What do you think?
Rate this book
The Agony of Eros
An argument that love requires the courage to accept self-negation for the sake of discovering the Other.
Byung-Chul Han is one of the most widely read philosophers in Europe today, a member of the new generation of German thinkers that includes Markus Gabriel and Armen Avanessian. In The Agony of Eros, a bestseller in Germany, Han considers the threat to love and desire in today's society. For Han, love requires the courage to accept self-negation for the sake of discovering the Other. In a world of fetishized individualism and technologically mediated social interaction, it is the Other that is eradicated, not the self. In today's increasingly narcissistic society, we have come to look for love and desire within the “inferno of the same.”
Han offers a survey of the threats to Eros, drawing on a wide range of sources—Lars von Trier's film Melancholia, Wagner's Tristan und Isolde, Fifty Shades of Grey, Michel Foucault (providing a scathing critique of Foucault's valorization of power), Martin Buber, Hegel, Baudrillard, Flaubert, Barthes, Plato, and others. Han considers the “pornographication” of society, and shows how pornography profanes eros; addresses capitalism's leveling of essential differences; and discusses the politics of eros in today's “burnout society.” To be dead to love, Han argues, is to be dead to thought itself.
Concise in its expression but unsparing in its insight, The Agony of Eros is an important and provocative entry in Han's ongoing analysis of contemporary society.
This remarkable essay, an intellectual experience of the first order, affords one of the best ways to gain full awareness of and join in one of the most pressing struggles of the day: the defense, that is to say—as Rimbaud desired it—the “reinvention” of love.—from the foreword by Alain Badiou
Byung-Chul Han is one of the most widely read philosophers in Europe today, a member of the new generation of German thinkers that includes Markus Gabriel and Armen Avanessian. In The Agony of Eros, a bestseller in Germany, Han considers the threat to love and desire in today's society. For Han, love requires the courage to accept self-negation for the sake of discovering the Other. In a world of fetishized individualism and technologically mediated social interaction, it is the Other that is eradicated, not the self. In today's increasingly narcissistic society, we have come to look for love and desire within the “inferno of the same.”
Han offers a survey of the threats to Eros, drawing on a wide range of sources—Lars von Trier's film Melancholia, Wagner's Tristan und Isolde, Fifty Shades of Grey, Michel Foucault (providing a scathing critique of Foucault's valorization of power), Martin Buber, Hegel, Baudrillard, Flaubert, Barthes, Plato, and others. Han considers the “pornographication” of society, and shows how pornography profanes eros; addresses capitalism's leveling of essential differences; and discusses the politics of eros in today's “burnout society.” To be dead to love, Han argues, is to be dead to thought itself.
Concise in its expression but unsparing in its insight, The Agony of Eros is an important and provocative entry in Han's ongoing analysis of contemporary society.
This remarkable essay, an intellectual experience of the first order, affords one of the best ways to gain full awareness of and join in one of the most pressing struggles of the day: the defense, that is to say—as Rimbaud desired it—the “reinvention” of love.—from the foreword by Alain Badiou
88 pages, Paperback
First published April 7, 2017
883 people are currently reading
18132 people want to read
About the author
Byung-Chul Han
62 books4,958 followersByung-Chul Han, also spelled Pyŏng-ch'ŏl Han (born 1959 in Seoul), is a German author, cultural theorist, and Professor at the Universität der Künste Berlin (UdK) in Berlin, Germany.
Byung-Chul Han studied metallurgy in Korea before he moved to Germany in the 1980s to study Philosophy, German Literature and Catholic theology in Freiburg im Breisgau and Munich. He received his doctoral degree at Freiburg with a dissertation on Martin Heidegger in 1994.
In 2000, he joined the Department of Philosophy at the University of Basel, where he completed his Habilitation. In 2010 he became a faculty member at the HfG Karlsruhe, where his areas of interest were philosophy of the 18th, 19th and 20th century, ethics, social philosophy, phenomenology, cultural theory, aesthetics, religion, media theory, and intercultural philosophy. Since 2012 he teaches philosophy and cultural studies at the Universität der Künste Berlin (UdK), where he directs the newly established Studium Generale general-studies program.
Han is the author of sixteen books, of which the most recent are treatises on what he terms a "society of tiredness" (Müdigkeitsgesellschaft), a "society of transparency" (Transparenzgesellschaft), and on his neologist concept of shanzai, which seeks to identify modes of deconstruction in contemporary practices of Chinese capitalism.
Han's current work focuses on transparency as a cultural norm created by neoliberal market forces, which he understands as the insatiable drive toward voluntary disclosure bordering on the pornographic. According to Han, the dictates of transparency enforce a totalitarian system of openness at the expense of other social values such as shame, secrecy, and trust.
Until recently, he refused to give radio and television interviews and rarely divulges any biographical or personal details, including his date of birth, in public.
Han has written on topics such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, borderline, burnout, depression, exhaustion, internet, love, pop culture, power, rationality, religion, social media, subjectivity, tiredness, transparency and violence.
Byung-Chul Han studied metallurgy in Korea before he moved to Germany in the 1980s to study Philosophy, German Literature and Catholic theology in Freiburg im Breisgau and Munich. He received his doctoral degree at Freiburg with a dissertation on Martin Heidegger in 1994.
In 2000, he joined the Department of Philosophy at the University of Basel, where he completed his Habilitation. In 2010 he became a faculty member at the HfG Karlsruhe, where his areas of interest were philosophy of the 18th, 19th and 20th century, ethics, social philosophy, phenomenology, cultural theory, aesthetics, religion, media theory, and intercultural philosophy. Since 2012 he teaches philosophy and cultural studies at the Universität der Künste Berlin (UdK), where he directs the newly established Studium Generale general-studies program.
Han is the author of sixteen books, of which the most recent are treatises on what he terms a "society of tiredness" (Müdigkeitsgesellschaft), a "society of transparency" (Transparenzgesellschaft), and on his neologist concept of shanzai, which seeks to identify modes of deconstruction in contemporary practices of Chinese capitalism.
Han's current work focuses on transparency as a cultural norm created by neoliberal market forces, which he understands as the insatiable drive toward voluntary disclosure bordering on the pornographic. According to Han, the dictates of transparency enforce a totalitarian system of openness at the expense of other social values such as shame, secrecy, and trust.
Until recently, he refused to give radio and television interviews and rarely divulges any biographical or personal details, including his date of birth, in public.
Han has written on topics such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, borderline, burnout, depression, exhaustion, internet, love, pop culture, power, rationality, religion, social media, subjectivity, tiredness, transparency and violence.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,066 reviews
February 11, 2018
The central concern of this book is the idea that love is something that is under strain by modern society. Much of modern society forces us to make our lives projects. This makes us almost entirely concerned with ourselves - nearly completely self-centred. This form of narcissism means that too often we think of other people mostly for what they can do for us. Bauman talks about this too - he says that we now live in a time when 'teams' are no longer the central metaphor of work, but rather 'networks' have taken their place - and this difference is anything but insignificant. In a team people have different roles, as they do in a network, but their main power is in their working together. And teams generally work together over an extended time. But a network only really exists for the time of the project it is involved in - networks form and dissolve, they are fluid and time-limited. A network is also different from a team in that a network is always centred on the individual. That is, everyone in society is the central node of their own network - and so, while other branches may be added or taken away, the centre is always the individual themselves. There is no T.S. Eliot pining that he is not Hamlet at the centre of our network - we are all Hamlet, we are all the heroes of our own lives.
But this narcissism has its costs - the obsession with being the central hero of our lives means that we are attracted to others for what they can do for us - what positive role they can play in our lives. And the major point in this work is that love is about the negation of the self - it is about being prepared to sacrifice ourselves for the loved other. That if love is to change us it can only achieve this if we allow it to also move us beyond the limits of ourselves. This negative dialectic - that is, being prepared to no longer exist and to choose that for the sake of the other, to forgo everything for their sake - is what allows for the Hegalian negation of the negation, the rebirth of the self at a higher level than is available when love is based solely on self-gratification.
In this sense of love, love is becoming increasingly antithetical toward modern society - especially in the sense that modern society demands an obsessive focus on the self and views the other as merely a stepping stone towards the achievement of one's own goals and desires.
The problem of our age is one of endless positivity. And this goes to the heart of our social psychology. You are no longer allowed to be negative in any sense, positive psychology (even while dying of cancer) is now an obligation. But as he says here, "But without negativity, only the Same exists. Spirit-which originally meant unrest-owes its spiritedness, its animacy, to negativity".
And this sits within a world dominated by a kind of bland pornography - and that this is what is now confused with eros. He quotes Fifty Shades of Grey as a case in point, where the characters in the book look like they are going to transgress the mundane, but in fact begin their S&M journey by promising not to cross certain already defined boundaries. The potential for escape here seems closed off before the door is even opened. Now, I'm not saying that eros is only possible once we accept unrestrained S&M, but rather that love itself isn't a positive thing, but rather something, if it is to transform us at all, must 'kill' at least some part of us. Because, ultimately, that is what change means.
This very short book begins with an introduction from Alain Badiou. Like the previous book of Han's I read, this one could have been much more than its 70 pages, but its power is not diminished by its brevity.
Part of me is unsure how to engage with this book, but I do feel the need to engage with it personally. The nature of love is something that I stumble over and have for most of my life. I find it very hard to lose myself in love, there is part of me that always remains cynical (rather than merely sceptical) of the transformative power of love. And having nearly been destroyed by love in the past, that is, found myself in positions where any move I might make would only cause infinite pain to those I would otherwise want to protect from the slightest harm, means I struggle to accept even the most complex theories of the nature of love. I think perhaps love has caused me the most psychological damage I'm capable of bearing.
This book is attractive to me for a whole range of reasons - firstly, I do believe change is only possible on the basis of the metaphorical 'death' of part of ourselves. Otherwise, what can 'change' possibly mean? So, being open to the idea that if love is to change us, then we must be open to that change as an essentially a negative force makes logical sense to me. However, Han's vision of the acceptance of this negation strikes me as a little odd. And perhaps this goes some way to helping to explain why I have never felt love has brought about a resolution in my life I might have otherwise hoped for. That is, I have never experienced the full redemptive power love in my own life and perhaps the point this book makes is that is because I've never been open to the kind of death required for such redemption.
Love has always seemed negative to me in quite other senses - love has often been associated in my mind with renunciation more than mere negation, with a turning away from and a giving up of. And not just in the sense of fidelity and the rejection of all others other than The Other (the demand for monogamy - which has more or less been how I've lived my life anyway) - although, obviously enough, that plays a part in my feeling of love as renuciation. Rather, love also feels like a negotiation and one that, as I get older in particular, means needing to choose to between desire and comfort. Worse, because desire never seems to actually shut up, the choice seems to be to forsake all power in my relationships with those I love over my own desires because these seem like destructive forces to my relationships. Ultimately, this is impotence, it is this constraint, and it is this impotence that is becoming increasingly associated in my mind with love. That is, if there is a choice at all, love means a rejection of virtually all desires other than the desire for the other to be happy.
The problem is that I don't know how sustainable that really is. Often I feel crushed by the choices I am making - I'm also aware that desire is not silenced just because we know our desire is not reciprocated. When does self-negation become self-loathing? I struggle to believe self-loathing can be a positive force in our lives - or rather, the kind of negative force that might lead to a higher awareness.
I've never found love to be the redemptive force I think I would have liked it to have been. Rather, too often it has been a force of near infinite and pointless pain.
But this narcissism has its costs - the obsession with being the central hero of our lives means that we are attracted to others for what they can do for us - what positive role they can play in our lives. And the major point in this work is that love is about the negation of the self - it is about being prepared to sacrifice ourselves for the loved other. That if love is to change us it can only achieve this if we allow it to also move us beyond the limits of ourselves. This negative dialectic - that is, being prepared to no longer exist and to choose that for the sake of the other, to forgo everything for their sake - is what allows for the Hegalian negation of the negation, the rebirth of the self at a higher level than is available when love is based solely on self-gratification.
In this sense of love, love is becoming increasingly antithetical toward modern society - especially in the sense that modern society demands an obsessive focus on the self and views the other as merely a stepping stone towards the achievement of one's own goals and desires.
The problem of our age is one of endless positivity. And this goes to the heart of our social psychology. You are no longer allowed to be negative in any sense, positive psychology (even while dying of cancer) is now an obligation. But as he says here, "But without negativity, only the Same exists. Spirit-which originally meant unrest-owes its spiritedness, its animacy, to negativity".
And this sits within a world dominated by a kind of bland pornography - and that this is what is now confused with eros. He quotes Fifty Shades of Grey as a case in point, where the characters in the book look like they are going to transgress the mundane, but in fact begin their S&M journey by promising not to cross certain already defined boundaries. The potential for escape here seems closed off before the door is even opened. Now, I'm not saying that eros is only possible once we accept unrestrained S&M, but rather that love itself isn't a positive thing, but rather something, if it is to transform us at all, must 'kill' at least some part of us. Because, ultimately, that is what change means.
This very short book begins with an introduction from Alain Badiou. Like the previous book of Han's I read, this one could have been much more than its 70 pages, but its power is not diminished by its brevity.
Part of me is unsure how to engage with this book, but I do feel the need to engage with it personally. The nature of love is something that I stumble over and have for most of my life. I find it very hard to lose myself in love, there is part of me that always remains cynical (rather than merely sceptical) of the transformative power of love. And having nearly been destroyed by love in the past, that is, found myself in positions where any move I might make would only cause infinite pain to those I would otherwise want to protect from the slightest harm, means I struggle to accept even the most complex theories of the nature of love. I think perhaps love has caused me the most psychological damage I'm capable of bearing.
This book is attractive to me for a whole range of reasons - firstly, I do believe change is only possible on the basis of the metaphorical 'death' of part of ourselves. Otherwise, what can 'change' possibly mean? So, being open to the idea that if love is to change us, then we must be open to that change as an essentially a negative force makes logical sense to me. However, Han's vision of the acceptance of this negation strikes me as a little odd. And perhaps this goes some way to helping to explain why I have never felt love has brought about a resolution in my life I might have otherwise hoped for. That is, I have never experienced the full redemptive power love in my own life and perhaps the point this book makes is that is because I've never been open to the kind of death required for such redemption.
Love has always seemed negative to me in quite other senses - love has often been associated in my mind with renunciation more than mere negation, with a turning away from and a giving up of. And not just in the sense of fidelity and the rejection of all others other than The Other (the demand for monogamy - which has more or less been how I've lived my life anyway) - although, obviously enough, that plays a part in my feeling of love as renuciation. Rather, love also feels like a negotiation and one that, as I get older in particular, means needing to choose to between desire and comfort. Worse, because desire never seems to actually shut up, the choice seems to be to forsake all power in my relationships with those I love over my own desires because these seem like destructive forces to my relationships. Ultimately, this is impotence, it is this constraint, and it is this impotence that is becoming increasingly associated in my mind with love. That is, if there is a choice at all, love means a rejection of virtually all desires other than the desire for the other to be happy.
The problem is that I don't know how sustainable that really is. Often I feel crushed by the choices I am making - I'm also aware that desire is not silenced just because we know our desire is not reciprocated. When does self-negation become self-loathing? I struggle to believe self-loathing can be a positive force in our lives - or rather, the kind of negative force that might lead to a higher awareness.
I've never found love to be the redemptive force I think I would have liked it to have been. Rather, too often it has been a force of near infinite and pointless pain.
November 26, 2021
if u wanna be my lover u gotta get with my newfound goal to be able to not be able
February 2, 2020
Summary: What is said is profound, but the writing style is totally unapproachable. It's tailored for a very specific audience to understand, ie a dissertation review committee. But what he's saying is deep. so I rounded up from otherwise 2.5 stars.
This book uses reverse funnel as the way of writing and its digressions and quotes in getting to the point are SOOO Painful to pick up and read. Just say what you mean dude b/c the quotes you chose are imperfect to your point AND ALSO they seem forced as examples without actually stating the point of why you chose that particular quote.
I just hate philosophy sometimes in their need to lodge stuff in the context of other works. It makes the whole field sound like they are hiding behind their mom's skirt. It's not always how philosophy was, but it is today. Be Brave and make it readable. This thing has highly relevant points but it's in that style. Han, come on, you're too smart to fall into that trap.
That said here are some thoughts:
p 10 - This is the forward (not written by Han) It's b/c without it the style is so meandering and off point at first that if it wasn't for this forward I would have just hated this thing outright. "Han argues that the minimum condition for true love is possessing sufficient courage to accept self-negation for the sake of discovering the Other."
That is deep and if it wasn't for this forward, I would have missed half of the arguments Han was trying to make given the esoteric way this book is written.
p. 2/3 of Melancholia: In a SUPER convoluted paragraph he's saying that because we are so positive and everything is so positive and we have eliminated negative, we've created this real issue. Love requires variation. Eroticism requires variation. It requires feelings of positive and negative. This is deep, but instead of just saying it and owning it he's got this crazy description of flattening stuff out and consumerism. Dude... either make 2 points or describe how you actually have 1 coherent point. What you're saying is deep and it sucks that your verbalization is painful.
The same page he states: "Eros and depression are opposites. Eros pulls the subject out of itself, toward the Other. Depression, in contrast, plunges the subject into self." He then talks about the problems of a narcissistic achievement-subject. So what he's saying is this is new and unique to the current time. But again, Poorly Poorly stated.
He's saying all this achievement orientation forces a particular way that we are allowed to view self. point 1. Could have been its own actual point. Point 2, That's not normal b/c it doesn't let us have a sense of other. We achieve on our own. So when we don't we got nothing that allows us out of that.
It's intriguing and it's relevant to the younger folks. I think it misses a beat, i.e. team, etc. I do think that this is also the age of collaboration, but again, that's the nuance of what he's saying before which is that there is no negativo, so even team is not us vs. them.
p. 31 - His point here is that b/c a capitalistic society has monetized "porn" in his words, there is little left to the erotic which requires some sort of secrecy. What we don't share or share in a limited way is what is erotic. If it's too available it becomes a commodity. The point is so great. But the communication of it is so convoluted. I mean, read that page and you tell me if you think it's not convoluted.
p. 37 - "Instead, unchecked freedom of choice is threatening to bring about the end of desire." If this isn't the longest lead up of a crazy number of points to get to the point I don't know what is. OMG. this writing style is so hard, but what he's saying is deep. His point is that we have so many choices now and we have so much access, but real love and desire do require some sense of longing. Without that longing how can we really have this sort of differentiation of feeling required? But dude, can you not just say it like that and give examples thereafter. I CANNOT Tell where you are going with i) all the quotes and ii) the random asides, iii) digressions and iv) arguments that are made between the digressions. OUCH OUCH OUCH.
p. 40 - He's trying to say that this openness that everyone can see all the time is making it hard for people to really have fantasy. I just don't agree with this. I think you can have loads of fantasy, it's just some people don't know how to evoke and create that in their social media. Guess what, these people would have had that problem without social media as well. What I do like is that he's bringing it up and I haven't thought about that before. Who's right, doesn't matter. It's a legit interesting as an idea.
p. 50 - I just don't agree. It's like the philosophy version of the BS that is inspiring me to write my book on Data and the many misunderstandings. He's saying that b/c we're so data-driven we are information-rich, insight poor. What we think is insight is not deep enough to be insightful. Then he says: "But excessive cognition prevents recognition from taking place."
That's some BS. You need a different group of friends Han, b/c quite frankly, you're a deep guy with some interesting thoughts. So if you think people are dumb b/c there is too much info, then make different friends. But I got to call you out.
There are DEF a lot of people that like to say clever stuff that is kitschy and forward it around like they are deep and clever. FOR SURE! And they are all over the internet forwarding quotes they don't understand in an effort to sound deep. And that might give you the impression that it's the abundance of info that is making people be like that.
But here's the secret... those people are just the same as they've always been. The info isn't the issue. The issue is they can't tell the diff b/c they weren't trained, taught, or otherwise inspired to do so. And that's no different than previous times. It has nothing to do with how much you feed them, just like a broken faucet is broken whether there's a ton of water or very little. We as a society have to fix the faucet and that isn't going to happen if we keep teaching STEM at the EXPENSE of all the liberal arts that might make you deep.
But there are DEF some deep people out there. And they say really true, deep stuff that is augmented and sped by the massive amount of content. They even benefit by seeing all the ways people get it wrong and what the zeitgeist is into which you speak. These peeps are deep. They ABSOLUTELY benefit from the information abundance that is possible today.
The choice or the thing to develop and cultivate is to become more critical about how you interpret data, ideas, info, etc... This is straight-up learning to think. It has to do with your cognitive development and how you learn to process the world around you. That is not going to be impacted by having too much info. If anything - as with babies - you need a lot of stimuli to understand why you're wrong, right, very close to right, the nuance of right and wrong, and what might be the exception, how might it be misinterpreted so you can refine, etc....
The challenge is building up that skillset both within oneself and how then you scale that. Once you get it all under control, you can actually crush it and teach it to others.
In other words, I flat out disagree and am far more optimistic.
But I appreciate this book, because - despite that, I'm not a fan of this particular writing style and therefore 3 stars, it's some interesting stuff to actually talk about in 2020. Maybe Han can write a popular more approachable version for the plebians like us to digest.
This book uses reverse funnel as the way of writing and its digressions and quotes in getting to the point are SOOO Painful to pick up and read. Just say what you mean dude b/c the quotes you chose are imperfect to your point AND ALSO they seem forced as examples without actually stating the point of why you chose that particular quote.
I just hate philosophy sometimes in their need to lodge stuff in the context of other works. It makes the whole field sound like they are hiding behind their mom's skirt. It's not always how philosophy was, but it is today. Be Brave and make it readable. This thing has highly relevant points but it's in that style. Han, come on, you're too smart to fall into that trap.
That said here are some thoughts:
p 10 - This is the forward (not written by Han) It's b/c without it the style is so meandering and off point at first that if it wasn't for this forward I would have just hated this thing outright. "Han argues that the minimum condition for true love is possessing sufficient courage to accept self-negation for the sake of discovering the Other."
That is deep and if it wasn't for this forward, I would have missed half of the arguments Han was trying to make given the esoteric way this book is written.
p. 2/3 of Melancholia: In a SUPER convoluted paragraph he's saying that because we are so positive and everything is so positive and we have eliminated negative, we've created this real issue. Love requires variation. Eroticism requires variation. It requires feelings of positive and negative. This is deep, but instead of just saying it and owning it he's got this crazy description of flattening stuff out and consumerism. Dude... either make 2 points or describe how you actually have 1 coherent point. What you're saying is deep and it sucks that your verbalization is painful.
The same page he states: "Eros and depression are opposites. Eros pulls the subject out of itself, toward the Other. Depression, in contrast, plunges the subject into self." He then talks about the problems of a narcissistic achievement-subject. So what he's saying is this is new and unique to the current time. But again, Poorly Poorly stated.
He's saying all this achievement orientation forces a particular way that we are allowed to view self. point 1. Could have been its own actual point. Point 2, That's not normal b/c it doesn't let us have a sense of other. We achieve on our own. So when we don't we got nothing that allows us out of that.
It's intriguing and it's relevant to the younger folks. I think it misses a beat, i.e. team, etc. I do think that this is also the age of collaboration, but again, that's the nuance of what he's saying before which is that there is no negativo, so even team is not us vs. them.
p. 31 - His point here is that b/c a capitalistic society has monetized "porn" in his words, there is little left to the erotic which requires some sort of secrecy. What we don't share or share in a limited way is what is erotic. If it's too available it becomes a commodity. The point is so great. But the communication of it is so convoluted. I mean, read that page and you tell me if you think it's not convoluted.
p. 37 - "Instead, unchecked freedom of choice is threatening to bring about the end of desire." If this isn't the longest lead up of a crazy number of points to get to the point I don't know what is. OMG. this writing style is so hard, but what he's saying is deep. His point is that we have so many choices now and we have so much access, but real love and desire do require some sense of longing. Without that longing how can we really have this sort of differentiation of feeling required? But dude, can you not just say it like that and give examples thereafter. I CANNOT Tell where you are going with i) all the quotes and ii) the random asides, iii) digressions and iv) arguments that are made between the digressions. OUCH OUCH OUCH.
p. 40 - He's trying to say that this openness that everyone can see all the time is making it hard for people to really have fantasy. I just don't agree with this. I think you can have loads of fantasy, it's just some people don't know how to evoke and create that in their social media. Guess what, these people would have had that problem without social media as well. What I do like is that he's bringing it up and I haven't thought about that before. Who's right, doesn't matter. It's a legit interesting as an idea.
p. 50 - I just don't agree. It's like the philosophy version of the BS that is inspiring me to write my book on Data and the many misunderstandings. He's saying that b/c we're so data-driven we are information-rich, insight poor. What we think is insight is not deep enough to be insightful. Then he says: "But excessive cognition prevents recognition from taking place."
That's some BS. You need a different group of friends Han, b/c quite frankly, you're a deep guy with some interesting thoughts. So if you think people are dumb b/c there is too much info, then make different friends. But I got to call you out.
There are DEF a lot of people that like to say clever stuff that is kitschy and forward it around like they are deep and clever. FOR SURE! And they are all over the internet forwarding quotes they don't understand in an effort to sound deep. And that might give you the impression that it's the abundance of info that is making people be like that.
But here's the secret... those people are just the same as they've always been. The info isn't the issue. The issue is they can't tell the diff b/c they weren't trained, taught, or otherwise inspired to do so. And that's no different than previous times. It has nothing to do with how much you feed them, just like a broken faucet is broken whether there's a ton of water or very little. We as a society have to fix the faucet and that isn't going to happen if we keep teaching STEM at the EXPENSE of all the liberal arts that might make you deep.
But there are DEF some deep people out there. And they say really true, deep stuff that is augmented and sped by the massive amount of content. They even benefit by seeing all the ways people get it wrong and what the zeitgeist is into which you speak. These peeps are deep. They ABSOLUTELY benefit from the information abundance that is possible today.
The choice or the thing to develop and cultivate is to become more critical about how you interpret data, ideas, info, etc... This is straight-up learning to think. It has to do with your cognitive development and how you learn to process the world around you. That is not going to be impacted by having too much info. If anything - as with babies - you need a lot of stimuli to understand why you're wrong, right, very close to right, the nuance of right and wrong, and what might be the exception, how might it be misinterpreted so you can refine, etc....
The challenge is building up that skillset both within oneself and how then you scale that. Once you get it all under control, you can actually crush it and teach it to others.
In other words, I flat out disagree and am far more optimistic.
But I appreciate this book, because - despite that, I'm not a fan of this particular writing style and therefore 3 stars, it's some interesting stuff to actually talk about in 2020. Maybe Han can write a popular more approachable version for the plebians like us to digest.
December 14, 2024
إيروس مصطلح فلسفي مأخوذ من الميثولوجيا اليونانية للإشارة إلى إله الحب والرغبة العاطفية أو الجنسية، والتي تؤدي للجمال الحقيقي كما يرى أفلاطون وسقراط. وهو حب باقٍ أبد الدهر.
يفسر شول هان حال الحب في العصر المعاصر بالمعاناة والبؤس؛ حيث تقول عالمة الاجتماع إيڤا إيلوز (اللوز)، أن الخيارات اللانهائية أدت إلى وفرة وتعددية تمنع الاستدامة، ويخالفها شول هان بأن أزمة الحب ترجع إلى تآكل الآخر والحاصل من النرجسية المتصاعدة للذات.
كما يبين أن مواقع التواصل الاجتماعي ساهمت بشكل كبير في ذلك عبر طرح الأفراد لحياتهم عليها وتفاصيلها أدى إلى مفهوم الشريك كامل الأوصاف، وبالتالي إن وجد ذلك الشريك فقد يؤدي إلى التخلي عنه بكل بساطة لوجود شريك أفضل.
كما يرى شول هان أن الجميع الآن يتجنب الوقوع في الحب، وتجنب الأذى الناتج عن فشله، حيث يتطلب الحب قدرًا كبيرًا من الالتزام، ولكن يتجنب الجميع الالتزام، لأنه يؤدي إلى الإصابة والألم. وارتباط مفهوم الحب بالرأسمالية ومجتمع الإنجازات الذي يدمج الحب مع الجنسانية في بوتقة واحدة، وإخضاعه للأوامر من أجل القيام به.
يرجع مرة أخرى هان هنا إلى المصطلح الخاص به "مجتمع الإنجاز" ويبين فقدان الذات للحرية الفعلية كونها مشاركة في الاستغلال الذاتي لنفسها. وهي تقوم بذلك بمحض إرادتها. ذات الإنجاز هي المجرم والضحية في الوقت نفسه.
يطرح أيضًا التساؤل: هل يمكن وصف العلاقة التي تربط الأنا بالآخر، عبر الإيروس، بأنها قائمة على الندية؟ ويكون الجواب، نعم. إذا كان بوسع المرء أن يمتلك الآخر، فلن يكون ثمة آخر. التملك والمعرفة والاستيعاب مرادفات للسلطة.
كما يشير إلى دور البورنوجرافيا في تفكيك خيال الفرد ذبوله وضموره، ويلاحظ ذلك في وقتنا الراهن في مجالات الأدب والفنون من أزمات على مستوى الخيال؛ وتلك هي معاناة إيروس.
"البورنوجرافيا هي مادة الحياة العارية على الشاشة. وبوصفها النقيض لإيروس، فإنها تعمل على تدمير الحياة الجنسية أيضًا".
يعيب الكتاب صغره وعدم التبحر في وصف أعمق وأشمل للمادة المطروحة، والتكرار في بعض النقاط.
يفسر شول هان حال الحب في العصر المعاصر بالمعاناة والبؤس؛ حيث تقول عالمة الاجتماع إيڤا إيلوز (اللوز)، أن الخيارات اللانهائية أدت إلى وفرة وتعددية تمنع الاستدامة، ويخالفها شول هان بأن أزمة الحب ترجع إلى تآكل الآخر والحاصل من النرجسية المتصاعدة للذات.
كما يبين أن مواقع التواصل الاجتماعي ساهمت بشكل كبير في ذلك عبر طرح الأفراد لحياتهم عليها وتفاصيلها أدى إلى مفهوم الشريك كامل الأوصاف، وبالتالي إن وجد ذلك الشريك فقد يؤدي إلى التخلي عنه بكل بساطة لوجود شريك أفضل.
كما يرى شول هان أن الجميع الآن يتجنب الوقوع في الحب، وتجنب الأذى الناتج عن فشله، حيث يتطلب الحب قدرًا كبيرًا من الالتزام، ولكن يتجنب الجميع الالتزام، لأنه يؤدي إلى الإصابة والألم. وارتباط مفهوم الحب بالرأسمالية ومجتمع الإنجازات الذي يدمج الحب مع الجنسانية في بوتقة واحدة، وإخضاعه للأوامر من أجل القيام به.
يرجع مرة أخرى هان هنا إلى المصطلح الخاص به "مجتمع الإنجاز" ويبين فقدان الذات للحرية الفعلية كونها مشاركة في الاستغلال الذاتي لنفسها. وهي تقوم بذلك بمحض إرادتها. ذات الإنجاز هي المجرم والضحية في الوقت نفسه.
يطرح أيضًا التساؤل: هل يمكن وصف العلاقة التي تربط الأنا بالآخر، عبر الإيروس، بأنها قائمة على الندية؟ ويكون الجواب، نعم. إذا كان بوسع المرء أن يمتلك الآخر، فلن يكون ثمة آخر. التملك والمعرفة والاستيعاب مرادفات للسلطة.
كما يشير إلى دور البورنوجرافيا في تفكيك خيال الفرد ذبوله وضموره، ويلاحظ ذلك في وقتنا الراهن في مجالات الأدب والفنون من أزمات على مستوى الخيال؛ وتلك هي معاناة إيروس.
"البورنوجرافيا هي مادة الحياة العارية على الشاشة. وبوصفها النقيض لإيروس، فإنها تعمل على تدمير الحياة الجنسية أيضًا".
يعيب الكتاب صغره وعدم التبحر في وصف أعمق وأشمل للمادة المطروحة، والتكرار في بعض النقاط.
November 17, 2024
"ليس بمقدور أحد يعيش حالة عشق حقيقية أن يُقدم وصفاً لمعشوقه مُطابقاً لما بداخله، حيث سيغدو كُل وصف محدوداً ومُربكاً ورُبما مؤلماً أيضاً."
كتاب "معاناة إيروس" للكاتب "بيونغ-شول هان" -الكاتب الألماني الجنسية، المولود بكوريا الجنوبية- هو كتاب فلسفي صغير الحجم، عميق المعنى، يتناول آثر الحداثة بشكلاً ما على الحُب، وتصويره واختصاره في شكل جنسي "بورنوجرافي"، وتجريد الحُب من معانيه المعنوية، لتُصبح معاني مادية، مُقتصرة على العلاقة الجنسية وما يوازيها.
"الحُب ليس احتمالاً، وليس نتاجاً لمبادرتنا، هو يحدث في الواقع بلا سبب"
- إيمانويل ليفيناس
الكتاب رغم صغر عدد صفحاته المكونة من 65 صفحة فقط، ولكنه دسم، كنت بعد كُل فصل أتوقف قليلاً ورُبما في الفصل نفسه أعيد قراءة الفقرة مرة وأثنين حتى استطيع هضمها وفهمها، أفكاره مُتشعبة للغاية وربطها بالأساطير الإغريقية الذي من الواضح أن الكاتب متأثر بها، وربطها أيضاً ببعض الأفلام الحديثة والقديمة قليلاً، عرف لنا الكاتب معنى "إيروس" ومعاني أخرى ستمتع بالقراءة عنها.
من الفقرات التي رُبما ستجعلك في الصورة وتفهم موضوع الكتاب، الفقرة التالية:
"اليوم، يُدمج الحُب مع الجنسانية في وحدة واحدة، وعلى نفس المنوال، يتم إخضاعه للأوامر من أجل القيام به. لقد غدا الجنس نوعاً من الإنجاز والأداء كما لو كان شكلاً من أشكال رأس المال المطلوب مُضاعفته. يغدو الجسم، بقيمه المعروضة، مُجرد سلعة. في الوقت نفسه، يجري تحويل الرغبة الجنسية لدى الآخر إلى موضوع للشراء. وعندما يُجرد الآخر من آخريته، لا يُمكن للمرء أن يُحب؛ يُمكن للمر أن يُستهلك فقط. إلى هذا الحد، لم يعد الآخر شخصاً؛ بدلاً من ذلك، يتم تجزئته (هو أو هي) إلى قطع جنسية مهمشة. وفي النهاية لا يُمكن النظر إلى الهوية الجنسية الذاتية بوصفها مُجرد شيء."
التجربة بالنسبة لي كانت جيدة، الترجمة مبذول فيها جهد كبير، فقط شعرت أن الكتاب يحتاج لتكثيف أكبر أو أمثلة أكثر ولكن ما قرأته كان جيداً. ومن الواضح أن إصدارات معنى سيكون لها شأن كبير بمُجرد قراءتك لعناوين الإصدارات الأخرى لنفس الدار.
يُنصح به.
November 8, 2023
el chabon analizando cincuenta sombras de grey es literalmente yo relacionando todo lo que leo en la carrera con mis libritos de romance go off king!!!!
March 3, 2018
According to Ficino, love is the “most serious disease of all”; a “change,” it “takes away from a man that which is his own and changes him into the nature of another.”
Such injury and transformation constitute its negativity. Today, through the increasing positivization and domestication of love, it is disappearing entirely. One stays the same and seeks only the confirmation of oneself in the Other.
*
Passion and pain are giving way to pleasant feelings and inconsequential arousal. In the age of the “quickie,” the casual encounter, and sex as stress-relief, sexuality is losing all negativity, too. The wholesale absence of negativity is degrading love into an object of consumption, a matter of hedonistic calculation. The desire for the Other is giving way to the comfort of the Same. The aim is to procure the comfortable and, ultimately, dull immanence of the wholly identical. Modern love lacks all transcendence and transgression.
*
Whatever is merely positive is lifeless. Negativity is essential to vitality: “Something is alive ... only to the extent that it contains contradiction within itself: indeed, [its] force is this, to hold and endure contradiction within. Thus vitality differs from the vigor or fitness of bare life, which lacks all negativity. A survivor is like the undead: too dead to live, and too alive to die.
Mar 02, 18
Review to come?
* Maybe later on my blog.
November 11, 2024
«بحران کنونی در ادبیات و هنرها از بحران فانتزی نشات میگیرد: ناپدید شدنِ دیگری. این زوال اروس است.»
خیلی کتاب مهمیه. هممون به این کتاب نیاز داریم. خیلی کم بود خیلی خلاصه بود این موضوعِ "به کثافط کشیدن شدنِ معنا و کنش عشق در دنیای امروز" نیاز به کتابها و کنفرانسها و آگاهیرسانیهای روزانه و ثانیهای بیشتری داره. هرچه زودتر بخونیدش بهتر. اگر میخواید در عرض یه نشست یه مطالعه چیزی بهتون اضافه کنه یا کمی به فکر فرو ببرتتون یا کمی حتی به خودمون بیاره مارو یا بخواید به دوستاتون یا کسایی که میدونین لازمه معرفیش کنین، اون کتاب اینه.
«حرمت شکنیِ عشق در قالب پورن به شکل آیینزدایی و تقدس زدایی بروز مییابد. امروز، فضاها و اعمال آیینی دارند محو میشوند جهان هر دم بیشتر عریان و مستهجن میشود.»
دنیای امروز خدای اروس(عشق) رو با اروتیک اشتباه گرفتن. و اشتباه گرفتنش به معنای حل شدن و هم معنا شدنه. به وحشتناکیِ این میمونه که آدم خدا رو با شیطان اشتباه بگیره. و هیچکس عین خیالش نیست تا روزی که به خودمون بیایم ببینیم نمیتونیم عشق رو برای بچههامون معنا کنیم چون مثالی ازش نداریم تو دنیایی که همه چیز در دسترس و عریان و حرمتشکنی و آیینزداییی شده.
شما فقط اینو بخون:
«سرمایهداری استفادهی دیگری برای سکسوالیته نمیشناسد و ابن بیحرمتی به اروس یا عشق است-و پایین آوردن شان آن تا حد پورن. بر این اساس "حرمت شکنی" مدنظر آگامبن چیزی است که در ردیف حرمتشکنی است و نه بیشتر.»
(پن: لطفا حرفهای این کتاب رو درمورد برهنگی و پورن با این تفکرات ایرانی "به شما چه میخوایم لخت بشیم" اشتباه نگیرید. اصلا بحث اینجا اون نیست، عشق ۲ طرفهس و منظورش لوس کردن و حرمتزداییِ محرمانه ترین کنشانسان ها یعنی سکس و عشقورزی و عشق معنوی است و اصلا کاری با بدن زن نداره. اینجا ذهن و عمل و بدن و "مرد و زن" باهم مورد بحثه نه فقط زن.)
انگار این کتاب باعث میشه شما دوباره عشق رو به شکل اولیه و اسطورهای خودش تو ذهنتتون محکم کنید، مثل یک خدا، حضرت اروس، مثل خدای یکتایی که انسان سالها پیش کُشته(خدا مرده است) و حالا به پروردگار عشق هم که تمام چیزیه که برای ما مونده بود رحم نمیکنیم و تمام معابدش رو شکوندیم. انسان برای اینکه خودش اون بالا بشینه، خودش بشه خدای همه چیز و همه چیز رو آشکارا به نمایش بذاره، همهی خدا هارو یکی یکی کشته.
انسان چیزی برای ارائه نداره جز همون چیزهایی که خدایان بهش بخشیدن. و حالا فکر میکنه با حرمت شکنی میتونه اسم آزادی و خدایی روش بذاره.
«»
این کتاب از دغدغه و خشم شخصی خودم نشات میگیره بنابراین کمتر از ۵ براش لایق نمیدونم. میدونم باید دوباره بخونمش چون بعضیجاهاش پیچیده بود اما مبحث اصلیِ هر فصل...چیزیه که تا عمر دارم اجازه نمیدم از گوشهی ذهنم پاک بشه.
کاش از این فقط یکم زودتر به دنیا میومدم، قبل از اینکه تکنولوژی رو ببینم میمردم، این تنها حسرتیه که از روزگارم دارم.
《احتضار اروس/نشر نو/ ترجمه فریبرز همائی》
خیلی کتاب مهمیه. هممون به این کتاب نیاز داریم. خیلی کم بود خیلی خلاصه بود این موضوعِ "به کثافط کشیدن شدنِ معنا و کنش عشق در دنیای امروز" نیاز به کتابها و کنفرانسها و آگاهیرسانیهای روزانه و ثانیهای بیشتری داره. هرچه زودتر بخونیدش بهتر. اگر میخواید در عرض یه نشست یه مطالعه چیزی بهتون اضافه کنه یا کمی به فکر فرو ببرتتون یا کمی حتی به خودمون بیاره مارو یا بخواید به دوستاتون یا کسایی که میدونین لازمه معرفیش کنین، اون کتاب اینه.
«حرمت شکنیِ عشق در قالب پورن به شکل آیینزدایی و تقدس زدایی بروز مییابد. امروز، فضاها و اعمال آیینی دارند محو میشوند جهان هر دم بیشتر عریان و مستهجن میشود.»
دنیای امروز خدای اروس(عشق) رو با اروتیک اشتباه گرفتن. و اشتباه گرفتنش به معنای حل شدن و هم معنا شدنه. به وحشتناکیِ این میمونه که آدم خدا رو با شیطان اشتباه بگیره. و هیچکس عین خیالش نیست تا روزی که به خودمون بیایم ببینیم نمیتونیم عشق رو برای بچههامون معنا کنیم چون مثالی ازش نداریم تو دنیایی که همه چیز در دسترس و عریان و حرمتشکنی و آیینزداییی شده.
شما فقط اینو بخون:
«سرمایهداری استفادهی دیگری برای سکسوالیته نمیشناسد و ابن بیحرمتی به اروس یا عشق است-و پایین آوردن شان آن تا حد پورن. بر این اساس "حرمت شکنی" مدنظر آگامبن چیزی است که در ردیف حرمتشکنی است و نه بیشتر.»
(پن: لطفا حرفهای این کتاب رو درمورد برهنگی و پورن با این تفکرات ایرانی "به شما چه میخوایم لخت بشیم" اشتباه نگیرید. اصلا بحث اینجا اون نیست، عشق ۲ طرفهس و منظورش لوس کردن و حرمتزداییِ محرمانه ترین کنشانسان ها یعنی سکس و عشقورزی و عشق معنوی است و اصلا کاری با بدن زن نداره. اینجا ذهن و عمل و بدن و "مرد و زن" باهم مورد بحثه نه فقط زن.)
انگار این کتاب باعث میشه شما دوباره عشق رو به شکل اولیه و اسطورهای خودش تو ذهنتتون محکم کنید، مثل یک خدا، حضرت اروس، مثل خدای یکتایی که انسان سالها پیش کُشته(خدا مرده است) و حالا به پروردگار عشق هم که تمام چیزیه که برای ما مونده بود رحم نمیکنیم و تمام معابدش رو شکوندیم. انسان برای اینکه خودش اون بالا بشینه، خودش بشه خدای همه چیز و همه چیز رو آشکارا به نمایش بذاره، همهی خدا هارو یکی یکی کشته.
انسان چیزی برای ارائه نداره جز همون چیزهایی که خدایان بهش بخشیدن. و حالا فکر میکنه با حرمت شکنی میتونه اسم آزادی و خدایی روش بذاره.
«»
این کتاب از دغدغه و خشم شخصی خودم نشات میگیره بنابراین کمتر از ۵ براش لایق نمیدونم. میدونم باید دوباره بخونمش چون بعضیجاهاش پیچیده بود اما مبحث اصلیِ هر فصل...چیزیه که تا عمر دارم اجازه نمیدم از گوشهی ذهنم پاک بشه.
کاش از این فقط یکم زودتر به دنیا میومدم، قبل از اینکه تکنولوژی رو ببینم میمردم، این تنها حسرتیه که از روزگارم دارم.
《احتضار اروس/نشر نو/ ترجمه فریبرز همائی》
February 23, 2024
Authors of novels have the opportunity to show the problems of society symptomatically through their characters. This in turn gives the reader the opportunity to identify and empathize. Philosophers - unless they are novelists - do not have this opportunity. They have to work with something abstract instead of something concrete, with concepts instead of the physical. Therefore, with regard to their theory, a closed system is important in order to make their thoughts comprehensible and stringent. Byung-Chul Han does not work with such a system in "Agony of Eros". Instead, it is essayistic fragments that diagnose our narcissistic society.
What's more, while when reading novels you can transfer the insights gained from the fictional world to the real world, Han takes the opposite approach. He analyzes the weak points of our current existence and reads them into fictional works (Lars von Trier's "Melancholia", "50 Shades of Grey"). Although this is illustrative, his approach is questionable, as it exposes his framework of thought as a construct that primarily works in the constructed. Overall, his book reads like a general inventory, which, however, is limited to individual drawers rather than the entire store.
Nevertheless, his slim volume contains many clever thoughts. Han deciphers the ego in the capitalist meritocracy as a subject driven from within (!), which has lost the ability to accept the other through its recognition of otherness. This is a consequence of his narcissistic-depressive attitude, which leads to the fact that one only sees oneself and projects this self into the other, whereby it inevitably loses its otherness and - also on a sexual level - is instrumentalized or degraded to a pure object. As a consequence, the ego must be erased so that it can be recognized in its truthfulness as a reflection in the mirror of the other's eyes.
The question remains: can self-erasure lead to fulfillment beyond a Buddhist tradition of thought? A phoenix burns before it can rise again from the ashes; only sometimes we are too afraid of the fire.
What's more, while when reading novels you can transfer the insights gained from the fictional world to the real world, Han takes the opposite approach. He analyzes the weak points of our current existence and reads them into fictional works (Lars von Trier's "Melancholia", "50 Shades of Grey"). Although this is illustrative, his approach is questionable, as it exposes his framework of thought as a construct that primarily works in the constructed. Overall, his book reads like a general inventory, which, however, is limited to individual drawers rather than the entire store.
Nevertheless, his slim volume contains many clever thoughts. Han deciphers the ego in the capitalist meritocracy as a subject driven from within (!), which has lost the ability to accept the other through its recognition of otherness. This is a consequence of his narcissistic-depressive attitude, which leads to the fact that one only sees oneself and projects this self into the other, whereby it inevitably loses its otherness and - also on a sexual level - is instrumentalized or degraded to a pure object. As a consequence, the ego must be erased so that it can be recognized in its truthfulness as a reflection in the mirror of the other's eyes.
The question remains: can self-erasure lead to fulfillment beyond a Buddhist tradition of thought? A phoenix burns before it can rise again from the ashes; only sometimes we are too afraid of the fire.
January 28, 2022
أول قراءاتي لـ"بيونغ شول هان"، ولن يكون بحول الله آخرها.
يبحث هذا الكتاب في اختفاء الحبّ بمفهومه الإنساني العميق. الحبّ الذي يقوم على الوجود الكامل للآخر، والقدرة على الاستلاب في حضرته. ويناقش الكاتب هنا بعض ما أدّى بالإنسان المعاصر إلى نرجسية مفرطة وخيال أفقر واستغناءً هشّا تآكل أمامها الآخر واختفى! واختفى باختفائه "الإيروس" بكل معانيه ودلالاته.
كتاب صغير الحجم، سهل العبارة، دسم المحتوى، وترجمته جيدة. يُسائل المفاهيم ويتفكّر من خلالها في الموضوع الذي يطرحه. ترى بها –أي المفاهيم التي يناقشها الكتاب- تلك الآفاق التي يطويها البعد، وتلك الزوايا التي يواريها الخفاء. فيتركك الكتاب في أفق أرحب للتأمّل ، وأسئلة أكثر للتفكّر، وأدوات أفضل للاستبصار. وتلك هي "الفلسفة".
يبحث هذا الكتاب في اختفاء الحبّ بمفهومه الإنساني العميق. الحبّ الذي يقوم على الوجود الكامل للآخر، والقدرة على الاستلاب في حضرته. ويناقش الكاتب هنا بعض ما أدّى بالإنسان المعاصر إلى نرجسية مفرطة وخيال أفقر واستغناءً هشّا تآكل أمامها الآخر واختفى! واختفى باختفائه "الإيروس" بكل معانيه ودلالاته.
كتاب صغير الحجم، سهل العبارة، دسم المحتوى، وترجمته جيدة. يُسائل المفاهيم ويتفكّر من خلالها في الموضوع الذي يطرحه. ترى بها –أي المفاهيم التي يناقشها الكتاب- تلك الآفاق التي يطويها البعد، وتلك الزوايا التي يواريها الخفاء. فيتركك الكتاب في أفق أرحب للتأمّل ، وأسئلة أكثر للتفكّر، وأدوات أفضل للاستبصار. وتلك هي "الفلسفة".
August 1, 2017
With my limited knowledge of philosophy, I won't even pretend to have the skill necessary to craft an adequate rebuttal to this book. Its arguments are clear and presented with good evidence, but I just flat-out disagree with most of it. This was an interesting read, good thought exercise for my brain, but through the whole thing I was just like, "Nah, man."
June 22, 2024
Son yıllarda kitap okumaktan ciddi anlamda soğudum. Sanki her yeni kitap bir öncekinin aynı, sanki sürekli aynı vasat o kitap ödül alıyor gibi hissediyordum.
Ben aynılıktan da, vasatlıktan da bıktım. Hiçbiri kötü değil ve bu beni daha çok öfkelendiriyor. Çünkü kötünün bir değeri var gözümde. Bir tartışması var. Vasatın hiçbir şeyi yok.
Byung-Chul Han bu küçücük kitapta tam da yarama parmak bastı. Tüm kitap boyunca farklı konulara değinerek Aynılık Cehennemi adını verdi bu duruma. Başka 'nın eksikliğini bambaşka bölümlerde inceledi.
56 sayfayı sindire sindire, yavaş yavaş okudum Küçücük kitaba 1.5 gün verdim. Bu hissi çok özlemişim.
Sorunumuz gerçekten de negatifin eksikliği. Acı bile tahammül edilebilir sınırlarda. Her şey evcilleşti ve vahşiden, Başka'dan, negatiften eser kalmadı. Yazar beni bu konuda açıkça ikna etti. Kafamdaki pek çok soruyu tartışmaya açtı ve gördüm ki dert edindiğim şeyler sadece benim derdim değil.
Enformasyon pozitifken Bilgi negatiftir, diyor yazar. Çünkü diyor, Bilgi "hariç bırakan, seçkin ve yetkilidir."
Eros diyor, sadece Aşk anlamına gelmeden. Aşk, gözüpeklik ve akıl başlığında topluyor onu.
Depresyondan narsisistik davranışlara, siyasetten pornoya ve hatta teorinin sonuna kadar pek çok derin konuyu kısa, öz, ama gerçek bir dikkat isteyen yapıda topluyor.
Diğer eserlerini de mutlaka okuyacağım.
"Narsisizm kendini sevmek değildir. Kendini seven özne, Başka'yla arasına kendi lehine işleyen negatif bir sınırlama getirir."
Ben aynılıktan da, vasatlıktan da bıktım. Hiçbiri kötü değil ve bu beni daha çok öfkelendiriyor. Çünkü kötünün bir değeri var gözümde. Bir tartışması var. Vasatın hiçbir şeyi yok.
Byung-Chul Han bu küçücük kitapta tam da yarama parmak bastı. Tüm kitap boyunca farklı konulara değinerek Aynılık Cehennemi adını verdi bu duruma. Başka 'nın eksikliğini bambaşka bölümlerde inceledi.
56 sayfayı sindire sindire, yavaş yavaş okudum Küçücük kitaba 1.5 gün verdim. Bu hissi çok özlemişim.
Sorunumuz gerçekten de negatifin eksikliği. Acı bile tahammül edilebilir sınırlarda. Her şey evcilleşti ve vahşiden, Başka'dan, negatiften eser kalmadı. Yazar beni bu konuda açıkça ikna etti. Kafamdaki pek çok soruyu tartışmaya açtı ve gördüm ki dert edindiğim şeyler sadece benim derdim değil.
Enformasyon pozitifken Bilgi negatiftir, diyor yazar. Çünkü diyor, Bilgi "hariç bırakan, seçkin ve yetkilidir."
Eros diyor, sadece Aşk anlamına gelmeden. Aşk, gözüpeklik ve akıl başlığında topluyor onu.
Depresyondan narsisistik davranışlara, siyasetten pornoya ve hatta teorinin sonuna kadar pek çok derin konuyu kısa, öz, ama gerçek bir dikkat isteyen yapıda topluyor.
Diğer eserlerini de mutlaka okuyacağım.
"Narsisizm kendini sevmek değildir. Kendini seven özne, Başka'yla arasına kendi lehine işleyen negatif bir sınırlama getirir."
August 29, 2023
عندي مشكلة متكررة مع كتابات بيونغ تشول هان، وهي أني رغمًا عني أستهين بما يكتب وأريد دومًا أن أجعل قراءاته ليلية تقرأ قبل النوم بدقائق، ربما كان ذلك لحجم كتيباته الخادع الذي يشجعك على بداية القراءة سريعا مقتنعا أن كتابه الذي لا يتجاوز المائة صفحة بأي حال، لن يكون قراءة عسيرة، لكن ما إن تبدأ، تجد نفسك في دوامة ومتاهة من الأفكار والآراء والمصطلحات الحديثة، التي إن لم تكن متنبهًا لها بشكل كبير، ستجد نفسك مضللا
الكتاب كنت بدأته بسبب اقتباس قرأته له، شجعني للغاية على قراءة أخرى جديدة له بعد آخر ما قرأت له، مجتمع الاحتراق النفسي، وعلى نفس هذا المنوال نجد كتابنا هنا، معاناة إيروس
إيروس هي إلهة الحب والرغبة والجنس، والمقصود هنا بمعاناة إيروس هي الصعوبات والعقبات التي تواجهها إيروس حاليا في زمننا الحالي
كعادة كل رموز فلاسفة المدرسة النقدية ومعهد فرانكفورت، نجد نقدهم للحداثة متشابهًا للغاية، ربما يختلف الأمر فقط في شدته أو لطفه، وعمقه أو سطحيته
يبدأ كتاب تشول بنقد وعرض لفيلم ميلانخوليا للارس فور ترير والذي يستعرضه لتوضيح فكرة المؤلف في نقد التيار الجارف من المخاوف الذي ينتاب الشخص حين تغمره موجة الحب الشديدة
ينتقد هنا تشول الإيجابية الشديدة في العواطف التي تجعلنا ننفي عن الحب اي سلبة محتملة، تلك السلبية التي يرى فيها تشول دافع ومحفز شديد لإيروس، والذي، مع العامل الأول، العامل الإيجابي، يشكلوا التركيب الجدلي الهيجلي الذي يقود روح العالم
كذلك ينظر تشول هنا إلى العالم الرأسمالي النيوليبرالي الحديث كعدو لإيروس، فهو يتيح ويبشر بعالم الوفرة حيث كل الخيارات والبدائل متاحة، وحيث كذلك السهولة أو السيولة بلفظ وتعريف باومان لها، التي تمسخ الحب لشبح مشوه من اللذة الحسية فقط
الكتاب على صغره جميل وعميق ومبهر ومليئ بالتحليلات اللغوية والأدبية والفكرية التي تصب كلها في نقد الإيروتيكا المتعجلة وحاجة الإشباع المهولة التي تدفع بني البشر للاستحواذ السريع على كل شيء دون التشبع الفعلي الذي يقوده التمهل والتأمل والحب العقلي
كتاب جميل وممتع، ولربما يحتاج قراءة أخرى
الكتاب كنت بدأته بسبب اقتباس قرأته له، شجعني للغاية على قراءة أخرى جديدة له بعد آخر ما قرأت له، مجتمع الاحتراق النفسي، وعلى نفس هذا المنوال نجد كتابنا هنا، معاناة إيروس
إيروس هي إلهة الحب والرغبة والجنس، والمقصود هنا بمعاناة إيروس هي الصعوبات والعقبات التي تواجهها إيروس حاليا في زمننا الحالي
كعادة كل رموز فلاسفة المدرسة النقدية ومعهد فرانكفورت، نجد نقدهم للحداثة متشابهًا للغاية، ربما يختلف الأمر فقط في شدته أو لطفه، وعمقه أو سطحيته
يبدأ كتاب تشول بنقد وعرض لفيلم ميلانخوليا للارس فور ترير والذي يستعرضه لتوضيح فكرة المؤلف في نقد التيار الجارف من المخاوف الذي ينتاب الشخص حين تغمره موجة الحب الشديدة
ينتقد هنا تشول الإيجابية الشديدة في العواطف التي تجعلنا ننفي عن الحب اي سلبة محتملة، تلك السلبية التي يرى فيها تشول دافع ومحفز شديد لإيروس، والذي، مع العامل الأول، العامل الإيجابي، يشكلوا التركيب الجدلي الهيجلي الذي يقود روح العالم
كذلك ينظر تشول هنا إلى العالم الرأسمالي النيوليبرالي الحديث كعدو لإيروس، فهو يتيح ويبشر بعالم الوفرة حيث كل الخيارات والبدائل متاحة، وحيث كذلك السهولة أو السيولة بلفظ وتعريف باومان لها، التي تمسخ الحب لشبح مشوه من اللذة الحسية فقط
الكتاب على صغره جميل وعميق ومبهر ومليئ بالتحليلات اللغوية والأدبية والفكرية التي تصب كلها في نقد الإيروتيكا المتعجلة وحاجة الإشباع المهولة التي تدفع بني البشر للاستحواذ السريع على كل شيء دون التشبع الفعلي الذي يقوده التمهل والتأمل والحب العقلي
كتاب جميل وممتع، ولربما يحتاج قراءة أخرى
February 6, 2025
Super thought provoking! Did I get and agree with everything in this book? No. But this author makes you think hard and is definitely worth checking out, reflecting on something we are all familiar with, yet not often take the time to deeply engage with.
Today love, which means nothing more than need, satisfaction, enjoyment is incompatible with the withdrawal and the delay of the other. Society as a search engine, a machine for consumption, is abolishing the desire for what is absent, what cannot be found, seized and consumed.
The Agony of Eros is probably my first philosophical work read in a long time after some dabbling in the ancient Greeks when I was a teenager (and a permanent dislike of Friedrich Nietzsche after giving Thus Spoke Zarathustra 1 star). Byung-Chul Han argues that society, in its praise of the individual, ever increasing information and choice of gratification over wonderment and challenge, is undermining the possibility of true love. He uses multiple examples, from Socrates to Lars von Trier movies, to strengthen his argument.
Despite the slim size, this is definitely not an easy or very accessible read, but highly interesting in how it deals with the connection between Love/Eros and Death and Desire, and how the author asserts that a certain level of unknowability and unpredictability is needed for truly transcendental love.
Quotes and thoughts, a lot, he definitely has a penchant for language and interesting point of view:
Capitalism is aggravating the pornographication of society by making everything a commodity and putting it on display.
Expanding technologies of choice
Erosion of the other
Inferno of the same, society becoming more focused on sameness
Constant comparison, thereby flattening them in the same
Everything is being flattened out into an object of consumption
Succes induced depression
Eros and death being intertwined
Love, desire and death
Here the invisible violence of positive stands opposed to brutal power of negativity, that exploits and robs.
The happiness of absence
Being able not to be able
Entrepreneur of the self, self exploitation, the exploited is the exploiter, exploitation without domination, Homo Economicus only assumes himself free
You can produces massive compulsion, you can exercises even greater restraint than you should
Sex means achievement and performance
The other is sexualised into an object for procuring arousal
A total abolishing of remoteness is underway
Love being reduced to emotion and arousal
Human memory is living, contrasted to computerised memory storage
Otherness is not consumable difference
An object of hedonistic calculation
Modern love lacks all transcendence and transgression
The true essence of love consists in giving up the conscience of one’s self, forgetting oneself in another self.
Depression characterises our age
Whatever is merely positive is lifeless.
Something is alive only to the extent that it contains contradiction within itself.
Faithfulness is a form of decision and conclusion that introduces eternity into time, it encloses the former inside the latter.
Disappointment is a notorious handmaid to imagination
Desire is always the desire for the Other
Information and Fantasy are opposing forces
Contemporary acceleration society
Eros must not be confused with fleshly desire
Rupture, something wholly Other, a hole in the habitual and same
Eros manifests itself as the revolutionary yearning for an entirely different way of loving and another kind of society. Thereby it remains faithful to what is yet to come.
Eros, the oldest of the Gods according to some of the ancient Greeks
There is no such thing as data-driven thinking, only calculation is data-driven.
Theory reduce entropy
Thinking is an expedition into quietness
Spirit, which originally meant unrest
To be able to think one must first have been a friend, a lover
Today love, which means nothing more than need, satisfaction, enjoyment is incompatible with the withdrawal and the delay of the other. Society as a search engine, a machine for consumption, is abolishing the desire for what is absent, what cannot be found, seized and consumed.
The Agony of Eros is probably my first philosophical work read in a long time after some dabbling in the ancient Greeks when I was a teenager (and a permanent dislike of Friedrich Nietzsche after giving Thus Spoke Zarathustra 1 star). Byung-Chul Han argues that society, in its praise of the individual, ever increasing information and choice of gratification over wonderment and challenge, is undermining the possibility of true love. He uses multiple examples, from Socrates to Lars von Trier movies, to strengthen his argument.
Despite the slim size, this is definitely not an easy or very accessible read, but highly interesting in how it deals with the connection between Love/Eros and Death and Desire, and how the author asserts that a certain level of unknowability and unpredictability is needed for truly transcendental love.
Quotes and thoughts, a lot, he definitely has a penchant for language and interesting point of view:
Capitalism is aggravating the pornographication of society by making everything a commodity and putting it on display.
Expanding technologies of choice
Erosion of the other
Inferno of the same, society becoming more focused on sameness
Constant comparison, thereby flattening them in the same
Everything is being flattened out into an object of consumption
Succes induced depression
Eros and death being intertwined
Love, desire and death
Here the invisible violence of positive stands opposed to brutal power of negativity, that exploits and robs.
The happiness of absence
Being able not to be able
Entrepreneur of the self, self exploitation, the exploited is the exploiter, exploitation without domination, Homo Economicus only assumes himself free
You can produces massive compulsion, you can exercises even greater restraint than you should
Sex means achievement and performance
The other is sexualised into an object for procuring arousal
A total abolishing of remoteness is underway
Love being reduced to emotion and arousal
Human memory is living, contrasted to computerised memory storage
Otherness is not consumable difference
An object of hedonistic calculation
Modern love lacks all transcendence and transgression
The true essence of love consists in giving up the conscience of one’s self, forgetting oneself in another self.
Depression characterises our age
Whatever is merely positive is lifeless.
Something is alive only to the extent that it contains contradiction within itself.
Faithfulness is a form of decision and conclusion that introduces eternity into time, it encloses the former inside the latter.
Disappointment is a notorious handmaid to imagination
Desire is always the desire for the Other
Information and Fantasy are opposing forces
Contemporary acceleration society
Eros must not be confused with fleshly desire
Rupture, something wholly Other, a hole in the habitual and same
Eros manifests itself as the revolutionary yearning for an entirely different way of loving and another kind of society. Thereby it remains faithful to what is yet to come.
Eros, the oldest of the Gods according to some of the ancient Greeks
There is no such thing as data-driven thinking, only calculation is data-driven.
Theory reduce entropy
Thinking is an expedition into quietness
Spirit, which originally meant unrest
To be able to think one must first have been a friend, a lover
April 30, 2023
Nachtrag:
Desto mehr ich über das Buch nachdenke, desto schlechter finde ich es.
Hier wird eine pauschale Ursache eines vermeintlichen pauschalen Problems ausgemacht und anhand dessen argumentiert. Es gibt keine Anfängliche Definition der Begriffe, die der Autor nutzt, so dass es zu Verwirrung kommt, da ua. der Positivismus in Philosophie ursprünglich eine komplett andere Bedeutung hat, als er ihn gebraucht. Wen das generelle Problem von Han's Schriften interessiert, kann das in meiner Besprechung zu Hyperkulturalität nachlesen: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Buch wurde jetzt nochmal abgewertet von mir.
Ursprungsrezi:
Anspruchsvolle Gedanken, elegant formuliert, mit der Extraportion Bildungssprache und Begriffen versehen, die teils recht wage ausdefiniert oder erklärt werden. Das Buch zu erschließen ist harte Arbeit.
Bin froh zuvor schon ein bisschen in die Gedankenwelt der Philosophen eingetaucht zu sein. So konnte ich ihm zu 50% folgen.
Hab das Buch 2 mal gelesen. Durch seine sehr anspruchsvolle ,elegante Ausdrucksweise, neige ich dazu, ihn sehr schnell misszuverstehen, bzw. erst gar nicht ganz zu begreifen worauf er hinaus möchte.
Sehr gut gefallen haben mir die Bezüge zu Filmen und Literarischen Werken, die er ausführlich auf die Bedeutung des Eros, der Fantasie und der Dialektik des Desasters hin analysiert.
Er sagst, dass unsere heutige kapitalistische, neoliberale Welt, vom Positivismus ,"Du kannst", geprägt ist und damit die Negativität ," nicht können können", der Andersheit, die sich jedem Können entzieht und wesentlich für die erotische Erfahrung ist, nicht erfährt oder erfahren kann.
Es ginge beim Kapitalerwerb nicht um "das gute Leben", sondern um das "Bloße Leben", dessen "einzige Sorge" es sei "das Überleben in der Diskontuität zu sichern", "ein lebloses Leben".
Bei dem Gedankengang ploppte direkt die Aussage von Norbert Bolz aus Keine Macht der Moral!: Politik jenseits von Gut und Böse auf, der die These vertritt, dass eine Politik des "guten Lebens" zu Moralismus führe, der in der Politik nix zu suchen habe.
Am interessantesten und nachdenkenswertesten waren für mich die Ausführungen zur Fantasie, in der u.a.auf ein Werk J.G. Ballards einging.
Wir benötigen die Negativität des visuellen Entzugs. Wir benötigen die Grenzen und Schwellen, den Raum der Traumbilder und des Begehrens, sonst verschwindet die Fantasie für den Anderen und wir erleben die Agonie des Eros und damit die aktuelle Kunst-/und Literaturkrise.
Heutige Grenzräume, seinen keine Schwellen und Übergänge, sondern ausgrenzende Trennungen zwischen arm und reich. Ich habe da noch keine Haltung zu. Ist jedenfalls ein Gedankengang den ich weiter verfolgen werde.
Im letzten Gedankengang zur Informationsmasse und den Daten, die wir sammeln, würde ich ihm widersprechen. Kann auch dort seiner "Logik" nicht folgen.
Er behauptet, dass die Informationsmasse eine Krise des Geistes auslöse, da sie entropisch sei, zu viel Lärm produziere und nur das menschliche Denken, dem Erfahrungswerte vorausgehen, eine Erkenntnis hervorbringen könne und die Entropie abschwäche. Informationen an sich seien folgenlos und verändern nichts.
Ja, in komplexen Systemen sind Daten entropisch, neigen also dazu keiner Logik zu folgen, aber eben nicht in jedem Fall. Daten in medizinischen Fragen machen es möglich Granular jeden Patienten individuell behandeln zu können. Die granulare Gesellschaft: Wie das Digitale unsere Wirklichkeit auflöst ist nen tolles Buch dazu. Aber ich vermute, er meint so etwas nicht, sondern hat nur die philosophischen, sozialen , ökonomischen Systeme im Kopf.
Das meinte ich zu Beginn damit, dass er leider oft zu unklar bleibt, was er ausdrücken möchte.
Aber er kommt mit dem Erfahrungswert des Menschen auch nicht weiter. Es vermindert jedenfalls nicht die Entropie.
Hilfreich könnte hier zum Verständnis das Buch Der Schwarze Schwan sein.
Daten sammeln und die Erfahrung des Menschen finden nur in der Vergangenheit statt. Wir können alle Modelle die wir entwickeln immer nur im Rückspiegel durchführen. Diese geben nie ein verlässliches Bild oder Voraussage für die Zukunft ab. Erfahrungen sind subjektiv geprägt und ebenfalls vielen Faktoren ausgeliefert, wie ua. dem Zufall, dass diese keinen Mehrwert liefern.
Menschliches Verhalten ist generell extrem zufällig und folgt deutlich weniger einer Logik, als der ein oder andere annimmt. Daher geht es beim sammeln von Daten darum, diese sinnvoll zu clustern und Korrelationen und Feinheiten zu finden, die dem Menschen beim Erfassen der Welt überhaupt nicht auffallen würden. Dh. der "Lärmpegel" von dem er spricht, der durch Daten entsteht, kann durch Methoden deutlich reduziert werden. Aber da sich anscheinend aus seiner Sicht alles irgendwie transzendental zusammenfügen muss und er Informationen klar den Stempel von Positivismus = kapitalistisch= kein Eros aufdrückt, ist damit die Symbiose aus Daten und Menschlicher Erfahrung unmöglich. Warum muss denn ständig das eine gegen das andere ausgespielt werden?
Mag natürlich auch sein, dass ich ihn hier missverstehe, da er zu vage und schwammig in der Ausführung bleibt.
Desto mehr ich über das Buch nachdenke, desto schlechter finde ich es.
Hier wird eine pauschale Ursache eines vermeintlichen pauschalen Problems ausgemacht und anhand dessen argumentiert. Es gibt keine Anfängliche Definition der Begriffe, die der Autor nutzt, so dass es zu Verwirrung kommt, da ua. der Positivismus in Philosophie ursprünglich eine komplett andere Bedeutung hat, als er ihn gebraucht. Wen das generelle Problem von Han's Schriften interessiert, kann das in meiner Besprechung zu Hyperkulturalität nachlesen: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Buch wurde jetzt nochmal abgewertet von mir.
Ursprungsrezi:
Anspruchsvolle Gedanken, elegant formuliert, mit der Extraportion Bildungssprache und Begriffen versehen, die teils recht wage ausdefiniert oder erklärt werden. Das Buch zu erschließen ist harte Arbeit.
Bin froh zuvor schon ein bisschen in die Gedankenwelt der Philosophen eingetaucht zu sein. So konnte ich ihm zu 50% folgen.
Hab das Buch 2 mal gelesen. Durch seine sehr anspruchsvolle ,elegante Ausdrucksweise, neige ich dazu, ihn sehr schnell misszuverstehen, bzw. erst gar nicht ganz zu begreifen worauf er hinaus möchte.
Sehr gut gefallen haben mir die Bezüge zu Filmen und Literarischen Werken, die er ausführlich auf die Bedeutung des Eros, der Fantasie und der Dialektik des Desasters hin analysiert.
Er sagst, dass unsere heutige kapitalistische, neoliberale Welt, vom Positivismus ,"Du kannst", geprägt ist und damit die Negativität ," nicht können können", der Andersheit, die sich jedem Können entzieht und wesentlich für die erotische Erfahrung ist, nicht erfährt oder erfahren kann.
Es ginge beim Kapitalerwerb nicht um "das gute Leben", sondern um das "Bloße Leben", dessen "einzige Sorge" es sei "das Überleben in der Diskontuität zu sichern", "ein lebloses Leben".
Bei dem Gedankengang ploppte direkt die Aussage von Norbert Bolz aus Keine Macht der Moral!: Politik jenseits von Gut und Böse auf, der die These vertritt, dass eine Politik des "guten Lebens" zu Moralismus führe, der in der Politik nix zu suchen habe.
Am interessantesten und nachdenkenswertesten waren für mich die Ausführungen zur Fantasie, in der u.a.auf ein Werk J.G. Ballards einging.
Wir benötigen die Negativität des visuellen Entzugs. Wir benötigen die Grenzen und Schwellen, den Raum der Traumbilder und des Begehrens, sonst verschwindet die Fantasie für den Anderen und wir erleben die Agonie des Eros und damit die aktuelle Kunst-/und Literaturkrise.
Heutige Grenzräume, seinen keine Schwellen und Übergänge, sondern ausgrenzende Trennungen zwischen arm und reich. Ich habe da noch keine Haltung zu. Ist jedenfalls ein Gedankengang den ich weiter verfolgen werde.
Im letzten Gedankengang zur Informationsmasse und den Daten, die wir sammeln, würde ich ihm widersprechen. Kann auch dort seiner "Logik" nicht folgen.
Er behauptet, dass die Informationsmasse eine Krise des Geistes auslöse, da sie entropisch sei, zu viel Lärm produziere und nur das menschliche Denken, dem Erfahrungswerte vorausgehen, eine Erkenntnis hervorbringen könne und die Entropie abschwäche. Informationen an sich seien folgenlos und verändern nichts.
Ja, in komplexen Systemen sind Daten entropisch, neigen also dazu keiner Logik zu folgen, aber eben nicht in jedem Fall. Daten in medizinischen Fragen machen es möglich Granular jeden Patienten individuell behandeln zu können. Die granulare Gesellschaft: Wie das Digitale unsere Wirklichkeit auflöst ist nen tolles Buch dazu. Aber ich vermute, er meint so etwas nicht, sondern hat nur die philosophischen, sozialen , ökonomischen Systeme im Kopf.
Das meinte ich zu Beginn damit, dass er leider oft zu unklar bleibt, was er ausdrücken möchte.
Aber er kommt mit dem Erfahrungswert des Menschen auch nicht weiter. Es vermindert jedenfalls nicht die Entropie.
Hilfreich könnte hier zum Verständnis das Buch Der Schwarze Schwan sein.
Daten sammeln und die Erfahrung des Menschen finden nur in der Vergangenheit statt. Wir können alle Modelle die wir entwickeln immer nur im Rückspiegel durchführen. Diese geben nie ein verlässliches Bild oder Voraussage für die Zukunft ab. Erfahrungen sind subjektiv geprägt und ebenfalls vielen Faktoren ausgeliefert, wie ua. dem Zufall, dass diese keinen Mehrwert liefern.
Menschliches Verhalten ist generell extrem zufällig und folgt deutlich weniger einer Logik, als der ein oder andere annimmt. Daher geht es beim sammeln von Daten darum, diese sinnvoll zu clustern und Korrelationen und Feinheiten zu finden, die dem Menschen beim Erfassen der Welt überhaupt nicht auffallen würden. Dh. der "Lärmpegel" von dem er spricht, der durch Daten entsteht, kann durch Methoden deutlich reduziert werden. Aber da sich anscheinend aus seiner Sicht alles irgendwie transzendental zusammenfügen muss und er Informationen klar den Stempel von Positivismus = kapitalistisch= kein Eros aufdrückt, ist damit die Symbiose aus Daten und Menschlicher Erfahrung unmöglich. Warum muss denn ständig das eine gegen das andere ausgespielt werden?
Mag natürlich auch sein, dass ich ihn hier missverstehe, da er zu vage und schwammig in der Ausführung bleibt.
August 28, 2021
Πάρτε και διαβάστε ό,τι μα ό,τι έχει γράψει ο Μπιουνγκ-Τσουλ Χαν.
December 21, 2025
Fala de como o narcisismo desenfreado do nosso tempo e o excesso de conteúdo e desinformação prejudicam o eros, que depende de ver e compreender a alteridade para existir. Se acabamos com o espaço do mistério e usamos (usar também no sentido neoliberal) o outro apenas como um espelho de nós mesmos, o tesão morre e dá lugar a um mero exercício de poder.
Me fez pensar muito em redes sociais, fascismo pop, essa crise de leitores com qualquer cena que remeta minimamente a algo mais erótico, e ao tanto de filmes que mostram corpos esculturais desprovidos de qualquer tipo de desejo. Sintomas que parecem seguir direções diferentes, mas que estão todos entrelaçados na mesma causa.
Falta a nuance queer do pensamento de Paul B. Preciado, mas é uma boa leitura.
Me fez pensar muito em redes sociais, fascismo pop, essa crise de leitores com qualquer cena que remeta minimamente a algo mais erótico, e ao tanto de filmes que mostram corpos esculturais desprovidos de qualquer tipo de desejo. Sintomas que parecem seguir direções diferentes, mas que estão todos entrelaçados na mesma causa.
Falta a nuance queer do pensamento de Paul B. Preciado, mas é uma boa leitura.
April 26, 2018
Otro libro carísimo de este surcoreano. Quizá algún día hagan un Compedium de todos sus libros y los vendan como un hardback de tomo gordo. Sería más rentable para los bolsillos del público. Sin embargo, el afán de consumismo me hace comprar más de este señor XD . 80 páginas muy caras, pero muy directas y claras. Además, hace ya demasiado tiempo que no me veía tan plenamente interesada en una filosofía particular. Cada libro trata de un tema determinado, pero al final consiste en una ramificación de una idea originaria. Cada volumen complementa la visión de este señor: vivimos en la sociedad del rendimiento, de la productividad constante. El amor no iba a ser más que un reflejo de esta sociedad.
El amor implica la negación del yo. Pero el narcisismo actual hace que nadie quiera negar el yo, sino potenciar el yo, retroalimentarse a uno mismo para reforzar nuestro ego. Todo lo que implica negatividad, como por ejemplo, el "dolor", se transforma en algo cargado de positividad, como la "dulce tortura". Lo positivo no es lo bueno. Vivimos en un mundo cargado de positividad, necesitamos la negatividad para que descubrir lo otro. La positividad generalizada es el infierno de lo igual y la exclusión de lo distinto.
Somos seres de positividad y todo aquello que tenga esencia de negatividad produce un cambio en nuestro ser. El cambio es una muerte que luego da lugar a algo distinto. El amor es una pequeña muerte porque es la negación del yo al quedar fascinados por el otro. Pero el amor está desapareciendo, se está atrofiando en un producto consumista puramente hedonista, que nos excita y nos da placer, pero que no provoca una muerte en nosotros. No nos cambia, no evolucionamos, no nos convertimos en algo distinto. Seguimos en lo igual.
Somos una sociedad que ha huido de toda trascendencia. Huimos de la muerte, por lo que huimos del cambio. Como no cambiamos, no evolucionamos, y todo queda reducido a la mera vida, que hay que mantener hasta las últimas consecuencias. De ahí el culto al cuerpo y a la salud y al hedonismo. Pero esto no quiere decir que sea una vida buena.
El narcisismo nos hunde en la depresión porque miramos demasiado a nosotros mismos. Esto no significa que nos amemos a nosotros mismos. Esta depresión solo se cura con el Eros. Eros no hace alusión algo meramente sexual/coital, es un concepto mucho más abstracto y amplio, quiere decir fascinación por el otro. Lo otro puede ser una persona de la que nos enamoremos, pero puede no serlo.
Por ejemplo, Justine en la película Melancholia siente una atracción erótica hacia el planeta que va a colisionar con la Tierra. Este planeta es lo "otro". Esta relación erótica la saca de su depresión y la convierte en "amante". Me ha gustado mucho que comentase esta película, pues tiene mucha miga. "Desastre" significa literalmente "no astro". El desastre es nuestra salvación.
Con la objetificación de las personas, de los cuerpos, se transforma lo "otro" en algo "igual", se convierte en un producto que solo sirve para satisfacernos. Ya no es algo que nos cuestiona ni causa una reacción en nosotros. Ahora es solo el disfrute de un producto. Ahora es solo placer, no conflicto. Ahora son solo vivencias, no experiencias. Ahora el amor ya no es tal, sino sexualidad o el consumo de la sexualidad. El mercado de la pornografía. La desnudez obscena que no implica enigma ni misterio alguno que nos remueva por dentro. Ahora no hay sufrimiento para conocer lo otro, sino opciones consideradas "mejores" que son lo "igual".
También ha desaparecido la fantasía. Recibimos demasiada información del mundo, pero la saturación de datos embota la imaginación y nos deja exhaustos. Ver embota la imaginación y cerrar los ojos la estimula. Pero hoy no es posible cerrar los ojos. No imaginación, no hay fantasía.
Como todo sigue igual, no hay conclusión. Somos como el Holandés errante viajando por los mares por los siglos de los siglos, navegando en el infierno de lo igual para toda la eternidad.
El amor implica la negación del yo. Pero el narcisismo actual hace que nadie quiera negar el yo, sino potenciar el yo, retroalimentarse a uno mismo para reforzar nuestro ego. Todo lo que implica negatividad, como por ejemplo, el "dolor", se transforma en algo cargado de positividad, como la "dulce tortura". Lo positivo no es lo bueno. Vivimos en un mundo cargado de positividad, necesitamos la negatividad para que descubrir lo otro. La positividad generalizada es el infierno de lo igual y la exclusión de lo distinto.
Somos seres de positividad y todo aquello que tenga esencia de negatividad produce un cambio en nuestro ser. El cambio es una muerte que luego da lugar a algo distinto. El amor es una pequeña muerte porque es la negación del yo al quedar fascinados por el otro. Pero el amor está desapareciendo, se está atrofiando en un producto consumista puramente hedonista, que nos excita y nos da placer, pero que no provoca una muerte en nosotros. No nos cambia, no evolucionamos, no nos convertimos en algo distinto. Seguimos en lo igual.
Somos una sociedad que ha huido de toda trascendencia. Huimos de la muerte, por lo que huimos del cambio. Como no cambiamos, no evolucionamos, y todo queda reducido a la mera vida, que hay que mantener hasta las últimas consecuencias. De ahí el culto al cuerpo y a la salud y al hedonismo. Pero esto no quiere decir que sea una vida buena.
El narcisismo nos hunde en la depresión porque miramos demasiado a nosotros mismos. Esto no significa que nos amemos a nosotros mismos. Esta depresión solo se cura con el Eros. Eros no hace alusión algo meramente sexual/coital, es un concepto mucho más abstracto y amplio, quiere decir fascinación por el otro. Lo otro puede ser una persona de la que nos enamoremos, pero puede no serlo.
Por ejemplo, Justine en la película Melancholia siente una atracción erótica hacia el planeta que va a colisionar con la Tierra. Este planeta es lo "otro". Esta relación erótica la saca de su depresión y la convierte en "amante". Me ha gustado mucho que comentase esta película, pues tiene mucha miga. "Desastre" significa literalmente "no astro". El desastre es nuestra salvación.
Con la objetificación de las personas, de los cuerpos, se transforma lo "otro" en algo "igual", se convierte en un producto que solo sirve para satisfacernos. Ya no es algo que nos cuestiona ni causa una reacción en nosotros. Ahora es solo el disfrute de un producto. Ahora es solo placer, no conflicto. Ahora son solo vivencias, no experiencias. Ahora el amor ya no es tal, sino sexualidad o el consumo de la sexualidad. El mercado de la pornografía. La desnudez obscena que no implica enigma ni misterio alguno que nos remueva por dentro. Ahora no hay sufrimiento para conocer lo otro, sino opciones consideradas "mejores" que son lo "igual".
También ha desaparecido la fantasía. Recibimos demasiada información del mundo, pero la saturación de datos embota la imaginación y nos deja exhaustos. Ver embota la imaginación y cerrar los ojos la estimula. Pero hoy no es posible cerrar los ojos. No imaginación, no hay fantasía.
Como todo sigue igual, no hay conclusión. Somos como el Holandés errante viajando por los mares por los siglos de los siglos, navegando en el infierno de lo igual para toda la eternidad.
Read
February 23, 2022Very good critique of capitalism + modern society as profaning love, interesting focus on the importance (and lack) of negativity (in all senses) in our lives. I will always love to read about love!
July 19, 2017
This is the worst kind of academic book. It is a rehashing of the ideas of other more interesting thinkers you could just read yourself, with the sloppily appended justification for this book's existence that has been in vogue for a couple decades: "neoliberalism." Here's what Levinas has to say about x, but also what about neoliberalism: rinse, repeat. As paltry and cliche as this idea is, Han does not even adequately explore it. Do not bother.
December 23, 2022
Interesante pero no sorprendente, esperaba algo más wuau tal vez. Me llamó la atención su reflexión sobre el porno, aunque no estoy tan de acuerdo. Y creo que son grandes aciertos las referencias literarias y a Eva Illouz.
January 7, 2020
Salt pozitif olan, cansızdır. Negatiflik canlılık için elzemdir: "Bir şey, çelişkiyi içinde barındırdığı sürece, çelişkiyi kapsama ve ona karşı koyma gücü olduğu sürece canlıdır (Hegel)".
Her türlü negatiflikten mahrum olan zindelik veya fitness'ten canlılığın farkı budur. Sağ kalan kişi, yaşayamayacak kadar ölü, ölemeyecek kadar canlı bir yaşayan ölüye benzer.
Eros, Benliğin rejiminin ele geçiremediği Başka'yla ilgilidir. Bugünün toplumunun, hiper-görünürlük, high-definition ve aşırı enformasyon gürültüleriyle dönüştüğü Aynılık Cehennemi'nde, Başka’nın ortadan kaybolmakta oluşu, erotik deneyime giderek yer kalmamasının nedenidir. Zira Erotik deneyim, Başka’nın asimetrisini ve dışsallığını şart koşar.
Günümüzün karşılaştırma/kıyaslama kültüründe Başka'nın negatifliğine yer yoktur; çünkü Başka’nın negatifliği, tüketilmeye direnir. Bundan dolayıdır ki tüketim toplumu tüketilebilen farklılıklar başkalığı bertaraf etmeye çabalar; farklılık, Başkalık'tan farklı olarak pozitiftir. Bugün her yerde negatiflik ortadan kayboluyor. Her şey düzleştirilerek tüketim nesnesine dönüştürülüyor.
Yapmalısın'dan becerebilir/yapabilirsin'e geçen günümüz performans insanı, kendi iradesiyle kendini sömüren, fail ve kurban, sömüren ve sömürülen; "aşkını" bile haz ve cinsellik başarısına, güvencesine, pozitifliğine dönüştürmüş, tutkudan ve tüm negatifliklerinden arındırarak evcilleştirmiştir.
Gizemi ve anlatımı olmayan, sadece sergilenmeye indirgenmiş çıplak beden (hatta yüz), pornografik ve müstehcendir.
Kapitalizm her şeyi alınıp satılabilen bir metaya dönüştürerek görücüye çıkardığı ölçüde toplumun pornografikleşmesi sürecini şiddetlendirir. Eros'u pornoya dönüştürerek kutsallığını bozar.
Başka'dan uzaklaşan ve sürekli kendini referans alan birey artık narsisistleşmiştir
Narsisistin, Başka'yı başkalığı içinde tanıma ve bu başkalığı teslim etme becerisi yoktur. Sadece kendini bir şekilde yeniden tanıyabildiği yerlerde anlam vardır. Her yerde kendi gölgesinin peşinde bata çıka ilerler ve nihayetinde kendinde boğulur.
Depresyon narsisist bir hastalıktır ve kendini aşkın imkânsızlığı olarak sunar. Depresyona yol açan şey, aşırı abartılı, hastalıklı bir şekilde çarpıtılmış bir “kendini referans alma”dır. Narsisist- depresif özne kendinden bitap düşmüş, yıpranmıştır; dünyasız kalmış, Başka tarafından terk edilmiştir. Eros ve depresyon birbirlerinin karşıtıdır; Eros özneyi kendinden çıkarıp Başka'ya yönlendirir, depresyon ise onu kendine doğru fırlatır.
Aynılık Cehennemi'nde ebedi bir yolculuk lanetinden narsisisti kurtaracak olan bir kıyametin özlemi çekilmektedir.
Aşk, tutku, aşırılık ve deliliklerinden arındırılarak risksiz ve tehlikesiz bir hale getirilerek dönüştürücü, negatifliklerinden temizlenmektedir.
Aşk dişileştirilmektedir; günümüzde onu tanımlamak için kullanılan "hoş", "samimi", "rahat", "tatlı" veya "yumuşak" gibi sıfatlar baştan aşağı kadınsıdır (Eva Illouz).
Eros, düşünceyi ayak basılmamış bölgelere, Başka'ya gitmeye ayartır ve oralarda ona kılavuzluk eder. Felsefe, Eros'un Logos'a tercüme edilmesidir.
Teori, sanat, edebiyat ve entelektüalizmin içinde bulunduğu krizin, yani Eros'un Istırabı'nın nedeni de aynılaşmadır.
Logos (bilgi/bilim) bile Eros'un gücünden yoksun kaldığında etkisizleşir.
Neoliberalizm, Eros'un kayboluşuyla toplumun genel olarak siyaset dışı kalmasını da sağlar.
Daha adaletli bir dünyaya duyulan ortak arzu olarak siyasal eylem, daha derin bir düzeyde Eros ile ilişkilidir; Eros, siyasal eyleme bir enerji kaynağı oluşturur.
Son dönemde iddia edildiği gibi ve veri güdümlü düşünce diye bir şey yoktur, sadece hesaplama veri toplama güdümlü olabilir; düşünce, teori ise anlatısal dizge ve gerilim taşır, şeylerin seyrini biçimlendirir, onları bir çerçeveye dahil ederek çığrından çıkmalarını engeller.
Şimdi her zamankinden daha fazlasıyla teoriye ve Eros'a ihtiyaç vardır.
Her türlü negatiflikten mahrum olan zindelik veya fitness'ten canlılığın farkı budur. Sağ kalan kişi, yaşayamayacak kadar ölü, ölemeyecek kadar canlı bir yaşayan ölüye benzer.
Eros, Benliğin rejiminin ele geçiremediği Başka'yla ilgilidir. Bugünün toplumunun, hiper-görünürlük, high-definition ve aşırı enformasyon gürültüleriyle dönüştüğü Aynılık Cehennemi'nde, Başka’nın ortadan kaybolmakta oluşu, erotik deneyime giderek yer kalmamasının nedenidir. Zira Erotik deneyim, Başka’nın asimetrisini ve dışsallığını şart koşar.
Günümüzün karşılaştırma/kıyaslama kültüründe Başka'nın negatifliğine yer yoktur; çünkü Başka’nın negatifliği, tüketilmeye direnir. Bundan dolayıdır ki tüketim toplumu tüketilebilen farklılıklar başkalığı bertaraf etmeye çabalar; farklılık, Başkalık'tan farklı olarak pozitiftir. Bugün her yerde negatiflik ortadan kayboluyor. Her şey düzleştirilerek tüketim nesnesine dönüştürülüyor.
Yapmalısın'dan becerebilir/yapabilirsin'e geçen günümüz performans insanı, kendi iradesiyle kendini sömüren, fail ve kurban, sömüren ve sömürülen; "aşkını" bile haz ve cinsellik başarısına, güvencesine, pozitifliğine dönüştürmüş, tutkudan ve tüm negatifliklerinden arındırarak evcilleştirmiştir.
Gizemi ve anlatımı olmayan, sadece sergilenmeye indirgenmiş çıplak beden (hatta yüz), pornografik ve müstehcendir.
Kapitalizm her şeyi alınıp satılabilen bir metaya dönüştürerek görücüye çıkardığı ölçüde toplumun pornografikleşmesi sürecini şiddetlendirir. Eros'u pornoya dönüştürerek kutsallığını bozar.
Başka'dan uzaklaşan ve sürekli kendini referans alan birey artık narsisistleşmiştir
Narsisistin, Başka'yı başkalığı içinde tanıma ve bu başkalığı teslim etme becerisi yoktur. Sadece kendini bir şekilde yeniden tanıyabildiği yerlerde anlam vardır. Her yerde kendi gölgesinin peşinde bata çıka ilerler ve nihayetinde kendinde boğulur.
Depresyon narsisist bir hastalıktır ve kendini aşkın imkânsızlığı olarak sunar. Depresyona yol açan şey, aşırı abartılı, hastalıklı bir şekilde çarpıtılmış bir “kendini referans alma”dır. Narsisist- depresif özne kendinden bitap düşmüş, yıpranmıştır; dünyasız kalmış, Başka tarafından terk edilmiştir. Eros ve depresyon birbirlerinin karşıtıdır; Eros özneyi kendinden çıkarıp Başka'ya yönlendirir, depresyon ise onu kendine doğru fırlatır.
Aynılık Cehennemi'nde ebedi bir yolculuk lanetinden narsisisti kurtaracak olan bir kıyametin özlemi çekilmektedir.
Aşk, tutku, aşırılık ve deliliklerinden arındırılarak risksiz ve tehlikesiz bir hale getirilerek dönüştürücü, negatifliklerinden temizlenmektedir.
Aşk dişileştirilmektedir; günümüzde onu tanımlamak için kullanılan "hoş", "samimi", "rahat", "tatlı" veya "yumuşak" gibi sıfatlar baştan aşağı kadınsıdır (Eva Illouz).
Eros, düşünceyi ayak basılmamış bölgelere, Başka'ya gitmeye ayartır ve oralarda ona kılavuzluk eder. Felsefe, Eros'un Logos'a tercüme edilmesidir.
Teori, sanat, edebiyat ve entelektüalizmin içinde bulunduğu krizin, yani Eros'un Istırabı'nın nedeni de aynılaşmadır.
Logos (bilgi/bilim) bile Eros'un gücünden yoksun kaldığında etkisizleşir.
Neoliberalizm, Eros'un kayboluşuyla toplumun genel olarak siyaset dışı kalmasını da sağlar.
Daha adaletli bir dünyaya duyulan ortak arzu olarak siyasal eylem, daha derin bir düzeyde Eros ile ilişkilidir; Eros, siyasal eyleme bir enerji kaynağı oluşturur.
Son dönemde iddia edildiği gibi ve veri güdümlü düşünce diye bir şey yoktur, sadece hesaplama veri toplama güdümlü olabilir; düşünce, teori ise anlatısal dizge ve gerilim taşır, şeylerin seyrini biçimlendirir, onları bir çerçeveye dahil ederek çığrından çıkmalarını engeller.
Şimdi her zamankinden daha fazlasıyla teoriye ve Eros'a ihtiyaç vardır.
October 19, 2022
Eros, Benlik rejiminin ele geçiremediği başkayla ilgilidir. Erotik deneyim, Başka'nın asimetrisini ve dışsallığını şart koşar. Bugün ise her şey düzeleştirilerek tüketim nesnesi haline getiriliyor. Libido, sadece kendi öznelliğine yatırım yapıyor ve giderek daha fazla narsistleşiyor. Bunun sonucu olarak, depresyon salgınıyla karşılaşıyoruz. Narsist performans öznesinin kendi için çöküşü ve boğuluşu ile...
Performans öznesi, kendi kendine emir veren ve kendini sömürendir. Bir özgürlük duygusu eşliğinde işini görmektedir. Başarı, her şeyin temel kıstasıdır. Örneğin, seks başarmaktır. Ve seksilik, sürekli artırılması gereken bir sermaye halini almaktadır. Arama ve tüketme makinası olarak toplum, bulunamayan, ele geçirilemeyen ve tüketilmeyen namevcuta yönelik arzuyu lağvetmektedir.
Depresif narsist performans öznesinin herhangi bir kapanış yapma becerisi yoktur. Yani bu öznenin performans kataloğunda ölüm yoktur. Ölümle ilişki kuramayan bu özne diyalektik bir yoksunluk içinde cansızdır. Vardır ama cansız olarak... Hep aynı olanın içinde debelenmektedir.
Performans öznesi, kendi kendine emir veren ve kendini sömürendir. Bir özgürlük duygusu eşliğinde işini görmektedir. Başarı, her şeyin temel kıstasıdır. Örneğin, seks başarmaktır. Ve seksilik, sürekli artırılması gereken bir sermaye halini almaktadır. Arama ve tüketme makinası olarak toplum, bulunamayan, ele geçirilemeyen ve tüketilmeyen namevcuta yönelik arzuyu lağvetmektedir.
Depresif narsist performans öznesinin herhangi bir kapanış yapma becerisi yoktur. Yani bu öznenin performans kataloğunda ölüm yoktur. Ölümle ilişki kuramayan bu özne diyalektik bir yoksunluk içinde cansızdır. Vardır ama cansız olarak... Hep aynı olanın içinde debelenmektedir.
March 22, 2022
3.5
i mean Han all but called me a narcissist pffttt
i mean Han all but called me a narcissist pffttt
February 13, 2022
.
.
لأننا اعتدنا على فكرة إن الحب يعني بذل الذات في سبيل الآخر وإرضاءه كانت قراءة هذا الكتاب مربكة بعض الشيء، "بيونغ-شول هان" -الكاتب الألماني الجنسية، المولود بكوريا الجنوبية- يحدثنا هنا عن مفاهيم الحب الحديث ورغم قلة صفحات الكتاب والإيجاز المُتعمد فيه إلا أن قوته لا تتضاءل كلما توغلت في صفحاته القليلة تلك بل إنك تغرق أكثر بأفكار فلسفية عاطفية تناقش الكثير من المشاكل الحياتية والشخصية.
مفاهيم الحب الموجودة هنا تختلف كلياً عما اعتدنا الإيمان به، فكونك مُحباً لا يعني أن تُملك الآخر من ذاتك ونفسك. كما أن بيونغ شول هان في هذه الصفحات أقدم على فك الارتباط الحاصل ما بين الحب والرغبات الجسدية! بالمختصر الكتاب جميل وأنصح بقراءة كتاب ( لماذا يجرح الحب ؟ )بالتزامن معه.
ماذا بعد القراءة ؟
من الغريب أن يكون الحب هو أصدق المشاعر وأكثرها تعقيدًا في آن واحد.
#أبجدية_فرح 4/5 🌷📚
#candleflame23bookreviews
#معاناة_إيروس
#غرد_بإقتباس
#مراجعة_كتاب
[image error]
.
لأننا اعتدنا على فكرة إن الحب يعني بذل الذات في سبيل الآخر وإرضاءه كانت قراءة هذا الكتاب مربكة بعض الشيء، "بيونغ-شول هان" -الكاتب الألماني الجنسية، المولود بكوريا الجنوبية- يحدثنا هنا عن مفاهيم الحب الحديث ورغم قلة صفحات الكتاب والإيجاز المُتعمد فيه إلا أن قوته لا تتضاءل كلما توغلت في صفحاته القليلة تلك بل إنك تغرق أكثر بأفكار فلسفية عاطفية تناقش الكثير من المشاكل الحياتية والشخصية.
مفاهيم الحب الموجودة هنا تختلف كلياً عما اعتدنا الإيمان به، فكونك مُحباً لا يعني أن تُملك الآخر من ذاتك ونفسك. كما أن بيونغ شول هان في هذه الصفحات أقدم على فك الارتباط الحاصل ما بين الحب والرغبات الجسدية! بالمختصر الكتاب جميل وأنصح بقراءة كتاب ( لماذا يجرح الحب ؟ )بالتزامن معه.
ماذا بعد القراءة ؟
من الغريب أن يكون الحب هو أصدق المشاعر وأكثرها تعقيدًا في آن واحد.
#أبجدية_فرح 4/5 🌷📚
#candleflame23bookreviews
#معاناة_إيروس
#غرد_بإقتباس
#مراجعة_كتاب
[image error]
June 2, 2025
«Η θωπεία είναι ένα παιχνίδι με κάτι που ξεγλιστρά. Αναζητεί κάτι που εξαφανίζεται αδιάκοπα προς το μέλλον. Ο πόθος της, τρέφεται απ’ αυτό που ακόμη δεν υπάρχει.»
Μιλάει για πολλά κι από λίγο, είναι εντάξει αυτό.. Αν ήμουν ο εκδότης του Byung-Chul Han θα του πρότεινα ως εναλλακτικό τίτλο/υπότιτλο το εξής: «Φιλοσοφικά τιτιβίσματα ενός πολυμαθούς σπουργίτη». Δεν είμαι εκδότης, καλύτερα για όλους..
Τροφή για σκέψη υπάρχει στο έργο του - κι ας μην πρόκειται για τις 95 θέσεις του Μαρτίνου Λούθηρου ως προς την πρωτοτυπία. Παράδειγμα μίας, κεντρικής: εάν ο ναρκισσισμός (βασικός αντίπαλος του έρωτα) ενθαρρύνεται ή και επιβάλλεται στα σύγχρονα κοινωνικά συστήματα, τότε ο έρωτας -εξ ορισμού- αποτελεί μία πράξη κοινωνικά ανατρεπτική.. ή κάπως έτσι.
Ομολογώ ότι η παρούσα διανοητική μου κατάσταση – δεν ξέρω τι είναι αυτό που φέρνει ο άνεμος απ’ τα βουνά, δεν είναι φθινόπωρο πάντως- ίσως και να μην είναι ιδιαίτερα δεκτική σε τέτοιου είδους δοκίμια. Διαβάζοντας το όμως, ένοιωσα ότι είναι απλά μια ακόμα θεωρητική κατασκευή, σε λάθος θέμα· κάπως σαν να προσπαθείς να εκτιμήσεις ένα tango, αναλύοντας -με όρους μηχανικής - τα βήματα του ζεύγους των χορευτών..
Θα κρατήσω τον Εμπειρίκο, είπε σε μένα περισσότερα σε μόλις επτά λέξεις:
Των αποστάσεων η έλξις προσδιορίζει κάθε βήμα.
Η Στήλη της Μνησαρέτης
Μιλάει για πολλά κι από λίγο, είναι εντάξει αυτό.. Αν ήμουν ο εκδότης του Byung-Chul Han θα του πρότεινα ως εναλλακτικό τίτλο/υπότιτλο το εξής: «Φιλοσοφικά τιτιβίσματα ενός πολυμαθούς σπουργίτη». Δεν είμαι εκδότης, καλύτερα για όλους..
Τροφή για σκέψη υπάρχει στο έργο του - κι ας μην πρόκειται για τις 95 θέσεις του Μαρτίνου Λούθηρου ως προς την πρωτοτυπία. Παράδειγμα μίας, κεντρικής: εάν ο ναρκισσισμός (βασικός αντίπαλος του έρωτα) ενθαρρύνεται ή και επιβάλλεται στα σύγχρονα κοινωνικά συστήματα, τότε ο έρωτας -εξ ορισμού- αποτελεί μία πράξη κοινωνικά ανατρεπτική.. ή κάπως έτσι.
Ομολογώ ότι η παρούσα διανοητική μου κατάσταση – δεν ξέρω τι είναι αυτό που φέρνει ο άνεμος απ’ τα βουνά, δεν είναι φθινόπωρο πάντως- ίσως και να μην είναι ιδιαίτερα δεκτική σε τέτοιου είδους δοκίμια. Διαβάζοντας το όμως, ένοιωσα ότι είναι απλά μια ακόμα θεωρητική κατασκευή, σε λάθος θέμα· κάπως σαν να προσπαθείς να εκτιμήσεις ένα tango, αναλύοντας -με όρους μηχανικής - τα βήματα του ζεύγους των χορευτών..
Θα κρατήσω τον Εμπειρίκο, είπε σε μένα περισσότερα σε μόλις επτά λέξεις:
Των αποστάσεων η έλξις προσδιορίζει κάθε βήμα.
Η Στήλη της Μνησαρέτης
October 4, 2019
Μου άρεσε, αλλά είχε πολλά που ανέφερε και στα δυο προηγούμενα, το «Η κοινωνία της κόπωσης» και «Η κοινωνία της διαφάνειας». Γενικά αναπτύσσεται ένας δημιουργικός διάλογος με τις ιδέες του συγγραφέα ακόμα και αν δεν συμφωνείς μαζί του. Φαίνεται αυτό να είναι το χαρακτηριστικό της γραφής του, να προκαλεί να έρθεις μαζί του σε ένα δημιουργικό αντίλογο. Το επίμετρο το βρήκα άχρηστο.
August 31, 2021
UGH.
the most boring erotica I've ever read.
the most boring erotica I've ever read.
May 20, 2023
Nikad nikog nijesan uvredija
Priđen pozdravin se
Rešin egizstencinjalnju krizu na 80 strana
Ovaj Bjung Čul Han je stvarno jedan GOSPODIN ♥️.
Priđen pozdravin se
Rešin egizstencinjalnju krizu na 80 strana
Ovaj Bjung Čul Han je stvarno jedan GOSPODIN ♥️.
January 11, 2020
Another masterpiece as is to be expected by anything by Byung-Chul Han. At just over 50 pages, it is one of the profound reflections on the relationship between love and the neoliberal ethic. Below is my attempt to summarize it, primarily using direct quotations:
Love, the claim goes, is foundering because of endless freedom of choice, the overabundance of options, and the compulsion for perfection. However, the crisis of love does not derive from too many others so much as the erosion of the Other. The narcissification of the Self destroys the Other by rendering all difference into the Same. Depression is a narcissistic malady. While the Eros draws out of the Self into the other, neoliberal society destroys the others rendering us exhausted within the boundlessness of the Self. Eros destroys depression.
Love is not being feminized as it is rendered into quiet romantic domesticity (à la Illouz). Rather it is transformed into a consumerist positivity devoid of transgression and transcendence. One cannot transcend when is everything is a homogeneous blur. Our comfort society of pure immanence renders us dull and identical to each other, unable to experience the mysterious force of love. Capitalism levels all life into pure exteriority without depth, without substance beyond appearance. Life is made bare. As performance becomes the foundational principle of society, sexuality becomes pornography.
Pornography is the mere performance of the sexual act without depth or mystery. And as the Other is destroyed through the totalization of the Self, all sex becomes pornographic performance. There is no conclusive surrender in an erotic act of desire. The depressive-narcissistic subject exists because it can reach no conclusion.
Human well-being is structured by decisiveness. Religion charges us both with guilt and pardon. Capitalism gives us guilt and default. There is no pardon under the paradoxical capitalist imperative to "Be free". We exhaust ourselves in the task of infinite accumulation with no clemency or release from this task. Capitalism and the entrepreneurial ethic forces us into sheer exhaustion.
As we are pushed deeper into what Byung-Chul Han calls the age of the "quickie", the age of "HD" technology, we are forced into a hypervisual culture of pure transparency. Transparency means nothing can exist beyond appearance, there can be no more boundaries or barriers. The mystery of eros is effaced. Desire cannot exist when everything is reduced to the Same. Again, this is why desire and depression are antithetical to each other.
Data-driven society preaches an absolutization of data as knowledge. It conflates thinking for calculation. Thinking is a hidden process whose process is beyond the grasp of the subject. Calculation is a bare, mathematical derivation of pure appearance. As we are reduced to data entities, thinking is also erased. As thinking is a form of grasping and pursuit, it is a form of erotic desire. But the neoliberal order levels all being, and consequently annihilates both thought and eros.
Byung-Chul Han ends with this quote from Deleuze and Guattari:
"What does friend mean when it becomes... a condition for the exercise of thought? Or, rather are not talking of the Other? Does not the friend reintroduce into thought a vital relationship with the Other that was supposed to have been excluded from pure thought?"
Love, the claim goes, is foundering because of endless freedom of choice, the overabundance of options, and the compulsion for perfection. However, the crisis of love does not derive from too many others so much as the erosion of the Other. The narcissification of the Self destroys the Other by rendering all difference into the Same. Depression is a narcissistic malady. While the Eros draws out of the Self into the other, neoliberal society destroys the others rendering us exhausted within the boundlessness of the Self. Eros destroys depression.
Love is not being feminized as it is rendered into quiet romantic domesticity (à la Illouz). Rather it is transformed into a consumerist positivity devoid of transgression and transcendence. One cannot transcend when is everything is a homogeneous blur. Our comfort society of pure immanence renders us dull and identical to each other, unable to experience the mysterious force of love. Capitalism levels all life into pure exteriority without depth, without substance beyond appearance. Life is made bare. As performance becomes the foundational principle of society, sexuality becomes pornography.
Pornography is the mere performance of the sexual act without depth or mystery. And as the Other is destroyed through the totalization of the Self, all sex becomes pornographic performance. There is no conclusive surrender in an erotic act of desire. The depressive-narcissistic subject exists because it can reach no conclusion.
Human well-being is structured by decisiveness. Religion charges us both with guilt and pardon. Capitalism gives us guilt and default. There is no pardon under the paradoxical capitalist imperative to "Be free". We exhaust ourselves in the task of infinite accumulation with no clemency or release from this task. Capitalism and the entrepreneurial ethic forces us into sheer exhaustion.
As we are pushed deeper into what Byung-Chul Han calls the age of the "quickie", the age of "HD" technology, we are forced into a hypervisual culture of pure transparency. Transparency means nothing can exist beyond appearance, there can be no more boundaries or barriers. The mystery of eros is effaced. Desire cannot exist when everything is reduced to the Same. Again, this is why desire and depression are antithetical to each other.
Data-driven society preaches an absolutization of data as knowledge. It conflates thinking for calculation. Thinking is a hidden process whose process is beyond the grasp of the subject. Calculation is a bare, mathematical derivation of pure appearance. As we are reduced to data entities, thinking is also erased. As thinking is a form of grasping and pursuit, it is a form of erotic desire. But the neoliberal order levels all being, and consequently annihilates both thought and eros.
Byung-Chul Han ends with this quote from Deleuze and Guattari:
"What does friend mean when it becomes... a condition for the exercise of thought? Or, rather are not talking of the Other? Does not the friend reintroduce into thought a vital relationship with the Other that was supposed to have been excluded from pure thought?"
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,066 reviews