Challenging a Fictitious Neutrality: Heidegger in Question

چرا مسئله بی طرفی را مطرح و به چالش می کشیم؟ به دلایل فوری خنثی را عموماً شرط عینیت می دانند. با این حال، از نظر تاریخی، این موضوع توسط موضوعی مذکر و نه خنثی ادعا می شود. ادعای این حقیقت و راه رسیدن به آن بی طرف است و باید باشد، به منزله سوء استفاده از قدرت و جعل واقعیت است. موجودات زنده به طور طبیعی خنثی نیستند. آنها به نحوی جنسی هستند. تحت الشعاع قرار دادن آنها به حالت خنثی به عنوان شرط وضعیت عینی آنها، موجودات زنده را به محصولات فرهنگی محروم از خاستگاه و پویایی خود تبدیل می کند و دنیایی را می سازد که در آن توسعه و اشتراک زندگی غیرممکن است.

Why broach and challenge the question of neutrality? For some urgent reasons. The neuter is generally considered to be the condition of objectivity. However, historically, this is asserted by a subject which is masculine and not neuter. Claiming that truth and the way of reaching it are and must be in the neuter amounts to a misuse of power and a falsification of the real. Living beings are not naturally neuter; they are sexuate somehow or other. Subjecting them to the neuter as a condition of their objective status transforms living beings into cultural products deprived of their own origin and dynamism, and builds a world in which the development and the sharing of life are impossible.

It is not here a question of sexuality strictly speaking nor of sexual choice. The concern of the two men and the two women who participate in this volume is with the sexuate determination of all living beings. Is not Heidegger’s Dasein, as neutered and supposedly neutral, a kind of technical device which prevents living beings from entering into presence? If so, where might that ultimately lead?