever it might be suitable to state about philosophy in a preface--say, an historical sketch of the main drift and point of view, the general content and results, a string of desultory assertions and assurances about the truth--this cannot be accepted as the form and manner in which to expound philosophical truth.
And Hegel has a point. Because in order to "set up" what follows it, the preface has to set the locus, the direction, the tone and mood. Now the writer's choice of these elements, however clear they may be to her mind, can only be arbitrary to the dear reader. Perhaps there is no other way: any beginning, any first step--even if the writer already traveled the whole way and got to the end--will always seem arbitrary: why this and not that? whereas, again, the writer earnestly hopes that if the reader goes along with her and give her a chance to lead the way up to the end she already knows exists (the one true hope of writers), everything will make sense--especially the awkward preface.

True, I did not make it clear in the work itself that it was a only preface; it was only hinted upon. Or that my work was "unfinished"; that was obvious. I confess that the "real" body or the content was missing--and still is. And I have no other excuse than to say what happened, that it was not possible to write it, write on Gelassenheit and what it means at that time. "Not possible" in the practical sense that to do so would require another year and a thousand pages to add to the 250 pages I wrote; but, more importantly, also "impossible" because the time to write it has not yet come. Now I cannot give these as reasons without sounding funny or (again) seeming insane. So I left the work speak for itself--even if it was "lacking." I let it fight for its own without helping it. Because it stands on its own.

It's not that I did or do not know what Gelassenheit is or what the preface was a preface to. The sad part about it is that I knew it all along. But writing it--explaining it, showing it--is an altogether different story. I can tell you the story over coffee. (Pascal said that any two philosophers can tell each other all that they know and believe in in just two hours.)

"Have I been understood?" asked Nietzsche after everyone seemed to at the same time love and hate what he wrote. All prefaces can never be understood. But mad Nietzsche has this frequently misunderstood book which nevertheless survives to this day: his Prefaces to Unwritten Works.


  1. This, perhaps,may be the most flat out request anybody has done to somebody. Anyway, here goes. Is it possible for you to post your work (Heidegger and the Destruction of the History of the Metaphysics of the Will in Modern Philosophy from Descartes to Nietzsche: A Prolegomena to Gelassenheit) on this blog? If it's not possible, would you mind emailing it? (And, in the sheer risk of my dignity shattered into pieces, here's my email address:


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Fields of Amorsolo

The first National Artist in Philippine history, referred to warmly as the “Grand Old Man of Philippine Art,” Fernando Amorsolo (1892–1972) still stands today as a looming figure in Philippine art responsible for being one of the artists who helped define what we up to now visually imagine as essentially Filipino. The images of rural life, of golden fields below clear blue, blue skies; the smiles of farmers which diminish their weariness as they plant, harvest, and winnow rice;most especially the iconic figure of the Filipina maiden working in the fields—the beloved dalagang bukid--; these, I believe, even after generations of Filipino painters since Amorsolo, have remained in our hearts and memory. Amorsolo did what great masters do for their country: bestow upon it its own icons, represent its native beauty, that is, to give its people and lands an identity and a face. There are, however, as many intentions for art as there are works of art. And these intentions will always remain in…

Without Why (The Rose) II

Lifetime is a child at play; moving pieces in a game.
Kingship belongs to the child.

Heraclitus, Fragment 52

The child at play never asks itself why it plays. The child just plays; and if it could, it will play as long as possible, it will play throughout its life. See its delight and witness its smile.

If it would never go hungry or if the sun would never set it too will never leave its playmates and playthings. Time flies at play because it stops or suspends time. Time -- as we grownups only know too well -- is the culprit for order, schedules and priorities; yet for the child, there is no time, there is only bottomless play. It is we who impose that this or that should be done at this or that time. We stop the absurd and supposedly endless play ("He does nothing but play") because we insist that discipline, order and priorities be instilled in the child at an early age ("He needs to learn other things beside playing"). So that the child will become like us one da…

A Love Sooner than Later

BROWN PENNY William Butler YeatsI whispered, 'I am too young,' And then, 'I am old enough'; Wherefore I threw a penny To find out if I might love. 'Go and love, go and love, young man, If the lady be young and fair.' Ah, penny, brown penny, brown penny, I am looped in the loops of her hair. O love is the crooked thing, There is nobody wise enough To find out all that is in it, For he would be thinking of love Till the stars had run away And the shadows eaten the moon. Ah, penny, brown penny, brown penny, One cannot begin it too soon.

One cannot begin to love too soon--conversely, one should not love too late or in life's demise. That waiting for the "right time," or the "right person" to love, what are these but the cries or sighs of an unready, even tired, heart? One becomes ready only when one begins to understand love slowly (or again), and one understands love progressively when one, simply, performs the act of love. Love, like mos…