Cliquer sur une vignette pour aller sur Google Books.
Chargement... The Animal That Therefore I Ampar Jacques Derrida
Aucun Chargement...
Inscrivez-vous à LibraryThing pour découvrir si vous aimerez ce livre Actuellement, il n'y a pas de discussions au sujet de ce livre. Derrida just bein' Derrida (not snitchin' - that's Curtis just bein' Currrrtis; ask Cam'ron), with some cool ideas about humanity/selfness defining itself to itself by its (self-)consciousness of nudity in the inhuman gaze of the animal; of nudity, hence shame, being necessary to the human, and the animal being non-nude in its unclothedness; and ultimately, a tentative attempt at understanding the animal fuer sich, as opposed to animal as Unknowable (I move we retire "Other" wherever possible and replace with this term) against which humanity is defined (and is always post-, following after), and to come to terms with what the subjection of the animal means for the human. He expands Bentham's "Can they suffer?" to "Are there types of selfhood beyond the ones we know?" - and of course it follows that the man/nature duality is bunk, but that's almost by the by. There's something mad and beautiful in it - not "extend humanity to animals" but "situate the logos inside something inclusive and large, that encompasses but is not limited to it. Be Alice in Wonderland. Be Nietzsche crying for a horse. Salute the divine in a pet. When you don't know what's a mouth and what's a sex organ, imagine what it would be like to look at you and wonder the same thing." And does Derrida have a pun for it? You better believe it. It's animot, which I can only take to be putting mots in amongst a verdance of animal-language that helps us take difference on trust, and imagine ways a skylark could be as nobly foreign as a chimaera. Don't kill the foreign just because it pins you down and stares at you and makes you feel shame. Don't let autobiography, identity, make you septic. Don't be Bellerophon. But Derrida's better than me at saying great stuff without forcing it into the positive and the imperative, so let me leave you with a quote: "It would not be a matter of 'giving speech back' to animals, but perhaps of acceding to a thinking, however fabuous and chimerical it may be, that thinks the absence of the name and of the word otherwise, as something other than a privation." aucune critique | ajouter une critique
Appartient à la série
Souvent je me demande, moi, pour voir, qui je suis - et qui je suis au moment où, surpris nu, en silence, par le regard d'un animal, par exemple les yeux d'un chat, j'ai du mal, oui, du mal à surmonter une gêne. Pourquoi ce mal ? J'ai du mal à réprimer un mouvement de pudeur. Du mal à faire taire en moi une protestation contre l'indécence. Contre la malséance qu'il peut y avoir à se trouver nu, le sexe exposé, à poil devant un chat qui vous regarde sans bouger, juste pour voir. Malséance de tel animal nu devant l'autre animal, dès lors, on dirait une sorte d'animalséance : l'expérience originale, une et incomparable de cette malséance qu'il y aurait à paraître nu en vérité, devant le regard insistant de l'animal, un regard bienveillant ou sans pitié, étonné ou reconnaissant. Un regard de voyant, de visionnaire ou d'aveugle extra-lucide. C'est comme si j'avais honte, alors, nu devant le chat, mais aussi honte d'avoir honte. Réflexion de la honte, miroir d'une honte honteuse d'elle-même, d'une honte à la fois spéculaire, injustifiable et inavouable. Au centre optique d'une telle réflexion se trouverait la chose - et à mes yeux le foyer de cette expérience incomparable qu'on appelle la nudité. Et dont on croit qu'elle est le propre de l'homme, c'est-à-dire étrangère aux animaux, nus qu'ils sont, pense-t-on alors, sans la moindre conscience de l'être. Honte de quoi et nu devant qui ? Pourquoi se laisser envahir de honte ? Et pourquoi cette honte qui rougit d'avoir honte ? Devant le chat qui me regarde nu, aurais-je honte comme une bête qui n'a plus le sens de sa nudité ? Ou au contraire honte comme un homme qui garde le sens de la nudité ? Qui suis-je alors ? Qui est-ce que je suis ? À qui le demander sinon à l'autre ? Et peut-être au chat lui-même ? [4e de couv.] Aucune description trouvée dans une bibliothèque |
Discussion en coursAucunCouvertures populaires
Google Books — Chargement... GenresClassification décimale de Melvil (CDD)194Philosophy and Psychology Modern western philosophy French philosophersClassification de la Bibliothèque du CongrèsÉvaluationMoyenne:
Est-ce vous ?Devenez un(e) auteur LibraryThing. |
Anyone following Derrida's work on animals (in translation) is already familiar with the title essay and his takedown of Lacan (where Derrida puts under question the distinctions between reaction and response and feigning and the (purportedly uniquely human capacity of) feigning to feign). Now, however, you have JD's work on animals in Descartes, Kant, Adorno (who gets a gold star here: if JD had had time to develop it, so would Nietzsche, Kafka, and Montaigne), and Levinas. And, as a special bonus, a transcription of JD's extempore remarks on Heidegger and the animal. These remarks are heartbreaking, as they're full of asides on the lines of "since we have just 10 minutes" and "I'll do it, I hope, if I have the time and the strength." He would live for another 10 years, but that hope remained unfulfilled.
At the same time, the very presentness of his remarks, his apologies for keeping people from their dinner, keeps his thought here, perhaps more than anywhere else, in the moment, contingent, freed from the pretension of speaking from a place of Truth. He takes Heidegger down for, among other things, a lack of phenomenological rigor, whereas there is no moment in Derrida that I know (which isn't very far) where he is more mitsein (can I do that?) his topic, his audience, and even his readers, whose own dinners are suspended for a time while Derrida speaks, and wonders, once again. ( )