What do you think?
Rate this book
The Coming Community
In this extraordinary and original philosophical achievement, Agamben develops the concept of community and the social implications of his philosophical thought. Agamben’s exploration is, in part, a contemporary response to the work of Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Blanchot, Jean-Luc Nancy, and, more historically, Plato, Spinoza, and medieval scholars and theorists of Judeo-Christian scriptures.
105 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1990
42 people are currently reading
1675 people want to read
About the author
Giorgio Agamben
231 books974 followersGiorgio Agamben is one of the leading figures in Italian and contemporary continental philosophy. He is the author of Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life; Remnants of Auschwitz: The Witness and the Archive; Profanations; The Signature of All Things: On Method, and other books. Through the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s he treated a wide range of topics, including aesthetics, literature, language, ontology, nihilism, and radical political thought.
In recent years, his work has had a deep impact on contemporary scholarship in a number of disciplines in the Anglo-American intellectual world. Born in Rome in 1942, Agamben completed studies in Law and Philosophy with a doctoral thesis on the political thought of Simone Weil, and participated in Martin Heidegger’s seminars on Hegel and Heraclitus as a postdoctoral scholar.
He rose to international prominence after the publication of Homo Sacer in 1995. Translated into English in 1998, the book’s analyses of law, life, and state power appeared uncannily prescient after the attacks on New York City and Washington, DC in September 2001, and the resultant shifts in the geopolitical landscape. Provoking a wave of scholarly interest in the philosopher’s work, the book also marked the beginning of a 20-year research project, which represents Agamben’s most important contribution to political philosophy.
In recent years, his work has had a deep impact on contemporary scholarship in a number of disciplines in the Anglo-American intellectual world. Born in Rome in 1942, Agamben completed studies in Law and Philosophy with a doctoral thesis on the political thought of Simone Weil, and participated in Martin Heidegger’s seminars on Hegel and Heraclitus as a postdoctoral scholar.
He rose to international prominence after the publication of Homo Sacer in 1995. Translated into English in 1998, the book’s analyses of law, life, and state power appeared uncannily prescient after the attacks on New York City and Washington, DC in September 2001, and the resultant shifts in the geopolitical landscape. Provoking a wave of scholarly interest in the philosopher’s work, the book also marked the beginning of a 20-year research project, which represents Agamben’s most important contribution to political philosophy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 56 reviews
Read
December 1, 2020To appropriate the historic transformation of human nature that capitalism wants to limit to the spectacle, to link together image and body in a space where they can no longer be separated, and thus to forge the whatever body, whose physis is resemblance - this is the good that humanity must learn how to wrest from commodities in their decline. Advertising and pornography, which escort the commodity to the grave like hired mourners, are the unknowing midwives of this new body of humanity.
A bit gnomic, but still I rather liked this little pamphlet.
December 17, 2012
This is such a beautiful book and Hardt's translation is very carefully executed so that the poetic language and all Agamben's complexity comes through without the clunkiness that could result from trying too hard. I know this book has been criticized for being too nostalgic, too romantic, too hopeful, but I love how Agamben finds a way through pain and difficult to propose something that could be: a whatever-being such that it always matters. How could one imagine anything better.
There is a complicated and layered rendering of good and evil that goes back to Spinoza's substance, although Agamben references the Scholastics. If I'm understanding correctly, which is potentially not the case, Agamben renders the opposition between good and evil more elastic, less possible to destroy. Any potential "I" is always comprised of every possible "not-I". I might be projecting my own desire onto Agamben's complicated a-theology, but I would like to think this through more carefully.
Especially love the section on Dim Stockings, a brand of which I am quite fond. This rumination on images and technology opening up space for understanding the "real" more complexly is quite lovely. It made me want to make some art.
There is a complicated and layered rendering of good and evil that goes back to Spinoza's substance, although Agamben references the Scholastics. If I'm understanding correctly, which is potentially not the case, Agamben renders the opposition between good and evil more elastic, less possible to destroy. Any potential "I" is always comprised of every possible "not-I". I might be projecting my own desire onto Agamben's complicated a-theology, but I would like to think this through more carefully.
Especially love the section on Dim Stockings, a brand of which I am quite fond. This rumination on images and technology opening up space for understanding the "real" more complexly is quite lovely. It made me want to make some art.
Read
December 8, 2024اجتماع آینده/ جورجو آگامبن/ محمدرضا قربانی/ نشر رخداد نو
.
این کتاب یه ترجمهی دیگه هم داره که به اسم همبودگی آینده چاپ شده (اشتراک این ترجمهها علاوه بر طرح جلد بد توی اینه که ترجمههای خوبی نیستن). حقیقتاً انتخاب «همبودگی» برام خیلی عجیب بود، جوری که آخرش دووم نیاوردم و رفتم تو یه کتابفروشی ومقدمهش رو خوندم تا دلیل این انتخاب رو بفهمم. مترجم توضیح داده بود که چون کلمات: کامیونیتی و کامیونیکیشن در کامن مشترک هستند :) و نمیشه تو فارسی این ارتباط رو درآورد، پس من هم معادل همبودگی رو برای اجتماع و همرسانی رو برای ارتباط انتخاب میکنم. به نظرم این یه توجیه مبتذل و یه رویکرد مبتذلتر در ترجمهست. نمیدونم کی این وظیفه رو روی دوش آقایون گذاشته که زبان پارسی ساسانی رو زنده کنند (پیروان مکتب ادیب سلطانی) و اون رو مستقیماً به رضا پهلوی وصلش کنند، انگار توی این هزار و سیصد سالی که بین اینها بوده، نه خانی اومده و نه خانی رفته (که اتفاقاً باشکوهترین دوران تاریخ ما بوده با بزرگانی چون ابن سینا و بقیه تا مشروطه). اون موقعی که هیچ فرهنگستانی وجود نداشته، سعدی و حافظ و مولوی این زبان رو حفظ کردند و به ما رسوندند و هیچ ادعای خالصسازانهای نداشتهند. انگار خود این خالصسازیها که اتفاقاً آگامبن با مفاهیمِ حذفِ ادغامی و ادغام حذفی در موردشون زیاد حرف زده ریشه در یک جور فاشیزمِ ملیگرایانه دارند که زادهی قرن بیستمه. در حالی که زیبایی این کشور برای من در این رنگینکمانی بودن هویتها و زبانهاست که البته فرصتی غنی برای تضارب آراست. هیچ فرهنگی مستقلاً نمیتونه رشد کنه و هیچ زبان خالصی وجود نداره (دلوز توی فصل درخشان ژئوفلسفه توی کتاب فلسفه چیست این قضیه رو اینجوری بیان میکنه: فلسفه یونانیست اما فیلسوفان یونانی نیستند. مثل هراکلیتوس که با دستهبندیهای اون زمان، بربر محسوب میشده). این افراط در فارسیزه کردن باعث میشه لغات و مفاهیم یتیم بشند و ما ارتباط با گذشتهمون (و همدیگه) رو از دست بدیم. وقتی میگیم اجتماع در عین حال همخانوادههای اون رو هم در ذهن داریم: جمع/جامعه/مجموع/اجماع/جماع(!)/تجمیع (در مورد ارتباط -که به همرسانی- ترجمه شده هم همینه: ربط، مربوط، مرتبط، رابطه، رباط(صلیبی!) رابط) و البته رویای حالا دیگه کمرنگشدهی سید خندان قدیم یعنی جامعهی مدنی هم درونش تنیده شده (احتمالاً معادل اون هم میشه همبودی شهرنشینانه!).
از اینا گذشته در این حالت خوندن کتاب سختتر و طاقتفرساتر میشه و حین خوندن باید هی به این فکر کنم که همبودگی یعنی اجتماع، همبودی یعنی جامعه و توی ذهنم ترجمه کنم و پریشانی بر سر پریشانی
.
این معصومیت طبیعی موجودات نیست که کافکا به آن اجازه میدهد تا بر قدرت مطلق الهی به عنوان معصومیت طبیعی وسوسه چیره شود. اهریمن او اغواگر نیست، بلکه موجودیست که برای اغوا شدن بینهایت مستعد است. آیشمان، مرد مبتذلی که دقیقاً توسط قدرت حق و قانون، وسوسهی شر شده بود، تصدیق هولناکیست که عصر ما از تشخیص آنها از خود انتقام گرفته است.
.
بسیار مهم است که جلادان و قضات اخراج یهودیان را قتل نفس تفسیر نمیکنند؛ بلکه قضات آن را به عنوان جنایتی علیه بشریت بازنمایی میکنند. نیروی پیروزمند میکوشید تا این فقدان هویت را توسط تصدیق یک هویت دولتی جبران کند، که خود به منبعی از قتلعام جدید تبدیل شد. تکینگی هرچه، که میخواهد خود تعلق و در-زبان-بودن خود را از آن خود کند و بنابراین تمام هویتها و هر شرطی از تعلق را نفی کند، دشمن اصلی دولت است. هرجا که این تکینگیها مشترک بودن خود را در صلح و آرامش نشان دهند یک «تیانآنمن» وجود خواهد داشت و دیر یا زود سر و کلهی تانکها پیدا خواهد شد.
.
این کتاب یه ترجمهی دیگه هم داره که به اسم همبودگی آینده چاپ شده (اشتراک این ترجمهها علاوه بر طرح جلد بد توی اینه که ترجمههای خوبی نیستن). حقیقتاً انتخاب «همبودگی» برام خیلی عجیب بود، جوری که آخرش دووم نیاوردم و رفتم تو یه کتابفروشی ومقدمهش رو خوندم تا دلیل این انتخاب رو بفهمم. مترجم توضیح داده بود که چون کلمات: کامیونیتی و کامیونیکیشن در کامن مشترک هستند :) و نمیشه تو فارسی این ارتباط رو درآورد، پس من هم معادل همبودگی رو برای اجتماع و همرسانی رو برای ارتباط انتخاب میکنم. به نظرم این یه توجیه مبتذل و یه رویکرد مبتذلتر در ترجمهست. نمیدونم کی این وظیفه رو روی دوش آقایون گذاشته که زبان پارسی ساسانی رو زنده کنند (پیروان مکتب ادیب سلطانی) و اون رو مستقیماً به رضا پهلوی وصلش کنند، انگار توی این هزار و سیصد سالی که بین اینها بوده، نه خانی اومده و نه خانی رفته (که اتفاقاً باشکوهترین دوران تاریخ ما بوده با بزرگانی چون ابن سینا و بقیه تا مشروطه). اون موقعی که هیچ فرهنگستانی وجود نداشته، سعدی و حافظ و مولوی این زبان رو حفظ کردند و به ما رسوندند و هیچ ادعای خالصسازانهای نداشتهند. انگار خود این خالصسازیها که اتفاقاً آگامبن با مفاهیمِ حذفِ ادغامی و ادغام حذفی در موردشون زیاد حرف زده ریشه در یک جور فاشیزمِ ملیگرایانه دارند که زادهی قرن بیستمه. در حالی که زیبایی این کشور برای من در این رنگینکمانی بودن هویتها و زبانهاست که البته فرصتی غنی برای تضارب آراست. هیچ فرهنگی مستقلاً نمیتونه رشد کنه و هیچ زبان خالصی وجود نداره (دلوز توی فصل درخشان ژئوفلسفه توی کتاب فلسفه چیست این قضیه رو اینجوری بیان میکنه: فلسفه یونانیست اما فیلسوفان یونانی نیستند. مثل هراکلیتوس که با دستهبندیهای اون زمان، بربر محسوب میشده). این افراط در فارسیزه کردن باعث میشه لغات و مفاهیم یتیم بشند و ما ارتباط با گذشتهمون (و همدیگه) رو از دست بدیم. وقتی میگیم اجتماع در عین حال همخانوادههای اون رو هم در ذهن داریم: جمع/جامعه/مجموع/اجماع/جماع(!)/تجمیع (در مورد ارتباط -که به همرسانی- ترجمه شده هم همینه: ربط، مربوط، مرتبط، رابطه، رباط(صلیبی!) رابط) و البته رویای حالا دیگه کمرنگشدهی سید خندان قدیم یعنی جامعهی مدنی هم درونش تنیده شده (احتمالاً معادل اون هم میشه همبودی شهرنشینانه!).
از اینا گذشته در این حالت خوندن کتاب سختتر و طاقتفرساتر میشه و حین خوندن باید هی به این فکر کنم که همبودگی یعنی اجتماع، همبودی یعنی جامعه و توی ذهنم ترجمه کنم و پریشانی بر سر پریشانی
.
این معصومیت طبیعی موجودات نیست که کافکا به آن اجازه میدهد تا بر قدرت مطلق الهی به عنوان معصومیت طبیعی وسوسه چیره شود. اهریمن او اغواگر نیست، بلکه موجودیست که برای اغوا شدن بینهایت مستعد است. آیشمان، مرد مبتذلی که دقیقاً توسط قدرت حق و قانون، وسوسهی شر شده بود، تصدیق هولناکیست که عصر ما از تشخیص آنها از خود انتقام گرفته است.
.
بسیار مهم است که جلادان و قضات اخراج یهودیان را قتل نفس تفسیر نمیکنند؛ بلکه قضات آن را به عنوان جنایتی علیه بشریت بازنمایی میکنند. نیروی پیروزمند میکوشید تا این فقدان هویت را توسط تصدیق یک هویت دولتی جبران کند، که خود به منبعی از قتلعام جدید تبدیل شد. تکینگی هرچه، که میخواهد خود تعلق و در-زبان-بودن خود را از آن خود کند و بنابراین تمام هویتها و هر شرطی از تعلق را نفی کند، دشمن اصلی دولت است. هرجا که این تکینگیها مشترک بودن خود را در صلح و آرامش نشان دهند یک «تیانآنمن» وجود خواهد داشت و دیر یا زود سر و کلهی تانکها پیدا خواهد شد.
October 9, 2012
"The coming being is whatever being."
Very, very interesting stuff. I suggest, unlike me, reading it in one sitting. It's short enough to, I'd imagine. At the very least do yourself a favor and read it in at most two or three days. The problem I kept facing is that it's hard to pick up where you left off without reading pretty much everything that came before it again. I would leave for a week and come back and just be perplexed. I started leaving little notes in the margins to kick-start my memory, and finally today I just sat down and read it all, start to finish, and had a blast. The thing about Agamben's writing is that although it is hard to decipher a lot of the time due to his verbosity and weird phrasing, it has an undeniable rhythm to it. He repeats himself a lot and once you recognize his writing patterns, it's a lot easier to tear through certain sections.
As far as what the book is about, I can't tell you that. To do so would be to ignore everything I learned from it. It deals with representations and the authority of language and doors, and outside and inside, and Eden and Gehenna and whatever (literally, "whatever"). "the idea of a thing is the thing itself; the name, insofar as it names a thing, is nothing but the thing insofar as it is named by the name."
Very, very interesting stuff. I suggest, unlike me, reading it in one sitting. It's short enough to, I'd imagine. At the very least do yourself a favor and read it in at most two or three days. The problem I kept facing is that it's hard to pick up where you left off without reading pretty much everything that came before it again. I would leave for a week and come back and just be perplexed. I started leaving little notes in the margins to kick-start my memory, and finally today I just sat down and read it all, start to finish, and had a blast. The thing about Agamben's writing is that although it is hard to decipher a lot of the time due to his verbosity and weird phrasing, it has an undeniable rhythm to it. He repeats himself a lot and once you recognize his writing patterns, it's a lot easier to tear through certain sections.
As far as what the book is about, I can't tell you that. To do so would be to ignore everything I learned from it. It deals with representations and the authority of language and doors, and outside and inside, and Eden and Gehenna and whatever (literally, "whatever"). "the idea of a thing is the thing itself; the name, insofar as it names a thing, is nothing but the thing insofar as it is named by the name."
June 15, 2020
GELMEKTE OLAN ORTAKLIK
-Gerçekte KURTARILAMAZ olan hayat, içinde KURTARILACAK hiçbir şey olmayan hayattır.
-İYİ, kötülüğün iyice kavranması; ŞEYTAN ise ilahi kudretsizlik demektir.
-KÖTÜLÜK, yalnızca şeytani olan karşısındaki YETERSİZ TEPKİMİZ, kaçışımızdır. Kaçış ve kudretsizlik, KÖTÜLÜĞÜN köküdür.
-İYİ, gizliliğin ve DIŞTA KALANIN olmayışıdır.
-Ortak olandan tekile, tekil olandan ortak olana geçiş tarzına ETİK denilir.
-Cennetin duvarlarında yapılan her sağlamlaştırma, cehennemin uçurumunda bir derinleşmeye karşılık gelir. CENNET ile CEHENNEM arasındaki DUVAR YIKILMALIDIR.
-FAŞİZM/NAZİZİM kesinlikle AŞILAMAMIŞTIR ve bizler hala onların burcu altında yaşamaktayız
-KÜÇÜK BURJUVA, dünyayı miras almış, insanlığın HAYATTA KALMA BİÇİMİ olmuştur. Nihilizmin dehlizlerinden miras aldığı BİREYSEL VAROLUŞUN SAÇMALIĞI, küçük burjuvayı ANLAM ve sağduyudan YOKSUN hale getirmiştir. Hiçbir şey yeni insanlığın yaşamına, REKLAMI yapılan ürünün her türlü İZİNİN SİLİNDİĞİ bir reklam filmi kadar benzemez. Küçük burjuvanın en büyük çelişkisi, burjuvazi tarafından DOLANDIRICILIKLA elinden ALINMIŞ olan ürünü hâlâ bu FİLMDE ARIYOR olmasındadır; aslında kendine ait olmayan, faşizm tarafından kendisine verilmiş ve artık anlamsızlaşmış olan YAPAY HALK/ULUS KİMLİĞİNİ kendisinin kılmaya inatla uğraşmaktadır.
-"Görünenin iyi, iyi olanın görünür" olarak kabul edildiği günümüzde, ORTAK OLANIN ELİMİZDEN ALINMASI şeklinde sahnelenen DEMOKRATİK (?) GÖSTERİ REJİMİ, kendini var ettiği ve din adamlıklarını gazetecilerin ve medyakratların yaptığı değersizleştirici yıkıcı DİL ile halkların kendilerini var ettikleri DİLLERİNDEN koparmaktadır; gelenekleri, inançları, ideolojileri, kimlikleri ve ortaklıkları yerlerinden etmekte ve içlerini boşaltmaktadır. Aslında tam da bu nokta OLANAĞIN BAŞLADIĞI yerdir.
-ANLAM ve özgünlük TAŞIMAYAN bireyselliğinin içinde, ÖZGÜN KİMLİK aramanın peşindeki küçük burjuva, bunun ardında koşmayı bırakıp, herhangi biri olduğunu kavrayıp, onu ORTAK ve mutlak DIŞA AÇILMIŞ bir TEKİLLİK olarak kendine ait kılarsa, işte o zaman hayatında ilk kez ÖN-YARGISIZ ve herhangi biri olarak bir ORTAKLIĞA girebilir, iletişim kuramadıklarıyla İLETİŞİM kurabilir.
-HERHANGİLİK, saf TEKİLLİĞİN figürüdür. Herhangi biri olabilmek, Kant'ın dediği gibi "insanları MÜMKÜN olan her şey ile EŞİKTE hale getirir ve BÜTÜNE AİT kılar". Buradaki AİDİYET, herhangi biri olma ve BELİRLENMEMİŞ bir BÜTÜNLÜK ile ilişkidir.
-GELMEKTE OLAN ORTAKLIĞI, ancak böylesi HERHANGİLİKLERİN BARIŞÇI GÖSTERİLERİ sağlayabilir.
Buradaki umut, insanların "VAR OLMADAN OLAMAMA" algısından sonra başlayabilir.
-Gerçekte KURTARILAMAZ olan hayat, içinde KURTARILACAK hiçbir şey olmayan hayattır.
-İYİ, kötülüğün iyice kavranması; ŞEYTAN ise ilahi kudretsizlik demektir.
-KÖTÜLÜK, yalnızca şeytani olan karşısındaki YETERSİZ TEPKİMİZ, kaçışımızdır. Kaçış ve kudretsizlik, KÖTÜLÜĞÜN köküdür.
-İYİ, gizliliğin ve DIŞTA KALANIN olmayışıdır.
-Ortak olandan tekile, tekil olandan ortak olana geçiş tarzına ETİK denilir.
-Cennetin duvarlarında yapılan her sağlamlaştırma, cehennemin uçurumunda bir derinleşmeye karşılık gelir. CENNET ile CEHENNEM arasındaki DUVAR YIKILMALIDIR.
-FAŞİZM/NAZİZİM kesinlikle AŞILAMAMIŞTIR ve bizler hala onların burcu altında yaşamaktayız
-KÜÇÜK BURJUVA, dünyayı miras almış, insanlığın HAYATTA KALMA BİÇİMİ olmuştur. Nihilizmin dehlizlerinden miras aldığı BİREYSEL VAROLUŞUN SAÇMALIĞI, küçük burjuvayı ANLAM ve sağduyudan YOKSUN hale getirmiştir. Hiçbir şey yeni insanlığın yaşamına, REKLAMI yapılan ürünün her türlü İZİNİN SİLİNDİĞİ bir reklam filmi kadar benzemez. Küçük burjuvanın en büyük çelişkisi, burjuvazi tarafından DOLANDIRICILIKLA elinden ALINMIŞ olan ürünü hâlâ bu FİLMDE ARIYOR olmasındadır; aslında kendine ait olmayan, faşizm tarafından kendisine verilmiş ve artık anlamsızlaşmış olan YAPAY HALK/ULUS KİMLİĞİNİ kendisinin kılmaya inatla uğraşmaktadır.
-"Görünenin iyi, iyi olanın görünür" olarak kabul edildiği günümüzde, ORTAK OLANIN ELİMİZDEN ALINMASI şeklinde sahnelenen DEMOKRATİK (?) GÖSTERİ REJİMİ, kendini var ettiği ve din adamlıklarını gazetecilerin ve medyakratların yaptığı değersizleştirici yıkıcı DİL ile halkların kendilerini var ettikleri DİLLERİNDEN koparmaktadır; gelenekleri, inançları, ideolojileri, kimlikleri ve ortaklıkları yerlerinden etmekte ve içlerini boşaltmaktadır. Aslında tam da bu nokta OLANAĞIN BAŞLADIĞI yerdir.
-ANLAM ve özgünlük TAŞIMAYAN bireyselliğinin içinde, ÖZGÜN KİMLİK aramanın peşindeki küçük burjuva, bunun ardında koşmayı bırakıp, herhangi biri olduğunu kavrayıp, onu ORTAK ve mutlak DIŞA AÇILMIŞ bir TEKİLLİK olarak kendine ait kılarsa, işte o zaman hayatında ilk kez ÖN-YARGISIZ ve herhangi biri olarak bir ORTAKLIĞA girebilir, iletişim kuramadıklarıyla İLETİŞİM kurabilir.
-HERHANGİLİK, saf TEKİLLİĞİN figürüdür. Herhangi biri olabilmek, Kant'ın dediği gibi "insanları MÜMKÜN olan her şey ile EŞİKTE hale getirir ve BÜTÜNE AİT kılar". Buradaki AİDİYET, herhangi biri olma ve BELİRLENMEMİŞ bir BÜTÜNLÜK ile ilişkidir.
-GELMEKTE OLAN ORTAKLIĞI, ancak böylesi HERHANGİLİKLERİN BARIŞÇI GÖSTERİLERİ sağlayabilir.
Buradaki umut, insanların "VAR OLMADAN OLAMAMA" algısından sonra başlayabilir.
August 25, 2012
Es un golpe duro entrar hablar así con Agamben. Es como sentarse a la mesa de una conversación que ya había empezado hace mucho tiempo. Claro que aquí la conversación había empezado hará unos dos mil quinientos años y que, sin ningún preámbulo histórico, empezamos a desgranar en las posibilidades ontológicas que nos presenta.
Sin embargo, esto que parece ser una desventaja, es también una ventaja. ¿Será una trampilla eso de no leer a Duns Scoto ni a Santo Tomás de Aquino ni a Heidegger ni a Walser ni a Melville y de pronto encontrarnos en pequeñísimas estancias de dos páginas y media, hablando de la ontología medieval, de la revelación ente al renunciar a sus cualidades? Puede ser... pero por algún lado había que empezar.
Hay mucho en este librito de 70 páginas que me hace ruido, y eso está excelente. ¡Muchas cosas! Cosas que simplemente no trago: como el propio título, su propia predicción, su no-destinación a la que está avocado, es decir, que me diga en la cara, "Oiga, usted, lo que estoy hablando aquí no es para sus orejas. ¡Es para las orejas de los que vienen! ¡De los futuros! De los hombres que no son usted". Demasiada jerga profética al estilo heideggeriano -es lo que menos tolero de Hiedegger-, demasiada esperanza en ese mesías neutral.
Otras cosas, otras estancias, podría decirse, son mucho más estimulantes. La simplicidad del análisis de "Solaz" o "Adgio" es maravillosamente claro. El análisis de la rotura "mediática" hecha justamente desde los medios.
Y cosas en las que uno se puede hundir a seguir reflexionando constantemente. Por ejemplo, la noción que maneja de límite-aureola y lo irreparable. (En la edición que manejo, que es la segunda edición de 2006, se incluyen dos además del titulado: "Lo irreparable" y "Apostilla 2001", desconozco si el segundo aparezca en la primera edición).
Lo irreparable (término que dicho sea de paso, no me gusta nada, principalmente por el uso de artículo neutro) sería algo así como el ente en su inevitable e inescapable límite. El ente que es la cosa entregada a su límite justo. Y en esa justedad, en esa cualseaidad perfeccionarse por su singularidad. Sería algo así como apropiarse del límite para la trascendencia, para lo que Agamben llama salvación.
Claro que podríamos quedarnos horas discutiendo sobre esto. Límite aureoleado como en Santo Tomás que no es más que la perfección de la naturaleza, su completud. ¡De eso se trata! La redondez del ente -ente entendido en sentido heideggeriano-, recobra su revelación es su irreparable singularidad. Cuyo fundamente es... cualsea.
Demasiado poca interacción con Agamben como para tenderle la trampa y sorprender su movimiento productivo -su intento de producir metafísica- y denunciarlo. Me parece que es, al final, lo que está haciendo. Pero hay que leerlo con más calma. Volver a él. Volver a esta mesa y a todas las que ocupe su hablar.
Una cosa es cierto: lo irreparable, el cumplimiento del ente de su posibilidad, es siempre contingente. Necesariamente contingente o contingentemente necesario, como dirá él. Es verdad que lo irreparable camina solo en un sentido, ya que el ente no puede repararse en su posibilidad, pero lo que creo que le puede pasar al ente -mucho más importante que salvarlo en su acto profano- es que el límite, por algún procedimiento, consiga romperse. Romper el límite. En este caso, romper el límite no significaría el trascender del ente, sino su pérdida absoluta. Su dejar en ruinas las ruinas. O mejor dicho, hacer desaparecer lo irreparable, no reparándolo, sino acabando de destruirlo.
Quién sabe si todo esto se trate de "salvar", mis investigaciones aún no me llevan a tales derroteros. Acaso sea únicamente acabar de expulsar a la salvación de todo esto. ¿Recobrar la dimensión de ente? ¿Expulsar al ser-ahí del despliegue del ser del ente? ¿Relevarlo de su tarea de guardián del ser? ¿Es esa la comunidad que viene?
Conversación, si lugar a dudas, estimulante. ¡Relectura obligada!
En cuanto a la edición: como siempre Pre-Textos con solidez y estética en sus colecciones. Respeto mucho a esta editorial. Pero hay erratas imperdonables por ahí. No solo en cuestión tipográfica, porque hay un uso medio anárquico u olvidadizo de cursivas, sino hasta ortográfico grave. Otra cosa es que las notas a la traducción se podrían haber trabajado más. Resultan medio mochas. A veces con exceso de información, a veces con muy poca. Aún así, buen libro, sin duda.
Sin embargo, esto que parece ser una desventaja, es también una ventaja. ¿Será una trampilla eso de no leer a Duns Scoto ni a Santo Tomás de Aquino ni a Heidegger ni a Walser ni a Melville y de pronto encontrarnos en pequeñísimas estancias de dos páginas y media, hablando de la ontología medieval, de la revelación ente al renunciar a sus cualidades? Puede ser... pero por algún lado había que empezar.
Hay mucho en este librito de 70 páginas que me hace ruido, y eso está excelente. ¡Muchas cosas! Cosas que simplemente no trago: como el propio título, su propia predicción, su no-destinación a la que está avocado, es decir, que me diga en la cara, "Oiga, usted, lo que estoy hablando aquí no es para sus orejas. ¡Es para las orejas de los que vienen! ¡De los futuros! De los hombres que no son usted". Demasiada jerga profética al estilo heideggeriano -es lo que menos tolero de Hiedegger-, demasiada esperanza en ese mesías neutral.
Otras cosas, otras estancias, podría decirse, son mucho más estimulantes. La simplicidad del análisis de "Solaz" o "Adgio" es maravillosamente claro. El análisis de la rotura "mediática" hecha justamente desde los medios.
Y cosas en las que uno se puede hundir a seguir reflexionando constantemente. Por ejemplo, la noción que maneja de límite-aureola y lo irreparable. (En la edición que manejo, que es la segunda edición de 2006, se incluyen dos además del titulado: "Lo irreparable" y "Apostilla 2001", desconozco si el segundo aparezca en la primera edición).
Lo irreparable (término que dicho sea de paso, no me gusta nada, principalmente por el uso de artículo neutro) sería algo así como el ente en su inevitable e inescapable límite. El ente que es la cosa entregada a su límite justo. Y en esa justedad, en esa cualseaidad perfeccionarse por su singularidad. Sería algo así como apropiarse del límite para la trascendencia, para lo que Agamben llama salvación.
Claro que podríamos quedarnos horas discutiendo sobre esto. Límite aureoleado como en Santo Tomás que no es más que la perfección de la naturaleza, su completud. ¡De eso se trata! La redondez del ente -ente entendido en sentido heideggeriano-, recobra su revelación es su irreparable singularidad. Cuyo fundamente es... cualsea.
Demasiado poca interacción con Agamben como para tenderle la trampa y sorprender su movimiento productivo -su intento de producir metafísica- y denunciarlo. Me parece que es, al final, lo que está haciendo. Pero hay que leerlo con más calma. Volver a él. Volver a esta mesa y a todas las que ocupe su hablar.
Una cosa es cierto: lo irreparable, el cumplimiento del ente de su posibilidad, es siempre contingente. Necesariamente contingente o contingentemente necesario, como dirá él. Es verdad que lo irreparable camina solo en un sentido, ya que el ente no puede repararse en su posibilidad, pero lo que creo que le puede pasar al ente -mucho más importante que salvarlo en su acto profano- es que el límite, por algún procedimiento, consiga romperse. Romper el límite. En este caso, romper el límite no significaría el trascender del ente, sino su pérdida absoluta. Su dejar en ruinas las ruinas. O mejor dicho, hacer desaparecer lo irreparable, no reparándolo, sino acabando de destruirlo.
Quién sabe si todo esto se trate de "salvar", mis investigaciones aún no me llevan a tales derroteros. Acaso sea únicamente acabar de expulsar a la salvación de todo esto. ¿Recobrar la dimensión de ente? ¿Expulsar al ser-ahí del despliegue del ser del ente? ¿Relevarlo de su tarea de guardián del ser? ¿Es esa la comunidad que viene?
Conversación, si lugar a dudas, estimulante. ¡Relectura obligada!
En cuanto a la edición: como siempre Pre-Textos con solidez y estética en sus colecciones. Respeto mucho a esta editorial. Pero hay erratas imperdonables por ahí. No solo en cuestión tipográfica, porque hay un uso medio anárquico u olvidadizo de cursivas, sino hasta ortográfico grave. Otra cosa es que las notas a la traducción se podrían haber trabajado más. Resultan medio mochas. A veces con exceso de información, a veces con muy poca. Aún así, buen libro, sin duda.
November 10, 2007
yes! in a bound of fabulous fortune, i am reading agamben directly after _zen mind, beginner's mind_. i'm not sure that i could handle agamben's prose if not for the softening of the concept of the dialectic that suzuki imposes on the reader. i am reading agamben out loud to myself, which is difficult only when i hear myself saying something i don't believe. for example, i'm willing to take as a given that (and here i paraphrase) the antinomy between the individual and the universal has its root in language -- but only to follow agamben in his point (which is, i admit, intricate and lovely). but i see language as a product of thought, and only in very isolated cases am i willing to conceive of a linguistic notion as the basis of a concept, thought, or theory. more so, the more basic the thought.
agamben is gauzy, ephemeral, convincing, hard-edged. i can't quite piece it all together yet, but i know something outstanding is happening in this book. it is light and transparent prose, but driven. and the ideas... the ideas...
***
in the end, i felt strongly and mixed about all this. i am not convinced by the translation. there are things i don't understand, but at times i have the idea that i don't understand because the translator may not have understood. i'll try in another language when i have the chance.
agamben is gauzy, ephemeral, convincing, hard-edged. i can't quite piece it all together yet, but i know something outstanding is happening in this book. it is light and transparent prose, but driven. and the ideas... the ideas...
***
in the end, i felt strongly and mixed about all this. i am not convinced by the translation. there are things i don't understand, but at times i have the idea that i don't understand because the translator may not have understood. i'll try in another language when i have the chance.
August 13, 2018
It seems that every time I push through the fog and really begin to understand and engage with a new philosopher, I'm confronted with the figure of that philosopher as course coordinator, assigning stacks of background reading that really must be tackled if I'm to get the most out of their lectures. On that count, picking up Agamben when I'm still working through Nietzsche's assigned texts from last year seems almost a mistake.
In all other respects, The Coming Community was an unregrettable read, at times playful, at others rigid and systematic, and almost always gently poetic. Startling insights come densely packed within its short length, a few of them truly explosive, and nearly all worth taking their time to digest.
I'm becoming wary of undertones in Agamben's eschatology that may problematise the way the Exception has been conceptualised by Badiou, Zizek and Dean (a nascent class fetishism that extends beyond standard workerism), so I'll be watching for developments in this field when I do embark on the Homo Sacer series. Regardless, there's some wonderful groundwork being laid here for the reconciliation of Catholicism with the secularised utopian project.
In all other respects, The Coming Community was an unregrettable read, at times playful, at others rigid and systematic, and almost always gently poetic. Startling insights come densely packed within its short length, a few of them truly explosive, and nearly all worth taking their time to digest.
I'm becoming wary of undertones in Agamben's eschatology that may problematise the way the Exception has been conceptualised by Badiou, Zizek and Dean (a nascent class fetishism that extends beyond standard workerism), so I'll be watching for developments in this field when I do embark on the Homo Sacer series. Regardless, there's some wonderful groundwork being laid here for the reconciliation of Catholicism with the secularised utopian project.
May 1, 2023
Very short, a little scary but easy to get in the flow of things. meanders around in a way that, after a while, telegraphs its landing.
The coming community is one that is defined without a specific concept aside from ‘this is a group of people, the people in it are x, y, z, …’ and this stands outside of the state - even directly opposed to the state. The state will attack this community. To get here, we will meander in linguistics and gnosticism for a bit and do a bunch of play on words.
I want a bit more concrete example though. Also, what next? Homo Sacer?
The coming community is one that is defined without a specific concept aside from ‘this is a group of people, the people in it are x, y, z, …’ and this stands outside of the state - even directly opposed to the state. The state will attack this community. To get here, we will meander in linguistics and gnosticism for a bit and do a bunch of play on words.
I want a bit more concrete example though. Also, what next? Homo Sacer?
December 24, 2024
philosophy is really not my thing but there are some banger lines in here, not going to lie.
November 2, 2010
Despite the title, it's a series of meditations not only on community, but also on language, ontology, culture, capitalism, etc. I enjoyed the Derridean take and the sense of play. There are some great insights in here, but it doesn't pull together the way I expected, and I think much of the vision is obscured (I'll confess some of it is opaque to me since I lack some of the philosophical background). I'd like to see his vision of community expanded. There's a call to arms and an optimistic vision in here that don't get the treatment they deserve.
April 12, 2013
This book is exciting and frustrating. Like other things I've read by Agamben, there are lots of provocative and interesting ideas presented here, but nothing is fleshed out properly. I was surprised by how deep into the linguistic turn this books dives; sometimes hilariously so.
The appendix seems to be entirely nonsensical. If anyone can parse it for me, I'd love to know what it means.
The appendix seems to be entirely nonsensical. If anyone can parse it for me, I'd love to know what it means.
July 2, 2007
Well... I'll maybe say a bit more later, but suffice it to say that Agamben is basically a friggin genius and this is his masterpiece in many ways. Definitely an amazing book that proposes an entirely new form of thought and a new conception of self and world...
Read
August 8, 2007commended, recommended,
whatever
a brave and lovely book
whatever
a brave and lovely book
January 19, 2015
Extremadamente perturbador. De algún modo, muestra la indiscernibilidad entre pensamiento político y pensamiento escatológico. Terror.
December 20, 2010
Difficult and dense but generates incredible concepts the more you return to it.
February 19, 2021
"The coming being is 'whatever' being."
Thus Giorgio Agamben begins his short yet densely packed with meaning foray into another discourse concerning ontology in general and the small but essential 'mid-point' in philosophy where potentiality and actuality join together, allowing a state of being which engenders contemplation and stasis, quietude. And paramount to this endeavor is, as outlined in the first paragraph of the tome, the distinction between 'whatever' as both "it does not matter which, indifferently," and "being such that it always matters." Polysemous meanings are not unique to the realm of philosophy (one is reminded of the idea found in anthropology that the 'taboo' is both attractive and, well, 'taboo'), but, as outlined in "The Coming Community," this duplicity, or poly-valence, is key to viewing man as the actor who can 'think about thought,' and thus achieve a state of stasis which allows for ethics and 'true being human' to be allowed. In pursuit of this acute and sagacious idea Agamben brings to bear the ideas of Aristotle, Spinoza, Heidegger, and Debord. Moreover, in a widening of scope which is as unexpected as it is welcome, Agamben brings in St. Thomas's thoughts about the halo as a means of insight into the ontological state which allows for this almost Christian state of grace to be brought about. Add discussions about the Talmud, Eastern ideas of spirituality, and Benjamin's ideas about Messianic ideas and you can get an idea of the scope and parameters of this wide-ranging and almost all-inclusive survey. Ending as it does with a treatment of the incidents at Tiananmen Square, "The Coming Community is catholic in its embrace, bringing to bear its ideas in a multiplicity of areas and with real rigorousness of thought.
This book, because of its clarity and breadth of scope, has the ability to change one's ideas about many salient and pressing philosophical ideas. That is to say a great deal about any book! Read "The Coming Community" and your world will be altered, for the better and the best.
Thus Giorgio Agamben begins his short yet densely packed with meaning foray into another discourse concerning ontology in general and the small but essential 'mid-point' in philosophy where potentiality and actuality join together, allowing a state of being which engenders contemplation and stasis, quietude. And paramount to this endeavor is, as outlined in the first paragraph of the tome, the distinction between 'whatever' as both "it does not matter which, indifferently," and "being such that it always matters." Polysemous meanings are not unique to the realm of philosophy (one is reminded of the idea found in anthropology that the 'taboo' is both attractive and, well, 'taboo'), but, as outlined in "The Coming Community," this duplicity, or poly-valence, is key to viewing man as the actor who can 'think about thought,' and thus achieve a state of stasis which allows for ethics and 'true being human' to be allowed. In pursuit of this acute and sagacious idea Agamben brings to bear the ideas of Aristotle, Spinoza, Heidegger, and Debord. Moreover, in a widening of scope which is as unexpected as it is welcome, Agamben brings in St. Thomas's thoughts about the halo as a means of insight into the ontological state which allows for this almost Christian state of grace to be brought about. Add discussions about the Talmud, Eastern ideas of spirituality, and Benjamin's ideas about Messianic ideas and you can get an idea of the scope and parameters of this wide-ranging and almost all-inclusive survey. Ending as it does with a treatment of the incidents at Tiananmen Square, "The Coming Community is catholic in its embrace, bringing to bear its ideas in a multiplicity of areas and with real rigorousness of thought.
This book, because of its clarity and breadth of scope, has the ability to change one's ideas about many salient and pressing philosophical ideas. That is to say a great deal about any book! Read "The Coming Community" and your world will be altered, for the better and the best.
November 11, 2023
These notes as much for my future reference as anything else - I wouldn't take any of the following as a recommendation or otherwise.
It's not my kind of thing - I struggle to retain metaphysics of this sort. I get the impression that there's an interesting take here but it reads like Spinoza after Heidegger / linguistic philosophy. A formidable synthesis that takes in a load of Western thought, inclusive of (eg) Theological thinkers like Abelard. It's just not a project I'm interested in. It's perhaps surprising that someone would write a book in the metaphysics-ontology realm in the early 90s but that's by no means a criticism.
Not my bag and I can't imagine it becoming my bag at this point but it's short and elegantly typeset. And from what I can surmise, there's a sense of synthesis of antipathies, a resistance to singularities (though I'd wonder whether that shares conceptual borders with monads) - this is politically compelling to me but I found Homo Sacer to be more transparently applicable to political philosophy.
And to re-state - none of this is a criticism, these are note for my own satisfaction as much as anything else. It's only wee, you might as well give it a bash.
It's not my kind of thing - I struggle to retain metaphysics of this sort. I get the impression that there's an interesting take here but it reads like Spinoza after Heidegger / linguistic philosophy. A formidable synthesis that takes in a load of Western thought, inclusive of (eg) Theological thinkers like Abelard. It's just not a project I'm interested in. It's perhaps surprising that someone would write a book in the metaphysics-ontology realm in the early 90s but that's by no means a criticism.
Not my bag and I can't imagine it becoming my bag at this point but it's short and elegantly typeset. And from what I can surmise, there's a sense of synthesis of antipathies, a resistance to singularities (though I'd wonder whether that shares conceptual borders with monads) - this is politically compelling to me but I found Homo Sacer to be more transparently applicable to political philosophy.
And to re-state - none of this is a criticism, these are note for my own satisfaction as much as anything else. It's only wee, you might as well give it a bash.
January 25, 2022
Agambe'nin kitabında en genel deyişle bahsettiği durum, geleyen (gelen ve sürekli gelmekte olan) bir topluluğun ‘öylelikleriyle’ bir arada durabilmesinin olanağı. Bu, nasıl olursa (Burada kullanılan ‘nasıl olursa’ kavramı ‘nasıl olursa olsun’ ‘herhangi’ ‘whatever’ anlamı taşır. ‘Fark etmez’ değil de, nasıl olduğuyla fark edilecek biçimde olacağını vurgular) öyle geleyen topluluğu oluşturan tekliklerin bir aradalığını sağlayan biricik orta nedir?
Bu ortaklığı sağlayan orta, bir şehir, site, alan olarak aranmaz; aksine soyut bir ilkedir, yani kimlik özellikleri veya başkalarından ayırt etmek için kullanan kurumsallaşmış formlardan (Örneğin kızıl/komünist, Fransız, Müslüman) ziyade, ‘olduğu gibi’ olmak için var olan bir topluluğun tekilliği ve olumsallığı gündemdedir. Bu saf tekillikler, herhangi bir ortak özellik veya özdeşlik tarafından bağlanmaksızın iletişim kurarlar. Bahsedilen orta, bizi bir araya getiren benzersiz olanaktır.
Bu ortaklığı sağlayan orta, bir şehir, site, alan olarak aranmaz; aksine soyut bir ilkedir, yani kimlik özellikleri veya başkalarından ayırt etmek için kullanan kurumsallaşmış formlardan (Örneğin kızıl/komünist, Fransız, Müslüman) ziyade, ‘olduğu gibi’ olmak için var olan bir topluluğun tekilliği ve olumsallığı gündemdedir. Bu saf tekillikler, herhangi bir ortak özellik veya özdeşlik tarafından bağlanmaksızın iletişim kurarlar. Bahsedilen orta, bizi bir araya getiren benzersiz olanaktır.
October 5, 2025
"Aviso aos navegantes: a comunidade de Agamben não significa a comunidade nem mesmo o comunismo, o comunitarismo." Pois é, caí neste engodo. Comprei o livro em uma promoção de 50% de desconto da livraria Livros & Livros da Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. Um preço muito bom, mas não sei se vou poder aproveitar o conteúdo do livro. Neste livro, a comunidade que vem que Agamben trata é os "qualquer", um termo que ele trouxe para denotar a incerteza no futuro. Assim, ao longo de textos curtos ele vai apresentando uma enumeração de possibilidades que o futuro pode trazer, uma pletora de seres que virão se apossar da realidade no futuro, através de suas qualidades. Mais um livro que vai acabar no sebo.
May 2, 2022
Fragmentary by nature, this is a bit of a disjointed read. Some of the essays (though I trow many are too short to merit that distinction) either don't seem to have a clear point or end before it is fully made. But the one's which do have a point and also the integrity to make it, are certainly worth bearing with the inferiority of their neighbors to experience.
Read
March 14, 2024“Whatever singularity, which wants to appropriate belonging itself, its own being-in-language, and thus rejects all identity and every condition of belonging, is the principal enemy of the State. Wherever these singularities peacefully demonstrate their being in common there will be a Tiananmen, and, sooner or later, the tanks will appear.” <3 <3 <3
Read
September 19, 2024"Unter den Merkmalen der neuen planetarischen Menschheit jene auszuwählen, die ihr das Überleben erlauben, die feine Scheidewand zu entfernen, die die schlechte mediale Öffentlichkeit von der vollkommenen Äußerlichkeit, die nur sich selbst mitteilt, trennt - das ist der politische Auftrag unserer Generation."
July 30, 2017
Fragmentary and confronting.
December 30, 2019
Not sure about the rating, because I want to go back to some parts that I didn't always remember. Read in Finnish translation.
April 13, 2020
"How the world is - it is outside the world" is probably the best summary of this text and Agamben's thought possible.
November 30, 2020
Kitap, iyilik, kötülük ve siyaset üzerine düşüncelerden oluşur.
March 10, 2021
fucking fire
Displaying 1 - 29 of 56 reviews