What do you think?
Rate this book
الفلسفة في الحاضر
ألان باديو، وسلافوي جيجك، فيلسوفان مثيران في المشهد الفلسفي في أوروبا، مواقفهما مما سُمّي الحرب على الإرهاب، وغزو العراق، وقصف صربيا، و"مسرحيّة الديمقراطية البرلمانيّة"، والحجاب الاسلامي في فرنسا... والشجب القاسي والشديد للعنصريّة تجاه العمال المهاجرين.. إضافة إلى ماركسيتهما وموقفهما من الربيع العربي، وخاصة من ثورتي مصر وتونس, جعلتهما الأكثر جماهيرية وحضوراً إعلامياً في السنوات الأخيرة.
السياسة عند باديو "حدث زائل"، إنها الفصل الذي يعلن فيه الشعب عن وجوده ويمضي قدماً... إن تحوّل العقم المحموم للعالم، هذا التحول المفاجئ، المخلوق من لاشيء، إلى شيءٍ خصب، هذه اللحظة من القطيعة الجذرية، هي ما تستحوذ على باديو– هذا ما يقوله سيمون كريتشلي عن باديو، وكم يبدو ذلك وصفاً قوياً لما يحدث في ثورة مصر. ويقول تيري ايغلتون عن جيجك "إنه ممتع في القراءة، لكنه أيضاً مفكّر نشط بشكل استثنائي نشأ في التقاليد العالية للفلسفة الأوروبية".
هذا الكتاب في الأصل حوار بين باديو وجيجك، حصل في فيينا، وللتعريف بالفيلسوفين أكثر قمنا بإضافة ملاحق لمقالات كتبت عنهما. والسؤال الذي ينطلق منه هذا الكتاب. هو ما إذا كان يتوجّب على الفيلسوف أن يسهم في الأحداث المعاصرة وأن يعلّق عليها؟
السياسة عند باديو "حدث زائل"، إنها الفصل الذي يعلن فيه الشعب عن وجوده ويمضي قدماً... إن تحوّل العقم المحموم للعالم، هذا التحول المفاجئ، المخلوق من لاشيء، إلى شيءٍ خصب، هذه اللحظة من القطيعة الجذرية، هي ما تستحوذ على باديو– هذا ما يقوله سيمون كريتشلي عن باديو، وكم يبدو ذلك وصفاً قوياً لما يحدث في ثورة مصر. ويقول تيري ايغلتون عن جيجك "إنه ممتع في القراءة، لكنه أيضاً مفكّر نشط بشكل استثنائي نشأ في التقاليد العالية للفلسفة الأوروبية".
هذا الكتاب في الأصل حوار بين باديو وجيجك، حصل في فيينا، وللتعريف بالفيلسوفين أكثر قمنا بإضافة ملاحق لمقالات كتبت عنهما. والسؤال الذي ينطلق منه هذا الكتاب. هو ما إذا كان يتوجّب على الفيلسوف أن يسهم في الأحداث المعاصرة وأن يعلّق عليها؟
147 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 2005
17 people are currently reading
811 people want to read
About the author
Alain Badiou
368 books1,015 followersAlain Badiou, Ph.D., born in Rabat, Morocco in 1937, holds the Rene Descartes Chair at the European Graduate School EGS. Alain Badiou was a student at the École Normale Supérieure in the 1950s. He taught at the University of Paris VIII (Vincennes-Saint Denis) from 1969 until 1999, when he returned to ENS as the Chair of the philosophy department. He continues to teach a popular seminar at the Collège International de Philosophie, on topics ranging from the great 'antiphilosophers' (Saint-Paul, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Lacan) to the major conceptual innovations of the twentieth century. Much of Badiou's life has been shaped by his dedication to the consequences of the May 1968 revolt in Paris. Long a leading member of Union des jeunesses communistes de France (marxistes-léninistes), he remains with Sylvain Lazarus and Natacha Michel at the center of L'Organisation Politique, a post-party organization concerned with direct popular intervention in a wide range of issues (including immigration, labor, and housing). He is the author of several successful novels and plays as well as more than a dozen philosophical works.
Trained as a mathematician, Alain Badiou is one of the most original French philosophers today. Influenced by Plato, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Jacques Lacan and Gilles Deleuze, he is an outspoken critic of both the analytic as well as the postmodern schools of thoughts. His philosophy seeks to expose and make sense of the potential of radical innovation (revolution, invention, transfiguration) in every situation.
Trained as a mathematician, Alain Badiou is one of the most original French philosophers today. Influenced by Plato, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Jacques Lacan and Gilles Deleuze, he is an outspoken critic of both the analytic as well as the postmodern schools of thoughts. His philosophy seeks to expose and make sense of the potential of radical innovation (revolution, invention, transfiguration) in every situation.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews
May 21, 2016
الكتاب تفريغ نصي لندوة وقعت عام 2004 جمعت بين الصديقين : سلافوي جيجك و آلان باديو، ألقى فيها كلا منهما محاضرة تدور حول موضوع علاقة الفلسفة اليوم بواقعنا الراهن، بالإضافة إلى مناقشة بينهما وملاحق إضافية تضمنت مقالات تعرضت بشكل عام ومُجمل لفكر الاثنين. لسوء الحظ؛ فإن الفكر الراديكالي ليست هي النقطة الوحيدة التي تجمعهما، بل كما نرى في تضاعيف الكتاب، جيجك لا يوافق أغلب أطروحات باديو، بل ويبني عليها؛ فلذا لا تتوقعون مناظرة شرسة بين الاثنين. باديو على الورق –على عكس إلقائه في محاضراته، ربما بسبب إنجليزيته الثقيلة- بدا لي أكثر تألقاً وإقناعاً وجاذبية، مقارنة مع جيجك، الذي يشد انتباهك بسبب إلقائه المتحمس والغريب، ويشتتك ورقياً. فكرة باديو الرئيسية في علاقة الفلسفة بالأحداث الحالية يمكن إجمالها من خلال ما أسماه : "الوضع الفلسفي" وفي هذا الوضع لا تكون الفلسفة "أم العلوم" وتدلي بدلوها في كل صغيرة وكبيرة، بل تظهر فقط في أمور محددة معينة، بل وربما استثنائية؛ فعملية التصويت بين ناخبين لا تتطلب رأياً فلسفياً، الفيلسوف هنا لا يختلف عن أي مواطن آخر، وليس المقصود عدم اتخاذ موقف محدد، ولكن برأي باديو، الاشتغال الفلسفي الأصيل لا علاقة له بهذا الحدث، لا يحدث هذا الوضع إلا إذا وجد خرقاً غير عادي، أو تمزّق "في قوانين الكينونة؛ فيكون الخرق هو الحدث، وفقط عبر مواجهة المرء لحقيقة حدث ما، يصبح هذا الشخص ذاتاً" والفلسفة عند باديو تنتج من أربعة أوضاع (الفنّي و العشّقي و السياسي والعلمي). ويضرب باديو أمثلة مثيرة توضح مقصده بالوضع الفلسفي : محاورة من محاورات أفلاطون، و قصة قتل أرخميدس، و مشهد من فلم العاشقان المصلوبان (Crucified Lovers) لميزوغوتشي، والجامع لهذه الأمثلة هو حالة من التوتر، و التمزق الاستثنائي التي تشكّل وضعاً فلسفياً. أما محاضرة جيجك، فكالعادة، لا يبدو أن هناك رابطاً يجمعها، لكن انتقاداته الذكية وملاحظاته التي تثير العجب حقاً حاضرة هنا، انتقاد لهابرماس وعلاقته بالدولة، نص فلسفي لدريدا كان مفاجأة سيئة لجيجك، وغيرها من الملاحظات التي تتعلق -بشكل قريب أو بعيد- بعنوان المحاضرة "الفلسفة ليست حواراً" بل ربما الفلسفة هي سوء فهم؛ فكانط لم يفهم شيئاً عن ديكارت، وهيغل لم يفهم كانط، وأخيراً هايدغر لم يفهم أحداً.
October 18, 2016
We, Badiou and I, embrace each other, but in reality we hate each other. Our usual joke is: if I take power, he goes to the camps; but that is another story.
This is an interesting if underdeveloped and realized venture, one featuring two of the brightest philosophical stars in today's firmament. Their thesis is whether philosophy can be utilized in political machinations. Each author provides a quick essay and then there is an all too brief actual exchange, one whose edges appear blunted because of mutual admiration.
Badiou begins with a thesis that philosophers create or recognize problems through their incessant questioning. Thus they are temperamentally ill disposed to looking at political issues unless such are repurposed to their own agenda. He then unfolds 8 predicate statements, making every effort to assume an almost geometric proposition.
Good old Slavoj is much more informal -- and effective -- in my book. Tolerance means: no harassment. Harassment is a key word. Fundamentally, what this says is: hide your desire; don't come too close to me. It means, as I have experienced in the US: if you look too long at somebody, a woman or whoever - that is already visual harassment; if you say something dirty - that is already verbal rape. That shows us that tolerance in this context is precisely a form of intolerance: intolerance for the closeness of the other.
Žižek thus whirls and spouts, suddenly he asks us to rethink, to consider-- and we go silent, mulling the implications.
This is an interesting if underdeveloped and realized venture, one featuring two of the brightest philosophical stars in today's firmament. Their thesis is whether philosophy can be utilized in political machinations. Each author provides a quick essay and then there is an all too brief actual exchange, one whose edges appear blunted because of mutual admiration.
Badiou begins with a thesis that philosophers create or recognize problems through their incessant questioning. Thus they are temperamentally ill disposed to looking at political issues unless such are repurposed to their own agenda. He then unfolds 8 predicate statements, making every effort to assume an almost geometric proposition.
Good old Slavoj is much more informal -- and effective -- in my book. Tolerance means: no harassment. Harassment is a key word. Fundamentally, what this says is: hide your desire; don't come too close to me. It means, as I have experienced in the US: if you look too long at somebody, a woman or whoever - that is already visual harassment; if you say something dirty - that is already verbal rape. That shows us that tolerance in this context is precisely a form of intolerance: intolerance for the closeness of the other.
Žižek thus whirls and spouts, suddenly he asks us to rethink, to consider-- and we go silent, mulling the implications.
July 3, 2018
This is a very entertaining book!
As a matter of fact, I immediately took it when I read Zizek’s name on the cover! But I’m extremely happy that I found Badiou there – who is another great name I didn’t know anything about before!
These two philosophers are just amazing! Throughout the entire book (which is originally a live interview) both of them showed a wonderful scientific spirit which respects different opinions. Also, they have such a hilarious sense of humor! Zizek describes his friendship with Badiou: “We embrace each other, but in reality we hate each other! Our usual joke is: If I take power, he goes to the camps”
I recommend this book!
Please read it!
This is a very entertaining book!
As a matter of fact, I immediately took it when I read Zizek’s name on the cover! But I’m extremely happy that I found Badiou there – who is another great name I didn’t know anything about before!
These two philosophers are just amazing! Throughout the entire book (which is originally a live interview) both of them showed a wonderful scientific spirit which respects different opinions. Also, they have such a hilarious sense of humor! Zizek describes his friendship with Badiou: “We embrace each other, but in reality we hate each other! Our usual joke is: If I take power, he goes to the camps”
I recommend this book!
Please read it!
April 17, 2017
کتاب شامل سه بخش می شود و گویا حاصل جلسه ای است که در آن ژیژک و بدیو درباب فلسفه اظهار نظر کردهاند. بخش اول مربوط به سخنرانی بدیو می شود، بخش دوم سخنرانی ژیژک و بخش سوم حاصل گفتگوی این دو نفر در قالب یک میزگرد پرسش و پاسخی. هرچند مطالب بدیع و نکتهآموزی از کتاب قابل فهم است (ویژگیهای تفکر فلسفی از نظر بدیو که از شروط آن تفکر به استثنا، فاصلهگیری با قدرت و انتخاب است و سرشت غیردیالوگی فلسفه توسط ژیژک) و نظرورزی که حول فیلسوفان دیگر (کانت و رورتی و باتلر و افلاطون و ...) طرح می شود حائز اهمیت به نظر می رسند، مشکل عمده با چنین قبیل مطالبی آن است که خط سیر درستی را به نظر من طی نمی کنند؛ درست که ادعای سیستماتیک اندیشیدن و تمامنگری عملاً در جریانهای جدید فکری منسوخ شده است ولی امکان پیگیری خط سیر مطالب از جمله ویژگیهای انعقاد فهم و خروج زبان از شکل خصوصی آن است. بخش دوم از مطلب اول که حاصل سخنرانی بدیو است و تلاش می کند رئوس نظر خود را طرح کند مصداق عینی چنین وضعی است؛ یالاقل برای بنده در وضعی که الان در آن به سر میبرم اینگونه بود: مملوء از عبارتهای گند و بیسروته که از اساس امکان فهم را تا موعد قرار گرفتن در فضای فکری فرد، از خلال خوانش چندین و چند متن از او، به تعویق می انداخت.
ولی از طرفی ژیژک تقریباً غالباً قابل فهم است؛ بدین معنی که مثالها و ارجاعاتش مسهلهایی برای شکلگیری ارتباط با متن است، هرچند که از طرفی هم او را عامهپسند و مخاطبپذیر میکند.
ولی از طرفی ژیژک تقریباً غالباً قابل فهم است؛ بدین معنی که مثالها و ارجاعاتش مسهلهایی برای شکلگیری ارتباط با متن است، هرچند که از طرفی هم او را عامهپسند و مخاطبپذیر میکند.
April 5, 2012
Badiou opens the discussion by dispersing the myth that a philosopher ought to be a beacon of knowledge and thus have infinite malleability when it comes to being asked on television to discuss any subject. The philosopher is someone who decides what problems are important and more importantly the philosopher creates new problems by examining the present and noticing inconsistencies, paradoxes and logical conundrums which are truly of significance. He then offers a new phrase, "philosophical situations" in the understanding that not every single part of reality is inherently a situation which may evoke philosophical thinking. This seems like a strange incongruity with the perfect example to the contrary being Zizek, who once remarked in line with Mallarme's famous quote, that the entire reality exists just for him to be able to incorporate it in to his thesis (paraphrase). Nevertheless he creates a trichotomy of philosophical situations
1): Situations which are philosophically formatted. So he gives the example of Socrates VS Callicles in the platonic dialogs. A philosophical situation is mustered here by the overwhelming difference that each thinker brings to the table. Their world view essentially is very different. In philosophy we must choose between two types of thought, are we on the side of Socrates or Callicles. This posits philosophical thinking as choosing and as an axiomatic decision making process confronted with confounding pieces of information, the reader or listener must elucidate a choice.
2): The death of Archimedes is discussed in relation to his defiance of power. "The only constraints creative thought recognizes are its own immanent rules." Thus instigating the second rule of philosophical situations, "clarify the distance between power and truths." (This in my reading seems outrageously difficult and not something that could be rendered as simply juggling universals, mere instantiated 'truth' and 'power' It certainly is true that there is a distance between truth and power but sometimes this distance is certainly intertwined if not an immediate concomitant surplus of the other. Furthermore power is complicated by the endless narratives showcasing that it is not monopolized or centralized within a single entity and so therefore tracing it's lineages is sometimes profoundly difficult. We exhibit power in so many situations. What seems like a deductable piece of philosophical thinking here just strikes me as a real abstract and inherently obtuse piece of writing)
3) A relation without a relation. He quotes Deleuze in his sentiment that art resists death by extending it to also include love in his summation of Mizoguchi's The Crucified Lovers.
"Between the event of love (the turning upside down of existence) and the ordinary rules of live (the laws of the city, the laws of marriage) there is no common measure. What will philosophy tell us then? It will tell s that 'we must think the event'. We must think the exception. We must know what we have to say about what is not ordinary. We must think the transformation of life."
Philosophy therefore is instilled between moments of interest and disinterest, the distance between thinking and power, between truths and states. To measure the distances and to "throw light on the value of exception", the break, the rupture (as Althusser would say) and the discontinuity.
As Badiou recounts, "These are the three great tasks of philosophy: to deal with choice, with distance and with the exception - at least if philosophy is to count for something in life, to be something other than an academic discipline." He provides a brilliant rereading of the platonic suggestion that philosophy is an awakening by understanding that such an awakening requires a difficult break with sleep: "philosophy is the seizure by thought of what breaks with the sleep of thought." which is a poignant reworking of a famous and well understood maxim. Philosophy tus takes place within the situation of rupture, within the discontinuity of relations (or relations which are not relations) in this space of distance we establish situations which are pertinent for the seizure of space more generally, one which is demarcating the boundaries that come to be understood in the categories of love and truth et al. With this profound sentiment he then goes on to suggest that politics, or parliamentarian choices are incongruous to philosophy ("I am simply saying that one cannot be interested in them in a philosophical manner.") and whenever a philosopher takes a position or a view in this circumstance one is merely a citizen not a philosopher. This seems strange since his previous conviction is centered on making choices between distinct positions, which is surely the process involved in democratic elections. People make choices between ideological points of view, sometimes they are merely conditioned by demagoguery or political smear but there is a choice, an event taking place which often presents a rupture. Despite his insistence that people are not presented with choices which are radical opposites and instead nuances of a similar position (which is true in many cases), the real pertinent problem is not that we do not have choice but rather our choices do not matter. I could vote for the communist party in the general election but it would be "wasted" as it's not constituting or within a general zeitgeist. Our world is now conditioned by so many choices that the correct ones are not being considered nor implemented. It is consistent with his second suggestion however as opposed to constituting distance we get mere proximity but like I have argued, the choices are multifarious and cumbersome and so people use their democratic initiative by not making a choice. Is there a philosophical situation in not making a definitive choice at all and merely abstaining, because it would seem to me in doing so could constitute a "distance" or a "rupture" in that the person becomes distunciated from the entire system. I also disagree with his sentiment that the electoral methodology is not raising new problems philosophically. There has been great work done constituting the extent to which we on the left can "take power" without "taking power", Example being John Holloway's "Change the World Without Taking Power". Something that Zizek has debated and contested (In a live debate I incidentally was at in London a couple of years back between Holloway, Zizek and Callinicos)
However his analysis of oppositional movements to the War in Iraq seems justified and spot on. There was a definitive gap both from power and common measure. There was a clear definitive choice here also, in being either for or against intervention (euphemism for 'war' in this instance)
"Is there a relation that is not a relation? Are there incommensurable elements?' If the answer is positive, you must draw the consequences: there is a choice, there is a distance, there is an exception. And on these bases, you can pass from the mere
consideration of opinion to the philosophical situation."
He insists on demarcating politics from philosophy, which is laudable but his statement that there are certain political issues which are illuminated and even necessary in its need for philosophical interventionism, seeks to blur the line somewhat. Are we considering political issues which cannot have any palpable or realistic philosophical interventionism and thus no situation or rupture to be juxtaposed with philosophical investigation. Such a dichotomy seems to lack the nuances that he himself considers vital and therefore it would seem counter-productive to even draw the line. We can establish philosophical situations within the political as Derrida noted in his later works, the political is inherently philosophical in all its manifestations. The need to bifurcate here is also puzzling, why is such a distinction pertinent or even of the uppermost interest in delineating philosophy. I suppose it provides credence to his earlier sentiments in breaking the myth concerning the applicability of philosophy to everything in the entire world but surely philosophy as an intervening force within the political realm is a good thing. Badiou suggests that the problem with parliamentarian democracies for example is that there is no such gap or rupture available for making choices, thus instigating the assumption that if there was it would be a better system but in doing so this presents a terrain for philosophy.
Badiou strangely discusses philosophy as foreign as pardon the term, other. It always constitutes a foreign feel and when it's common place we get political thinking. I hardly see the merits again in creating such arborescent models and instantiating philosophy in this mannerism. It certainly doesn't help analysis or evaluation or anything but seems merely to be there as a form of mindful thought experimentation. Again he establishes that philosophy is here to create problems and to rework them, to showcase their universal stature. This is a concise and workable definition for the most part but certainly not something to be quoted at length. Its a sentiment which seems in agreement with the majority of contemporary philosophy and so its appearance is hardly illuminating.
Badiou thus begins his analysis of what he considers the universal
Thought is the proper medium of the universal. (Thinking cuts through the totality of established knowledge. He insists therefore that nothing which is an object can take the form of such an idea. "of the object or of objective regularity."
Invariably this becomes overwhelmingly turgid and heavy which doesn't suit well for reviews of this nature: "Dialectic is thought itself". For those interested, this segment is available isolated on lacanian ink: http://www.lacan.com/badeight.htm (I will come back and deconstruct it later)
Zizek begins noting the Sophist platonic dialogs, pointing out how each response hardly constituted a "dialog" in the overt sense of the word since it was mere lauded praise in differing structures. He makes a fantastic suggestion here in stating that every single successful philosophical dialog was the result of a dreadful misunderstanding. Aristotle didn't understand Plato correctly, Hegel- Kant, "And Heidegger fundamentally didn’t understand anyone at all". This is a startling literary critique, similar to the work of Harold Bloom and others. He utilizes the Deleuzian term "Disjunctive Synthesis" in relation to Badiou's essay on September the 11th and utilizes it to suggest that in standard political narratives we have false alternatives or a disjunctive synthesis, they are formulates of a false choice, one that isn't really one or the other. He insists this should be the standard role of the philosopher in this situation, the one that Badiou refers to earlier as the citizen role. He must change the very coordinates of debate itself. This would be a welcome rupture to the entire discourse. Zizek playfully refers to hyper reality and changes the coordinates of debate to suggest that its "not that virtual reality is the problem, but rather, the reality of the virtual"
There are false answers, debates and movements. How we infer these, it's difficult to tell. If we merely change the coordinates of debate it could end up being more obscurantist and obtuse as opposed to liberating from the steadfast possession of definition, to utilized a well known quote. I love his use of "politico-ontological short circuit" in critiquing Adorno's dialectic of enlightenment, in suggesting that the fast food response, the pseudo transcendental thinking farts may ultimately only cause confusion and may be of extra detriment when considering totalitarianism. How we are able to solidify and notice this from other truly deep philosophical arguments and conjure is another point of interest. What methodological approach would one take at labeling something bullshit. Would it be on the sound or nonsensical nature of the sentence to me? Surely I couldn't ignore and class everything within a specific field due to it being demarcated as something partially nefarious like "new age"
Zizek goes on to discuss Habermaian state philosophy and its a massive detour however it does begin to refute Badiou's points earlier on the requirement to taxonomize political and philosophical inquiries as separate entities. Here it seems to be worthwhile, this Neo-Kantian approach to bioethics, despite Zizek's reservations to it. Naturally he begins to discusses Stalinism in an incongruous way. There are numerous theories which attempt to delineate the mode of production as characterizing a new society and other nuanced discussions in the literature which attempt to characterize what happened there. This however is misleading. To be able to explain all the minutia and complexities of something as expansive and confusing as Stalin would take more than a theory, it would take an expansive amount of analysis and reading. We cannot simply package everything into a succint Einstineian theory of everything style maxim to conjure up the reasons why something happened. This is such a positivist frame of thinking and really frustrating. He discusses Derrida's Spectres of Marx by remarking that it was profoundly unphilosophical of Derrida to list all the problems in the world within the middle section. I suppose it leads to an arborescent logical fallacy but this is certainly not Zizek's critique here, it is literally the conflationism of philosophy and people caring about the world. Why is it so absurd for Derrida to attempt to devise a thesis like this? It certainly is outside the normal metaphysical conjecture of his writings but it doesn't mean that his philosophy is therefore null void due to his insistence on ten points about disaster right? and also this is surely removed from context but even if it was not, why is highlighting these problems so nefarious to philosophical thinking which should be and is concerned with well being?
Denotation is a central theme here as we get more analysis nearing the end of Zizek's discussion on how philosophy's definition is dependent on the country and cultural assumptions in place. This means that philosophy is an ever shifting and nebulous entity but there are central aphorisms to which philosophy is concerned and how to recognize a philosophical investigation or idea. We could discuss many but ontology is one. These could be hooked as philosophical "social facts" as Durkheim would say perhaps. Zizek insists that philosophy begins at the foreign, its starting point is in the unknown and thus lightly disagrees with Badiou. Every philosopher takes the stage of displacement. He discusses Kant and in doing so rejuvenates the best parts of Kant, the humanism in his discussion of private/public reason (not only that but his other dichotomies including instrumental value/inherent value etc). He therefore becomes more relevant than ever before in times of disconnect, of rupture in the social arena and within the meta narrative of what constitutes "identity" in the 21st century and is a perfect example for the key coordinates of philosophy. Perhaps the philosophical tool that we need to apply and reason with concerns that which allows humanity to not only flourish but for it to happen at all. In this vein, Derrida may have been correct after all.
The discussion begins and Badiou brings a great quote in: "Some time ago Foucault had already remarked that, after all, ‘man’ is a kind of theoretical construction with his own history, that we could see when man, or humanism, had begun – and Foucault added: we’ll also see when it ends." Ever since Plato, philosophy has faced the inhuman, but also the "absolute", the external. Should it be job of philosophy to deal with constructions? Of course. It seems patently absurd not to as the entire social world is preconditioned by sequences of norms of deterministic inequalities and so on, philosophy surely has a word to say about these things and how we could better focus the debate? I don't think it matters that "man" is a human construction. We can accept social construction and still deal with its consequences or the consequences that are nefarious or holistic. Badiou states that philosophy is suppressed by focusing on the human but part of the problem seems to be the exact opposite, that the debate consistently needs to be reframed (to use Bourdieu) to reconstitute successfully and weed out the "false" narratives. It hardly is a discipline which is a mirroring with reality which attempts harmonious interventionism. I agree with him that this would be ultimately confining but its not true to state that philosophy is doing this. Anyone reading the deconstructionist cannon could contest the ultimately dense and turgid argumentation which is constructed in a hyper real paradigm of sorts, is not reality but rather reticent realism. I will not think of Stephen King in the same way again, for the undead is the Kantian transcendental subject.
1): Situations which are philosophically formatted. So he gives the example of Socrates VS Callicles in the platonic dialogs. A philosophical situation is mustered here by the overwhelming difference that each thinker brings to the table. Their world view essentially is very different. In philosophy we must choose between two types of thought, are we on the side of Socrates or Callicles. This posits philosophical thinking as choosing and as an axiomatic decision making process confronted with confounding pieces of information, the reader or listener must elucidate a choice.
2): The death of Archimedes is discussed in relation to his defiance of power. "The only constraints creative thought recognizes are its own immanent rules." Thus instigating the second rule of philosophical situations, "clarify the distance between power and truths." (This in my reading seems outrageously difficult and not something that could be rendered as simply juggling universals, mere instantiated 'truth' and 'power' It certainly is true that there is a distance between truth and power but sometimes this distance is certainly intertwined if not an immediate concomitant surplus of the other. Furthermore power is complicated by the endless narratives showcasing that it is not monopolized or centralized within a single entity and so therefore tracing it's lineages is sometimes profoundly difficult. We exhibit power in so many situations. What seems like a deductable piece of philosophical thinking here just strikes me as a real abstract and inherently obtuse piece of writing)
3) A relation without a relation. He quotes Deleuze in his sentiment that art resists death by extending it to also include love in his summation of Mizoguchi's The Crucified Lovers.
"Between the event of love (the turning upside down of existence) and the ordinary rules of live (the laws of the city, the laws of marriage) there is no common measure. What will philosophy tell us then? It will tell s that 'we must think the event'. We must think the exception. We must know what we have to say about what is not ordinary. We must think the transformation of life."
Philosophy therefore is instilled between moments of interest and disinterest, the distance between thinking and power, between truths and states. To measure the distances and to "throw light on the value of exception", the break, the rupture (as Althusser would say) and the discontinuity.
As Badiou recounts, "These are the three great tasks of philosophy: to deal with choice, with distance and with the exception - at least if philosophy is to count for something in life, to be something other than an academic discipline." He provides a brilliant rereading of the platonic suggestion that philosophy is an awakening by understanding that such an awakening requires a difficult break with sleep: "philosophy is the seizure by thought of what breaks with the sleep of thought." which is a poignant reworking of a famous and well understood maxim. Philosophy tus takes place within the situation of rupture, within the discontinuity of relations (or relations which are not relations) in this space of distance we establish situations which are pertinent for the seizure of space more generally, one which is demarcating the boundaries that come to be understood in the categories of love and truth et al. With this profound sentiment he then goes on to suggest that politics, or parliamentarian choices are incongruous to philosophy ("I am simply saying that one cannot be interested in them in a philosophical manner.") and whenever a philosopher takes a position or a view in this circumstance one is merely a citizen not a philosopher. This seems strange since his previous conviction is centered on making choices between distinct positions, which is surely the process involved in democratic elections. People make choices between ideological points of view, sometimes they are merely conditioned by demagoguery or political smear but there is a choice, an event taking place which often presents a rupture. Despite his insistence that people are not presented with choices which are radical opposites and instead nuances of a similar position (which is true in many cases), the real pertinent problem is not that we do not have choice but rather our choices do not matter. I could vote for the communist party in the general election but it would be "wasted" as it's not constituting or within a general zeitgeist. Our world is now conditioned by so many choices that the correct ones are not being considered nor implemented. It is consistent with his second suggestion however as opposed to constituting distance we get mere proximity but like I have argued, the choices are multifarious and cumbersome and so people use their democratic initiative by not making a choice. Is there a philosophical situation in not making a definitive choice at all and merely abstaining, because it would seem to me in doing so could constitute a "distance" or a "rupture" in that the person becomes distunciated from the entire system. I also disagree with his sentiment that the electoral methodology is not raising new problems philosophically. There has been great work done constituting the extent to which we on the left can "take power" without "taking power", Example being John Holloway's "Change the World Without Taking Power". Something that Zizek has debated and contested (In a live debate I incidentally was at in London a couple of years back between Holloway, Zizek and Callinicos)
However his analysis of oppositional movements to the War in Iraq seems justified and spot on. There was a definitive gap both from power and common measure. There was a clear definitive choice here also, in being either for or against intervention (euphemism for 'war' in this instance)
"Is there a relation that is not a relation? Are there incommensurable elements?' If the answer is positive, you must draw the consequences: there is a choice, there is a distance, there is an exception. And on these bases, you can pass from the mere
consideration of opinion to the philosophical situation."
He insists on demarcating politics from philosophy, which is laudable but his statement that there are certain political issues which are illuminated and even necessary in its need for philosophical interventionism, seeks to blur the line somewhat. Are we considering political issues which cannot have any palpable or realistic philosophical interventionism and thus no situation or rupture to be juxtaposed with philosophical investigation. Such a dichotomy seems to lack the nuances that he himself considers vital and therefore it would seem counter-productive to even draw the line. We can establish philosophical situations within the political as Derrida noted in his later works, the political is inherently philosophical in all its manifestations. The need to bifurcate here is also puzzling, why is such a distinction pertinent or even of the uppermost interest in delineating philosophy. I suppose it provides credence to his earlier sentiments in breaking the myth concerning the applicability of philosophy to everything in the entire world but surely philosophy as an intervening force within the political realm is a good thing. Badiou suggests that the problem with parliamentarian democracies for example is that there is no such gap or rupture available for making choices, thus instigating the assumption that if there was it would be a better system but in doing so this presents a terrain for philosophy.
Badiou strangely discusses philosophy as foreign as pardon the term, other. It always constitutes a foreign feel and when it's common place we get political thinking. I hardly see the merits again in creating such arborescent models and instantiating philosophy in this mannerism. It certainly doesn't help analysis or evaluation or anything but seems merely to be there as a form of mindful thought experimentation. Again he establishes that philosophy is here to create problems and to rework them, to showcase their universal stature. This is a concise and workable definition for the most part but certainly not something to be quoted at length. Its a sentiment which seems in agreement with the majority of contemporary philosophy and so its appearance is hardly illuminating.
Badiou thus begins his analysis of what he considers the universal
Thought is the proper medium of the universal. (Thinking cuts through the totality of established knowledge. He insists therefore that nothing which is an object can take the form of such an idea. "of the object or of objective regularity."
Invariably this becomes overwhelmingly turgid and heavy which doesn't suit well for reviews of this nature: "Dialectic is thought itself". For those interested, this segment is available isolated on lacanian ink: http://www.lacan.com/badeight.htm (I will come back and deconstruct it later)
Zizek begins noting the Sophist platonic dialogs, pointing out how each response hardly constituted a "dialog" in the overt sense of the word since it was mere lauded praise in differing structures. He makes a fantastic suggestion here in stating that every single successful philosophical dialog was the result of a dreadful misunderstanding. Aristotle didn't understand Plato correctly, Hegel- Kant, "And Heidegger fundamentally didn’t understand anyone at all". This is a startling literary critique, similar to the work of Harold Bloom and others. He utilizes the Deleuzian term "Disjunctive Synthesis" in relation to Badiou's essay on September the 11th and utilizes it to suggest that in standard political narratives we have false alternatives or a disjunctive synthesis, they are formulates of a false choice, one that isn't really one or the other. He insists this should be the standard role of the philosopher in this situation, the one that Badiou refers to earlier as the citizen role. He must change the very coordinates of debate itself. This would be a welcome rupture to the entire discourse. Zizek playfully refers to hyper reality and changes the coordinates of debate to suggest that its "not that virtual reality is the problem, but rather, the reality of the virtual"
There are false answers, debates and movements. How we infer these, it's difficult to tell. If we merely change the coordinates of debate it could end up being more obscurantist and obtuse as opposed to liberating from the steadfast possession of definition, to utilized a well known quote. I love his use of "politico-ontological short circuit" in critiquing Adorno's dialectic of enlightenment, in suggesting that the fast food response, the pseudo transcendental thinking farts may ultimately only cause confusion and may be of extra detriment when considering totalitarianism. How we are able to solidify and notice this from other truly deep philosophical arguments and conjure is another point of interest. What methodological approach would one take at labeling something bullshit. Would it be on the sound or nonsensical nature of the sentence to me? Surely I couldn't ignore and class everything within a specific field due to it being demarcated as something partially nefarious like "new age"
Zizek goes on to discuss Habermaian state philosophy and its a massive detour however it does begin to refute Badiou's points earlier on the requirement to taxonomize political and philosophical inquiries as separate entities. Here it seems to be worthwhile, this Neo-Kantian approach to bioethics, despite Zizek's reservations to it. Naturally he begins to discusses Stalinism in an incongruous way. There are numerous theories which attempt to delineate the mode of production as characterizing a new society and other nuanced discussions in the literature which attempt to characterize what happened there. This however is misleading. To be able to explain all the minutia and complexities of something as expansive and confusing as Stalin would take more than a theory, it would take an expansive amount of analysis and reading. We cannot simply package everything into a succint Einstineian theory of everything style maxim to conjure up the reasons why something happened. This is such a positivist frame of thinking and really frustrating. He discusses Derrida's Spectres of Marx by remarking that it was profoundly unphilosophical of Derrida to list all the problems in the world within the middle section. I suppose it leads to an arborescent logical fallacy but this is certainly not Zizek's critique here, it is literally the conflationism of philosophy and people caring about the world. Why is it so absurd for Derrida to attempt to devise a thesis like this? It certainly is outside the normal metaphysical conjecture of his writings but it doesn't mean that his philosophy is therefore null void due to his insistence on ten points about disaster right? and also this is surely removed from context but even if it was not, why is highlighting these problems so nefarious to philosophical thinking which should be and is concerned with well being?
Denotation is a central theme here as we get more analysis nearing the end of Zizek's discussion on how philosophy's definition is dependent on the country and cultural assumptions in place. This means that philosophy is an ever shifting and nebulous entity but there are central aphorisms to which philosophy is concerned and how to recognize a philosophical investigation or idea. We could discuss many but ontology is one. These could be hooked as philosophical "social facts" as Durkheim would say perhaps. Zizek insists that philosophy begins at the foreign, its starting point is in the unknown and thus lightly disagrees with Badiou. Every philosopher takes the stage of displacement. He discusses Kant and in doing so rejuvenates the best parts of Kant, the humanism in his discussion of private/public reason (not only that but his other dichotomies including instrumental value/inherent value etc). He therefore becomes more relevant than ever before in times of disconnect, of rupture in the social arena and within the meta narrative of what constitutes "identity" in the 21st century and is a perfect example for the key coordinates of philosophy. Perhaps the philosophical tool that we need to apply and reason with concerns that which allows humanity to not only flourish but for it to happen at all. In this vein, Derrida may have been correct after all.
The discussion begins and Badiou brings a great quote in: "Some time ago Foucault had already remarked that, after all, ‘man’ is a kind of theoretical construction with his own history, that we could see when man, or humanism, had begun – and Foucault added: we’ll also see when it ends." Ever since Plato, philosophy has faced the inhuman, but also the "absolute", the external. Should it be job of philosophy to deal with constructions? Of course. It seems patently absurd not to as the entire social world is preconditioned by sequences of norms of deterministic inequalities and so on, philosophy surely has a word to say about these things and how we could better focus the debate? I don't think it matters that "man" is a human construction. We can accept social construction and still deal with its consequences or the consequences that are nefarious or holistic. Badiou states that philosophy is suppressed by focusing on the human but part of the problem seems to be the exact opposite, that the debate consistently needs to be reframed (to use Bourdieu) to reconstitute successfully and weed out the "false" narratives. It hardly is a discipline which is a mirroring with reality which attempts harmonious interventionism. I agree with him that this would be ultimately confining but its not true to state that philosophy is doing this. Anyone reading the deconstructionist cannon could contest the ultimately dense and turgid argumentation which is constructed in a hyper real paradigm of sorts, is not reality but rather reticent realism. I will not think of Stephen King in the same way again, for the undead is the Kantian transcendental subject.
April 8, 2017
كل كتاب يشدّك لتبحث أكثر لتقرأ أكثر ، لتشكّل قوائمًا بأسماء فلاسفة و كتب لآخرين حتّى تطلّع عليها لم و لن يكون مضيعةً للوقت
January 27, 2019
۳۴۵
فلسفه تحلیل و تفسیر مسائل مختلف و برآمده از امور روزمره نیست بلکه خلق و آفرینش این مسائل است. .. فلسفه نه استغراق و تامل در مفاهیم، بلکه خلق، جعل و آفریدن مفاهیم است. آلن بدیو و اسلاوی ژیژک پای را از این نیز فراتر می نهند و فلسفیدن را نه تنها خلق مفاهیم، بلکه تعریف مسائل می دانند
فلسفه تحلیل و تفسیر مسائل مختلف و برآمده از امور روزمره نیست بلکه خلق و آفرینش این مسائل است. .. فلسفه نه استغراق و تامل در مفاهیم، بلکه خلق، جعل و آفریدن مفاهیم است. آلن بدیو و اسلاوی ژیژک پای را از این نیز فراتر می نهند و فلسفیدن را نه تنها خلق مفاهیم، بلکه تعریف مسائل می دانند
June 2, 2024
"We, Badiou and I, embrace each other, but in reality we hate each other."
September 24, 2016
"نحن: باديو وأنا نعانق بعضنا،ولكن في الحقيقة كل منا يكره الآخر،ونكتتنا المعتادة هي: فيما لو تسلمت السلطة سيذهب هو الى معسكرات الاعتقال"
هكذا يقول جيجك واصفاعلاقته بصديقه الن باديو،الذي يشترك واياه في تأليف هذا الكتاب،الذي يتراوح بين نمط المحاضرات الفلسفية والمناظرات حول الفلسفة،يشرح كل من الرجلين عبرها طريقته ونهجه الفلسفي،في اطار نمط فلسفة الحاضر التي يهاجم عبرها جيجك فلسفة المابعد حداثة،فيما يهاجم باديو فلسفة الدولة وأتباعها المعادين للمبادىء العامة للفلسفة من وجهة نظره.
الكتاب خفيف وهام في ذات الوقت،ويحاول الرجلان رغم اتفاقهما في العديد من القضايا الفلسفية ازاحة اللثام عن دور الجدل في بعث الفلسفة الى العالم بشكلها المؤثر لا الثقافوي المتعالي.
هكذا يقول جيجك واصفاعلاقته بصديقه الن باديو،الذي يشترك واياه في تأليف هذا الكتاب،الذي يتراوح بين نمط المحاضرات الفلسفية والمناظرات حول الفلسفة،يشرح كل من الرجلين عبرها طريقته ونهجه الفلسفي،في اطار نمط فلسفة الحاضر التي يهاجم عبرها جيجك فلسفة المابعد حداثة،فيما يهاجم باديو فلسفة الدولة وأتباعها المعادين للمبادىء العامة للفلسفة من وجهة نظره.
الكتاب خفيف وهام في ذات الوقت،ويحاول الرجلان رغم اتفاقهما في العديد من القضايا الفلسفية ازاحة اللثام عن دور الجدل في بعث الفلسفة الى العالم بشكلها المؤثر لا الثقافوي المتعالي.
October 30, 2016
مناظرةٌ بين الفيلسوفين باديو وجيجك يدورُ موضوعها عن المسافة الفاصلة بين الفلسفة والسلطة وكيف يسهمُ الفيلسوفُ برأيِه في مشكلاتِ الحاضر؟ باديو كلامه جاءَ واضحًا وحاول تقريبَ كثيرٍ من مصطلحاته العويصة بالتمثيل عليها وحددَ في جزء مشاركته ما يتفردُ به الفيلسوف في مهام ثلاث/ الاختيار، والاستثنا��، وموقفُه من السلطة ثم صاغَ نظريته الحاوية مبادئه الثمانية وتدورُ جميعها عن كونية الفلسفة وما يتصلُ بها من وضع الخصوصيات وتغير المفاهيم ليجعلَ القارئ في نهاية مشاركته يستخلصُ بنفسه رأي باديو في السؤال المطروح
الكتابُ في مجملِه صعبُ الخوض فيه وقد تمرُّ على القارئ فقرات إن لم يكن صفحاتٍ لا يفقه منها شيئا رغمَ محاولات المترجم القدير يزن الحاج التبسيطَ وتقريب المفاهيم للقارئِ
الكتابُ في مجملِه صعبُ الخوض فيه وقد تمرُّ على القارئ فقرات إن لم يكن صفحاتٍ لا يفقه منها شيئا رغمَ محاولات المترجم القدير يزن الحاج التبسيطَ وتقريب المفاهيم للقارئِ
September 29, 2021
A pleasure and a good laugh as always. Zizek says in here : « Isn’t foreignness at the beginning of philosophy? (…) philosophy (…) was from the very beginning not the discourse of those who feel the certainty of being at home. » But to say something very stupid and ad-worthy, with Zizek and Badiou, I always feel at home.
Badiou and Zizek tackle with great agility and firmness the question of the role of philosophy today. To lay it out as Badiou did, philosophy always comes from a) a distance, or gap, with the power ; b) a decision that’s to be made ; c) an event. The question of the event and its role in affirming a philosophical position that aims universality seems essential here. But rather than positions, it’s really a matter of questions, and asking the right ones especially (like Socrates). And again Zizek finds an example in Socrates when he titles his part « Philosophy is not a Dialogue », which I’ve gotta love. To him, any philosophical dialogue is an unfortunate chain of misunderstandings, and when a philosopher is asked to enter a debate about a given political situation, the best he can do is to point out the « false alternatives » perceived in this situation.
But really it’s about universality. Here’s what I found interesting on this matter :
« The universal is essentially ‘anobjective’. It can be experienced only through the production (or reproducrion) of a trajectory of thought, and this trajectory constitutes (or reconstitutes) a subjective disposition. » (Badiou)
« General philosophical commitment, in situations, creates foreignness… when it is not immersed in this paradox, then it is a political commitment, an ideological commitment, the commitment of a citizen, but it is not necessarily a philosophical commitment. Philosophical commitment is marked by foreignness. » (Badiou)
« Philosophy is by definition excessive; it literally exists only through the excessive connection to external conditions, which are of either an amorous, political, scientific or artistic nature. » (Zizek)
« Each time that philosophy confines itself to humanity as it has been historically constituted and defined, it diminishes itself, and in the end suppresses itself. It suppresses itself because its only use becomes that of conserving, spreading and consolidating the established model of humanity. » (Zizek)
My only complaint is about the edition : 18€ is a lot of money for a 100 pages, but I’ll let it slide since it’s Badiou and Zizek, and a very useful philosophical handbook.
Badiou and Zizek tackle with great agility and firmness the question of the role of philosophy today. To lay it out as Badiou did, philosophy always comes from a) a distance, or gap, with the power ; b) a decision that’s to be made ; c) an event. The question of the event and its role in affirming a philosophical position that aims universality seems essential here. But rather than positions, it’s really a matter of questions, and asking the right ones especially (like Socrates). And again Zizek finds an example in Socrates when he titles his part « Philosophy is not a Dialogue », which I’ve gotta love. To him, any philosophical dialogue is an unfortunate chain of misunderstandings, and when a philosopher is asked to enter a debate about a given political situation, the best he can do is to point out the « false alternatives » perceived in this situation.
But really it’s about universality. Here’s what I found interesting on this matter :
« The universal is essentially ‘anobjective’. It can be experienced only through the production (or reproducrion) of a trajectory of thought, and this trajectory constitutes (or reconstitutes) a subjective disposition. » (Badiou)
« General philosophical commitment, in situations, creates foreignness… when it is not immersed in this paradox, then it is a political commitment, an ideological commitment, the commitment of a citizen, but it is not necessarily a philosophical commitment. Philosophical commitment is marked by foreignness. » (Badiou)
« Philosophy is by definition excessive; it literally exists only through the excessive connection to external conditions, which are of either an amorous, political, scientific or artistic nature. » (Zizek)
« Each time that philosophy confines itself to humanity as it has been historically constituted and defined, it diminishes itself, and in the end suppresses itself. It suppresses itself because its only use becomes that of conserving, spreading and consolidating the established model of humanity. » (Zizek)
My only complaint is about the edition : 18€ is a lot of money for a 100 pages, but I’ll let it slide since it’s Badiou and Zizek, and a very useful philosophical handbook.
March 5, 2021
It's just a print version of the discussion between 2 acclaimed philosophers zizek and badiou.
They're defining the need for Philoshopy in post-modern world and interpreting in their own terms.
They're defining the need for Philoshopy in post-modern world and interpreting in their own terms.
October 3, 2025
Per quello che è (un testo carino)
November 28, 2017
من الكتاب :
" الحب هو ما لن تختبره مرتين "
" الحب هو ما لن تختبره مرتين "
Read
August 2, 2011This book is meant to present a "meeting of the minds" between Alain Badiou and Slavoj Zizek. But as "Visual" Bookshelf implies, this is basically Badiou's turf. His lecture on the possibility and desireability of philosophy intervening in ethics and politics becomes an opportunity for Badiou to attempt to synopsize his gigantic tome "Being and Event" in fifty, relatively accessable pages.
Just for sport (not because I think anyone cares) I will attempt to synopsize the synopsis:
Philosophy intervenes when new kinds of choices present themselves, ethical problems the likes of which thought has not previously had to consider. These new problems most typically reveal themselves through science, art or dramatic social confrontations between Power and the individual (or masses of individuals).
Philosophical intervention, then, is necessarily an intervention into the strange and unknown, yet it understands itself and conveys itself as an intervention into a universal problem, one that applies to everyone, even if it has not previously been thought by anyone. Just as the universality of a mathematical truth is demonstrated through the individual thinking through its proof, universal philsosophical truths reveal themselves to the individual philosophical mind. But just as a newly discovered mathematical truth is not "invented" by a watershed mathematical thinker (the mathematical discovery was always already true- it was merely "uncovered" by the mathematician) new philisophical "objects" were always already part of reality- they merely become uncovered in certain scientific, artistic, or social situations, and philosophy seeks to integrate these newly uncovered options, and ellucidate the new choice. The philosopher does not create these objects any more than the mathematician invents math. Indeed, the situation, or Event, as Badiou says, that uncovers the new object summons the conscousness of philosophy. Thought is the by-product, not the instigator, of the Event.
Zizek's contribution is fairly insipid, although he makes an interesting remark about what he sees as the relative pettiness of the Derrida-Habermas debate. He points out what a small field of inquiery this debate really engages: both thinkers try to imagine how to recognize the Other without damaging its Otherness. He asks, penetratingly, if this "debate," which shaped philosophy in the 1990s, does not really represent a false choice and that these two "rivals" actually represent two sides of the same coin.
I found quite profound both Zizek and Badiou's final statements on the need to interrogate not only capitalism, but what is currently known as "democracy".
Just for sport (not because I think anyone cares) I will attempt to synopsize the synopsis:
Philosophy intervenes when new kinds of choices present themselves, ethical problems the likes of which thought has not previously had to consider. These new problems most typically reveal themselves through science, art or dramatic social confrontations between Power and the individual (or masses of individuals).
Philosophical intervention, then, is necessarily an intervention into the strange and unknown, yet it understands itself and conveys itself as an intervention into a universal problem, one that applies to everyone, even if it has not previously been thought by anyone. Just as the universality of a mathematical truth is demonstrated through the individual thinking through its proof, universal philsosophical truths reveal themselves to the individual philosophical mind. But just as a newly discovered mathematical truth is not "invented" by a watershed mathematical thinker (the mathematical discovery was always already true- it was merely "uncovered" by the mathematician) new philisophical "objects" were always already part of reality- they merely become uncovered in certain scientific, artistic, or social situations, and philosophy seeks to integrate these newly uncovered options, and ellucidate the new choice. The philosopher does not create these objects any more than the mathematician invents math. Indeed, the situation, or Event, as Badiou says, that uncovers the new object summons the conscousness of philosophy. Thought is the by-product, not the instigator, of the Event.
Zizek's contribution is fairly insipid, although he makes an interesting remark about what he sees as the relative pettiness of the Derrida-Habermas debate. He points out what a small field of inquiery this debate really engages: both thinkers try to imagine how to recognize the Other without damaging its Otherness. He asks, penetratingly, if this "debate," which shaped philosophy in the 1990s, does not really represent a false choice and that these two "rivals" actually represent two sides of the same coin.
I found quite profound both Zizek and Badiou's final statements on the need to interrogate not only capitalism, but what is currently known as "democracy".
January 26, 2016
C'è qualcosa nel pensiero di Žižek e nella filosofia dell'evento di Badiou che ci riguarda da vicino e che rende altamente interessanti i loro discorsi. Forse perché in momenti come questi di totale incertezza, il desiderio di appellarsi a endismi, a teorie catastrofistiche o a profezie apocalittiche come quella tanto in voga dei Maya(senza invocare come Heidegger un Dio come unica salvezza) sembrano l'unico modo per stimolare l'intorpidimento del pensiero che traspare ovunque nella nostra epoca: pensiero che non è più in grado di riuscire a creare orizzonti di senso capaci di fornire speranza e fiducia verso il futuro. Dunque non ci resta che aggrapparci a queste soluzioni di superficiale appagatività oppure tentare più costruttivamente di fuggirle e guardare la realtà della nostra condizione da un'altro punto di vista.
Con la violenza del suo discorso e il coraggio di sostenere posizioni che si discostano dal pensiero comune (come la pervicace opposizione contro il rispetto delle particolarità a discapito dell'universale e contro il dominio del multiculturalismo sterile dell'Occidente) Žižek rende viva la filosofia. Il suo linguaggio, lungi dall'essere una sterile e accattivante via di fuga dal pensiero post-moderno e liberale egemonizzante, è un modo di accettare la condizione di Πόλεμος del pensiero filosofico. Il compito fondamentale che - con le parole di Badiou - deve assumere chi si ritiene amante della filosofia è quello di distanza dal pensiero dominante (sia soggettivo che sociale), biosogna cioè scegliere di creare relazioni di rottura facendo chiarezza sul valore di questa eccezione. Con questo atto performativo (l'impegno filosofico come gesto di rottura non è dunque da intendere come momento negativo di critica ma come affermativo, come dichiarazione), potremmo dire, creiamo un Evento, dove un universale (o verità) può venire a galla attraverso questo medium (il pensiero). Ecco quindi perché l'uno nel suo modo di fare filosofia (Žižek), l'altro per la proposta e per il suo pensiero in generale (Badiou), riescono a rapirci e a toccare il centro nevralgico della nostra contemporaneità mostrandoci come sia possibile fare filosofia e creare nuovi orizzonti nel nostro presente e nella nostra πόλις. La nottola di Minerva la lasciamo a qualcun'altro.
Con la violenza del suo discorso e il coraggio di sostenere posizioni che si discostano dal pensiero comune (come la pervicace opposizione contro il rispetto delle particolarità a discapito dell'universale e contro il dominio del multiculturalismo sterile dell'Occidente) Žižek rende viva la filosofia. Il suo linguaggio, lungi dall'essere una sterile e accattivante via di fuga dal pensiero post-moderno e liberale egemonizzante, è un modo di accettare la condizione di Πόλεμος del pensiero filosofico. Il compito fondamentale che - con le parole di Badiou - deve assumere chi si ritiene amante della filosofia è quello di distanza dal pensiero dominante (sia soggettivo che sociale), biosogna cioè scegliere di creare relazioni di rottura facendo chiarezza sul valore di questa eccezione. Con questo atto performativo (l'impegno filosofico come gesto di rottura non è dunque da intendere come momento negativo di critica ma come affermativo, come dichiarazione), potremmo dire, creiamo un Evento, dove un universale (o verità) può venire a galla attraverso questo medium (il pensiero). Ecco quindi perché l'uno nel suo modo di fare filosofia (Žižek), l'altro per la proposta e per il suo pensiero in generale (Badiou), riescono a rapirci e a toccare il centro nevralgico della nostra contemporaneità mostrandoci come sia possibile fare filosofia e creare nuovi orizzonti nel nostro presente e nella nostra πόλις. La nottola di Minerva la lasciamo a qualcun'altro.
Read
July 24, 2010There's this part (pp. 66-67) in which Zizek talks about Derrida that I found quite funny: "Derrida is weakest at that point when, in the middle of his book SPECTRES OF MARX, he becomes entirely unphilosophical and lists the disasters in this world in ten points. Unbelievable! I didn't believe my eyes as I read that; but there they were, ten points; and they attested to an extreme lack of thought: unemployment and dropouts without money in our cities; drug cartels; the domination of the media monopolies and so forth. As if he wanted to give the impression of being not merely a great philosopher but also a warm-hearted person. Excuse me, but here I can think of only a relatively fatal comparison: at the end of works of popular literature there is usually a short description of the author -- and in order to valorize their curriculum a little, one adds something like: 'she currently lives in the South of France, surrounded by many cats and dedicated to painting ...' That is more or less the level we're dealing with. It almost prompts me therefore to add something mischievous to my next books: 'In his private life he tortures dogs and kills spiders.'"
January 4, 2020
. جدای از این که کتاب خیلی اثر در خور توجهی نیست ترجمه کتاب واقعاً جای سوال دارد. ترجمه از شکل یک کار تخصصصی و فنی که نیازمند ذوق و
خوشسلیقگی است تبدیل به وادی سعی و خطا شده. من نمیفهمم با چه وجدان و مسئولیتی آقایون ترجمه کردند؟ پر از واژگان گنگ و برخی موارد نفهمیدن خود مترجمین!
برای مثال هرکس درس هندسه اقلیدسی دبیرستان را خوانده باشه با واژگان "اصل، بدیهیات، پیش فرض" آشناست. آنوقت واژه Axiom یه بار آگزیوم ترجمه میشه. یه بار اصل موضوع! و مشخصه که توی متن منظور همون بدیهیاته. نمونه دیگه واژه political correctness که ربطی به امر سیاست نداره و اصطلاح انگلیسی است برای گزینش واژگان مناسب در برابر واژگانی که برای یک قوم، گروه خاص، غیره توهین آمیز است. مثلاً واژه همجنسگرا بجای همجنسباز یا معلول بجای شل و غیره. ترجمه کردند شفافیت سیاسی! حتی ویکیپدیا فارسی واژه بهتری داره( سنجیده روی سیاسی).
آقایون چه اصراری دارند برای ترجمه؟! آنهم متون تخصصی که واقعاً انتخاب واژگان مناسب و جمله بندی فراتر از زیبایی و شیوایی متنه.
July 31, 2015
الكتاب عبارة عن محاضرتين لباديو وجيجيك، الترجمة عند باديو أفضل من جيجيك، والمحاضرة أعجبتني أكثر صراحة، جميل جدًا آلان باديو. بعد المحاضرتين توجد عدد من المقالات كملحقات، كانت لطيفة أيضًا.
September 12, 2015
أي إدانة راديكالية للشر، يمكنها بشكل تام، أن تمارس وظيفة إعاقة أي بدائل*
المقالات الملحقة المكتوبة عن الفيلسوفين بواسطة آخرين أفضل وأوفى لأفكارهما مما قالاه عن أنفسهم
المقالات الملحقة المكتوبة عن الفيلسوفين بواسطة آخرين أفضل وأوفى لأفكارهما مما قالاه عن أنفسهم
January 19, 2017
لطيف، يحتاج لإعادة قراءة في وقت لاحق
September 15, 2023
عند قرأتنا الفلسفية اليونانية و ما تبعها من العصور كالنهضة و التنوير داعب خيالنا حال الفلاسفة القادرين على التكلم بكل شيء عن عصر ذهبي كان لكلامهم وزناً فعلي .و لكن بعد الحداثة والتطور العلمي الهائل خاصه في القرن العشرين وما بعده هل أصبح لما يطرحه قيمة ؟ هل أن أجابة ماركس حول دور الفيلسوف ليس تفسير العالم بل تغييره كافية ؟. أم أننا أكتفينا منها. عام ٢٠٠٤ في فيينا كتب اليساريون عن مناظرة القرن و تأمل الحضور معركة دامية بين آلان باديو و سلافوي جيجك ولكن ما تبخرت آمال الجمهور فهم ليسوا بحفل شتائم لسان جيجك السليط بل ندوة طوارئ لأنقاذ الفلسفة ودورها في الحاضر يقع الكتاب ب ١٤٥ صفحة على موزع على ثلاثة فصول بتقديم بيتر أنجلمان ناقش دور الفيلسوف حول الاحداث الجارية يومنا والتعليق عليها. دور الفلسفة لدى باديو ليس حل المشاكل بل ألاختلاقها وحل المختلقة منها فهي غير مرتبطة بالناس وهذا ما اسماه بأجنبة الفكر المرصود لأول مرة لدى أفلاطون في الجمهوريةولكنها خانت أصلها وخاضت في الأنسان وتحاول الأن الحفاظ على أستقراره و سعادته فبات عملها لا أيجاد الحقائق ومناقشتها بل الحفاظ على نوعه الاجتماعي البشري ما اثر على العلم سلباً وجعله أسير المجتمع في نتائجهِ. يكمل بالحقل السياسي و يعتبرها حدثا عابراً ويستفيد من شغفهِ السينمائي في رصد وتوضيح ما اسماه الأوضاع الفلسفية و واجباتها الثلاث وهي"لو أردت لحياتك أن يكون لها معنى، عليك تقبّل الحدث، عليك البقاء على مسافة من السلطة، وعليك أن تكون حازماً في قراراك" مستفيدا من ثلاث أمثلة محاورات سقراط و موت أرخميدس و فلم صلب المعشوقين لميزوغوشي.يركز جيجك بحقل الفلسفة فهي ليست حوارا بل سوء فهم فلم يفهم أرسطو أفلاطون ولم يفهم هيجل كانط ولم يفهم هايديغر احد على الاطلاق ناقداً أنجازات مدرسة فرانكفورت الاخلاقية والتي توصم كل ما هو مخالف لها بالفاشية او الناzية والذكورية معرفاً الدورة القصيرة للفلسفة البعد الفلسفي الذي يظهره أمام الناس كما يقدم الديمقراطية بأنها تفضيل الظلم على الفوضى باديو.يتميز كلاهما بنبرة حادة و بنظرة تشاؤمية للعقد الاخير مع نهاية الاستعمارات الاوروبية لأفريقيا و التوجه شرقاً المتمثلة بالحرب على الارهاب في افغانستان والعراق . يكتمل العمل بملحقين لمفكرين يتناولون باديو وجيجك على طريقتهم كسايمون كريتشلي بمقال لما يعتبر باديو روسويّاً وتيري ايغلتون في مقاله "هل ثمة موضوع على الأرض لم يكن قمحاً لمطحنة جيجك؟"،ثم ستيوارت جيفريز و "حياة في الكتابة" نرى فيها باديو عاشقاً يرى جمال النساء متناثراً بالسينما و الأدب وجيجك اليساري المصلوب الذي لايرغبون به و لكن يحتاجوه . بعد كل ما سبق ما زال دور الفلسفة مجهولا فأين يختبئ هذا الأله مما خلق؟ ربما يحمينا من الفوضى من الخفاء متنكراً بأسماء شتى ٫ أسماء أبنائه العاقين السياسة و العلم و التاريخ و الاقتصاد.
Read
August 26, 2022{ إلى أي حد تتدخل الفلسفة في الحاضر في المسائل التاريخية والسياسية؟ وفي نهاية الأمر، ماهي طبيعة هذا التدخل؟ لمَ يجب استدعاء الفيلسوف للتدخل في المسائل تخص الحاضر؟ }
هكذا يبدأ آلان باديو كلمته الافتتاحية في موضوع الفلسفة في الحاضر،، فالفيلسوف من جهته يراه مُنشىء للمشكلات، مبتكر مشكلات.. ثم يغوص بشرح الوضع الفلسفي والحدث الفلسفي وواجبات الفلسفة في كونها تلقي الضوء على جوهر الفكر والمسافة بين الفكر والسلطة وتلقي الضوء على قيمة الاستثناء ( الذاتية )
لم تكن قراءة الكتاب سهلة تمامًا، بل كانت في غاية الصعوبة، كان من الأفضل لو تمت كتابة مقاصد المحاور في مصطلحاته الفلسفية وامثلته السياسية لتتضح الصورة.. فقدان هذا الهامش المهم تسبب في عسر فهم آلان باديو فمن الواضح كما قرأت أن طرحه فلسفي بحت، وله مفردات خاصة استخدمها مثل الفردية، الكونية والخصوصية،،
ولعل السبب عائد لافتقار اللغة العربية لمصطلحات الفلسفة الغربية خصوصًا ان آلان باديو وسلافوي جيجك اعتمدا في فلسفتهما على فلسفة هيغل والمحلل النفساني لاكان، هذه المصطلحات تشكل صعوبة في فهمها عند الترجمة،، كمثال النيو-كانطية التي هي مزيج بين نيوتن ( العلم ) وكانط ( الفلسفة )
والشيء ذاته مع سلافوي جيجك، فهو لا يختلف عن صديقه باديو في الطرح الفلسفي والسياسي، لكن مايميز جيجك هو مزجه للسخرية والنكت مع الطرح الفلسفي او السياسي وهذا يجعله مرغوبًا في القراءة..
الكتاب يحوي افتتاحية لباديو وجيجك ثم جلسة نقاش بين الاثنين،،
اضاف المترجم ثلاث مقالات..
مقالة من كتابة "سايمون كريتشلي" يبين فيها الترابط بين فكر باديو السياسي مع روسو في كتابه العقد الاجتماعي..
اما في المقالة الثانية فهي عن سلافوي جيجك من كتابة "إيغلتون" بعنوان { هل ثمة موضوع على الأرض لم يكن قمحًا لمطحنة جيجك الثقافية؟ } اشارةً إلى شمولية جيجك في نقده للثقافة..
والمقالة الأخيرة عبارة عن لقاء صفحي مع باديو وجيجك بعنوان حياة في الكتابة.
هكذا يبدأ آلان باديو كلمته الافتتاحية في موضوع الفلسفة في الحاضر،، فالفيلسوف من جهته يراه مُنشىء للمشكلات، مبتكر مشكلات.. ثم يغوص بشرح الوضع الفلسفي والحدث الفلسفي وواجبات الفلسفة في كونها تلقي الضوء على جوهر الفكر والمسافة بين الفكر والسلطة وتلقي الضوء على قيمة الاستثناء ( الذاتية )
لم تكن قراءة الكتاب سهلة تمامًا، بل كانت في غاية الصعوبة، كان من الأفضل لو تمت كتابة مقاصد المحاور في مصطلحاته الفلسفية وامثلته السياسية لتتضح الصورة.. فقدان هذا الهامش المهم تسبب في عسر فهم آلان باديو فمن الواضح كما قرأت أن طرحه فلسفي بحت، وله مفردات خاصة استخدمها مثل الفردية، الكونية والخصوصية،،
ولعل السبب عائد لافتقار اللغة العربية لمصطلحات الفلسفة الغربية خصوصًا ان آلان باديو وسلافوي جيجك اعتمدا في فلسفتهما على فلسفة هيغل والمحلل النفساني لاكان، هذه المصطلحات تشكل صعوبة في فهمها عند الترجمة،، كمثال النيو-كانطية التي هي مزيج بين نيوتن ( العلم ) وكانط ( الفلسفة )
والشيء ذاته مع سلافوي جيجك، فهو لا يختلف عن صديقه باديو في الطرح الفلسفي والسياسي، لكن مايميز جيجك هو مزجه للسخرية والنكت مع الطرح الفلسفي او السياسي وهذا يجعله مرغوبًا في القراءة..
الكتاب يحوي افتتاحية لباديو وجيجك ثم جلسة نقاش بين الاثنين،،
اضاف المترجم ثلاث مقالات..
مقالة من كتابة "سايمون كريتشلي" يبين فيها الترابط بين فكر باديو السياسي مع روسو في كتابه العقد الاجتماعي..
اما في المقالة الثانية فهي عن سلافوي جيجك من كتابة "إيغلتون" بعنوان { هل ثمة موضوع على الأرض لم يكن قمحًا لمطحنة جيجك الثقافية؟ } اشارةً إلى شمولية جيجك في نقده للثقافة..
والمقالة الأخيرة عبارة عن لقاء صفحي مع باديو وجيجك بعنوان حياة في الكتابة.
June 27, 2021
#ريفيو_كتاب
#الفلسفة_في_الحاضر
#آلان_باديو_سلافوي_جيجك
#عدد_الصفحات_147
من تلقوا تربية حسنة يناقضون الأخرين أما الحكماء فيناقضون أنفسهم
-أوسكار وايلد
الكتاب عبارة عن حوار بين باديو و جيجك في فيينا حيث يعتبر الأثنان خصمان و من ضمن الكتاب ملحق للمفاهيم و نظرياتهم و تأثيرهم في هذا الوقت الحاضر
حيث على الفيلسوف أن لا يكتفي بتفسير العالم لكن عليه تغييره للأفضل
و أزعاج المستبدين
العلاقة بين السلطة و الفيلسوف و تبسيط نظرة الدول لهم و سلطة السيف وتأثيرها على الأتباع بحيث هناك تباعد و مسافة بين السلطة و الحقائق فيقوم الفيلسوفان بتبسيط نظريات للقاري بالأمثلة مثلاً يقوم آلان باديو الفيلسوف الفرنسي بتفسيره للحاضر من خلال 8 أطروحات تبسط الوضع
التدخل في العلوم أجمعمنها علم الجينات وتأثيرها على التبسيط والشرح و منها يتهمون على أرجاع النا ز يه و دعم النظام الدكتاتوري
حتى لو كانت مفاهيم الفيلسوف عن الخير لايجب ان يملي على الناس ذلك و يدع لهم حرية الأختيار
عرض مشاكل و مفاهيم المجتمع على الصعيد العالمي و الشخصي و تأثيرها في تغيير الحياة و الأنظمة
تشابه و تحليل روسو من قبل باديو بين الأنظمة السياسيه القديمة و الحديثه
سلافوي جيجك مابعد الحداثه رغم التناقضات في موضوعاته و استخدام الفكاهة في جدالاته لكنه جاد فيها رغم ذلك
بالنهاية مهمة الفيلسوف إلتماس الأعذار و تبيين الخطاء لو تصحيح العالم أو تغيير الوجود
و الحلو بالكتاب العراق مضرب للأمثال😁
جيجك / انا فيلسوف و لست نبيا لا أجيب عن الأسئلة بل أطرحها كي أنقذ المجتمع
باديو/ الدكتاتورية ليست الأستبداد إنما ما يسمى انضباط المواطنين
#الفلسفة_في_الحاضر
#آلان_باديو_سلافوي_جيجك
#عدد_الصفحات_147
من تلقوا تربية حسنة يناقضون الأخرين أما الحكماء فيناقضون أنفسهم
-أوسكار وايلد
الكتاب عبارة عن حوار بين باديو و جيجك في فيينا حيث يعتبر الأثنان خصمان و من ضمن الكتاب ملحق للمفاهيم و نظرياتهم و تأثيرهم في هذا الوقت الحاضر
حيث على الفيلسوف أن لا يكتفي بتفسير العالم لكن عليه تغييره للأفضل
و أزعاج المستبدين
العلاقة بين السلطة و الفيلسوف و تبسيط نظرة الدول لهم و سلطة السيف وتأثيرها على الأتباع بحيث هناك تباعد و مسافة بين السلطة و الحقائق فيقوم الفيلسوفان بتبسيط نظريات للقاري بالأمثلة مثلاً يقوم آلان باديو الفيلسوف الفرنسي بتفسيره للحاضر من خلال 8 أطروحات تبسط الوضع
التدخل في العلوم أجمعمنها علم الجينات وتأثيرها على التبسيط والشرح و منها يتهمون على أرجاع النا ز يه و دعم النظام الدكتاتوري
حتى لو كانت مفاهيم الفيلسوف عن الخير لايجب ان يملي على الناس ذلك و يدع لهم حرية الأختيار
عرض مشاكل و مفاهيم المجتمع على الصعيد العالمي و الشخصي و تأثيرها في تغيير الحياة و الأنظمة
تشابه و تحليل روسو من قبل باديو بين الأنظمة السياسيه القديمة و الحديثه
سلافوي جيجك مابعد الحداثه رغم التناقضات في موضوعاته و استخدام الفكاهة في جدالاته لكنه جاد فيها رغم ذلك
بالنهاية مهمة الفيلسوف إلتماس الأعذار و تبيين الخطاء لو تصحيح العالم أو تغيير الوجود
و الحلو بالكتاب العراق مضرب للأمثال😁
جيجك / انا فيلسوف و لست نبيا لا أجيب عن الأسئلة بل أطرحها كي أنقذ المجتمع
باديو/ الدكتاتورية ليست الأستبداد إنما ما يسمى انضباط المواطنين
January 12, 2022
يتناول الكتاب فكرة الحدث الذي يستحق ان تتدخل فيه الفلسفة وشروطه اللازمه لحدوث ذلك من خلال وجهتي نظر متباينتين وإن كنت أعتبرهما متقاربتين، يطرح آلان باديو بداية فكرته بطريقة أكاديمية مرتبة مستندا إلى كتاب محاورات أفلاطون لذكر نظرية سقراط فيما يخص العدالة والأخلاق كما يتحدث عن أسطورة أرخميدس وهذا لتبيين الموضع الذي يتطلب تدخل الفلسفة لمناقشته، كما تعرض لمفهوم الذات والتذويت والكوني بطريقة تبدو معقدة نوعا ما خاصة إن لم يكن لدينا دراية مسبقة بمفهوم باديو للكوني، الفصل الثاني يتناول طرح جيجيك الذي كان بمثابة قفزات في اهم المواضيع التي تسيطر غلى زمننا الحالي دون التوغل فيها (تطور البيولوجيا الحيوية، الرأسمالية، مذهب المتعة، الحرب في العراق، مابعد الحداثة..) فبالكاد ان نفهم موقفه من فكرة ليقفز للموالية دون تقديم الحجج الداعمة لموقفه مما حفزني أكثر لقراءات متأنية وموسعة لجيجيك كي تتضح لي رؤيته أكثر، ثم الفصل الثالث يطرح نقاشا بين باديو وجيجيك حول الفلسفة والسياسة ، وتأتي الفصول اللاحقة لتبين لنا باختصار فكرة كل منهما عن طريق كتابة مفكرين عنهما ولقاءات صحفية.
الكتاب جميل وسلس رغم كونه مفخخا بأفكارة وقضايا محورية تلمس عالمنا الحالي، مقدم بأسلوب حجاجي قد يشتت القارئ خاصة في الفصل المتعلق بجيجيك
الكتاب جميل وسلس رغم كونه مفخخا بأفكارة وقضايا محورية تلمس عالمنا الحالي، مقدم بأسلوب حجاجي قد يشتت القارئ خاصة في الفصل المتعلق بجيجيك
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 24, 2019
تدفعنا المعرفة الى عدم اتخاذ قرار بشأن الله اذ من المقبول تماماً الحفاظ على وضع نقول ، ربما يوجد شيء وربما لا . نحن نعيش في مجتمع لا يمكن فيه نسب قيمة واضحة لوجود الله اذ تشير الدلالات الى روحانية غامضة .
ان المشكلة المتعلقة بالالتزام الفلسفي هي انها غالباً ما بفكر بها على انها نقدية بشكل اساسي فغالب الاحيان يعمد المرء الى مساواة الفلسفة والنقد وبذلك ينزع الالتزام الفلسفي للسعي لقول ما هو شرير ما يتسبب بالمعاناة ان يشير الى غير المقبول او ما هو زائف وبذا سيبدو ان الواجب الفلسفي سلبي بشكل اساسي ان يثير الشك الروح النقدية وما الى ذلك ان جوهر التدخل الفلسفي هو الاثبات .
تتسم كتابات باديو السياسية بعقلانية باردة وهجاء لاذع فالاضافة الى انتقاداته المدمرة وتهديماته الذكية لما يسمى الحرب على الارهاب .
سلافوي جيجك ظاهرة اكثر من كونه فيلسوفاً ، الابن لشيوعيين سلوفينيين ، انه المثال الاساسي من اوروبا لفيلسوف ما بعد حداثي . هو صليب يربط بين المرشد الروحي والشخص المزعج ، يقفز عمله بجرأة فوق الحواجز بين الثقافتين العالية والشعبية ، لاهوتي هاوٍ ومحلل سياسي
January 8, 2022
No tengo mucho que decir sobre este libro, sólo que, al parecer, la edición argentina no es la misma que la del resto del mundo. El libro que yo leí consta de 4 textos de Alain Badiou: sobre las políticas y las implicaciones filosóficas de la guerra estadounidense, una conferencia sobre la unidad franco-alemana, un artículo muy satírico sobre las reformas del "velo" en Francia, y un breve manifiesto sobre arte y política.
Todos ellos son muy interesantes, sin embargo, de cierta forma, para mí no son del todo nuevos, no porque los haya leído, sino porque no hay que excavar mucho para llegar a pensamientos muy similares en otros pensadores.
Todos ellos son muy interesantes, sin embargo, de cierta forma, para mí no son del todo nuevos, no porque los haya leído, sino porque no hay que excavar mucho para llegar a pensamientos muy similares en otros pensadores.
March 6, 2019
السؤال الذي لا ينفك يبزغ بين الحين والحين في هذا الحقل، هل على الفلسفة أن تساهم في تسوية الوضع السياسي الراهن؟ وإن تركنا الإجابة جانبًا، هي تُسهم شاء المرء الإقرار بذلك أم لم يشأ، إذ تقتضي الفلسفة النظر إلى الأمور وتبيينها لا الخلوص إلى حلول لها على نحو مباشر تفك ما في السياسة من إشكالات والتباسات.
الترجمة جميلة. والحوار جميل كذلك.
الترجمة جميلة. والحوار جميل كذلك.
January 22, 2019
كتاب يقربنا الى جيجيك و باديو و دور الفلسفة و الفيلسوف في ألأحداث و الوقائع المعاصرة ...
مواقفة يسارية خاصة بكل واحد منهم ..
معتمدين على منهج التحليل النفسي اللاكاني...
مواقفة يسارية خاصة بكل واحد منهم ..
معتمدين على منهج التحليل النفسي اللاكاني...
May 3, 2019
Precioso, aunque un poco complejo al inicio
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews