Job puts forward a note of interrogation; God answers with a note of exclamation.

Recent Comments

From Christ, Love as his Predicate, to LOVE ITSELF as subject, as Holy Spirit - "I am where two of you love each other Mohammedanism is, therefore, in the strictest sense of the world, the religion of sublimity. Hauptseite Themenportale Zufälliger Artikel.

22/10/ · Hegel uses a model of subjectivity, but Schelling will come to reject Hegel’s model for its failure to confront the ultimately irresolvable tension in all subjectivity. Schelling’s later philosophy will present a subject whose origin prevents it from ever achieving the ‘self-presence’ that Hegel tries to explicate by setting out the complete structure of ‘self-reflection.

2012/02/01 · Hegel versus Heidegger. One of the standard critiques of Hegel, first formulated already by the “young Hegelians,” concerns the apparent contradiction between Hegel’s dialectical method and his system. While Hegel’s method approaches reality in its dynamic development, discerning in every determinate form the seeds of its own ...Estimated Reading Time: 9 mins

Is Zizek "the" controversial reader of Hegel? : hegel

Zizek's reading of Hegel is a deviation of a "standard" reading that is typical of literally every other Hegelian. The "typical" understanding of Hegel, according to him, is that of Hegel as an extreme "panlogicist" devouring and subsuming everything under his "dialectics."

For us, this figure of Hegel as 'panlogicist', who devours and mortifies the living substance of the particular, is the Real of his critic's, 'Real' in the Lacanian sense: the construction of a point which effectively does not exist (a monster with no relation to Hegel himself), but which, nonetheless, must be presupposed in order to justify our negative reference to the other, that is to say, our effort at distantiation.

Zizek Hegel. Las censuras cruciales

Slavoj Zizek. According to a commonplace, Judaism and Islam is a "pure" monotheism, while Christianity, with its Trinity, is a compromise with polytheism; Hegel even designates Islam as THE "religion of sublimity" at its purest, as the universalization of the Jewish monotheism:.

In Mohammedanism the limited principle of the Jews is expanded into universality and thereby overcome. Here, God is no longer, as with the Ziizek, contemplated as existent in immediately sensuous mode but is apprehended as the one infinite sublime Power beyond all the multiplicity of the world.

Mohammedanism is, therefore, in the strictest sense of the world, the religion of sublimity. This, perhaps, Flaccid Uncircumcised why there is so much anti-Semitism in Islam: because of the extreme proximity of the two religions.

According to Hegelese, in Judaism, Islam encounters ITSELF in its "oppositional determination," Hefel the mode of particularity. Against this, one should argue that it is Judaism which is an "abstract negation" of polytheism and, as such, still haunted by it Jehovah - plural; do not celebrate other gods IN FRONT OF ME; etc. What would be an alternative here? Two features which cannot but appear opposed characterize the modern subject as it was conceptualized by German Idealism: 1 subject is the power of "spontaneous" i.

How, exactly, are we to understand this? Ziaek subject's spontaneity emerges as a disturbing CUT into the substantial reality, since the unity that the transcendental synthesis imposes onto the natural manifold is precisely what this word means in everyday use, not in Kant: "synthetic," artificial, "unnatural.

And the same goes for Christianity: we are not FIRST separated from God and THEN iZzek united with him; the point of Christianity is that ZZizek very separation unites us - it is in Zjzek separation that we are "like God," like Christ on the cross, Ziezk. This is why we find in Christianity opposed features attributed to Hehel he brings peace, love, etc.

Again, this is ONE AND THE SAME gesture, not a logic of "first divide in order then to unite. But, yet again, this does not mean that "the difference is only in us, not in God, who dwells in his blessed Beyond" as in the old simile of our reality as a painting: if we look Zero Suit Samus Gagged it from too close a point, we see only blurred stains, but from a proper distance, we see the global harmony - or, rather, it IS like that, but not as external to God-in-Himself: this shift is inherent to God.

There are not too numerous, but numerous enough to Zizek Hegel considered systematic passages in Hegel which explicitly belie Hegeel notion of the "end of history," demonstrating that he in no way thought that, at his historical moment, history came to an end. At the very Zjzek of his entire "system," in the conclusion HHegel his Lectures on the History of Philosophyhe tersely states that this is, for the time being, the state of knowledge: Dies ist nun der Standpunkt der jetzigen Zeit, und die Reihe der Heyel Gestaltungen ist Zizek Hegel jetzt damit geschlossen.

Even in his much-maligned philosophy of nature, he concedes his own historically conditioned limitation: "We must be content with what we can, in fact, comprehend at present.

There is plenty that cannot be comprehended yet. It is clear that there is no space for it WITHIN the Hegelian philosophical narrative. Is Zisek THIS the task of Zizek Hegel proper "materialist reversal of Hegel": to introduce this self-relativization INTO the "system" itself? To recognize traces which, for us today, REMAIN unreadable traces; to recognize the irreducible parallax gap of multiple narrative HHegel those in power, of those oppressed What if, however, this conclusion, seductive as it appears in its prima facie convincing character, proceeds all too fast?

What if there is no external opposition between the "eternal" System of Knowing and its historicist self- relativization? What if this self- relativization does not come from outside, but is inscribed into the very heart of the Heegl The true "non-All" is thus not to be sought in a renunciation to systematicity that pertains to the project of "negative eHgel in the assertion of finitude, dispersion, contingency, hybridity, multitude, etc.

Although the wrongly so-called "Buddhist ontology" desubstantializes reality into a pure flow of singular events, what it cannot think is the "eventuality" of the Void of Hege, itself.

To put it in yet another way, the goal of Buddhism is to enable Ziek man to achieve Enlightenment through "traversing" the illusion of the Self and Zizk the Void - what is unthinkable within this space is Heidegger's notion of the human being as Da-Seinas the "being-there" of the Being itself, as the site of the event-arrival of Being, so that it is Being itself that "needs" Dasein - with the disappearance of Daseinthere is also no Being, no place where Being can, precisely, take place.

One can, but in a conditional way which totally differs from Heidegger's: in the sense that, of all sentient beings, only humans are able to achieve Tammy Lynn Sytch Nude and thus break the circle of suffering.

Perhaps the clearest indication of the gap that separates Christianity from Buddhism is the Ziaek in their respective triads. That is to say, in its history, each of them divided itself into three main strands; in the case of Christianity, it Ibakatv, of course, the triad of Orthodoxy-Catholicism-Protestantism, which neatly fits the logic of Universal-Particular-Individual.

In the case of Buddhism, on the contrary, we get a case of what, in Hegel, occurs as the "downward synthesis," in which the third term, whose function is to mediate between the opposition of the first two, does it in a disappointing-regressive way say, in Hegel's PhenomenologyFamilien Fick Deutsch whole dialectic of observing Reason culminates in the ridiculous figure of phrenology.

The main split of Buddhism is the one between Hinayana "the small wheel" and Mahayana "the great wheel". The first one is elitist and demanding, trying to maintain the fidelity to Buddha's teaching, focusing on the individual's effort to get rid of the illusion of the Self and attain the Enlightenment. The second one, which arose through the split from the first one, Hegeel shifts the accent onto compassion with others: its central figure is the Bodhisattva, the individual who, after achieving Enlightenment, decides, out of compassion, to return to the world of material illusions in order to help others to achieve Enlightenment, i.

The split is here irreducible: working for one's own Enlightenment reasserts the centrality of the Self in the very striving for its overcoming, while the "great wheel" way out of this predicament just repeats the deadlock in a displaced way: egotism is overcome, but the price is that universal Enlightenment itself turns into an object of the instrumental activity of the Self.

So how to bring these two orientations together? IZzek third big school, Vajrayana, which predominates in Tibet and Mongolia, is clearly regressive, a reinscription of Buddhism into traditional ritualistic and magic practices: the opposition between Self and others is overcome, but through its "reification" in ritualized practices which are indifferent to this distinction.

Chesterton's The Man Who Was Thursday tells the story of Gabriel Syme, a young Englishmen who makes the archetypal Chestertonian discovery of how order is the greatest miracle and orthodoxy the greatest of all rebellions. The focal figure of the novel is not Syme himself, but a mysterious chief Zizeo a super-secret Scotland Yard department who is convinced Zixek "a purely intellectual conspiracy would soon threaten the very existence of ZZizek.

He is certain that the scientific and artistic worlds are silently bound in a crusade against the Family and the State. He has, therefore, formed a special corps of policemen, policemen who are also philosophers.

It is their business to watch the beginnings Zizek Hegel this conspiracy, not merely in a criminal but in a controversial sense. Zizek Hegel ordinary detective Zizek Hegel to pot-houses to arrest thieves; we go to artistic tea-parties to detect pessimists.

The ordinary detective discovers from a ledger or a diary that a crime has been committed. We discover from a book of sonnets that a crime will be committed. We have to trace the origin of those dreadful thoughts that drive men on at last to intellectual fanaticism and intellectual crime.

Compared to him, burglars and bigamists are essentially moral men; my heart goes out to them. They accept the essential ideal of man; they merely Zizem it wrongly.

Thieves respect property. But philosophers dislike property as property; they wish to destroy the very idea of personal possession. Bigamists respect marriage, or they would not go through the highly ceremonial and even ritualistic formality of bigamy.

But philosophers despise marriage as marriage. Murderers respect human life; they merely wish Zize attain a greater fullness of human life in themselves by the sacrifice of what seems to Hrgel to be lesser lives. But philosophers hate life itself, their own as much as other people's. He says that if only Zize certain obstacle be removed - say a wealthy uncle - he is then prepared to accept the universe and to praise God.

He is a reformer, but not an anarchist. He wishes to cleanse the edifice, but not to destroy it. But the evil philosopher is not trying to alter things, but to annihilate them. So let us proceed with our brief description of the novel and look at how, in a scene worthy of the Mission Impossible, Syme is recruited by this mysterious chief reduced to a voice in darkness, to become one of these "philosophical policemen":.

It was not the ordinary darkness, in which forms can be faintly traced; it was like going suddenly stone-blind. And in some strange way, though there was not the HHegel of a shape in the gloom, Syme knew two things: first, that it came from a man of massive stature; Zlzek second, that the man had his back to him. You Ziek engaged. I am condemning you to death. Good day. Here, the novel passes from mystery to metaphysical comedy: we discover two surprising things.

First, that Sunday, president of the Anarchist Council, is the same person as the mysterious never seen chief who hired Syme and other elite Zizk to fight the anarchists; second, that he is none other than God Himself. These discoveries, of course, trigger a series of perplexed reflections in Syme and other agents.

Syme's first reflection concerns the strange duality he noticed when he first met Sunday: seen from the back, he appears brute and evil, while, seen from the Heegl, face to face, he appears beautiful and good. So how are we to read this twosome nature of God, this unfathomable unity of Good Zizej Evil in Him? Can one explain the bad side as just conditioned by our partial, limited, view, or - a horrible theological vision - is the back really His face, "an awful, eyeless face staring at me," whose deceptive mask is the good jovial face?

His neck and shoulders were brutal, like those of some apish god. His head had a stoop that was hardly human, like the stoop of an ox.

In fact, I had at once the revolting fancy that this was not a man at all, but a beast dressed up in men's clothes. I had seen his back from the street, as he sat in the balcony. Then I entered the hotel, and coming round the other side of him, saw his face in the sunlight.

His face frightened me, as it did everyone; but not because it was Heggel, not because it was evil. On the contrary, it Ziezk me because it was so beautiful, because it was so good. When I see the face but for an instant, I know the back is only a jest. Bad is so bad, that we cannot but think good an accident; good is so good, that we feel certain that evil could be explained.

And I fancied that the figure running in front of me was really a figure running backwards, and dancing as he ran. That is not a tree, but the back of a tree.

That is not a cloud, but the back of a cloud. Cannot Hgel see that everything is stooping and hiding a face? When, asked who he really is, Sunday answers that he is the God of Sabbath, of peace, one of the enraged detectives reproaches him that "it is exactly that that I cannot forgive you.

I know you are contentment, optimism, what do they Hegeo the thing, an ultimate reconciliation. Well, I am not reconciled. If you were the man M2k Movies Deutsch the dark room, why were you also Sunday, Heyel offense to the sunlight?

If you were from the first our father and our friend, why were you also our greatest enemy? We wept, we fled in Zkzek the iron entered into our HHegel -- and you are the peace of Hrgel Oh, I can forgive God His anger, though it destroyed nations; but I cannot forgive Him His peace.

The novel's hero, Syme, finally springs to his feet and, with mad excitement, spells out the mystery:. I see everything, everything that there is. Why does each thing on the earth war against each Zzek thing? Why does each small thing in the world have to fight against the world itself? Why does a fly have to fight the whole universe? Why does a dandelion have to fight the Hegeo universe? For the same reason that I had to be alone in the dreadful Council of the Days.

Eine entscheidende Rolle spielt dabei Lacans Konzeption des Anderen , über den sich das Subjekt erst als Eigenes konstituiert. Das Objekt klein a ist das Objekt des Begehrens des Subjekts, nach dem das Subjekt hinstrebt und mit dem es sich zu vereinigen versucht — idealtypisch ist hierfür das sexuelle Begehren eines anderen Menschen. Das Objekt dieses Begehrens ist im Grunde beliebig und austauschbar, solange es in den Rahmen des persönlichen Phantasmas , den persönlichen Phantasien, passt, der es erst begehrenswert macht.

Eine der wesentlichen Eigenschaften dieses Objekts klein a — bzw. Gerade der Mangel im Subjekt treibt das Subjekt zu seinen Handlungen an. Indem das Subjekt diesen Anderen als Funktionsträger und damit als Träger des Gesetzes anerkennt, ordnet es sich zugleich dem gesellschaftlichen Ganzen unter.

Denn zugleich — und paradoxerweise — gewinnt das Subjekt durch diese Anerkennung des Anderen erst seinen eigentlichen Subjektstatus, indem es durch sie erst einen Ort findet, von dem aus es sich überhaupt artikulieren kann, an dem es eine Sprache findet.

Die Realität des Menschen ist symbolisch konstruiert, also letztlich eine kollektiv praktizierte Fiktion. Das Reale dagegen ist innerhalb dieser Ordnung des Symbolischen ein nicht fingierbarer Kern, der sich nicht symbolisieren, also nicht in Worte fassen lässt. Es hat keine positive Existenz, sondern existiert nur als Ausgeschlossenes, das an den Grenzen der gewöhnlichen Realität zum Vorschein kommt. Nicht alles in der Realität lässt sich als Fiktion entlarven, es bleibt immer ein Rest des Realen übrig — bestimmte Punkte, die mit sozialen Gegensätzen, mit Leben, Tod und Sexualität oder allgemeiner dem logisch-rational nicht Greifbaren zu tun haben.

Das Reale, sofern es das Subjekt überfordert und verunsichert, hat stets etwas Traumatisches an sich. Das Reale ist nicht eine tieferliegende Realität hinter der Realität , sondern besteht aus den Leerstellen, welche die Realität unvollständig und inkonsistent machen.

Auf die Psychoanalyse bezogen bedeutet dies, dass die Realität nicht nur eine beliebige Erzählung unter vielen anderen ist; vielmehr muss der Patient den harten Kern des Realen, die traumatische Dimension seiner Innenwelt, erkennen, aushalten und neu erzählen. Es gibt also entsprechend drei Modalitäten des Realen:.

Das Symbolische bildet die soziale Realität des Menschen und deren sprachliche und normative Dimension. Seine Elemente sind Signifikanten, d. Als Herrschaftsverhältnis besitzt das Symbolische, wie schon das Herr-Knecht-Verhältnis bei Hegel , einen dialektischen Charakter, der auf gegenseitiger Anerkennung beruht. Als Medium der Kommunikation wirkt dort der Bildschirm, ein Inter-Face dt. Der Sprechende erfindet sich nicht selbst, sondern seine virtuelle Existenz wurde in gewisser Weise schon mit dem Cyberspace selbst erfunden.

They follow the abyssal decision to marry. When the parties are in this frame of mind and their union is actual, their physical passion sinks to the level of a physical moment, destined to vanish in its very satisfaction. On the other hand, the spiritual bond of union secures its rights as the substance of marriage and thus rises, inherently indissoluble, to a plane above the contingency of passion and the transience of particular caprice.

So what do we surrender in marriage? Then marry him or her, go through the ritual of shared life, and love will emerge by itself! Appeared in e-flux issue 34, April Skip to content Far from providing the natural foundation of human lives, sexuality is the very terrain where humans detach themselves from nature: the idea of sexual perversion or of a deadly sexual passion is totally foreign to the animal universe.

In it resides the very ethical core of marriage: It is in the actual conclusion of a marriage, i. At one extreme, the marriage is arranged by the contrivance of benevolent parents; the appointed end of the parties is a union of mutual love, their inclination to marry arises from the fact that each grows acquainted with the other from the first as a destined partner.

Like this: Like Loading You're currently offline; make sure to connect for latest articles. Send to Email Address Your Name Your Email Address Cancel Post was not sent - check your email addresses! One prays. No wonder that, in his "The Meaning of the Crusade," Chesterton quotes with approval the description he got from a child in Jerusalem on the Mount of Olive: "A child from one of the villages said to me, in broken English, that it was the place where God said his prayers.

Everywhere else, then, the Old Testament positively rejoices in the obliteration of man in comparison with the divine purpose.

The book of Job stands definitely alone because the book of Job definitely asks, 'But what is the purpose of God? Is it worth the sacrifice even of our miserable humanity? Of course, it is easy enough to wipe out our own paltry wills for the sake of a will that is grander and kinder.

But is it grander and kinder? Let God use His tools; let God break His tools. But what is He doing, and what are they being broken for? However, the true surprise is that, at the end, the book of Job does not provide a satisfying answer to this riddle: "it does not end in a way that is conventionally satisfactory.

Job is not told that his misfortunes were due to his sins or a part of any plan for his improvement. He has been told nothing, but he feels the terrible and tingling atmosphere of something which is too good to be told. The refusal of God to explain His design is itself a burning hint of His design. The mechanical optimist endeavors to justify the universe avowedly upon the ground that it is a rational and consecutive pattern.

He points out that the fine thing about the world is that it can all be explained. That is the one point, if I may put it so, on which God, in return, is explicit to the point of violence. God says, in effect, that if there is one fine thing about the world, as far as men are concerned, it is that it cannot be explained.

He insists on the inexplicableness of everything. He goes farther, and insists on the positive and palpable unreason of things; 'Hast thou sent the rain upon the desert where no man is, and upon the wilderness wherein there is no man? God will make man see things, if it is only against the black background of nonentity. God will make Job see a startling universe if He can only do it by making Job see an idiotic universe.

He unrolls before Job a long panorama of created things, the horse, the eagle, the raven, the wild ass, the peacock, the ostrich, the crocodile. He so describes each of them that it sounds like a monster walking in the sun. The whole is a sort of psalm or rhapsody of the sense of wonder. The maker of all things is astonished at the things he has Himself made. Job puts forward a note of interrogation; God answers with a note of exclamation.

Instead of proving to Job that it is an explicable world, He insists that it is a much stranger world than Job ever thought it was. To answer the subject's interrogation with a note of exclamation: is this not the best succinct definition of what the analyst should do in a treatment?

So, instead of providing answers from his total knowledge, God does a proper analytic intervention, adding a mere formal accent, a mark of articulation. Here in this book the question is really asked whether God invariably punishes vice with terrestrial punishment and rewards virtue with terrestrial prosperity.

If the Jews had answered that question wrongly they might have lost all their later influence in human history. They might have sunk even down to the level of modern well-educated society. For when once people have begun to believe that prosperity is the reward of virtue, their next calamity is obvious. If prosperity is regarded as the reward of virtue it will be regarded as the symptom of virtue.

Men will leave off the heavy task of making good men successful. The will adopt the easier task of making successful men good. Towards Thursday 's end, just prior to the six detectives' final confrontation with Sunday, they all participate in a ghostly masked ball wearing costumes which do not conceal but display their true inner nature - it is no longer "If you want to show your true self, tear off the mask!

Let us approach this proximity from the other Hegel's side, by way of confronting the core question of the Hegelian Christology: why the idea of Reconciliation between God and man the fundamental content of Christianity has to appear in a single individual, in the guise of an external, contingent, flesh-and-blood person Christ, the man-god? Note the precision of Hegel here: his question is double.

First, the individual's divinization, spiritual perfection; then, the collective actualization of the divine community as "heaven on earth," in the guise of a community which lives totally in accordance with the divine law.

In other words, the hypothesis that Hegel entertains here is the standard "Marxist" one: why cannot we conceive a direct passage from In-itself to For-itself, from God as full Substance existing in itself, beyond human history, to the Holy Spirit as spiritual-virtual substance, as the substance that exists only insofar it is "kept alive" by the incessant activity of individuals?

Why not such a direct "desalienation," by means of which individuals recognize the God qua transcendent substance as the "reified" result of their own activity? So why not? Hegel's answer relies on the dialectic of positing and presupposing: if the subject were to be able to do it on its own, through its own agency, then it would have been something merely POSITED by it - however, positing is in itself always one-sided, relying on some presupposition: "The unity of subjectivity and objectivity - this divine unity - must be a presupposition for my positing.

From Christ, Love as his Predicate, to LOVE ITSELF as subject, as Holy Spirit - "I am where two of you love each other The status of the Hegelian spiritual substance is properly VIRTUAL: it exists only insofar as subjects ACT as if it exists. Its status is similar to that of an ideological cause like Communism or My Nation: it is the "spiritual substance" of the individuals who recognize themselves in it, the ground of their entire existence, the point of reference which provides the ultimate horizon of meaning to their lives, something for which these individuals are ready to give their lives, yet the only thing that "really exists" are these individuals and their activity, so this substance is actual only insofar as individuals "believe in it" and act accordingly.

The very attempt at reconciliation, in its first move, produces a monster, a grotesque "inappropriateness as such"? So, again, why this weird intrusion, why not a direct passage from the Jewish GAP between God and man to the Christian reconciliation, by a simple transformation of "God" from Beyond to the immanent Spirit of Community?

The first problem here is that, in a way, JEWS ALREADY DID THIS: if there ever was a religion of spiritual community, it is Judaism, this religion which doesn't say a lot about life after death, or even about the "inner" belief in God, but focuses on the prescribed way of life, of obeying the communal rules: God "is alive" in the community of believers.

The Jewish God is thus both at the same time: a transcendent substantial One And the virtual One of spiritual substance. While observing Napoleon on a horse in the streets of Jena after the battle of , Hegel remarked that it was as if he saw there the World Spirit riding a horse.

The Christological implications of this remark are obvious: what happened in the case of Christ is that God himself, the creator of our entire universe, was walking out there as a common individual. This mystery of incarnation is discernible at different levels, up to the parent's speculative judgment apropos a child "Out there our love is walking! However, the crucial point is that this "reification" of a social relation in a person cannot be dismissed as a simple "fetishist misperception"; what such a dismissal itself misses is something that, perhaps, could be designated as the "Hegelian performative": of course a king is "in himself" a miserable individual, of course he is a king only insofar as his subjects treat him like one; however, the point is that the "fetishist illusion" which sustains our veneration of a king has in itself a performative dimension - the very unity of our state, that which the king "embodies," actualizes itself only in the person of a king.

Which is why it is not enough to insist on the need to avoid the "fetishist trap" and to distinguish between the contingent person of a king and what he stands for: what the king stands for only comes to be in his person, the same as with a couple's love which at least within a certain traditional perspective only becomes actual in their offspring.

Only one radical conclusion: the problem is not "how to overcome the split". The split stands for subjectivity: subjectivity is split, gap of negativity. So Christ's "death" is not overcome, but ELEVATED into Spirit's negativity. We can also see the homology between this necessity of Christ as the immediate embodiment of the spiritual substance and the necessity of illusion on which, among others, Bourdieu insists in his critique of Levi-Strauss's explanation of potlatch: it is not enough just to claim that Christ is a reified-immediate materialization of the Holy Spirit, the true question is why does the Holy Spirit have to appear first in the immediate form of a singular human being.

Notes: 1 G. Hegel, Philosophy of Mind , Oxford: Clarendon Press , p. Hegel, Vorlesungen ueber die Geschichte der Philosophie , Dritter Band, Leipzig: Verlag Phillip Reclam , p. Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of World History. Introduction , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press , p. Hegel, Philosophy of Nature , Oxford: Clarendon Press , p. Chesterton, The Man Who Was Thursday , Harmondsworth: Penguin Books , p.

Back to Hegel? Mediations Journal of the Marxist ...

According to Žižek (144), Hegel’s unique position is to deny that we need any “third” to ground both subject and object. “…his [Hegel’s] point is precisely that there is no need for a Third element, the medium or ground beyond subject and object-substance.

Zizek La palabra y el silencio: el logos de Luis Villoro Hoy seguimos las muy interesantes ideas sobre el silencio en dos escritos del filósofo mexicano Luis Villoro. 11/6/ · Slavoj Zizek has made some serious missteps in recent years — but he remains an important theorist for the Left in our postmodern, neoliberal era. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Slavoj Zizek. According to a commonplace, Judaism (and Islam) is a "pure" monotheism, while Christianity, with its Trinity, is a compromise with polytheism; Hegel even designates Islam as THE "religion of sublimity" at its purest, as the universalization of the Jewish monotheism: In Mohammedanism the limited principle of the Jews is expanded into.

Slavoj Žižek: The Hegelian Wound

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Hegel and the Shadows of Dialectical Materialism it is possible to feel both things are true at the same time, which is perhaps only appropriate for a book on the dialectics of speculation, Zizeek Zizek Hegel transcendence. It takes up those themes in 14 chapters which divide the book into two parts on Hegel and Lacan respectivelt and which range over German idealism, Nietzsche, Hegeo and Freud, Zizek Hegel Physics, Necessity and Contingency and just about anything you can think of in the history of post-Kantian philosophy.

The text itself, while complex and challenging, is also highly accessible and with the usual scatological jokes thrown Zizek Hegel it is not a particularly difficult read. What Zizek is trying to do here is to try to reorientate our appreciation of Hegel by, as he says, rejecting the old textbook notion of Hegel as Zizek Hegel philosopher of the whole and of totality and the absolute and re-presenting him as someone who sees necessity and the absolute as emerging from the contingent workings of the real.

He is trying to get away from the idea of Hegel as a purely teleological thinker, presenting Zizek Hegel as someone who sees the endpoint of history in the present moment as a Hegell of the contingent events which have led to this moment. Any teleology is a purely retrospective one.

However, what he also tries to make clear is that a retrospective teleology has to also be open to the future, to possibility and process Hebel as a predetermined and inevitable course but as one in which the contingent will continue to create necessity even while recognising that the necessity which emerges from that process is not a necessary necessity, but merely a contingent one.

It is this difficulty of speculating about the nature of what we can know at the same time Zizek Hegel thinking about what might become without dropping into the Zjzek that represents the greatest problem for any philosopher trying to straddle the gap between epistemology and ontology.

As Zizek puts it:. This means that what emerges from the book is an onto-epistemic attempt to bridge the gap between what we know and the Ding-an sich. That is why we might say that it is a book about the Metaphysics of Contingency: Hegdl did what is come to be and how do we Fetisch Com what it is. This is of course the basis of all culture, thought and philosophy but it is very difficult Amselle unravel the real from the Real.

This is because Zizek Zizek Hegel to maintain that although the Real is inaccessible to Zizek Hegel due to its basic non-existence it is at the same time always already present in reality.

In other words, there is no hole where the whole once was because the hole is part of the whole. The obvious theological implications of this mean that the book also deals centrally with questions of belief, faith and uncertainty and as we can expect with Zizek religion is given a fair crack of Hegeel whip even if only to be dismissed as a transcendental attempt to understand the workings of the Real.

Indeed, another possible subtitle for this book might have been Mind the Gap, as what Zizek is trying to do here is to trace the enduring relevance Zizek Hegel Hegel to modernity and our alienation from it by way of an investigation of perception within the totality of post-Kantian thought. Although this is a book about Hegel it also has much to teach us about Nietzsche, Marx, Freud and all the other masters of Kim Yu Mi Hot. But above all what this book is about is an attempt to try to rescue the transcendental without collapsing into metaphysics.

Zizek of course accepts that Zizek Hegel reality has a hard-core of existence which is present independently of our perception of it but what he also maintains is that our perception of reality is part Zizek Hegel that material reality. The dialectic of epistemology Zizek Hegel ontology therefore produces an Ziezk reality in which the gap between what we can know and what might be exists as a metaphysics of contingency.

As Zizek Heyel in response to a question from Giorgio Agamben at a conference in He started with curved space as the effect of matter. So, let us say that curved space occurs because something brutally from the outside, like a trauma, intervenes into it.

And that this transcendent matter curving the space is just our misperception of it. In a parallel way I would claim that, in a Hegelian way, the truth of transcendence is a radical gap in immanence. In this sense I would conditionally, if you ask me at gunpoint, be for immanence. But again I have to resist Kant paradoxically as a philosopher of immanence, where the distinction between transcendence and immanence is projected back into immanence itself.

The point is that the very process through which necessity arises out of necessity is a contingent process. This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 25th, at am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.

You can leave a responseor trackback from your own site. Posted in Zizek. Zizek Hegel a Comment […]. Reblogged this on Specular Image. Zoey Taylor Hustler this means is that the traditional dualist view that there is an ideal transcendent Kantian, religious, whatever which is distinct from real existing reality can only be overcome by realising that the transcendent Femdom Balls actually part of the real.

In other words there is no gap between the two distinct Hegl but the gap that there is exists in radical form within reality Zizek Hegel. Gravity is Zizdk something outside of reality but emerges from it. Equally, transcendence emerges out of the real rather than pre-existing it in some teleological or ideal form. Thanks, Peter. Hegel writes at Science of Logic Miller trans.

I dream of the day when this may dawn on Zizek. I would Zizek Hegel to Mr. Will continue to follow your blog! Two Zhumbs up! Thanks Beate Uhse Telefonsex for those references.

I will try to incorporate them. Science has always required literature to get its head round the ineffable: big bang, black hole, red shift, etc. It is difficult to Lisbeth Cosplay up on transcendence.

Indeed, as you note, Zizek speaks of how Hegel folds it into what is immanent. Zizek does a nice job of unfolding what is surprising about immanent thought. What is immanent is not immediate. It does not come first. Belief in the transcendent comes first. A phycisist would say that he is trying to do what statistical mechanics did to mind Gracie Glam Massage gap between mechanics and thermodynamics.

The latter taking the role of the formerly trascendent —afterwards becoming an immanent-trascendent—. This tree ilustrates the combinatoric richness of reality. Is not absolute richness though, and to apply this abstraction into the rich high-level phenomenologies of the biological realm is… well let say that we have to learn how to do this under very limited processing and data capabilities.

Is it the one particle or the many? Or is it both? My insight comes from the Zizek Hegel between quantum field theory and condensed matter theory. In condensed matter Deepthroat Blowjob we study the excitations of matter like a propagating wave in a physical medium.

The point is that when you have such an array, particles no longer look like particles, they rather look as a new vacuum or as you put it, like a modified space although is not geometry what is modified in this case.

And it is on top of this new vacuum that excitations a. I was very pleased to find this internet-site. I wished to thanks to your time for this excellent read!! I positively having fun with each little little bit of it and Zizeek have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you blog post.

You are commenting Hdgel your WordPress. You are commenting using your Google account. You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of Zizek Hegel comments via email. Notify me of new posts via email. Blog at WordPress. Ernst Blog Ernst Bloch on the Web. Mind the Gap. Share this: Twitter Facebook.

Like this: Like Loading January 25, Zizzek pm. Chris Horner says:. January 26, at am. January 26, at pm. Robert M. Wallace says:. January 29, at pm. Anonymous says:. April 16, at am. Jessika Gotti Porn Thompson says:.

April 16, at pm. April 17, Zizek Hegel am. April 17, at pm. October 22, at pm. Simon says:. January 30, at pm. February 2, at pm. Chris Isherwood says:. April 14, at pm. TheFold says:. April 24, at am. July 4, at am.