From: steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:50:26 -0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [Zizek on Singer, over and out] Lydia, Yes he argues the same basic case in the Conversations book and it is a strong case - claiming in that text that he was given the argument by Badiou. Whilst it is a very strong critique and superfically it appears to work, however it has the following flaw - namely that the real flaw in Singer's work is that he does not actually push his logic far enough because he wants to maintain human beings as a special case. The unstated gap in Zizek/Badiou's critique then is that Singer (ultimately) remains a humanist because of his prioritisation of the human over the non-human (he will always choose a thinking human over George the Cat or the intelligent machine) as indeed Zizek and Badiou do. Which is where the gap, the philosophical blind spot emerges. Ultimately anyone who priotitises the human over the non-human could and perhaps should be described as a humanist. Thankyou for the Opera reference/quote it's a book I've become aware of recently, but have not bought yet. (Have you read the Michel Leiris book on 'Operatics' ? rather wonderful..) regards steve > Since we're at Zizek, here's one citation just for Steve -- and as a > conclusion to the Singer episode (there's not much more to be said of > Singer, Steve-o). > > In his and Mladen Dolar's lovely book on opera *Opera's Second Death* > (Routledge, 2002), Zizek has a few pages on Singer. He first calls him > a likely "today's equivalent of de Sade", goes on to describe some of > his utilitarian ethics and for some unclear reason considers him a > person who happily follows what Zizek calls the "contemporary > posmodern ethics" to their absurd end. (This line of argument is > really mangled, in the worst possible Zizekian mode.) But soon enough > Zizek's Dr. Jekyll face comes out in the concluding passages of this > segment: > > "One of the divisions in the chapter on *Vernunft* in Hegel's > *Phaenomenologie des Geistes* speaks about "das geistige Tierreich": > the social world that lacks any spiritual substance so that > individuals effectively interact as intelligent animals within it. > They use reason but only to assert their individual interests, to > manipulate others into serving their own pleasures. Is not a world in > which the highest rights are human rights precisely such a "spiritual > animal kingdom"? There is, however, a price to be paid for such > liberation -- in such a universe, human rights ultimately function as > *animal* rights. This, then, is the ultimate truth of Singer, but the > obvious counterargument to this is, so what, why should we not reduce > humankind to its proper place, that of one of the animal species?" > > "What gets lost in this reduction? The thing, something to which we are > unconditionally attached regardless of its positive qualities. In > Singer's universe, there is a place for mad cows but no place for an > Indial sacred cow. Singer's universe is the positive universe of > qualities in which there is no place for what Kant would have called > the eruption of the noumenal dimension in the order of phenomenal > reality, no place for the dimension beyond the pleasure principle, no > place for *love* in the radical sense of the term." (pp. 143-144) > > L > > _________________________________________________________________ > Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/photos&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005