"Dis-enclosure", is it? Looks interesting. I'm in the middle of Zizek's "Less Than Nothing", which is quite a tome. He spends a lot of time developing his brand of Christian materialism, which (I think?) shares its main thesis with Nancy's: that Christianity is inherently atheistic. Is religion your area?
yes, basically Nancy believes modernity is just a word we use to disguise Christianity, its a compilation of text and essays he wrote trought his life on the topic but its fascinating, the approach he made towards nihilism and the kingdom of god is just breathtaking, you ended up like, ok, i didn't understood Nietzsche whatsoever.
I like Zizek a lot, i like this idea of taking the academic discussion out for a ride, to see the world, and he does that very well, he is very appealing and he storage his clothes in the kitchen, that makes him even more likeable.
Im a "specialist" (big word) in post structuralist authors, My thesis was about cemeteries as dispositions of inclusion and exclusion such as Hospitals and mental houses (very foucault) its incomplete because i was young and ambitious but it got me my degree. now im working on the ayatollah and Peron, and how they are related, in a political and theological way,
Nancy helps me to understand better how this hidden atheism in monotheistic religions (specially christianity) works in twelvers and the hiding Iman like Shias from iran.
One of my areas of study over the last few years has been Judeo-Christian religion (reading the Hebrew bible, the New Testament, Charles Taylor, Agamben, etc.), from a philosophical perspective. I'd find it too scary to study monotheism more broadly, to take in Islam in all its complexity. You're a brave man!
One of the difficulties is the influence Nancy and Zizek have in common: Lacan. To get monotheism you have to go through Lacan, and that can be a real pain in the arse. I'm working my way through Lacan's seminars at the moment. Not fun.
i have the theory lacan is just an asshole that is writing in such a difficult way to cover up the fact that there is actually nothing behind it. But maybe thats because i just dont like him.
I think that you should go all in with Blanchot, he is the source of most Nancy and Zizek though process regarding christianity, and he is much pleasent to read than someone like Lacan who is just too all over the place.
The word "philosopher" is too grand for me, or almost anyone really. I'm a writer/musician by profession, but maybe one day I'll be able to call myself a philosopher. Until then, I'm with you in front of the mirror. I'll be Marr.
I totally understand where you're coming from re. Lacan. For a long time I thought he was an obscurantist, and my main interest is the grand system builders (Aristotle, Spinoza, Hegel, Badiou), so I ignored him.
BUT... I was convinced by Badiou that Lacan is worth pursuing. There is a reason why so much 20th cent. thought has been marked by Lacan's influence. E.g., Badiou is very far from being a fanciful, poetic, obscurantist philosopher.
In short, if you love Nietzsche and/or Marx, you will fall for Lacan too. It just takes a lot of pushing through his "performative" style. "The Lacanian Subject" by Bruce Fink is very helpful.
you should definetly check Both Blanchot and Eribon, THe former when it comes to christianity and the later because he is so audatious, he basically calls Lacan an Homophobe. And yes i need to give lacan an honest shot, is just that im with so many things at the same time, and Lacan looks like its going to demand 2-3 years of just him to really get him.
Comments on Profile Post by MaraDon
Watch Arsenal Live Streams With StreamFootball.tv