Badiou VS Žižek - Is Lacan An Anti-Philosopher? 08
Debate · nichtsundnull ·
2010-05-28 · 0:14:01 · 1,453 words
with Alain Badiou
hegel-dialecticsideologydemocracyphilosophy-general
Žižek delivers a brief, humorous reply to a previous speaker, praising their definition of Hegel while distinguishing Kantian criticism from anti-philosophy. He then shifts to a meta-commentary on the Q&A format, jokingly accusing the questioner of undermining bourgeois democracy by distributing questions in advance, before quoting Lacan on the future development of ontology.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 3
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
A formula attributed to the previous speaker that Žižek endorses as the best definition of Hegel's project, suggesting a radical separation that is nonetheless immanent to philosophical thought.
The historical/philosophical trajectory from Kant's critical philosophy through Fichte's subjective turn toward anti-philosophy.
Lacan's prediction that someone in the future will develop an ontology based on his teachings, which Žižek cites to highlight the gap between Lacan's intent and current interpretations.
Stories he reaches for 1
Žižek quotes Lacan in French, noting Lacan's claim that someone in the future will develop an ontology of his speech, and Žižek questions whether the current interlocutor is that person.
“Lacan dit que quelqu'un dans le futur va développer une ontologie de ce que je dis.”
People invoked 4
Johann Gottlieb Fichte positive
Cited for making the step to directly refer to a 'non-conceptual person' via the choice of philosophy.
Jacques Lacan positive
Cited for predicting a future ontology of his speech; Žiženg quotes him directly in French.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel positive
Žižek agrees with the previous speaker's definition of Hegel, stating it is the 'best definition of what hegel wants here.'
Immanuel Kant positive
Cited as the starting point of a philosophical path ('path from kant') leading to Fichte and anti-philosophy.
Transcript 24 turns
Alain Badiou
knowledge, matter, and progressively, in fact, disparition of the subject in the sense of the subject in the first part of is something something else. and the substitution of the question of jouissance to the question of desire is very important. and finally, there is an ambiguity because all this way... can be said. uh anti-philosophic nature, but can be said also of philosophic nature. absolutely, i agree with you on this point. but with compliment that if the way of Lacan is finally of philosophic nature, it's in... in a way which is much more, in my opinion, of classical philosophical nature than hegelian philosophical nature. something like that. much more descartes or plato or aristotle than hegel. and we can note that hegel was very important. it's the first part of the work of Lacan. there was a constant discussion with Hegel at the beginning of Lacan and not at the end. and to finish, uh you'd know... i think that the simple... the simple conviction. that there is somewhere. a distance without measure. is not by itself sufficient. to give a definition of the antiphilosopher. because we must add. this distance. cannot be proved or experimented. inside a conceptual framework. the second part. and it is why when... somebody says that i am an anti-philosopher. because on certain grounds, i admit that there existe a distance without measure. a distance without measure which is finally the distance between individuals and subject. une immanent distance between individual and subject. which is without measure why? because to... become a subject. he or her. is able of. the individual must be transformed by something. which is not reducible to him or her. and the name of which is event. an event is really something which creates a new possibility and this new possibility is a possibility for the individual to become a subject. all this machinery. is the machinery which implies that there existe something like a distance without measure. but... it's not true that this distance without measure. implies by obligation that no conceptual means have been able to sink this distance. and so... i am not an anti-philosopher in some sense, but... but a philosopher. oh! the distance itself.
knowledge, matter, and progressively, in fact, disparition of the subject in the sense of the subject in the first part of is something something else. and the substitution of the question of jouissance to the question of desire is very important. and finally, there is an ambiguity because all this way... can be said. uh anti-philosophic nature, but can be said also of philosophic nature. absolutely, i agree with you on this point. but with compliment that if the way of Lacan is finally of philosophic nature, it's in... in a way which is much more, in my opinion, of classical philosophical nature than hegelian philosophical nature. something like that. much more descartes or plato or aristotle than hegel. and we can note that hegel was very important. it's the first part of the work of Lacan. there was a constant discussion with Hegel at the beginning of Lacan and not at the end. and to finish, uh you'd know... i think that the simple... the simple conviction. that there is somewhere. a distance without measure. is not by itself sufficient. to give a definition of the antiphilosopher. because we must add. this distance. cannot be proved or experimented. inside a conceptual framework. the second part. and it is why when... somebody says that i am an anti-philosopher. because on certain grounds, i admit that there existe a distance without measure. a distance without measure which is finally the distance between individuals and subject. une immanent distance between individual and subject. which is without measure why? because to... become a subject. he or her. is able of. the individual must be transformed by something. which is not reducible to him or her. and the name of which is event. an event is really something which creates a new possibility and this new possibility is a possibility for the individual to become a subject. all this machinery. is the machinery which implies that there existe something like a distance without measure. but... it's not true that this distance without measure. implies by obligation that no conceptual means have been able to sink this distance. and so... i am not an anti-philosopher in some sense, but... but a philosopher. oh! the distance itself.
Slavoj Žižek
thank. yeah.
thank. yeah.
Alain Badiou
philosopher of the distance itself. and so the phil philosopher, qui est très near the anti-philosopher. because he says as the philosopher, that there exists that sort of distance. which in the common world is without measure. between individual and subject, which is also the distance without measure, for example, between democracy and communism.
philosopher of the distance itself. and so the phil philosopher, qui est très near the anti-philosopher. because he says as the philosopher, that there exists that sort of distance. which in the common world is without measure. between individual and subject, which is also the distance without measure, for example, between democracy and communism.
Slavoj Žižek
listen, i hope sorry. i propose that i will literally just reply in 20 seconds because i think it's the time to pretend that we are in democracy and so, just literally two remarks. first, i deeply agree with you, this wonderful formula. yes, absolute distance, but within philosophy. you, my friend, provided the best definition of what hegel wants here. okay, this is hegel.
listen, i hope sorry. i propose that i will literally just reply in 20 seconds because i think it's the time to pretend that we are in democracy and so, just literally two remarks. first, i deeply agree with you, this wonderful formula. yes, absolute distance, but within philosophy. you, my friend, provided the best definition of what hegel wants here. okay, this is hegel.
Alain Badiou
right.
right.
Slavoj Žižek
second point, you know, it's nonetheless more, i see your wonderful point about the difference between kantian criticism and anti-philosophy. but you know, there is a path from kant. for example, when you say personal, but already fichte makes the step, you know, when he says what philosophy you choose is depends on what type of a man you are. there he is.
second point, you know, it's nonetheless more, i see your wonderful point about the difference between kantian criticism and anti-philosophy. but you know, there is a path from kant. for example, when you say personal, but already fichte makes the step, you know, when he says what philosophy you choose is depends on what type of a man you are. there he is.
Alain Badiou
the
the
Slavoj Žižek
to directly refer to a non-conceptual person. so, as it may surprise you, but as i promised, i stop now. i know it's strange, but i... ha. tr.
to directly refer to a non-conceptual person. so, as it may surprise you, but as i promised, i stop now. i know it's strange, but i... ha. tr.
Moderator
all right, i think we're open for some questions from the floor.
all right, i think we're open for some questions from the floor.
Slavoj Žižek
did you do a good communist job to undermine bourgeois democracy? you wrote them and distributed the question in advance.
did you do a good communist job to undermine bourgeois democracy? you wrote them and distributed the question in advance.
Alain Badiou
no.
no.
Slavoj Žižek
i knew you, somehow i knew it would be you. uh do you need maybe... yes, you do. for the working classes back.
i knew you, somehow i knew it would be you. uh do you need maybe... yes, you do. for the working classes back.
Alain Badiou
das ein for le proletariat.
das ein for le proletariat.
Moderator
yeah. to to get the two of you to talk about the differences that are fundamental to your two approaches to ontology. despite there being a certain amount of overlap, nonetheless, i think there are some important discrepancies that would warrant discussion here. and what's interesting is Lacan in the 19th seminar, 1971 to 1972, just before he went downhill, according to. he, in one of those sessions, is talking about two of his, for lack of a better word, what we could call axioms that are linked to one another. the first, the grand'autre n'existe pas, the big other does not exist. and then you have to look, there is the one. and when he's talking about these, he makes a remark, just a passing aside, where he says, somebody someday is going to make an ontology out of what i am talking about right now. and arguably both of you seem to be philosophers, or for instance, bruno bosteels calls you an.
yeah. to to get the two of you to talk about the differences that are fundamental to your two approaches to ontology. despite there being a certain amount of overlap, nonetheless, i think there are some important discrepancies that would warrant discussion here. and what's interesting is Lacan in the 19th seminar, 1971 to 1972, just before he went downhill, according to. he, in one of those sessions, is talking about two of his, for lack of a better word, what we could call axioms that are linked to one another. the first, the grand'autre n'existe pas, the big other does not exist. and then you have to look, there is the one. and when he's talking about these, he makes a remark, just a passing aside, where he says, somebody someday is going to make an ontology out of what i am talking about right now. and arguably both of you seem to be philosophers, or for instance, bruno bosteels calls you an.
Alain Badiou
oh
oh
Moderator
but. both of you are philosophers who clearly your projects in certain ways involve developing this. how do each of you see yourselves in terms of being able to say pass through Lacan's maybe anti-philosophy, but it's a bit ambiguous, passing through lacan and developing an ontology, what do you see as the crucial differences between the two of you in terms of how, with those sorts of remarks Lacan is making when he predicts that someone is going to base an ontology off of this? how do you feel that the two of you fundamentally differ? your might say, philosophical development or deployment of these resources of Lacanism. all.
but. both of you are philosophers who clearly your projects in certain ways involve developing this. how do each of you see yourselves in terms of being able to say pass through Lacan's maybe anti-philosophy, but it's a bit ambiguous, passing through lacan and developing an ontology, what do you see as the crucial differences between the two of you in terms of how, with those sorts of remarks Lacan is making when he predicts that someone is going to base an ontology off of this? how do you feel that the two of you fundamentally differ? your might say, philosophical development or deployment of these resources of Lacanism. all.
Slavoj Žižek
je te pas la. yeah.
je te pas la. yeah.
Alain Badiou
ah. je n'ai pas compris la fin de la question.
ah. je n'ai pas compris la fin de la question.
Slavoj Žižek
i.
i.
Alain Badiou
je.
je.
Slavoj Žižek
Lacan dit que quelqu'un dans le futur va développer une ontologie de ce que je dis. donc, est-ce deux qui le font et est la différence entre nous ? c'est une question de semer la différence dans la force de peuple qu'il essaie de faire.
Lacan dit que quelqu'un dans le futur va développer une ontologie de ce que je dis. donc, est-ce deux qui le font et est la différence entre nous ? c'est une question de semer la différence dans la force de peuple qu'il essaie de faire.
Alain Badiou
yes, you know the question of the relationship between lacan and ontology is very great. obscure question in fact, not simple. the book of françois balmès. is a book concerning in fact the question of the relationship. between lacan and the question of being.
yes, you know the question of the relationship between lacan and ontology is very great. obscure question in fact, not simple. the book of françois balmès. is a book concerning in fact the question of the relationship. between lacan and the question of being.
Slavoj Žižek
okay.
okay.
Alain Badiou
in lacan. il find men, men, suggestions de texte, contradictories and so. i think that the... uh a very important point, i think, in lacan himself. is uh... the question of the forms of negativity. what is finally the theory of Lacan concerning nothingness? it's probably more important to be... immediately in face of the question of question the conviction of Lacan concerning being, the affirmative ontology of Lacan. but there are many, many passages. which concerns the forms of negativity, first the lack, but in some sense the excess to the rest and so on. all of that. and i think that it is a reason for which i affirm that all contemporary philosophers must be in discussion with Lacan. not because lacan is properly or exactly a philosopher. but because the question of what is a possible ontology today is transformed by the work of lacan. and so my answer is yes. i think that the common point, one of the common points between slavoj and me is the fact that for us, the learning of lacan, the lesson of lacan, is of fundamental importance. we can disagree and so on on the details. and it's not so true in the contemporary context. because many philosophers in the contemporary context, are explicitly against Lacan. deleuze first, but many others. and it's the first point. in fact, we have two common points. even if i am the master and slavoj is the bricoleur type. it's not completely true, maybe. now you sound a little hysterical. but i recognize that you have the seduction of the hysteric. now, but we have, i think, three points. first, the conviction that philosophy exists. but it's it's not common idea. the conviction of the philosophy exists. and a variation concerning this point. is that we have the conviction that Hegel. is alive. is not dead. we are not the same Hegel, maybe. we can see that in the text. great importance is the first point. philosophy exists. and as a consequence, Hegel exists. second point, the question of revolution, communism and so on is not dead. so we don't affirm the death of the sequence of the two last centuries. we know problems, difficulties, impasses and so on. our subjective conviction is that there is here something to continue. something to continue. maybe in the dark. but to continue. to continue in the dark is not the same thing that to stop. yeah. it second, i have finished. yeah. not between the second and the third point. and...
in lacan. il find men, men, suggestions de texte, contradictories and so. i think that the... uh a very important point, i think, in lacan himself. is uh... the question of the forms of negativity. what is finally the theory of Lacan concerning nothingness? it's probably more important to be... immediately in face of the question of question the conviction of Lacan concerning being, the affirmative ontology of Lacan. but there are many, many passages. which concerns the forms of negativity, first the lack, but in some sense the excess to the rest and so on. all of that. and i think that it is a reason for which i affirm that all contemporary philosophers must be in discussion with Lacan. not because lacan is properly or exactly a philosopher. but because the question of what is a possible ontology today is transformed by the work of lacan. and so my answer is yes. i think that the common point, one of the common points between slavoj and me is the fact that for us, the learning of lacan, the lesson of lacan, is of fundamental importance. we can disagree and so on on the details. and it's not so true in the contemporary context. because many philosophers in the contemporary context, are explicitly against Lacan. deleuze first, but many others. and it's the first point. in fact, we have two common points. even if i am the master and slavoj is the bricoleur type. it's not completely true, maybe. now you sound a little hysterical. but i recognize that you have the seduction of the hysteric. now, but we have, i think, three points. first, the conviction that philosophy exists. but it's it's not common idea. the conviction of the philosophy exists. and a variation concerning this point. is that we have the conviction that Hegel. is alive. is not dead. we are not the same Hegel, maybe. we can see that in the text. great importance is the first point. philosophy exists. and as a consequence, Hegel exists. second point, the question of revolution, communism and so on is not dead. so we don't affirm the death of the sequence of the two last centuries. we know problems, difficulties, impasses and so on. our subjective conviction is that there is here something to continue. something to continue. maybe in the dark. but to continue. to continue in the dark is not the same thing that to stop. yeah. it second, i have finished. yeah. not between the second and the third point. and...