tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2789391831334609438.comments2023-03-18T12:07:09.656-03:00PosthumanitiesRodolfo Piskorskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15950557173506799398noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2789391831334609438.post-60402270276077726432016-02-09T09:28:44.560-02:002016-02-09T09:28:44.560-02:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17388726878703592932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2789391831334609438.post-41306772692564875522015-07-22T14:23:18.832-03:002015-07-22T14:23:18.832-03:00No, those in power would live at the expense of th...No, those in power would live at the expense of the majority! But, yes, it is a pathetic and disturbing, high capitalist system...Crescentsihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08430950362582686303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2789391831334609438.post-66518980822823410002014-04-11T18:57:56.323-03:002014-04-11T18:57:56.323-03:00That's interesting! I think Baudrillard's...That's interesting! I think Baudrillard's Simulacra is a similar idea. :-)Crescentsihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08430950362582686303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2789391831334609438.post-33174580562980668162012-05-09T23:48:05.429-03:002012-05-09T23:48:05.429-03:00Wow your reading makes total sense! Very insightfu...Wow your reading makes total sense! Very insightful! Thanks for the comment!Rodolfo Piskorskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15950557173506799398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2789391831334609438.post-86568199061066468062012-01-17T04:17:32.300-02:002012-01-17T04:17:32.300-02:00Disability is an issue about which we must be awar...Disability is an issue about which we must be aware and should work towards the better environment fro disables.illinois social security disabilityhttp://www.deniedsocialsecuritybenefits.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2789391831334609438.post-15537775285778221132012-01-06T22:59:07.982-02:002012-01-06T22:59:07.982-02:00Interesting stuff - it is rare to find someone wri...Interesting stuff - it is rare to find someone writing about humaness (the human condition) and animality, or animalism.<br /><br />I feel that it is a little unfortunate that you write about race and conceptions of animality, in relation to this. Personally, as a writer and artist, I see animality as being a central component of humaness. I.e. we are all animals (to a degree) and this actuality is regardless of our culture, geography or skin colour. The human condition is universal and ideas such as culture or race shouldn't detract from this essential reality.<br /><br />A paradox of the human condition is that human beings feel that they must refine themselves from their animal neighbours, so we can perceive ourselves as "distinct" from animals. However, by attempting to acheive greater refinement we repress the more animalistic aspects of ourselves and, therefore we find that animality becomes more emphasized in our behaviour. <br /><br />Of course, we are distinct from animals, but not as distinct as we like to be, therefore the essential paradox forms a continual and cyclical nature.<br /><br />:-)<br />SimonCrescentsihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08430950362582686303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2789391831334609438.post-46847395127725272242011-10-24T17:40:15.563-02:002011-10-24T17:40:15.563-02:00(1) Okay, first on bios and Zoe (for Agamben, see ...(1) Okay, first on bios and Zoe (for Agamben, see Derrida as one of many critiques about if such a clear cut distinction between bios and zoe exists in Greek). Bios is qualified life, the particulars of a life that gives you a particular form of life. Human life, to be more specific (though I guess the gods could also have a bios particular to gods?). Zoe is the life in common to animals, humans, and the gods. For Agamben's reading, there is no bios for animals, they only have zoe. <br />So, bare life is when bios (so, basically humans) become confused with zoe (life in general, life that has no particularities). Many people read there being no distinction between bare life and zoe. I'd say they were wrong, on this. Functionally, that matters because for Agamben bare life is a concept that can only exist for humans. <br /><br />(2) This one is a bit more harder to explain. Agamben is drawing heavily on the tradition of sacred sociology. The sacred is fundamentally ambiguous--it is both that which has to be protected and that which can be sacrificed (so destroyed). Agamben isn't really addressing what people mean when they something is sacred, as much as the way that the sacred and the profane work as structuring elements in modern society. I don't know if that helps. <br /><br />(3) I don't understand this question. <br /><br />(4) I don't know what ius exponendi is, and I think that I can't help with this question because I haven't read one of the books at hand (the one you should translate and publish). <br /><br />(5) Eh.Scuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17156611887819008603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2789391831334609438.post-67179612114514615422011-10-24T11:52:24.534-02:002011-10-24T11:52:24.534-02:00I'm going to try and answer some of this quest...I'm going to try and answer some of this questions later (or help answer), but here is my thought: <br />You should translate Ludueña-Romandini's book. It looks awesome.Scuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17156611887819008603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2789391831334609438.post-21281068273576274642011-08-16T18:48:16.194-03:002011-08-16T18:48:16.194-03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11286433502009536222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2789391831334609438.post-82208971408890137792011-07-05T08:42:13.355-03:002011-07-05T08:42:13.355-03:00One thing to note about discussions of lack is its...One thing to note about discussions of lack is its prevalence in discussing human-animal relations ever since ancient Greek philosophy up to the present day. So the discussion is not symmetrical or balanced in the sense of juxtaposing simply two similar but opposite options. <br /><br />I wrote this for a yet to be published (and an admittedly rather emotional) paper:<br /><br />"Yes, the singular four letter word that philosophy uses to disparage all animals, precisely all animals, is indeed lack. This is the Philosophical Prescription concerning animals: they are to be found wanting. This is the law and rule of comparing humans and animals: a mental characteristic found solely by looking at the Man in the Mirror and deemed to be most excellent and glorious, proper only to man and truly worthy of his dignity, is then passed out to animals in some degree, or withheld from them with the same movement. Are they too conscious? Do they too possess language? Do they too fear death? His measuring hand pulls the entire living world together into one single undifferentiated mass, and the blanket judgment he will pass on this multitude that has lost, under his judging gaze, all of its differences, all of its diversity, is negation: what he sees when not gazing into the human mirror is lack and absence: no other creature has what he has, at least not to the same degree (and again, “degree”: the distance is always measurable, that is, it is subsumed under a totalising, homogenizing yardstick that removes all differences in one fell swoop); no other living being can be fully characterised by any criteria he has discovered while admiring himself. Even if, in his better moments, he kindly allows some other animals to have those things he has first found in himself and found excellent, they will have but a shadow, a rudiment, a partial development of that thing, a thing that Homo clausus thinks as the pinnacle of human development. “Oh, the animals, you are but children to our eyes,” says the human, confusing his arrogance with tenderness. The Name of the Animal is Lack, always Lack. To man’s gaze, “animals are nothing but rudimentary human beings, God´s false steps before He got it right with Man”.Unesn6idujahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13297500569930286199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2789391831334609438.post-30413791264445739552011-07-05T08:25:53.935-03:002011-07-05T08:25:53.935-03:00Hey. Just discovered your blog, good to see posthu...Hey. Just discovered your blog, good to see posthumanism being thought all over the world (I think I'm pretty much the only one trying to import this line of thought to the University of Tartu, Estonia).<br /><br />Anyway, concerning Kojeve, Agamben does note that in these snob-related discussions "it is impossible to distinguish between absolute seriousness and an equally absolute irony" and that it is written in a "farcical tone". I read it mostly as Kojeve being a bit fanciful and not too serious. It should also be borne in mind that Kojeve's text is just an endless comment on Hegel, and Hegel's most famous (and from contemporary perspective, an eminently silly) idea was history as the completion and realization of the World-Spirit: for each "age", there is its set course determined by the spirit of the age, which slowly becomes realized over time.<br /><br />So my reading of these bits was essentially: Kojeve took Hegel's idea of World-Spirit and just had a fanciful play with it, toying a round a bit. No surprise really that it sounds puzzling today for non-Hegelians. Note though that this line of thought is still alive and well: Fukuyama's "End of History" stuff is also pure Hegelianism.Unesn6idujahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13297500569930286199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2789391831334609438.post-45193149206006984892010-11-26T03:00:10.727-02:002010-11-26T03:00:10.727-02:00Lack as turning on the ability/disability dyad is ...Lack as turning on the ability/disability dyad is most interesting, and I agree, a troubling aporia, which you bring out. To be alive is at the same time to be limited, because life is contained in its inability to extend itself beyond its own limits. The animal is limited by the human animal on the basis of limitations. An animal can't X. A human can. The analogy seems to suggest we do the same to the disabled. The disabled can't X. But, the can't is circumscribed by the hegemony of the human who can. It is the further limiting of the human in this way, a frightening conjecture played out in fictive form in Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go, that I think demonstrates that lack is mediated by the those who can and those who can't. .Greig Rosellihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03334077247271264789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2789391831334609438.post-91178591499377309822010-11-13T10:17:28.345-02:002010-11-13T10:17:28.345-02:00I find it very unlikely that I have invented that ...I find it very unlikely that I have invented that myself (which would be a very good idea, I'm guessing), but I was checking David Will's translation, and the sentence I remembered as "Whence this animalaise?" reads only "Whence this malaise?". I thought I had checked the original and found "animalaise", but you're right, Wills includes the original in brackets as "animalseance". I'm guessing now that I might have remembered the Portuguese translation "animal-estar" together with "Whence this malaise?" and thought I had seen "animalaise" in the original. But does it really matter Derrida didn't say it? You can quote me, if you want. ;)Rodolfo Piskorskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15950557173506799398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2789391831334609438.post-84778791528643325262010-11-08T14:14:47.648-02:002010-11-08T14:14:47.648-02:00I am passionate about Disability Studies and Anima...I am passionate about Disability Studies and Animal Studies as well and find these arguments between one another irrelavent. As living beings regardless of our abilities should treat one another with the up-most dignity and respect, we must listen to our fellow members of the disability community and seek universality in our society. We should also treat animals with respect and not abuse them. Maybe then we wouldn't have such arguments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2789391831334609438.post-5065234628369431992010-10-22T15:15:16.722-02:002010-10-22T15:15:16.722-02:00Page? Paragraph? He talks about malaise, he talks ...Page? Paragraph? He talks about malaise, he talks about animalseance, but in my translation (the David Wills' book version from Stanford UP) there is no construction "animalaise."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2789391831334609438.post-3381248669671406822010-09-18T09:37:32.395-03:002010-09-18T09:37:32.395-03:00Derrida uses it in the beggining of his lecture &q...Derrida uses it in the beggining of his lecture "The Animal that Therefore I Am".Rodolfo Piskorskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15950557173506799398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2789391831334609438.post-28636593852201042212009-11-23T13:29:27.265-02:002009-11-23T13:29:27.265-02:00I have been obsessed with the word "animalai...I have been obsessed with the word "animalaise" ever since I first saw it on this blog. But I can't find where Derrida uses the term. Can you help me out?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2789391831334609438.post-2926038473168625562009-08-31T18:15:34.727-03:002009-08-31T18:15:34.727-03:00que foda =Dque foda =DFernandonoreply@blogger.com