Changes

 =def==  KANT (see also ANTIGONE/MEDEA, DERRIDA, HEGEL) The Kantian "transcendental' critique is absolutely crucial to Žižek, and he draws on it throughout his work. As Žižek writes. summariz- ing Kant's contribution to the history of philosophy: "On the one hand, the notion of the transcendental constitution of reality involves the loss of a direct naïve empiricist approach to reality; on the other hand, it involves the prohibition of metaphysics, that is, of an alb encompassing world-view providing the noumenal structure of the universe" (p. 167). And yet at the same time Žižek entirely agrees with Hegels argument that Kant himself misunderstood the nature of his breakthrough, that it is necessary to read Kant against or beyond himself. It is this that Hegel represents for Žižek: not an opposítion to Kant or even a simple surpassing of him, but a certain drawing out of consequences that are only implicit in him. As against the distinction between the noumenal and phenomenal in Kant, we can say that the 'shift from Kant to Hegel ... [is] from the tension between immanence and transcendence to the minimal difference gap in immanence itself {{LA}}pp. . . Hegel is thus not external to Kant: the problem with Kant was that he effected the shift but was not ablevii, for structural reasons156, to formulate it explicitly" (p. 236). In this regard157, Kant becomes increas- ingly identined for Žižek with a certain 'masculine' logic of uni- versality and its exception (St)159, while Hegel represents a "feminine logic of the not-all in which there is nothing outside of phenomenal appearances but appearance is not all there is161–162, precisely because of its ability to be marked as such (S). Zižek even goes on to compare Kant's noumenal phenomenal split to Derrida's ethics of 'Otherness167–168 and with Antigone* {{Z}} 's sacrifice of all things for one thing, as opposed to Hegel's truly modern ethics, in which even this cause itself must be sacrinced.    ==Ethical Imperative==<blockquote><ref>Žižek, S. (2000) [[The Fragile Absolute]], or Why the Christian Legacy is Worth Fighting For, London and New York: Verso. p. 133</ref></blockquote>  ==Law==<blockquote><ref>Žižek, S. (2000) [[|The Fragile Absolute]], or Why the Christian Legacy is Worth Fighting For, ]]''. London and New York: Verso. p. 132</ref></blockquote>: ethical imperative, 133: law, 132 ==: Time and Eternity==, 93, 97<blockquote><ref>Žižek, S. (2000) * {{Z}} ''[[The Fragile AbsoluteConversations with Žižek|Conversations with Žižek: Slavoj Žižek and Glyn Daly]], or Why the Christian Legacy is Worth Fighting For, ''. London and New York: VersoPolity Press, 2004. ppp. 9326-7, 62, 127, 131-2, 165, 97</ref></blockquote>166

[[Category:People|Kant, Immanuel]][[Category:Philosophy|Kant, Immanuel]][[Category:PeopleIndex|Kant, Immanuel]][[Category:Slavoj Žižek|Kant, Immanuel]][[Category:Looking Awry|Kant, Immanuel]]