On the question of the phenomenon of silence in existentialism. The role of dialogue

The author locates the phenomenon of silence in the context of existential philosophy. The author interprets silence in existentialism using the theories by M. Heidegger, M. Buber, J.-P. Sartre. The article dwells upon ethic, social and mainly aesthetic reasons for the necessity of a special inner interpersonal dialogue in existentialism, with silence being the indication of such a dialogue. M. Heidegger describes silence as an important existential phenomenon. There is a chain of senses around us that are clear and inherently explained. Thinking about understanding we, in fact, are in the state of distraction. We are out of practice in hearing the speech as a sound, interpreting it as music behind the stream of senses. Speech melodiousness is our lost skill of discovering the world as new and secret. The given musical skill should be reactivated. According to M. Heidegger, the first step is to hear "pure noise". The second step is to find silence when we get a deeper understanding of existence - we do not merely hear the silence of the world, but interpret it as some dialogical opponent. The role of silence in the existential dialogue is described by M. Buber. The author differentiates between two types of relations: I - You and I - It. The existential dialogue arises in I - You type. In Buber's opinion, the best way in keeping the intimacy of I - You meeting is silence. J.-P. Sartre dwells upon silence in terms of prosaic creativity. J.-P. Sartre points out the prosist's "unaware silence". The philosopher puts forward the following dialectics: the form must become silent in order to get the full sense and to reveal the author's view. In this connection it is important for Sartre to understand the word not as the representation of sense but as the author's mouthpiece. When a writer screams using words he becomes silent. The highest note of the scream is silence. It is wrong to interpret silence as dialogue avoidance and reluctance to have it. On the contrary, silence will be the marker of irreduci-bility, purity of existential intercourse. In such a silent intercourse there is no possibility for a dialogue opponent to be idealized because we apparently realize his weak points as well as ours. The point of unification is excluded because we are well aware of the fact that we are different and that is why we tend to get in touch with our opponent as someone who is different from us. There is no sign of insincerity and flattery in the silent dialogue, no collective professional solidarity and any other external form of communication.

Keywords

Authors

References