Paper short abstract:

This paper focuses on the view of "secret" and "translation" by Tosaka Jun. The Kyoto School philosopher elaborated his philosophy of technology in the early 1930s. However, by putting these terms forward, I would reveal its hidden development in the writing of the late 1930s and early 40s.

Paper long abstract:

This paper focuses on the view of "secret" and "translation" by Tosaka Jun (1900-45). These might be uncommon topics in the previous studies on the Kyoto School philosopher. However, I would like to emphasize the terms to reveal an important aspect of his philosophy of technology.

First of all, it should be pointed out that research on the philosopher has been divided into two camps. On the one hand, Tosaka has been regarded to be one of the philosophers who introduced Marxist philosophy in Japan through his activities in Yuibutsuron Kenkyukai (Materialist Study Group). He elaborated his philosophy of science based on historical materialism in the late 1920s and early 30s, especially in Philosophy of Technology (1933). Some would find his philosophy of technology to be limited in this period (Kimoto 2009). On the other hand, the critical essays on "everydayness" by Tosaka in the late 1930s became of interest in the last two decades among the East-Asian studies (Harootunian 2000). Some would find Tosaka's interest in the philosophy of technology to have disappeared in the period of political repression.

One might wonder how these arguments were compatible in this Kyoto School philosopher. I would like to put a hypothesis that Tosaka's philosophy of technology flourished at the very epoch of the late 1930s and early 40s. He no longer discussed the science nor technology at that time, but instead how to find the "actuality" from everyday life. What he calls "technical spirit" is essential for revealing or "translating" the "secret" of history. These terminologies would remind us of his criticism of the conventional philosophy, i.e., "philological philosophy" according to him. Tosaka considered this to be a "dead translation," while he insists on the necessity of finding the actuality—which, I assume, would be a "living translation" made possible only through the "technical spirit."