why don’t we live in the world anymore?

OriginalPaperUDC141.2:316.323.64

st,2015

Alpar LošoncUniversityofNoviSad,FacultyofTechnicalSciences,TrgDositejaObradovića6,RS–21000NoviSad

[email protected]

Why Don’t We Live in the World Anymore?

AbstractStarting with the crisis related to the embeddedness in the world in the late capitalism, this paper presents representative replicas in relation to this crisis-based constellation. It emphasizes three answers to the question of why do not we live in the world and why we are confronted with the term non-world. Jean-Luc Nancy elaborates a sophisticated and highly speculative philosophy dealing with the signification of the world. He pays special attention to the ending of the world by globalization processes. Developing a militant phi-losophy related to the capitalo-parliamentarism, Alain Badiou emphasizes the gap between the transcendental aspect of the world and the late capitalist conditions. Franck Fischbach is concerned with the articulation of our participation in the world by dispossession and leads us to the meaning of the privatized world. From the perspective of the meaning of the world, he significance of the analysis of the late capitalist society reproduction is pointed out. The author of the paper offers an argumentation that is based on the re-articulation of the notion of katechon in order to “save the world”. Recalling the implications of real abstraction as the reality principle in capitalism, the paper provides a critical hermeneutics of real abstractions.

Keywordsworld,crisis,capitalism,realabstraction,socialdeterminations,katechon

Ifweaskthequestionwhetherornotweliveinaworld,listeningtophilo-sophicaldiscoursesinthelasttwocenturies,theanswerwouldbe“no”with-outmuchhesitation.Itshouldbenotedthattheabove-mentionedperiodhasbroughttoexistenceatendencyinphilosophywhichoffersargumentationinfavourofthefactthatwedo notliveintheworld.Hasnotphenomenology,or thephilosophy that followsHeidegger and talks emphatically about theworldanditsnon-objecthorizons,thetranscendentalcategoryof“complete-ness”,theworldasatotality,1orasanabsolutelyunavailablemoment,alwaysencounteredcriticalprocesses?Hasnotself-reflection,sotypicalformodernphilosophers,drawnintoitswhirlacrisisasamediumforself-understand-ing?Inaddition,wecouldsaythatthecontemporarydiscourseaboutcrisisalwaysimmanentlyincorporatesthereflectionaboutcrisis.Inthissense,Ki-erkegaard’sstatementontheimposedfactaboutbirth(“HowdidIcomeintotheworld?”)isjustasymptomofthegnosticmomentsalreadypresentinthe18thand19thcentury,2andwhichpredictedtheepochal(crisisrelated)experi-enceofalienation/strangeness.

1

JanPatočka,Le monde naturel comme prob-lème philosophique,Nijhoff,LaHaye1976,p.5.

2

Ongnosticaspectscf.HansJonas,The Gnos-tic Religion. The message of the Alien God & the Beginnings of Christianity,BeaconPress,

doi:10.21464/sp31101ReceivedJanuary1

10.21464/sp31101

https://doi.org/10.21464/sp31101

SYNTHESISPHILOSOPHICA61(1/2016)pp.(5–26)

A. Lošonc, Why Don’t We Live in theWorldAnymore?6

Letus illustrate this relationbetweenacrisis andaworldexperiencewithtwo contemporary examples. The starting point is the already mentionedphenomenology in which framework we find Maurice Merleau-Ponty, thephilosopherwhodescribes thebaroqueworld as abundant in implications.His philosophy affirms the unbreakable co-presence of human beings andtheworld,thatis,astrongsyncretism.Themomentofembeddednessisjustnotenoughforahumanbeing;Merleau-Pontyclaimsthatweare“fromtheworld”.3Theconceptof‘being-in-the-world’willsurelyalwaysbringusbacktotheFrenchphilosopherwhoseestheworldseparatelyfromthetotalityofthingsorcausalrelationships.Ontheotherhand,wefindarepresentativeofmodernacosmismamongthephenomenologists,namelyMichelHenry,whoattacksallthecontemplationsthatfocusontheworld.Thus,healsocriticizesHeideggerforremaininginsidetheboundariesoftheworldphilosophy.Hesharestheunderlyingmotive(acosmism)withSpinoza,butthedirectionofhisphilosophyisdifferent.Henryseesthedichotomybetweenlife,whichisconnectedwiththeprimaryself,andtheworld,4thatis,hepresentsthedual-itybetweentheimmediatesubjectiverealityandtheworld.Ontheonehand,thereisanindividualphenomenologicallife,affectivityfocusedonthe“liv-ingpresent”,anexperienceofsufferinganddespair,whileontheotherhand,thereisaworldwhoselightshinesonthemechanismsofmediation.NothingexpressesthisorientationaspregnantlyasHenry’smonographyonMarx:phenomenologicallife(asa prioriassumptionabouthistory)opposesthe“historyoftheworld”andthedialecticalconceptofhistory.5Henrypleadsfortheconsiderationofthea prioriconditionsofhistorywhichareinherentinthefactualflowofhistory,butthoseveryconditionsopposethe“ontologicalandonticexperienceoftheworld”.Inthisconstellation,anindividualphe-nomenologicalexperienceischaracterizedbyaradicalprincipleofnon-rela-tion.Suchphenomenologicalaffectivityisthekeyinstanceinrelationtotheworldwhich isdeterminedbyobjectivedialecticmediation.Philosophyoftheworldiscriticizedforitsillusoryideathatlifecanbeviewedinthecontextoftheworld–lifecannotevenbepresentedintheworldwhichispromotedasthetoposthatenablesthediscoveryoflife.Lifeoforiginaryipseitasshouldbeisolatedfromtheworldanditshouldnotbeattributedwithanyworld-re-lated“meanings”.PhilosophywhichseesthecategoryoflifeindependentlyfromtheworlddefinesMarx’sproletariatfromtheaspectofphenomenologi-calaffectivity.Onlythen,whenitisopposedtotheworld,affectivelydefinedproletariatcanbepositionedinthecontextofthe“productionoflife”.Onlyaffectivity can establish the dynamics between the history and a path of aworld-historicalindividualbecause

“…ifahumanbeingisabeingoftheworldintelligibleinthetruthoftheworld,thenwemustcometotermswithhim:thishumanbeingisnotanIpseity(…).AndahumanbeingwhoisnotanIndividualandwhoisnotaSelfisnotaman.The human being of the world is merely an optical illusion. ‘man’ does not exist.”6

Thiscriticismof immanent lifecanbeunderstoodonlyifwebear inmindthefactthatHenrywritesabout epochal crisis. Hethematisestheworldpro-vocatively,fromtheaspectoftheomnipresentcrisis.Theworldisneverdis-cussedwithoutmentioningthecrisis.Theworldisnotanintersectionoftheabundantdiversificationswhichcanbearticulatedphenomenologically,buta bunch of mediations and representations. Henry does not hesitate to usetheterm‘barbarism’;7thedramaticdepictionofthepresentismarkedwithcriticalmoments.Barbarismisthenegationoflife.Art,whilestilldeservingitsname,isaconstantprotestagainsttheself-negationoflife.Henrymocks



thevenalartistslostintheirpresentationoftheworld,whoalsosupportocu-larcentricorientation.InthebookDu communisme au capitalisme. Théorie d`une catastrophe,whichcanbecategorizedasoneoftherareventuresthatphilosophicallytreat thesubjectof transitionfrom“communismtocapital-ism”,8Henrymentionsfascismandrecognizesthepossibilityofitsgrowthinreal-socialismandpost-socialistcapitalism.WhilereadingHenry’swork,wecannotaskthequestion–why don’t we live in the word anymore?Whatweseeasaproblem,Henryseesasanassump-tion.Henry’sphilosophyisontheothersideofthereflectionabouttheworld;heseestheworldasaformofrootedcrisis.Atthesametime,hisphilosophy,whichtendstoreformulateeverything,followsthecrisisintheworld.Weshallnow turn toanother thinker,OdoMarquard,whoseeshimselfasa“scepticalconservative”,andwhois important forourcomprehensionofthe relationbetween theworld and crisis.As a conservative, he shouldbesensitivetothevariousdescriptionsofthefranticsocio-economicdynamicsinthecontinuouslyacceleratingworld.Heisnotreferringtothefamous19thcenturycrisistheoreticianJacobBurckhardt,9whotackledtheproblemofac-celerationlongbeforecurrentdiscussions,includingtheimplicationswithre-specttoa“world-historical”individual.Historicalcrisesareacceleratedproc-essesleadingustotheconclusionthatthemodern world is identified with the modalities of acceleration.10Thepaceofchangecontinuouslyincreasesandtheobsolescenceofthephenomenathatenteredtheworldasanoveltyisalsospeedingup:itisthemodernpanta rhei.Marquardseesthemodernworldinthecontextofacollectivesingularity,thatis,asauniversalhistorywhichisnothingmorethananattempttodealwiththeworldasatoposofspeed.Inthemodernity,humanbeingsobeythespeedoftheworldandcreateauniversalhistoryinordertocopewiththatspeed.A“scepticalconservative”aimsatsaving the world.Thetendencyofconserv-atismisalwaystheconservationoftheworld–theindicationwhichusedtobementionedquiteoftenandwhichcontroversiallydeformsfamousMarx’s

Boston2001,pp.320–341.Foraperspectiveoncrisisintheworldcf.MarionBernard,“Lemondecommeproblèmephilosophique”,Les Études philosophiques98(3/2011),pp.351–373.doi:https://doi.org/10.3917/leph.113.0351.

3

4

5

MichelHenry,marx (Vol.I,Une philosophie de la réalité),Gallimard,Paris1976,p.186.

6

MichelHenry, I Am the Truth. Toward a Phi-losophy of Christianity, Stanford UniversityPress,Stanford2003,p.124.

7

Michel Henry, La Barbarie, Grasset, Paris1988,p.161.

8

Cf.MichelHenry,Du communisme au capi-talisme. Théorie d`une catastrophe, OdileJacob,Paris1990.

9

Jacob Burckhardt, Weltgeschichtliche Betra-chtungen (Jacob Burckhardts Gesammelte Werke,Vol.4),Schwabe&CoVerlag,Basel–Stuttgart1970,p.193;OdoMarquard,“Uni-versalgeschichteundMultiversalgeschichte”,in Odo Marquard, Apologie des Zufälligen,PhilippReclam,Stuttgart1986,pp.54–75.

10

ReinhartKoselleck,Vergangene Zukunft: Zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten, Suhrkamp,FrankfurtamMain1979.

MichelHenry,Incarnation,Seuil,Paris2000,pp. 135; Peter Hallward, “The One or theOther.FrenchPhilosophyToday”,Angelaki 8(2/2003),pp.1–32.doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0969725032000162549.

Ontheevidenceofperception(Merleau-Pon-ty),andexperienceoftheworld(Patočka)cf.Émilie Tardivel, “La liberté comme expéri-ence du monde”, Philosophie 118 (2/2013),pp. 67–77. doi: https://doi.org/10.3917/phi-lo.118.0067.

https://doi.org/10.3917/philo.118.0067

https://doi.org/10.1080/0969725032000162549



thesisbystatingthatphilosophersofhistorychangedtheworldindifferentways,yettheirgoalwastodefendit.11Therefore,ourepochwillbeviewedin the light of conservation – the rejection of eschatology (which negatestheworld)hasconservativeimplications.Humbleconservatismdefendstheworldagainstgnosticflurrythatcallsforagodoutsideofthisworldforsal-vation–areferencetolateGnosticismasthedestructoroftheworldisafre-quentindicationofcontroversyinregardtomodernphilosophers.12Marquardannouncesdiscordancewitheveryprogramwhichendsintheabsolutionofhumanbeings.Hewantstosavetheworldbyplacingahumanbeinginacon-tingentworld,inaplacewherehumanbeingsaredeterminedbynarrationandcontingencies.Marquarddoesnotaimattribunalization,whichisjudgingtheworldinthenameofcriticism.Tribunalizationclosesthedoortotheworldinordertojudgetheworldforthefinaltime.Thefinaljudgmentismadewithoursearchfor themeaningofourexperiences,as theworld,aimingat thefinaltruth,exposesitselftothecrisis.Thereisadiscussionaboutthe“rapidalienationfromtheworld”,whichimpliesthe“dispersionofexperience”.13The“dispersionofexperience”referstothefactthattheopticsofyouth,pre-sentingtheworldcontingencies,exposethemselvestothefearofthedisorderofdispersedcontingencies.Ambitionsaimedatovercoming thecontingen-ciesculminatedduringtheworldcrisis.ThephilosophicalreflectionsofHenryandMarquardusecrisistoshedlighton the world configuration: the first one transcends the world frameworkbasedonsubjectivity,whichcannotmergewiththeobjectivityoftheworld,andthe second one makesdiagnosisregardingthecrisisinthecontextofanecessity todefend thecontingenthorizonsof theworld, implying thatallreflectionsaimingat somethingabsolutewill sooneror laterendup in thenegationoftheworld.Thefirstone,employingametahistoricaldimension,thatis,themomentofimmediatesubjectivity,refutesthephilosophiesoftheworldandthesecondoneperceivesantinomyofthecontemporaryconstella-tion,togetherwiththephilosophyoftheworldandtheaffirmationoftruth,imperilstheworld,butisstillconsideredastheaffirmationoftheworld.

Crisis and the world, but from the perspective of socialization

Inordertoanswerthequestionwhydonotweliveintheworldanymore,wefirstneedtomakeonedecision.Here,also,wetakethesamepathasHenry,but differently fromtheFrenchphilosopher.WheneverHenryassailsthedia-lecticswhichfocusesontheworldobjectivity,healsocriticizesthehypostasisofsocietyasthemaincategory.14Sincewehavealreadymentionedhismono-graphaboutMarx,weshouldcontinuewiththecorrespondingindicationsasHenrywasalwaysparticularlyinterestedinMarx’sreflections,whichcouldbe interpretedas theaffirmationof individualphenomenological life.Thatway,theimplicationssuchas“societyasthereificationofhumansubstance”,or“societyasasinglesubject”,and“fictiononthesocietyasindividual”canbefoundinthecriticism.Thus,readingMarxasifheisarealitythinker,andthathisthesisisnotbasedonobjectivitybutphenomenologicallife,resolvesMarxfromtheworldaspect.15

Itcouldbesaidthat“society”appearsasaperspectivewhichleadstoanewworld.Criticismdirectedatanon-authenticworldnecessarilyreferstoacom-prehensionofsociety.Itmeansthattheinterpretationoftheworldmustin-cludecategoriesofsociety,andtheprocesses(“mondialisation”)thatrelatetotheworld(“being-in-the-world”)alwayshave“inter-social”significations.If



wewishtodiscoverwhetherthereisacrisisintheinterpretationoftheworld,wemust include thearticulationofsocialcategories.Thedemarcation linecannotbedrawnbetweenthe“world”and“reality”,norcanthe“world”,atleastwhenitisconsideredtobeimmanent,bespatiallysituated“behind”thesocietyasabackgroundcomplexofvariouscategories.16Thiskindofreason-ingcanleadustoanideaaccordingtowhichthesocietyisonlyimaginaryandtheworldistheessence.However,wemustnotforgetaboutthea prioriof theworldwithrespect tosocietyasaninevitabledeterminingconstella-tion.Theanalysisofthecrisisthathashittheworldmustbebasedonsocialdynamics.When Marquard discusses speed as an aspect of the last century, he fullyrecognizestheinevitabletendency,butwithalackofspecificsocialcatego-rieshecannotreachtheterm“creativedestruction”whichisadeterminantofthesocietythatisdefinedbythedynamicofcapital.Indeed,speedistheexpressionofstructuralsocialtendencies.Accelerationpresentsthetemporalstructuresofcapitalisminthesensethatthenegationbehind“decomposition”becomesapositiveentity.WhenMarquardrelatesthecontinualaccelerationandalienationoftheworldheagainrecognizestheunavoidableaspectofourepoch,buthefailstoseethatcontinualaccelerationisaparadoxwhichleadsto demobilization regarding the transcendence of society. Marquard disap-provedtheideaofthefinaltruthbeinginaplaceforgottenbytheGod,yetwehaveanotherproblem–theproblem of transcendence in immanence.Thegeneralaccelerationintheformofthesocially established regimesoftempo-ralityresultsinrigidityregardingthechangesofthestatusquo.Whydon’twetrytounderstandHenry,thedividerof“reality”intolifeand“corrupted”world,onthebasisof“tounderstandtheauthorbetterthantheauthorhimself”principle, that is, as a criticismof a fakeworldhiding in-terwovendeterminationswithamarkof“social”?Whynotacceptcriticismabouttheworld,whichcanbeviewedinthemannerofyoungHegel,as“posi-tivity”?Finally,ifhereweraisetheunavoidablequestionofthedivergenceof“mondialisation”and“world”,thenaren’tprocessessuchastheworldwidehomogenizationofstandardsexactlytheexpressionof“inter-social”tenden-cies?Aren’tthediscourseswhichthematisethe“system-world”17andcontainnumerouscriticalimplicationsaboutperpetuatingstructuralviolencerelevantforunderstandingtheworld?Itisneedlesstoprovethatthetriumphalunifica-tionoftheworldbymeansofcapitalcanbeunderstoodonlyonthebasisof

11

OdoMarquard,Schwierigkeiten mit der Ge-schichtsphilosophie,Suhrkamp,FrankfurtamMain1982,p.13.

12

EricVoegelin,Wissenschaft, Politik und Gno-sis, München, Kösel 1959. Taubes impliesthis inregardtoMarx,whomheseesasthefinal figure of European eschatology and athinkerwhorejectstheworld.JacobTaubes, Occidental Eschatology,StanfordUniversityPress,Stanford2009,p.171.

13

ThisevokesWalterBenjamin’sreflectionsre-gardingtheconsequencesofWorldWarI.

14

M.Henry,marx,pp.162–223.

15

Marxdoesnothaveapositivisticconceptof‘society’.Foradifferentunderstandingofin-dividuallifecf.LucaBasso,marx and Singu-larity. From the Early Writings to the Grund-risse,Brill,Leiden2012.

16

LucBoltanski,De la critique. Précis de so-ciologie de l`émancipation,Gallimard,Paris2007, p. 94. Boltanski reduces “reality” tostaticrelationshipsandimpliesthattheworldis“immanent”withoutany“transcendence”.

17

Itismeantasthetheoryofworldsystem.Cf.JacquesBidet,“Lemarxismefaceàl’histoireglobale”,Actuel marx 53(1/2013),pp.106–120.doi:https://doi.org/10.3917/amx.053.0106.



theanalysisofsocialdeterminations.Wearetherelationship withtheworld,butalwaysthroughastructuredsocialconstellation.Fromthisviewpoint, thereflectionthat involves thephilosophical analysisofsociety18ismorethanwelcome,anditisrelevantregardingthearticula-tionof theworldasgenerallyconcrete.Wedonot thinkabout ‘society’assomethinggivenbutabout thesocietywhich isdeterminedby the logicofself-valuatingcapital,andthispresumesfieldsfurrowedwithdifferencesandtheelementsofpowerconfiguration.Wearediscussingthesocietywhichistornbycontradictionsandwhichcontradictsitselfaswell.Askingcriticallyaboutthe world which was created by history meanssearchingbetweenatrueandanon-truestructure,propagatingtheworldasaplacewheretruth,whichpredeterminedforitselfsomethingthatisnon-true,canstillbeexperienced.Itisasocietythatisconstantlybeingcreatedbecausesocialityisalwaysmedi-ated;itiscreatedintheprocessesofmediationthroughthespheresofproduc-tion,distribution,exchange,andconsumption,byintegratingandinvolvingobjectsandthesubjectivecapacitiesofhumanbeingsintotheabstractcom-mercialworldwheredifferentiation is realizedon thebasisofquantitativedifferences.Hencevariousdiscussionsabouttheperceptionofobjects19inthemodernworldandthedifferentiatedpositions20intheworldmustbefilteredthroughthecategoriesofthiskindofsociality.Thefollowingquestionshouldbeasked:what kind ofworlddowehaveincapitalisminwhich,accordingtothefamousstatementofCapital,wealthis“like”a“hugecollectionofcom-modities”?Noteverythingisacommodityorapreyofcommodification,buteverythingappearsinacertainform.21Thus,theworld(ofcommodities)isrevealedinacertain modality.Socialityconsideredherecannotbeunderstoodwithoutbearinginmindthedominationof“realabstraction”.22Whenwediscusstheworldfromtheper-spectiveofhistory,weshouldbeawareofthefactthatthecapitalistsocialitycannotbeunderstoodwithoutreferring to the totalizationdynamicof“realabstraction”.Thisattributeindicatesthatthisisnotamentalstructureasmuchasitis“real”.Itisoperatingsocialprocesseswhichcondensedifferentformsof“abstraction”–anabstractivebalance.Thequestionofthegenesisofthehistoricalworldimposesthequestionaboutthehistoryof“real”abstractions.Fromthisviewpoint,theinterpretationofrealabstractionsexplainsabstrac-tion as a capitalistic principle of reality, the foundation of social “reality”as a “synthetic principle” which collects particularities into the articulatedwhole.23Realabstractionactsasa“syntheticprinciple”,meaningthatsocial-ityisincludedin toto,insteadofjustsomeofitscategoriesbeingincluded.Theexpression“societymetesoutmeasureformeasure”24indicatesthedom-inationofabstractionwhichaffectstheexperienceoftheworld.Hencetheformulation“socializedworld”.Thus,“realabstraction”deliversameasureforperceptionintheworld.Thisthrowslightonthedynamicoftemporalityandspatiality,“theannihilationofspacebytime”(Marx),thedifferentiatedforms of re-spatialisation, the various forms of simultaneity within the hi-erarchicalregimesoftemporality,synchronicanddiachronicsequences,theforcedsynchronizationinthenameoftheworldmarket,“temporalizationofspace”,25separatingactsinspace,andtheimposingof“nomosinspace”.26Thisexplainstheregimesofadoption:animageofsociallymediatedcrossingbetweentimeandspaceforthepurposeoftherealizationofrealabstractionrevealsitself.Herewehaveacriticallamentationonspace,wheredistanceisbeingreducedandtheconceptofpower-essenceiscreatedeverywhere,27andwherethemeasurebetweenadjacencyanddistanceislost,whereeverypoint



inspaceisnear,butspatialdisorientationiscreated.Temporalityandspatial-ityareused tomeasure theabstractionswhichspreaddiffusely throughoutsociety,whileabstractionsintroducethestandardsthroughwhichdisciplinesandnormsarerealized.Nothing should be added about “nature”.28 Nature is observed as a set ofthe dynamics of real abstractions. This implies that we are moving awayfromtheabstractionwhich,byfollowingthesubject–object logic,presentsthemetaphysicaloppositionbetweenthehumanbeingandnature.Insteadofthe“Anthropocene”logic,whichinvolvestheassumedexternalinfluenceofthe“man”onnature,hereweprefer“Capitalocene”,i.e.a“world-ecology”whichsummarizesthedialecticunityofthebreakthroughofcapitalandthe“co-productionofnature”.29Here,itisnotonlythesociety/naturedualitythatisdeconstructed,butwealsogetaninsightintothementionedco-presence,butalwaysinthecontextofthedominationofrealabstractions.

18

Franck Fischbach, manifeste pour une phi-losophie sociale,LaDécouverte,Paris2009.

19

Timothy Morton, Realist magic: Objects, Ontology, Causality, Open Humanity Press,AnnArbor2013.

20

JimHolt,Why Does the World Exist? An Ex-istentialist Detective Story, Liveright Com-panion,NewYork2012.

21

Onerscheintcf.MassimilianoTomba,marx’s Temporalities,Brill,Leiden2012,p.99.

22

ThiscanbefoundinSimmel,butitexplainsMarx’s approach: Georg Simmel, Philoso-phie des Geldes, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt amMain1989,p.57.OnthedifferencesbetweenMarx’s,Hegel’s,andFeuerbach’sunderstand-ingofabstractionscf.GérardBensussan,“Ab-strait/concret”, in: Georges Labica, GérardBensussan (eds.), Dictionnaire critique du marxisme,PUF,Paris1999,pp.4–5;MoishePostone, Time, Labor, and Social Domina-tion,CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge1993.

23

On the subject cf. Alberto Toscano, “TheOpenSecretofRealAbstraction”,Rethinking marxism 20 (2/2008), pp. 273–287. doi: ht-tps://doi.org/10.1080/08935690801917304.Foradifferentaccountcf.PaoloVirno,“TheTwo Masks of Materialism”, Pli: The War-wick Journal of Philosophy 12 (2001), pp.167–173. Here, it is not a discussion aboutwhether the domination of real abstractioncanbetreatedinanepistemologicaloronto-logicalkey.Besides,thefactthatabstractionis an operable principle in capitalism givescapitalism some philosophical dimensions.Capitalismisdeterminedphilosophically;itsmechanisms are genuine philosophical prin-

ciples.“Capital”isalsoanotion,andnotjustmere, simplepower. It isnot the“bourgeoi-sie”thatrules,itisthe“notion”.

24

Theodor W. Adorno, Negative Dialectics,Routledge,NewYork1973,p.283.

25

Cf.M.Tomba,marx’s Temporalities.

26

ThisindicationisbasedonHusserlandCarlSchmitt; cf. Frederic Jameson, “Notes onthe Nomos”, The South Atlantic Quarterly 104 (2/2005), pp. 199–204. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/00382876-104-2-199.FredricJa-meson, Representing Capital: A Reading of Volume One,Verso,London2014,p.109.

27

OnHeidegger’sdescriptionscf.FranckFisch-bach,La privation de monde,LibrariePhilo-sophique–Vrin,Paris2011,p.18.

28

On“nature”asaproblematizedcategorycf.Timothy Morton, Ecology without Nature, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA)2007.

29

“Anthropocene” narration presents the “hu-manbeing”whoachievespowerovernature;forcriticismofthispointcf.AndreasMalm,AlfHornborg,“TheGeologyofMankind?ACritiqueoftheAnthropoceneNarrative”,The Anthropocene Review1(1/2014),pp.62–69.doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019613516291.For thenotionof “Capitalocene” cf. Ja-sonMoore, “‘This loftymountainof silvercouldconquerthewholeworld’.Potosíandthe political ecology of underdevelopment,1545–1800”,Journal of Philosophical Eco-nomics 4 (1/2010), pp. 58–103. Here, “na-ture” is a matrix which operates throughhumanbody.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08935690801917304

https://doi.org/10.1215/00382876-104-2-199

https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019613516291



Thus,capitalistsocialityand thehistoricalspecificityofcorrespondingab-stractions isviewedhere as articulation qua creation/conquestof a certainhistorical-specificworld.Wedonotthinkofthe“sociality”whichinfluencestheworldbyexertingexternalpressure,wethinkofthefactthatcapitalismorganizesintheworld,asthe“historical”worlddoesasaresultofitsprinci-pleofreality.

Three answers to the question of why we do not live in the world

1. Immanence and coexistence: Divergence of the world and globalization

Aselectionofexamplesisquotedhere,inwhichJean-LucNancypresentsthesubjectof“non-world”.Weexperiencethe“endoftheworld”because“…theworldhaslostitscapacityto‘formaworld’(faire monde):itseemsonlytohavegainedthatcapacityofproliferating,totheextentofitsmeans,the‘unworld’[immonde](…).Thefactthattheworldisdestroyingitselfisnotahypothesis:itisinasensethefactfromwhichanythinkingoftheworldfollows”,30

and“…thereisnolongeranyworld:nolongeramundus,acosmos,acomposedandcompleteorder(from)withinwhichonemightfindaplace,adwelling,andtheelementsofanorientation.”31

AsignificantpartofNancy’sphilosophypresentshisrealizationoftheamal-gamofMarxandHeidegger,32 andhegenerates a criticismof thevariousformsofthe“non-world”(immonde33).Acriticalclaimisthattheworldcannotbemeasuredbyglobalization,orthatglobalization,whichreproducesoldaddictionandistheinsurmountablehori-zonofmodernity,embodiesathreattothe“world”.ItbringsNancyclosertothethinkerswhoarefocusedonthepermeationbetweentheauthorofCapital andtheauthorofBeing and Time.34Thisorientation,withthelogicoftheap-propriationoftheworld,thematisestheglobalizationspaceastheuse oftheworld andquestions thephenomenological intention todiscover theworldfromtheotherside.Thereisalwaysaphilosophicalmeaningbehindthefactthatglobalizationispromotedastheworldnexuswhichalwaysincludestheexclusionmatrices.Controllingthe“world”explainsthestructureofpoweranditisthiscontrolthatdictatestoday’sperceptionofthe“world”.Thisde-formstheoldexpressionurbi et orbi,“everywhereandnowhere”.Theworldisviewedasasubtractiveprocessionboundbycalculationandglobalization(“glomicity”)isviewedasan“agglomeration”ora“conglomerate”.Thiscanbeinterpretedasthebad infinityofthe“positivity”ofglobalization,sincethisishowtheassertionsthatglobalagglomerationprovidesspaceforthe“infi-nitegrowthoftechno-sciences”shouldbeunderstood–they“impairvariousinequalities,economical,biological,cultural”.Globalizationisabrokenunityandthisisalsoconfirmedbysomeformulationsaccordingtowhichtheworldperceivesitselfas“agreyworldofinstrumentalism,interests,particularities,separationandpain”.35Theconstellationoftheglobalized“world”asatoposofinclusionandexclusionisunderstoodherefromtheperspectiveofprivatio,asasituationwhichimpliesexclusionfromtheunity–asanepochalloss.Heidegger offers variations of the “subject” constellations and treats theworldasanobjectwhich“dislocates”thesubjectwithrespecttotheworld.Themodesof“deworldification”areevokedandtheyaffectindividuals.Still,Nancy restrainshimself fromHeidegger’s “heroic”gestures.Hewantsde-heroisation–hekeepsthedistancefromtheindividualwhoisfavouredina



heroicloneliness.36AlsothereareMarx’scategories.NancyrecallsfromThe German IdeologythatitisMarxwhotalksabout“world-historical”37individ-ualsandwhocategoricallystatesthatproletariathastobe“world-historical”andthatitsactivityhastoreachtheclimaxincommunismas“world-histori-calexistence”.Tobemoreprecise,herewearetalkingaboutthe“existenceofindividuals”whodirectlyrelateto“worldhistory”becausethereisfirmcon-nectionbetweenthetransformationofhistoryintoworldhistoryandthepathsof(self)emancipationofindividuals.Marxmentionsthe“abundanceofrealrelationships”;thus,Nancy’sdiagnosticstatementabouttheworldindicatesthedeprivationregardingthe“world-historical”situationofindividuals.The French philosopher who is interested38 in the category of “individualproperty”whichisneitherprivatenorcollectivewishestoemphasizethatthecommunistrevolutionisnothingmorethanatransferofthe“worldnexus”intothemind.39ThisiswhyMarxisimportant;hetalksabouttheworldasa“hu-manworld”40andheunmaskstheinvariableinterpretationoftheworld,whileNancy,atsomepoints,usesthedual connection betweenhumanbeingsandtheworld–humanbeingcreatestheworld,butthiscanoccurvice versa, too.Thisintroducedtheindeterminacyoftheindividual’sposition:theworldisindeedherproduct,butitisalsoaplacewherethecreatedthingcanturnagainsther.ToNancy,theworldis“ageneralizedandcontinualbeginning”.41Hereferstotheworldasthe“totalityofsense”:42ifitistheworldwhichcreatescertain

30

Jean-LucNancy,The Creation of the World, or Globalization, State University of NewYorkPress,NewYork2007,pp.34–35.

31

Jean-Luc Nancy, The Sense of the World,University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis1997,p.4.

32

Jean-LucNancy,A Finite Thinking,StanfordUniversityPress,Stanford2003.

33

Fortheterm‘non-world’cf.HannahArendt,The Human Condition, The University ofChicagoPress,Chicago–London1998,p.9.

34

KostasAxelos,Vers la pensée planétaire:Le devenir-pensée du monde et le devenir-monde de la pensée, ÉditionsdeMinuit,Paris1964;Ce questionnement: approche-éloignement,LesÉditionsdeMinuit,Paris2001,p.40.

35

Jean-LucNancy,Hegel: The Restlessness of the Negative,UniversityofMinnesotaPress,Minneapolis,2002,p.3.

36

Jean-Luc Nancy, “Our World, an interviewwith Peter Hallward”, Angelaki 8 (2/2003),pp. 43–54. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969725032000162567.

37

Udo Tietz, “Die Gesellschaftsauffassung”,in:HaraldBluhm(ed.),Deutsche Ideologie,

Akademie Verlag, Berlin 2010, pp. 59–83.Onthecategorywirklichen individuencf.L.Basso,marx and Singularity,p.23.

38

Jean-LucNancy,“Communisme,lemot”,in:AlainBadiou,SlavojŽižek(eds.),L`idée du communisme, Lignes, Paris 2010, pp. 197–215,p.204.

39

The“worldnexus”isformedonthebasisofthemodesofindividualpropertyanditscor-responding“realrelationships”.

40

Nancy criticizes Marx for a kind of anthro-pologisation;thisexplainsNancy’semphaticquestions about the world being human be-ing’sproduct:thereisahypothesisinanthro-pologyabout“humanbeing’sworld”(ibid.).Nancy also makes progress towards “valueand world”. However, Marx (in Critique of the Gotha Programme) believes that valuescanhavetheirsourcein“nature”aswell.Thisis, however, the deanthropologisation of theconceptofvalue.

41

Jean-Luc Nancy, Corpus, A. M. Métailié,Paris1992,p.3;Jean-LucNancy,La possibil-ité du monde. Dialogue avec Pierre-Philippe Jandin, Les Dialogues des petits Platons,Paris2013,p.33.

42

FortheconceptofsenseinNancy’sworkcf.PatrickRoney,“TheOutsideofPhenomenol-ogy: Jean-LucNancyonWorldandSense”,

https://doi.org/10.1080/0969725032000162567



connections(theworldofA.Schönberg,etc.) then there isalwaysaffinity,the“tonalityofsense”,andamomentofparticipation.Wealwaysconsidertheparticipationintheworld.Thatiswhytheworldisnotsomethinginfrontofustoadoptbypositioningourselvesasasubjectopposedtoanobject;theworldexistsonly for theonewho lives in it.Theworld is theplaceofallplaces,apossibilitytoacquireplace,meta-place,andthetoposofhabitualisa-tion.Itexistsonlyasfarasitsframesextend;itiscoextensivewith“itsownextension”.WhenNancyusestheword‘concrete’inthecontextoftheworldhe evokes “theplaybetween freedomand its communal appropriation”or“individual,singular”property.Furthermore,theworldisakindofexcesswithrespecttoeveryrepresenta-tion.Here,oncemore,wecomeacrosstheparaphraseofthemotivewhichopposes therepresentativeactivitiesofdeworldifiedsubject. In thepremo-dernitythereisthetraditionalpositionofcosmotheoroswhichobservestheworldexternally.Thispositionisnolongerendorsed.Yetaspeculativemo-mentisstillpresentbecausethereappearedanactivityofrepresentationandocularcentricity only after this position was articulated. By the means of“worldperspective”,thisactivitywilldeformtheworld.Capitalismandfas-cismconvergethesameway–both“capitalize”theworldperspective.Fas-cismisexplicitlysaidtohavebeenbornasareplicaduetothedisappearanceofcosmotheoros.Theworldappears in theperspectiveof“immanence” (mondain) and“co-existence”(mondial).Theimmanenceoftheworldhasastrategicvalue.WeagainfindourselvesfacingMarx’sapotheosis,onlynowheisathinkerwho,asacriticalinterpreterofFeuerbach,definesthemeaningofthis-worldliness (Diesseits).HasnotyoungMarxsopersistentlycriticizedthemeaningswhichquestioned“immanence”?WeaskthesamequestionasNancy:wasnotMarxtheonewhotransposedWelt-GeistintoGeist-Welt,clearlyemphasizingtheworld-immanentdeterminations?ThatiswhyNancyemphasizesthatthereisnothingbeyondthisworld,thereisno“other”worldnoreternityembeddedinour“space-timepatterns”.Immanenceistheauto-referentialityoftheworld.HencetherationalityofthepossiblenewepochisanimmanentrelationoftheworldtowardsitselfandMarx’sproject isaformofself-destructionoftheworld.Themomentofcoexistencetakesustothepoliticalphilosophywhichdevel-opsaroundthe“with”,thedesubstantialised“community”.Nancy’sesotericpoliticalphilosophyofcommunity43shouldbereadtogetherwiththeimma-nenttendenciesintheworld-philosophyandindicationssuchasthe“imma-nentcausalityoftheworld”.Thinkingabouttheworldfromtheaspectofim-manencecorrespondstothephilosophywhichalsousesanarchicimpetuses.The deteleologised world, “radical materialism” with ex nihilo formula, isindeedimpossibletoreducetoanentrenchedbeliefinmetaphysics:

“…thisendofthesenseoftheworld,whichistheendoftheworldofsenseinwhichwehadallthepointsofreferenceweneedinordertocontinuetomanageoursignifications(…).Or,rather,onewilldeceiveorblindoneselfbycontinuing toendowthewordendwithadeterminablesense(annihilation,liquidation),inthenameofwhichonewillthencarryondisputesdeprivednotonlyofrigor,butofallcontent.”44

This tendencyreallydemonstratessomethingunnoticed in theWesternun-derstandingofsense.At thesametime, thedeteleologisedworldenablesaco-presence that is basedon authenticpluralismand thenon-metaphysicalpoliticsoftheworld.Therefore,inthewholediscourseaboutthelossoftheworldtherewillstillbeagleamoflight,althoughwithanuncertainoutcome.



WhenNancydiscussesthetermofwealth,hedrawstheconclusionthatcapi-taldoesnotacquiretheentiresignificationthroughcommodities.Hethema-tisestheimpersonaldominationofcapital,buthedoesnotwanttoshowthedevelopmentthathasbecomecomplete,sothathecouldkeeptheintransitivepossibilityofthedynamicsofsensewithrespecttothedominanceofcapital.Bydistinguishingbetweencapitalandcommodity,wenoticeapossibilityac-cordingtowhichcapitaldoesnothavethesourceonlyfromcommodity,butalsofromthewealththatprecedesit:here,weemphasizethecategoryofthevalue of the world.Inthissense,wehavethereflectionsabouttheworldthateludethedichotomybetween contingency and necessity, which means that the world is neithercontingentnornecessaryorthatitisbothcontingentandnecessary.45Incom-parison toHeidegger,Nancyelaborates that theworld isno longerdivine,anditisnoteventheworldanymorebutourmutualworldthatcherishestheambitionofthephilosophertoattachtheothermeaningofauthenticity.Basedonthisattitude,NancyemphasizesthenecessityofthesymbolizationoftheworldandthestrugglebetweentheWestandcapitalwith itself.Inthelightofimmanence,symbolizationrepresentstheadoptionofsymbolsintheprocessinwhichtheworldwillfacethestrugglewithitselfbecausetheworldwillcreatethesymbolsinrelationwithitselfandsymbolizationwillservetoopenthedoor toasmoothcirculationofsenses. It is thepresentquasi-commonworldthatisdeprivedofsymbolicplaces.Theterm‘struggle’seemstobeanexpressionofahomeopathicrelation–thetransformationofsimilarintosimilar.However,itremainsuncertainwhatitmeans.Thistypeofstruggleappliestothelogicofimmanence,buttherearesomecontradictions:thepowerofcapitalshouldbereflectedupon,andthesame“struggle”isbelievedtobetheresultofcapitalitself,butitissuggestedthatthisphenomenonremainstobeassessed.WhyshouldtheWestorcapitalstrugglewiththemselvesforthepurposeoftheaffirmationoftheworldifthedynamicofthebadinfinityofcapitalcannotbedetachedfrom“glomicity”orevenpositionedagainsttheworld?

2. The affirmation of the world through radical transformation: Militant allegiance to the world

If we start discussion about the world from the aspect of regaining sense,thenthequestionisraisedaboutwhetherwecandiscuss thenon-existenceoftheworld.ThisiswhatAlainBadioucriticizedNancyfor.46Incontrastto“hermeneutics”,the“icon”ofsense,Badiouoffersobjectivephenomenologybasedonthelogicofappearance.Thisiswhyhenamestheworlda“contin-

South African Journal of Philosophy 32(4/2013), pp. 339–347. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02580136.2013.867398.Nancyoftenidentifiessensewithvalue,forthiscf.Jean-Luc Nancy, “The Insufficiency of ‘Values’and the Necessity of ‘Sense’”, Journal for Cultural Research 9 (4/2005), pp. 437–441.doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14797580500252621.

43

On the ontologisation of communality cf.Jean-Luc Nancy, La communauté désœuvré,Détroits,Paris2004,p.68.

44

J.Nancy,The Creation of the World, or Glo-balization,p.5.

45

Ibid.,p.41.

46

Alain Badiou, “Images du temps présent”,available at: http://www.entretemps.asso.fr/Badiou/01-02.3.htm(accessedonNovember17,2015).

https://doi.org/10.1080/02580136.2013.867398

https://doi.org/10.1080/14797580500252621

http://www.entretemps.asso.fr/Badiou/01-02.3.htm



gentdisposition”of thebeingwhich is“here”, thebeingwhich is“there”,“theplace”wherebeingislocalized.47UnlikeNancy(withspeculativecom-petencybutmilitantpoliticalphilosophywhichdisqualifiesreality),Badioudescribestheworldascontingent.BadiouisfocusedontheaffirmationoftheworldaswellasNancy.Theyesintheworldplaysanimportantroleinhisreasoning,whichisappliedtotheontologicalarticulationofreality.Hedenies“reality”inordertoaffirmtheworld.Affirmation,asagenuinephilosophicalact, isof significant impor-tanceforhismathematizedontology,48anditdoesnotraiseanydoubtabouttheabsenceoftheworld,butitimpliesthatweliveinaworldwhichisnottheworld.Itisan“absenceoftheworld”,a“worldwithouttheworld”ortheglobalmarketas“thenamefortheworld”.BadiouiscloselyrelatedtoHenrybecausetheconstituentsofhis thoughtsarenon-relation,thedenialofsubject–objectformandfragmentation,whichmeans that statementsarenotmadebasedon the interactionbetween sub-jects.49However,similaritiesendherebecause“theaffirmationofoneworld”ispolemicallydirectedtowardstheexistingcapitalism,butforthepurposeofcreatinganewworldwithmodifiedcoordinatesofexistence.Thisorientationanticipatestheaffirmativeattitudewiththeaimoftheprofoundtransforma-tionoftheworld.Itsactions,asawayoftherehabilitationofphilosophicalmilitantismand thearticulationof theprescriptivemoments thatanticipateorientation in contrast to disorientation, are the expression of “counter-af-firmation”:

“Howarewetobefaithfultochangingtheworldwithintheworlditself?”50

AlthoughBadioudiscussesabout“over-world”(sur-monde),aboutthe“worldthatisbecoming”,thisintentionisquiteclearwithrespecttothe“worldit-self”.Thequestionconcerningthereasonsforthepresentexistencethatdeprivesusoftheworldisansweredasfollows:theconnection between capitalism and democracy, orcapitalo-parliamentarism.Insteadoflamentingaboutthefactthatthedynamicsofcapitallessenthechancefordemocracy,Badioustatesthattherapidspreadofdemocracyisreallycausedbya“constitutionalfetish”whichdeprives us of the world.51Heisnotinterestedindifferentdefinitionsofdemocracy(democracyisaformofstateandnotacategoryofphiloso-phy),52thetensionsinthecontextofdemocracy,andthisiswhyhisrelentlessnegativeassessmentisstillpresent.However,westillfinditimportantthat“democraticemblem”,i.e.democraticrepresentation,isactuallyconnectedtotheworld.Basedondemocracyaimedatthepacificationoftheworldmarketorder,theexistingispresentedasa“demo-world”.Democracy,drivenbytheworld-transnationaltrends,isisomorphicto“mondialisation”,theinfluencesofthemondialisedmarketarespreadroughlytoeverypartoftheplanet.TheconnectionbetweentheFrenchphilosopherandPlato53iscompletelyevident.WecanusePlatotodefamedemocracyasafieldofequivalenceofallthings.Itdistributesthingsthatarebroughtintothecontextofequivalenceinwhichthingsresistqualitativedifferences.However,this(profit+consensus)isanobstacle for creation of the world.WhenBadioucompleteshisattackondemocracy,healsoraisesPlato’sques-tionaboutyouth, that is,abouta“democraticman”who,notbeingabletodiscoverthetruth,confusesdesirewithpleasureandisincorporatedintotheyouth.Democracy is thenunderstoodasa framework inwhich there isanendlesscirculationofopinionsandobjectsinthecontextoftheequivalence



fetish.Actually,weshouldmentionthatintheperspectiveofequivalencethereisalwaysananalogybetweenthecirculationoftheobjectandthecirculationofopinion.54Bymentioning“youthasthenormofvitality”intoday’ssociety,Badiouindicatesthattheworldisacceptedonlybyyouthandeithercorrelatesyouthwiththeabsenceoftheworldorrelatesnihilism55toanimalhumanism.ThusBadioucomposesatunethatsomeconservativesalsoplay.Certainly,theFrenchphilosopheryearnsfor“proletarianaristocracy”and“aristocratictrans-mission”.56 He bears in mind “aristocratic communism” and “Platonic com-munism”which,incomparisontodemocracy,imposesthenon-transitivetruthasanindefiniteexception,asthe“affirmationofuniversality”.57Thus,startingfromtheIdea,Badiou“representstheworld”asPlatohimselfdid.58Newmean-ingisassignedtothequotednotion“intheworlditself”;thatwhichiscalledtruthexistsintheworldbutonlyasanexception.Thisiscalledthe“immanentexception”59anditisabreakthroughoftranscendencefromimmanence.Badiou is not preoccupied with the phenomenological description of theworld inmeticulousdetail.Hisdiscourse is about the axioms that demon-

47

“World”isdeterminedbyontologyandlogic;seeAlainBadiou,“Mondesetrelations”,in:Logiques des mondes, Seuil, Paris 2006, p.319. David Rabouin, “Objet, relation, tran-scendental. Une introduction au formalismedeLogiquesdesmondes”,in:DavidRabouin,OliverFeltham,LissaLincoln(eds.),Autour de Logiques des mondes d’ Alain Badiou,ÉditionsdesArchivesContemporaines,Paris2011,pp.23–49.

48

BenjaminNoys,The Persistence of the Negative,EdinburghUniversityPress,Edinburgh2010,pp. 134–153, doi: https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9780748638635.001.0001. AlainBadiou, Second manifeste pour la philoso-phie, Fayard, Paris 2009, p. 136;Alain Ba-diou,“WirmüssendasaffirmativeBegehrenhüten”, in: Frank Ruda, Jan Völker (eds.),Dritter Entwurf eines manifest für den Affir-mationismus,Merve,Berlin2008,pp.45–46.

49

Alain Badiou, Abrégé de métapolitique,Seuil,Paris1998,pp.77–89;PeterHallward,Badiou: A Subject to Truth,MinnesotaUni-versityPress,Minneapolis2003,pp.284.Ba-diou’sphilosophy,whichrejects“reality”andacceptsopinionasaseparation,canbeunder-stoodasagnosticorientation;cf.AlbertoTo-scano,“FromtheStatetotheWorld?Badiouand Anti-Capitalism”, Communication & Cognition 37 (3–4/2004),pp.199–224.

50

AlainBadiou,The Rebirth of History,Verso,London2012,p.67.

51

Alain Badiou, “S’orienter dans la pensée,s’orienterdans l’existence.Séminairepublicd’Alain Badiou. II. (2005–2006)”, availableat http://www.entretemps.asso.fr/Badiou/05-06.2.htm(accessedonNovember17,2015).

52

A.Badiou,Abrégé de métapolitique,p.92.

53

OnPlatonismcf.QuentinMeillasoux,“Desti-nationsdescorpssubjectivés”,in:DavidRab-ouin, Oliver Feltham, Lissa Lincoln (eds.),Autour de Logiquedesmondesd’Alain Ba-diou,ÉditionsdesArchivesContemporaines,Paris2011,pp.13–27,p.18.

54

FrankRuda,JanVölker,“Thèsessurunemoraleprovisoire communiste”, in: Alain Badiou,Slavoj Žižek (eds.),L’Idée du communisme2,Lignes,Paris2011,pp.215–237.Circula-tion of objects and opinions was mentionedby these authors, but they did not mentionequivalence.

55

Alain Badiou, L`hypothese communiste,Lignes,Paris2009,p.28.

56

AlainBadiou,“TheLessonofJacquesRan-cière:knowledgeandpowerafterthestorm”,in: Gabriel Rockhill, Philipp Watts (eds.),Jacques Rancière: History, Politics, Aesthetics,Duke University Press, London – Durham(NC)2009,p.38.

57

A.Badiou,Second manifeste pour la philoso-phie,p.33.

58

Ibid.,p.119.

59

Alain Badiou, “Épilogue”, in: David Rab-ouin, Oliver Feltham, Lissa Lincoln (eds.),Autour de Logiquedesmondesd’Alain Ba-diou,ÉditionsdesArchivesContemporaines,Paris2011,pp.183–191.

https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9780748638635.001.0001



stratemanifestos.TheFrenchphilosopher,whopurifieshisphilosophyfromtheelementsofactuality,doesnotprovideuswithananalysis thatwouldexplain why capitalism emerged as an organization of nature, and this isthe reasonwhyhis argumentation seemsdeclarative from time to time.Ademocraticconsensus(connectedwitheconomy,whichishereunderstoodas trade incommodities)seems toBadiouasaspringboardfordepolitisa-tionat thelevelof theworldand,what ismore,heclaimsthateverythingshapedbyconsensualprincipleisanobstacletohumanemancipation.Thisiswhyherefusestoallowanymaximof“politicalecology”tobeincorpo-ratedinhisphilosophyandstatesthatthediscourseofecologyisopiumofthepresent.Badiou,aconnoisseurof thephilosophyofnature60whocallshimselfaCartesian,declaresthat‘ecology’representsatransmissionmecha-nismfordepolitisation.61Herefusestoaffirmtheworldbyusingthenormofnaturewhichisbeyondthe“human”world.However,byrejectingnatureasanabstractSpinozisticsubstance,Badiougoes toextremesbyconfirm-inghumanbeing’sdominanceovernature.Byneglectingthephilosophicalorientationswhichemphasizethatahumanbeingcanrealizehimselfonlyifherespectsnature,wefailtonoticethat“capitalism”drawsbothsocietyandnatureintoitswhirl.Aquasi-world thatappearsbeforeus isalsoanatonicworld(atonia)62be-causeitlamentsabouttheinabilitytoviewtheworld,confirmsourcognitiveincompetenceand immersesus into theabundanceofendlesscommunica-tion.Welack thedecision thatwouldbefocusedon truth-exception.Here,Badiouintroducestheterm‘point’whichisformedbasedonKierkegaard’sarticulation of existence as an absolute choice.Worlds described from theperspectiveof“democratic” inertiaareopposed to thechoices thatarenotbasedonexternality.Thismanifestsinthecaseofthecirculationofthingsandopinions–here,thechoiceismadebyitself.Thisisthechoicethatinvolvesallotherchoices.HereBadioudiscusses“subjectivetruth”and“disjunctionwithoutremainder”.Badiouacceptstheprocessesofcreativeinterpretations.Wecanseethein-fluenceofMarxandEngels,whohighlyvaluetheworld-historicaleffectsofcapitalismasthewayofdeterioratingtheexistingrelationships,ofdis-integrationofrigidframeworks.However,inBadiou’scase,thedestructionwhich clears the way is seen on the ontological level. Capitalism, whichweakened the historically developed particular relationships, is praised.This process takes over the power of the command position of the One,andBadiou,whofocusedhisphilosophyonthearticulationofmultiplicityandrevealedthenonexistenceoftheWholeandaffirmedtheinconsistencyofreality,welcomesall this.CapitalismunderminesthedominanceoftheOneandherewehaveanontologicalperspective:capitalism is not only a historical phase in the succession of historical epochs, but it is also an onto-logical constellation that allows the capital machinery to be analysed from formal-axiomatic aspects.Inourinterpretation,capitalismwithitslogicofrealabstractionsappearsas indifferent towardshistoricalspecificitysincenotasinglehistoricallydevelopedrelationshipcanresistthe“abstractpo-tency” of capital. Here, we can just have a glimpse of the complex rela-tionshipbetweenglobalcapitalmovementsandnational-particularrelation-ships.AlthoughBadiouisawareofthefactthatparticularentitiesarealwaysrearticulatedbytheabstract-impersonallogicofcapital,thatis,thatthereisacertaindialecticsbetween the indifferenceofcapitaland its relianceonparticularconstellations,westillcannotfindanydeeperarticulationofthisprobleminhiswork.63





Weonlyneedtopointoutthe“nihilisticpotency”ofcapitalthatcausesab-senceof theworld.Even thoughcapitalcandeteriorateparticular relation-ships,wearestillintheregimeoftheOneandnotmultiplicity.TheauthoroftheLogics of Worldswishestousethetranscendentalsoftheworldtode-velopathesisthatthereisonlyone world.64Accordingtothisstatement,theworldcanbedescribedasaseriesofidentitiesanddifferencesandaninfinitenumberofdifferencescanbeacceptedasalogicallaw.Theworldistranscen-dentallythesamesothatindividualexistencescanbedifferent.Wecanfindthattheworldissynonymouswithnames;themeaningoftheworld occurs as a registry of names.65 According to Badiou, the modernconstellationisanintervalperiodinwhich“thenationisnameless”;itisanepochofdemocracythatinaugurates“non-nomination”.Nowadays,marketandmondialisationarethenameforthenon-world.Badiouisengagedinthepoliticalaffirmationof“personal”,“real”names.Theworldattributes“theintensityofexistence”toallpeople,buttosomepeopleitattributes“weak,negligibleexistence”.66

IfwewishtosummarizeBadiou’stendencies,thenwecansaythattheyarepresentedinthephilosophicalarticulationofthemediationbetweentheworldand thechangeof theworld.Here,wealsodiscusscreativeaffirmation intermsoftheidentificationofthenon-existentworld.Itraisesvariouspossibil-itiesbecausethereisalwaystensionbetweenhistoryandontology67andthistensionisreflectedinthemeaningsoftheworld.Inthisway,theworld,whichreferstosymbolicassociations,meaningsandthehermeneuticsoffinitude,isdisassociatedfromthetruththatwillbeuncoveredtranshistorically.Inonepart,wewillseeaclearnegativelyformulatedstatementthatintroducesthetriadofsociety,historicismandthe“world”,thatis,the“historicalworld”.68Theevent,whichisveryimportantforthisphilosopher,doesnotrepresentarealizationoftheinternalpossibilitiesofasituation,norisitdependentonthe

60

AlainBadiou,“LaNature.Coursd’agrégationd’Alain Badiou (Ens – Ulm 2000–2001)”,available at www.entretemps.asso.fr/Badi-ou/00-01.Nature.htm(accessedonNovember17,2015).

61

AlainBadiou,“LiveBadiou: InterviewwithAlain Badiou, Paris, December 2007”, in:Oliver Feltham, Alain Badiou: Live Theory,Continuum, London 2008, pp. 136–140, p.139.

62

Alain Badiou, “Les mondes atones”, in:Logique des mondes, Seuil, Paris 2006, p.442. Žižek uses the term ‘atonal world’ (In Defence of Lost Causes,Verso,London2008,p.11),whichisassociatedwithatonalmusic,and here we discuss ‘atonic worlds’, whichrefertoalackofnormaltensions.

63

Alberto Toscano, “From the State to theWorld? Badiou andAnti-Capitalism”, Com-munication & Cognition 37 (3–4/2004), pp.199–224; Guillaume Sibertin-Blanc, Poli-tique et État chez Deleuze et Guattari,PUF,Paris2013,pp.174–180.

64

AlainBadiou,The meaning of Sarkozy,Ver-so,London2006,pp.53–71.

65

A.Badiou,“Imagesdutempsprésent”.Thereisalsothephilosophyofnomination,correla-tionbetween thenamesandsubjectivity;cf.AlainBadiou,Conditions,Seuil,Paris1992,p.222.Onthechangeinnon-nominationcf.Bruno Bosteels, Badiou and Politics, DukeUniversityPress,London–Durham2011,p.348.

66

A.Badiou,Rebirth of History,p.60.

67

Žižekdemonstratesthisproblembyintroduc-ingtheexampleofastatethattransformsontheontologicallevel.SlavojŽižek,“AnAn-swertoTwoQuestions”,in:AdrianJohnston,Badiou, Žižek, and Political Transformations. The Cadence of Change,NorthwesternUni-versity Press, Evanston (IL) 2009, pp. 174–231.

68

A.Badiou,Abrégé de métapolitique,p.52.



“transcendentallawsoftheworld”.69Whatcanwedotoclassifytruthasaconstitutive exceptionina“hermeneutically”determinedworld?Those“realnames”arepartofthe“operationofideas”andnamesareindirectcorrela-tionwith theworld!Howcanwedevelopanapproach to this“mediation”betweentheworldandthechangeoftheworld?Howwillthetruthbecomethe“world”?70Will itbethetruththat isstilldisassociatedfromtheworldorwillitbetheworldinwhichthetruthistheworld?Whenwediscussthe“truthontheedgeofhistoricalrevolution”,thenthetruthis“withdrawnfromtheworldlaw”.71Whichrelationshipbetweentheworldandhistory“rises”and“opens”?

3. Being-in-the-world through the dispossession of the world

WhereBadiou’sphilosophyisnotarticulatedbypolitical-economicdetermi-nations,FranckFischbach’sanalyses72arebasedonthepoliticalandeconom-icreflections.Weregisterthoroughanalysesofproductionandconsumption,andtheanalysisoftimeandspaceinthedynamicoftheself-valorisationofcapitalforthepurposeofdemonstratingthateventodaythereisabeing-in-the-world,butweexistintheworldonlythroughprivatization.Dispossessionisourmodeofexistenceintheworld.Thus,wecan register, for example, the thematisationofdisturbingour at-titude towards an object.73 Fischbach, who studies the different aspects ofactivityandpassivity,74emphasizesthattheattitudetowardsanobjectisnolongerdrivenbyneedsordesires,butenvy.Wearenolongerinaconstella-tionwhichcouldbe,withthehelpofMarx,comprehendedbycreatingnewneeds.ThenewsituationcancertainlyberelatedtothedynamicsofdesireincapitalismandwecanrefertoHegel’sphilosophyofdesirefromwhichwecan conclude that desire prevails over consumption. Furthermore, here wecanrefertoMarx’sideaofconsumptionintermsofdestructionandnegation:consumptioncompletesproductionandconsumptionispresentedasHegel’sAufhebung,asdestructionandfinalization.75However,noteventhecreationofdesiresissufficientforunderstandingtoday’scapitalism.Thecreationofdesiresistooaleatoryinthestochasticworldandconsumestoomuchtime.Thepaththattakesustothesatisfactionofdesireshasproventobetooslow.Apulseofenvyanditsconstantarousalreducethedurationoftheprocesswithrespecttothetemporalityofinvestmentinthecreationofdesires.Thepossibilityoftransferringfromonesituationtotheothersituation,determinedbyelementsofenvy,resultsinenvybeingdeterminedbynothavingmemo-riesoftheobject,byconstitutiveamnesiawhichdoesnothave“nostalgia”forunreachableobject.Inthecaseofeconomization,whichisnolongerdeter-minedbyneedsandinwhichtheperceptionofephemeral-provisionalobjectsactsas“surfingthesurface”,thedestructionofthingsprecedesconsumption.Beforebeingdrawnintoconsumption,theobjectofenvyfadesintoinsignifi-canceduetointensifiedacceleration.Thereisachangebehindall this: thesubjectofconsumption isembeddedandhasembodieddetermination,andthereexiststhesubjectofpassivitywhichdependsontheexternalobjectbythelogicofdeficiency.Thesubjectofenvyissimplythesubjectofpleasuredeprivedofhavingarelationshipwiththeworld.InHeidegger,whoisimportantfortheinterpretationofthedifferentmeaningsofhabitare, theobjectbecomes themain focus.For thepurposeofunder-standinglate-capitalisticacosmism,itiscrucialtostatethatitwasaconstel-lationwithoutanauthenticobject.Weshouldshiftourfocusfromthesubject



(FischbachdiffersfromBadiou,whoattachesimportancetotheexceptionalstatusofthesubject):whatiscrucialaboutacosmismisthatthemodernworldisseenasanepochof“extravagantformsofsubjectivity”and“ultra-subjec-tivity”.“Neo-subject”,whichcannotescapefromthepressurethatforcesittomaximizepleasuresandproductioneffects,adjustsitssubjectivelife.Itdoesnothaveanobjectoutsideitself,itjusttestshowfluiditis.Itisinthisintro-spection that the late-capitalistichyper-subjectaffirms itself.Bybeingdis-connectedfromtheworld,itisasubjectwhichisdirectedatafalseobjectandwhichdoesnotdevelopits“hyper-subjectivity”basedontheattitudetowardsexternaldimensions.Itisnotseenastheoneabandoningitself,but,inauto-referentialinteriority,itiscentredatself-controlandself-monitoringforthepurposeofgainingpleasureandresults.76Thisway,the“neo-subject”,whichisdeterminedbythedimensionsofenvyandself-observation,islocatedout-sidetheworld.Itisnolongerincorporatedintheworldasthesubjectofneedanditforegoestheinfinityofpleasures,thusleadingustotheconclusionthattheissuesofthesubjectandworldhavetobeseparated.Certainly,Fischbachknowsthattheterm‘being-in-the-world’doesnotrepresentanexpressionofimmediacybecausewearenotimminentintheworld.Thisbeingappearstobedogmaticallyassumedforahumanbeingwhocaresabouttheworld,thatis,whodoesnotonlycareabouthavingtheworld,butaboutlivinginit.Thisisthereasonwhythedispossessionoftheworldappearsthroughtheprismofthedifferenttypesofmediationso,here,wedonotrefertosomegenuine,originalimmediacy.Marx’s interpreter Fischbach and his ideas could be viewed as a continu-anceoftheGermanthinkerwhosaysthatthenaturalbeingcanfindherselfin objectivity and that “non-objective being is a non-being”. Although theabove-mentionedideaaboutprivacyevokesH.Arendt,whoappearstobethesourceoftheideathatdirectsourattentiontowardsalienationfromtheworld,aswell,Marxismorepresenthere,especiallyhisreflectionson“privateprop-erty”thatgobeyondmereeconomismandemphasizethedifferentmeaningsofdispossession.WecanuseH.Arendttore-evokethemomentsofcommu-nitarianembeddednessintheworld.However,Fischbach,whocriticizesthe

69

A.Badiou,L`hypothese communiste,p.191.Johnston was looking for situations whenthere is association between the ‘situation’and the ‘world’andhewrote the following:one world and plurality of situations. A.Johnston,Badiou, Žižek, and Political Trans-formations,p.73.

70

DanielBensaïd,“AlainBadiouandtheMira-cle of the Event”, in: Peter Hallward (ed.),Think Again: Alain Badiou and the Future of Philosophy,Continuum,London–NewYork2004,pp.94–106.doi:https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472547743.ch-007.

71

A.Badiou,Rebirth of History,p.60.

72

Franck Fischbach, L’être et l’acte. Enquête sur les fondements de l’ontologie moderne de l’agir,Vrin,Paris2002;FranckFischbach,La production des hommes. marx avec Spinoza,

PUF, Paris 2005; Franck Fischbach, Sans objet. Capitalisme, subjectivité, aliénation,Vrin,Paris2009.

73

F.Fischbach,La privation de monde,p.27.

74

Franck Fischbach, “Activité et négativitéchezMarxetSpinoza”,Archives de Philoso-phie68(4/2005),pp.593–610.

75

ArtemyMagun,“Marx’sTheoryofTimeandthe Present Historical Moment”, Rethinking marxism22(1/2010),pp.90–109.doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/08935690903411693.

76

Pierre Dardot, Christian Laval, La nouvelle raison du monde. Essai sur la société neolibé-rale,LaDécouverte,Paris2009,p.433.

https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472547743.ch-007

https://doi.org/10.1080/08935690903411693



ignoranceofsocialmoment,77cannotbesatisfiedwithanytypeofphilosophywhich is not predominantly critical of society. Certainly, the author of thebook The Human Condition gives a lot of valuable information about theworld,butshecannotdirectthethoughtexpressedhere.Fischbachcouldad-dresstheissuesoftheworldfromtheperspectiveofthe“commons”.Today’sdescriptionofthedevastationofthecommondomainandtheprivatizationofthecommonsaffectstheissueofprivatization.Theworldcannotbereconsid-eredwithoutthecommonsasacohesivetissueandtheprivatizationofcom-monsleadstoprivatizationwithrespecttotheworld.Thedispossessionoftheworldcanbefullyreflectedbasedonthecriticismoftheexpropriationofthecommons.However,Fischbachdoesnotfollowthisideaeventhoughthereisabasisforhisthesisthattodayweliveinseclusionfromtheworld.78

Here,Heideggerisnotmentionedonlyasaphilosopherwhosethoughtcanbeusedtoharshlycriticizethesubject–objectrelationship,criticizethehypoth-esisofinteriorityanddiscusstheexternalpositionofthesubjectintheworld.BasedonHeidegger’swritings,wecanalsodiscussthecapital-driventempo-ralisationandspatialisation.Letusmentionasupportiveargumentthatwasbasedontheanalysisofthespaciousnessofbeing-there,fromwhichwecoulddrawtheconclusionabouttheconfigurationofspacewhichwassubjectedtotheprocessesofmodernmetricsandinwhichtheneutralizationof locusasthe“pointoftheworld”isthematised.Thisway,wecandiscussthemodesofencounteringthingsthataresituatedinamoremeaningfulwholeandwecandiscuss“orientation”whichbuildstherelationshipbetweenthingsduringrealizationofcertaintasks.79Shouldwenotconsiderthethingsinspacethataresimilartoexistence(Dasein)whichisconstantlydirectedtoexteriority?Shouldwenotdiscussthingsinthesensethatspaceexistsintheco-existentialexteriorityrelationofthethingsthemselves?Isnotspaceanexpressionoftheco-existentialobjectsthatsummarizesocialdeterminations?Anyhow,Marx’sthoughtisfilteredinFischbach’swork:ifwewishtoformanideaaboutthehistoricalcertaintyofacosmism,wehavetorefertoMarxbecausehisworkshowsthecrucialissuerelatedtotemporalisationandspa-tialisationashistoricallymarkedprocesses.80Onlyonthebasisofthesecer-taintiescanweunderstandthewaythesubjectontheothersideoftheworldisproduced,aswellastheworldwhichisreducedtothe“externalrealitywhichisextendedinspace”.81

If we wish to highlight the presented tendencies, we can apply the notion(independentlyofFischbach)ofthehistorical specificationsofallsocialre-lationships.Thisway,wecandiscussthehistoricalspecificationoftheworldandthedispossessionoftheworldaswell.Thisdoesnotmeanthatweshouldabandontheworldasametaphysicallyinvariantstructure,butthatweshouldabandontheexplanationaboutthecreationofhistoricallydeterminedworldfromtheperspectiveofcapitalism.Itshouldbenotedthatnotevenglobaliza-tionasasynchronizationfieldcanbeunderstoodasamereuseofplanetaryspaceasmuchasitcanbeunderstoodasacreationofanenvironmentsuitableforcapitalisminthecontextofpremodernity.Understoodinsuchway,glo-balizationisaninterferencewithnon-capitalistconfigurationforthepurposeofthecreationofitsownexternality.Fischbachwantstoanalysetheconsequencesofconvertingtimeintospaceinregardtotheworld.However,Marx’sideaabouttheannihilationofspacebytimeisconsiderablydiscussed82eventhoughtheFrenchphilosopherdoesnotattachphilosophicalimportancetothisidea,ratheradescriptiveone.Here,wewishtoshowMarx’sreflexivitythatdoesnotendwithnegatingspace.Itis



moreimportanttoemphasizeacontradiction:ontheonehand,thereisthean-nihilationofspacecausedbyadvancesintransportandcommunication,whileontheotherhand,thereisrespatialisation,thatis,theaffirmationofthenewspatialconfigurationwhichimpliescombinationofextensionandunificationofcommodity spaceworldwide.Capital refers to timeexclusively throughspatialisation.The fact that capital tends to produce goods worldwide andexpand itsproduction to theplanetary framework is its immanentessence.EventhementionedsentencefromCapitalshouldbeunderstoodbasedtheonunderstandingofspace:thereexistsacollection/accumulationofgoods,butalwaysinspace.Separation,83whichisveryimportantforthedynamicsofcapitalandwhichisadistinctivecharacteristicofcapital,isalwaysrelatedtocapitalwhoseself-valuationisdrivenbyexpansion.Thisway,wecandiscuss the timethatbecomesspatial. It isnothingotherthanthetermwhichhasalreadybeendefinedbyGyörgyLukács(History and Class Consciousness)asadominanceofdeadlabouroverlivinglabourbymachinesthatwillsubordinatequalitativetimetoabstracttime,thusbecom-ingsusceptibletoabstractinterpretationofspace.Themeasureofdurationisspatialmeasure.Thisspatialisationoftimeandcolonisationofabstractspace,that is, the subordination of qualitative time in the continuity of temporalmetricsissupportedbysuperiorityofthepresentoverthefuture.Thus,thisdominanceofpresentwillprevailanditcanevenbeconfirmedbythelawofvalueaccordingtowhichvaluecanbeexpressedbythemediationofpresent.Spatialisationprovidesexplanationforunderstandingtheworldinwhichcap-italgoesbeyonditsquantitativelimitsandwherethereisaconnectingarchbetweenthelocalandtheglobalworld.Non-neutralspace,whichdestroysthequalitativeelementoftime,castslightonthetemporalitythatcoincideswithitselfinaneternalpresentandinthecomplete synchronization of planetary space. Capitalism simultaneouslycombinesandrecombinestheconstantfluxanddemobilization,creativede-structionwhichreachesinfinityandstiffness,dynamicandstatic,historicismandimmobilism,progressivismandeternalpresent.Althoughheisawareoftheparticulardifficultiesinaddressingtheproblems,Fischbachsuggeststhehistorisationoftimeasacounteracttodispossession:aworldthatwouldnotappear throughdispossessionwouldimplytherearticulationof therelation

77

FranckFischbach,“Commentpenserphilos-ophiquement le social ?”, Cahiers philos-ophiques132(1/2013),pp.7–20.

78

PierreDardot,ChristianLaval,Commun. Es-sai sur la révolution au XXIe siècle,ÉditionsLaDécouverte,Paris2014.

79

Jeff Malpas, Heidegger’s Topology: Being, Place, World, MIT Press, Cambridge (MA)2006,p.91.

80

David Harvey, Spaces of Capital: Towards a Critical Geography,Routledge,NewYork2001,p.56.

81

Thepointhere is themondialisation.SeeF.Fischbach,La privation de monde,p.60.

82

DavidHarvey,The Enigma of Capital, Pro-fileBooks,London2010,p.155;HenryLe-febvre,The Production of Space,Blackwell,Oxford1991,p.130.

83

About Marx’s ideas about separation cf.MichaelLebowitz,Following marx: method, Critique and Crisis, Haymarket, Chicago2009, p. 346. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004149427.i-372.InFischbach’swork,thereisaproblemaboutreducingspacetoaquantitative moment. Can we think about itin a non-traditional way, which implies thatspacecanbeunderstoodfromthequalitativeperspective and time from the quantitativeperspective? See F. Jameson, Representing Capital,p.109.

https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004149427.i-372



betweenspaceandtime,andsavingtimebynotsubjectingittotheimposedspace.Inthisway,humanbeingsbecomemoreopentotheworldandtheywithdrawfromthedominantstateofaddictiontoconsumption,thatis,fromthesituationinwhichfakeappropriationofobjectsispresent.

Instead of conclusion: Does the world need to be saved?

Firstly, theselectedexamplespresentedacriticalspecificityof themodernunderstanding of the world.Afterwards, we presented three representativereplicasofthecrisisconstellationwhichgaveanswerstothequestionastowhywedonotliveintoday’sworld.Ourinterpretationofcertainreflectionswasprecededbytheanalysisofthemovementofrealabstractionsasanoper-atingprincipleincapitalismandassomethinginevitablefortheunderstand-ing and situatedness of the world. Moreover, Nancy’s reflection about thedivergencebetweentheworldandglobalizationcanbeunderstoodinthecon-textofhisontologisationofcommunalityandcommunism.Badiou’sPlatoniccommunismisapersistentreflectionoftoday’snon-worldandtheabsenceofpaths indicating the important linkbetweendemocraticparliamentarismandcapitalism.Throughpolitico-economicreflection,FischbachengagesinproductionofaninsightbasedonHeideggerandMarx,andprovesthatwith-drawalfromtheworldisaformofexistence.Weallhavethesameaimanditistheaffirmation of the world,theconfirmationofallthatrepresentstheworld:allofthem,atleastimplicitly,assumesubjectswhoarenotdeprivedofdeprivation.84Therefore,thedeprivationoftheworldisexperiencedasanimpetusforthecriticalunderstandingoftheexisting.Can we think about the idea of saving the world which we, after all, rec-ognized in Marquard’s work? Certainly, from Marquard’s perspective, we do not bear in mind aconservativecategoryof rescuing,webear inmindthepossibilitywhichispoweredbythesynthesisofthenegative energy of criticism and affirmation of the world.Therefore,isthereapossibilityofthenon-conservativeconservationoftheworld?AlthoughwedidnotagreewithBadiou’sCartesianism,accordingtowhichtheself-constructedhumanbeingdominatesoverthenature,hisalienationfromecologyasthelastappellateinstancecannotbeignored.Thedifferentformswhicharealreadywidespreadinecology,suchassustainabledevelopment,arenotwhatwearelookingforhere.Weshoulddirectourattentiontowardstheconsiderationofthecategoryofrescuingfromtheaspectofphilosophy.85

Nowadays,thereisawiderangeofreferencestotheenigmaticbiblicalcon-ceptofkatechon, toa“restrainer”.86Weshouldconsiderstrategicallyapply-ingthistermtotheworld.Theparadoxisthat,atthesametime,itactsagainstAnti-Christandagainsttheeventwhichismarkedasparousiaandcouldtakeplaceafterthedisaster.Doesnotkatechonrepresentthemeaningofthe“delayof theendof theworld”in this instance?87Couldn’tweconsiderkatechonasanaffirmationoftheworld,butatthesametimekeepthecriticismoftheexistingasabearingsupport?InBadiou’swork,transcendencewasextremelyexplicit,soitisimportanttoconsideroursuggestionconcerninghisremarks.Forhim,aradicalchangeisrelatedtoan“event”anditinvolvesthealternationoftheexistingtranscend-entregimewithrespecttotheworld.Yetsomeoftheinterpretersofhisworkhavehaddifficultieswiththelackofinformationaboutthepre-eventdimen-sions,andthosedimensionsindicatethesituationalityintheworld.Katechonimpliessensitivitytowardsthe“eventless”,“minor”,“gradual”political-eco-



nomicchanges:intheend,theconsequencesofthesechangeswillbemean-ingfulonlyfromtheretrospectiveperspective(thiscouldbeinterpretedastheacknowledgmentofnotonlythe“Event”,butalsotheprocess).Furthermore,katechonalsoincludessensitivitytowardsalltheaspectsofthedestabilizedwelfarestatewhicharedirectedtowardstheprotectionofthecommonsasthebasisoftheworld’sexistence.However,themostimportantthingisthatthe“restrainer”affirms a defence againsttheeffectsofcolonisationbyupcom-ingrealabstractionsandnotjustamereconservationoftheexisting.Inotherwords,katechonrepresentsaconfirmationofall thosepossibilitiesthatareagainstthedispossessionoftheworld.However,ifwefollowthispath,itimpliesacritical-reflexive“goingthrough”88theexistingprocessesofabstraction,anon-naturalimmersionintotheworld.Itisnotanimmersionforthepurposeofmereconservation,notevenforthepurposeofthereconciliationwiththeexisting.Paradoxically,nounchangedthingsintheworldcanbesaved.Therefore,accordingtoBadiou,theworldalwayscauseshermeneutics,theinterpretationofmeanings.Weshouldalsodiscuss critical hermeneutics in real abstractions in the world.This couldrepresentthebasisforacriticalphilosophyoftheworld.

Alpar Lošonc

Zašto više ne živimo u svijetu?

SažetakPočevši s krizom ukorijenjenosti u svijet kasnog kapitalizma, članak predstavlja reprezentativne replike u vezi s ovakvom, krizom uzrokovanom konstelacijom. Članak naglašava tri odabrana odgovora na pitanje zašto ne živimo u svijetu i zašto smo suočeni s izrazima poput ne-svijet. Jean-Luc Nancy obrazlaže sofisticiranu i visoko spekulativnu filozofiju koja se bavi pridava-njem značenja svijetu: posebnu pozornost posvećuje kraju svijeta putem globalizacijskih pro-cesa. Razvijajući jednu militantnu filozofiju kapitaloparlamentarizma, Alain Badiou naglašava jaz između transcendentalnosti svijeta i uvjeta kasnog kapitalizma. Franck Fischbach se bavi artikulacijom našeg sudjelovanja u svijetu kroz razvlaštenje te nas vodi do značenja privati-ziranog svijeta. Ističući značaj analize reprodukcije kasnokapitalističkog društva za značenje svijeta, autor članka nudi argumentaciju temeljenu na reartikulaciji pojma katehon da bi spasio svijet. Pozivajući se na implikacije realnih apstrakcija kao principa realnosti u kapitalizmu, autor nudi kritičku hermeneutiku realnih apstrakcija.

Ključne riječisvijet,kriza,kapitalizam,realnaapstrakcija,društveneodrednice,katehon

84

GüntherAndersusessimilar formula,but inadifferentcontext.SeeGüntherAnders,Die Antiquiertheit des menschen, C. H. Beck,München1961.

85

Cf. Heinrich Kaulen, “Benjamins Begriffder Rettung”, in: Michael Opitz, ErdmutWizisla(eds.):Benjamins Begriffe,2Bände,Suhrkamp,Frankfurta/M2000,pp.619–664.

86

Giorgio Agamben, The Time that Remains: A Commentary on the Letter to the Romans,StanfordUniversityPress,Stanford2000,p.109; Carl Schmitt, The Nomos of the Earth in the International Public Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum,TelosPress,NewYork

2003,p.60;PaoloVirno,multitude Between Innovation and Negation, Semiotext(e), LosAngeles2008,pp.56–61;RobertoEsposito,Immunitas: The Protection and Negation of Life, Polity,London2011,pp.52–79.

87

ThesameasVirno,butnotintermsofthephi-losophyoftheworld.

88

B. Noys, The Persistence of the Negative, p.171.FredericJameson,„LeninandRevision-ism“,in:SebastianBudgen,StathisKouvelakis,SlavojŽižek(eds.),Lenin Reloaded: Towards a Politics of Truth, Duke University Press,Durham(NC)–London2007,pp.59–73.doi:https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822389552-005.



Alpar Lošonc

Warum leben wir nicht mehr in der Welt?

ZusammenfassungBeginnend mit der Krise, die in Zusammenhang mit der Eingebundenheit in die Welt des Spät-kapitalismus steht, präsentiert der Artikel repräsentative Nachbildungen in Bezug auf diese krisenbasierte Konstellation. Er betont drei ausgewählte Antworten auf die Frage, warum wir nicht in der Welt leben und warum wir mit Begriffen wie Nicht-Welt konfrontiert werden. Jean-Luc Nancy erarbeitet eine verfeinerte und äußerst spekulative Philosophie, die sich mit der Signifikation der Welt befasst: Er legt ein besonderes Augenmerk auf das Ende der Welt durch die Globalisierungsprozesse. Indem er eine militante Philosophie entwickelt, die eine Beziehung zum Kapitalparlamentarismus hat, pointiert Alain Badiou die Kluft zwischen dem Transzenden-talen der Welt und den spätkapitalistischen Bedingungen. Franck Fischbach beschäftigt sich mit der Artikulation unserer räuberischen Teilnahme an der Welt und führt uns zu der Bedeutung der privatisierten Welt. Indem er auf die Wichtigkeit der Analyse der Reproduktion der spätka-pitalistischen Gesellschaft für die Bedeutung der Welt hinweist, bietet der Autor des Artikels die auf der Neubestimmung des Begriffs Katechon fußende Argumentation, mit dem Ziel, die Welt zu retten. Unter Rückblick auf die Implikationen der realen Abstraktion als Realitätsprinzip im Kapitalismus liefert sie die kritische Hermeneutik der realen Abstraktionen.

SchlüsselwörterWelt,Krise,Kapitalismus,Gesellschaft,sozialeDetermination,katechon

Alpar Lošonc

Pourquoi ne vivons-nous plus dans le monde ?

RésuméPrenant pour point de départ la crise liée à l’enchâssement du capitalisme tardif dans le monde, cet article met en avant les répliques représentatives de la constellation sur laquelle cette crise est basée. Trois réponses privilégiées ont été soulignées répondant à la question de savoir pour-quoi ne vivons-nous plus dans le monde et pourquoi ne sommes-nous plus confrontés à des concepts tels que le non-monde. Jean-Luc Nancy a élaboré une philosophie sophistiquée et hautement spéculative ayant trait à la signification du monde et prête une attention particulière à la fin du monde causée par les processus de globalisation. Développant une philosophie mi-litantisme liée au capitalo-parlementarisme, Alain Badiou a souligné le fossé entre le caractère transcendant du monde et les conditions du capitalisme tardif. Franck Fischbach s’est concen-tré sur la manière dont s’articule notre participation au monde par dépossession et nous conduit à une signification d’un monde privatisé. En mettant l’accent sur l’importance d’une analyse de la reproduction de la société du capitalisme tardif pour la signification du monde, cet article propose une argumentation basée sur une nouvelle articulation de la notion de katechon qui vise à sauver notre monde. Il propose une herméneutique critique des abstractions réelles en se référant aux implications d’une réelle abstraction en tant que principe de réalité.

Mots-clésmonde,crise,capitalisme,abstractionréelle,déterminationssociales,katechon

why don’t we live in the world anymore?

Documents