|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | | | |
| − | | + | {{LA}}pp. vii, 156, 157, 159, 161–162, 167–168 |
| − | =def==
| + | * {{Z}} ''[[The Fragile Absolute|The Fragile Absolute, or Why the Christian Legacy is Worth Fighting For]]''. London and New York: Verso. |
| − | | + | : ethical imperative, 133 |
| − | KANT (see also ANTIGONE/MEDEA, DERRIDA, HEGEL)
| + | : law, 132 |
| − | The Kantian "transcendental' critique is absolutely crucial to Žižek,
| + | : Time and Eternity, 93, 97 |
| − | and he draws on it throughout his work. As Žižek writes. summariz-
| + | * {{Z}} ''[[Conversations with Žižek|Conversations with Žižek: Slavoj Žižek and Glyn Daly]]''. London: Polity Press, 2004. pp. 26-7, 62, 127, 131-2, 165, 166 |
| − | 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
| |
| − | . . . Hegel is thus not external to Kant: the problem with Kant was that
| |
| − | he effected the shift but was not able, for structural reasons, to
| |
| − | formulate it explicitly" (p. 236). In this regard, Kant becomes increas-
| |
| − | ingly identined for Žižek with a certain 'masculine' logic of uni-
| |
| − | versality and its exception (St), 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 is, 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 'Otherness
| |
| − | and with Antigone'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>
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | ==Time and Eternity==
| |
| − | <blockquote><ref>Žižek, S. (2000) [[The Fragile Absolute]], or Why the Christian Legacy is Worth Fighting For, London and New York: Verso. p. 93, 97</ref></blockquote>
| |
| | | | |
| | ==References== | | ==References== |
| | <references/> | | <references/> |
| − | 26-7, 62, 127, 131-2, 165, 166 Conversations
| |
| | | | |
| − | [[Category:Philosophy]] | + | [[Category:People|Kant, Immanuel]] |
| − | [[Category:People]] | + | [[Category:Philosophy|Kant, Immanuel]] |
| | + | [[Category:Index|Kant, Immanuel]] |
| | + | [[Category:Slavoj Žižek|Kant, Immanuel]] |
| | + | [[Category:Looking Awry|Kant, Immanuel]] |
