Fascinating it is to have Gil Anidjar, Mayanthi Fernando, Bruce Lawrence, and Nada Moumtaz as readers who think with, and what may occasionally appear to some, against the author. They do so, in different ways, descriptively as well as generatively. It is the critical, generative dimension—not simply the reasonable (and unexpected, too) praise and appreciation, which nonetheless help evaluate one’s intellectual labor—that ought to interest an author. Or, so do I think. Thus, I begin by thanking them! To Yunus Do gan Telliel, I thank for organizing this symposium. Since their comments are significantly varied, rich, dense, and instituted from multiple standpoints, disciplinary and thematic, here I am unable, due mainly to word limit, to address them all. I take up select issues raised by each. At the center of Anidjar’s reflections is the notion of time in Kant’s 1784 essay (Kant 2007) and the many responses to it. His contention is that not only did Kant pose the question “What is Aufkl€arung” in the present tense, since then readers, including Foucault, too have commented on it “in the grammatical present . . . and about the present moment.” It is against this attitude of presentism, and I should add in resonance with my own description of it (Ahmad 2017a, 32ff), that he asks, almost defiantly: “What Was Enlightenment?” Although Foucault dwells on the then and now of the Enlightenment thereby introducing history, unlike Kant, Anidjar reads him (Foucault) interested primarily in “the difference that yesterday introduces with respect to today”(Anidjar 2019, 174, italics in original). Drawing on Susan Buck-Morss’ work on Hegel, he finds the latter also preoccupied with his present. Anidjar thus observes that if Kant designated his age as the age of the Enlightenment, “Ahmad certainly dares to know . . . our present” and “ours is the age of Islam as critique”(178).

中文翻译：

---

回复 Anidjar、Fernando、Lawrence 和 Moumtaz

令人着迷的是吉尔·阿尼贾尔、马扬蒂·费尔南多、布鲁斯·劳伦斯和纳达·穆姆塔兹作为读者，他们与作者一起思考，有时可能会出现在一些人看来，反对作者。他们以不同的方式、描述性和生成性地这样做。应该引起作者兴趣的是批判性的、生成性的维度——不仅仅是合理的（也是出乎意料的）赞美和欣赏，尽管它们有助于评估一个人的智力劳动。或者，我也这么认为。因此，我首先感谢他们！对于 Yunus Do gan Telliel，我感谢组织这次研讨会。由于他们的评论多种多样，丰富，密集，并且从多个角度，学科和主题建立起来，主要由于字数限制，我无法在这里一一列举。我处理每个人提出的特定问题。Anidjar 思考的中心是康德 1784 年论文（Kant 2007）中的时间概念以及对它的许多回应。他的论点是，不仅康德以现在时提出了“什么是 Aufkl€arung”的问题，从那时起，包括福柯在内的读者也“在语法现在”中对此进行了评论。. . 以及关于现在的时刻。” 与这种当下主义的态度背道而驰，我应该补充一下我自己对它的描述（Ahmad 2017a，32ff），他几乎是挑衅地问道：“什么是启蒙？” 尽管福柯详述了启蒙运动的当时和现在，从而引入了历史，但与康德不同，阿尼贾尔读他（福柯）的主要兴趣在于“昨天引入的与今天的差异”（Anidjar 2019，174，斜体原文）。借鉴苏珊·巴克-莫斯 (Susan Buck-Morss) 对黑格尔的研究，他发现后者也全神贯注于他的礼物。Anidjar 因此观察到，如果康德将他的年龄指定为启蒙时代，“艾哈迈德当然敢于知道。. . 我们的现在”和“我们的时代是作为批判的伊斯兰时代”(178)。