Disparities

The concept of disparity has long been a topic of obsession and argument for philosophers but Slavoj Žižek would argue that what disparity and negativity could mean, might mean and should mean for us and our lives has never been more hotly debated. __Disparities__ explores contemporary 'negative' philosophies from Catherine Malabou's plasticity, Julia Kristeva's abjection and Robert Pippin's self-consciousness to the God of negative theology, new realisms and post-humanism and draws a radical line under them. Instead of establishing a dialogue with these other ideas of disparity, Slavoj Žižek wants to establish a definite departure, a totally different idea of disparity based on an imaginative dialectical materialism. This notion of rupturing what has gone before is based on a provocative reading of how philosophers can, if they're honest, engage with each other. Slavoj Žižek borrows Alain Badiou's notion that a true idea is the one that divides. Radically departing from previous formulations of negativity and disparity, Žižek employs a new kind of negativity: namely positing that when a philosopher deals with another philosopher, his or her stance is never one of dialogue, but one of division, of drawing a line that separates truth from falsity. FC 1 Half title 2 Also Available from the Same Author 3 Title 4 Copyright 5 Dedication 6 Contents 8 Introduction: Is Hegel dead – or are we dead (in the eyes of Hegel)? 12 When the Kraken wakes 12 A report from the trenches of dialectical materialism 14 PART ONE THE DISPARITY OF TRUTH: SUBJECT, OBJECT AND THE REST 18 1 From human to posthuman ... and back to inhuman: The persistence of ontological difference 20 Aspects of disparity 21 Against the univocity of being 30 Posthuman, transhuman, inhuman 32 Hyperobjects in the age of Anthropocene 41 Biology or quantum physics? 49 2 Objects, objects ... and the subject 66 Re-enchanting nature? No, thanks! 66 A detour: Ideology in pluriverse 70 On a subject which is not an object 76 Resistance, stasis, repetition 81 Speculative judgement 87 The subject’s epigenesis 96 3 Self-consciousness, which self-consciousness? Against the renormalization of Hegel 100 In defence of Hegel’s madness 100 The immediacy of mediation 102 The stick in itself, for us, for itself 106 Action and responsibility 114 Recollection, forgiveness, reconciliation 117 Healing the wound 128 Self-consciousness = Freedom = Reason 137 Reflexivity of the Unconscious 145 PART TWO THE DISPARITY OF BEAUTY: THE UGLY, THE ABJECT AND THE MINIMAL DIFFERENCE 152 4 Art after Hegel, Hegel after the end of art 154 With Hegel against Hegel 155 The ugly gaze 160 From the sublime to the monstrous 165 Hegel’s path towards the nonfigurative 173 Between Auschwitz and telenovelas 176 5 Versions of abject: Ugly, creepy, disgusting 180 Varieties of disavowal 182 Traversing abjection 187 ‘MOOR EEFFOC’ 195 From abjective to creepy 200 Mamatschi! 204 Eisler’s sinthoms 208 6 When nothing changes: Two scenes of subjective destitution 218 The lesson of psychoanalysis 218 Music as a sign of love 221 A failed betrayal 229 Scene from a happy life 233 PART THREE THE DISPARITY OF THE GOOD: TOWARDS A MATERIALIST NEGATIVE THEOLOGY 242 7 Tribulations of a woman-hyena: Authority, costume and friendship 244 Why Heidegger should not be criminalized 244 The birth of fascism out of the spirit of beauty 249 Don Carlos between authority and friendship 254 Stalin as anti-Master 260 Schiller versus Hegel 266 The self-debased authority 270 8 Is god dead, unconscious, evil, impotent, stupid ... or just counterfactual? 278 On divine inexistence 278 Counterfactuals 288 Retroactivity, omnipotence and impotence 292 The twelfth camel as one of the names of god 302 A truth that arises out of a lie 309 The divine death drive 312 The deposed god 321 9 Ject or scend? From the traumatized subject to subject as trauma 334 The parallax of drive and desire 334 Immortality as death in life 339 The troubles with finitude 352 Materialism or agnosticism? 359 A comical conclusion 373 Conclusion: The courage of hopelessness 378 The millenarian ‘exhalation of stale gas’ 379 Divine violence 385 The points of the impossible 390 Notes 398 Index 430 The Concept Of Disparity Has Long Been A Topic Of Obsession And Argument For Philosophers But Slavoj Žižek Would Argue That What Disparity And Negativity Could Mean, Might Mean And Should Mean For Us And Our Lives Has Never Been More Hotly Debated. Disparities Explores Contemporary 'negative' Philosophies From Catherine Malabou's Plasticity, Julia Kristeva's Abjection And Robert Pippin's Self-consciousness To The God Of Negative Theology, New Realisms And Post-humanism And Draws A Radical Line Under Them. Instead Of Establishing A Dialogue With These Other Ideas Of Disparity, Slavoj Žižek Wants To Establish A Definite Departure, A Totally Different Idea Of Disparity Based On An Imaginative Dialectical Materialism. This Notion Of Rupturing What Has Gone Before Is Based On A Provocative Reading Of How Philosophers Can, If They're Honest, Engage With Each Other. Slavoj Žižek Borrows Alain Badiou's Notion That A True Idea Is The One That Divides. Radically Departing From Previous Formulations Of Negativity And Disparity, Žižek Employs A New Kind Of Negativity: Namely Positing That When A Philosopher Deals With Another Philosopher, His Or Her Stance Is Never One Of Dialogue, But One Of Division, Of Drawing A Line That Separates Truth From Falsity. Part One. The Disparity Of Truth: Subject, Object And The Rest -- Part Two. The Disparity Of Beauty: The Ugly, The Abject And The Minimal Difference -- Part Three. The Disparity Of The Good: Towards A Materialist Negative Theology. Slavoj Žižek. Includes Bibliographical References And Index. The concept of disparity has long been a topic of obsession and argument for philosophers but Slavoj éZiézek would argue that what disparity and negativity could mean, might mean and should mean for us and our lives has never been more hotly debated. Disparities explores contemporary 'negative' philosophies from Catherine Malabou's plasticity, Julia Kristeva's abjection and Robert Pippin's self-consciousness to the God of negative theology, new realisms and post-humanism and draws a radical line under them. Instead of establishing a dialogue with these other ideas of disparity, Slavoj éZiézek wants to establish a definite departure, a totally different idea of disparity based on an imaginative dialectical materialism. This notion of rupturing what has gone before is based on a provocative reading of how philosophers can, if they're honest, engage with each other. Slavoj éZiézek borrows Alain Badiou's notion that a true idea is the one that divides. Radically departing from previous formulations of negativity and disparity, éZiézek employs a new kind of negativity: namely positing that when a philosopher deals with another philosopher, his or her stance is never one of dialogue, but one of division, of drawing a line that separates truth from falsity The concept of negativity has long been a topic of obsession and argument for philosophers but Slavoj Žižek would argue that what negativity could mean, might mean and should mean for us and our lives has never been more hotly debated. Negativity explores contemporary ‘negative’ philosophies from Catherine Malabou’s plasticity, Julia Kristeva’s abjection and Robert Pippin’s self-consciousness to the God of negative theology, new realisms and post-humanism and draws a radical line under them. Instead of establishing a dialogue with these other ideas of negativity, Slavoj Žižek wants to establish a definite departure, a totally different idea of negativity based on an imaginative dialectical materialism. This notion of rupturing what has gone before is based on a provocative reading of how philosophers can, if they’re honest, engage with each other. Slavoj Žižek borrows Alain Badiou’s notion that a true idea is the one that divides. Radically departing from previous formulations of negativity, Žižek employs a new kind of negativity: namely positing that when a philosopher deals with another philosopher, his or her stance is never one of dialogue, but one of division, of drawing a line that separates truth from falsity