Rad donosi pregled kritičkih pristupa u suvremenoj francuskoj filozofiji s fokusom na geofilozofiju u utjecajnoj studiji Što je filozofija? Gillesa Deleuzea i Félixa Guattarija kao mogućem novom ...izvoru za kritiku i angažiranu filozofiju. Počinje dobro poznatom idejom o tri velika momenta u povijesti filozofije, antičkoj grčkoj filozofiji, njemačkom idealizmu i, napokon, ‘avanturi francuske filozofije’, koji kod Badioua figuriraju kao hegelijansko ‘konkretno univerzalno’. Potom se oni povezuju s konkretnijim, u okruženju utemeljenim i društveno konstruiranim ‘geofilozofskim’ istraživanjem, kakvo se moglo prvi puta pojaviti u grčkom polisu i njegovom usidrenju u materijalnoj proizvodnji toga vremena. Cilj je rasprave proširiti prevladavajuća ‘grčko-njemačko-francuska’ objašnjenja – i isključivanja – geofilozofije, na ono što sam Badiou naziva ‘francusko-slovenskim momentom’ u suvremenoj filozofiji, te pokazati u novom svjetlu razvoj Marxove filozofija u bivšoj Jugoslaviji u njezinu odnosu s političkom situacijom prije i poslije pada Berlinskog zida. Deleuzeovo i Guattarijevo materijalističko propitivanje o tome ‘Zašto filozofija u antičkoj Grčkoj u tom trenutku?’, također vezano uz pitanje ‘Zašto kapitalizam u Engleskoj, a ne u Kini’, itd. ponovno se aktualizira stavljanjem u kontekst onoga što bi se moglo nazvati ‘jugoslavenskom geofilozofijom’ s istaknutom ulogom Slavoja Žižeka i njegovim filozofskim psihoanalitičkim obratom, zajedno s ‘otkrićem’ spolne razlike i njezine mogućnosti da dosegne onkraj ‘arogancije’ etablirane filozofije kao i navodno ‘angažirane’ feminističke filozofske kritike.
The paper presents an overview of critical approaches in contemporary French philosophy, focusing on Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari’s geophilosophy (What is Geophilosophy?) in the influential study on What is Philosophy?, as a possible new source for criticism and engaged philosophy. It starts with Alain Badiou’s well-known presentation of the three significant moments in philosophy’s history of philosophy, Ancient Greek philosophy, German idealism, and finally, the “Adventure of French philosophy”, presented in Badiou as Hegelian philosophical ‘concrete universals’. The paper then relates them to more concrete, environmentally based, and socially constructed ‘geophilosophical’ questioning, as it could first appear in the Greek polis and its embeddedness in the material production of the time. The paper aims to proceed from the prevailing ‘Greek-German-French’ explanations – and exclusions – of geophilosophy to what Badiou himself called ‘the French-Slovene moment’ in contemporary philosophy and to shed new light on the development of Marxist philosophy in ex-Yugoslavia in its relation to the political situation before and after the fall of the Berlin wall. Deleuze’s and Guattari’s materialist questioning about ‘Why philosophy in Ancient Greece at that moment?’, also related to the question of ‘Why capitalism in England and not in China?’, etc., have been re-actualized by putting it in the context of what might be called ‘Yugoslav geophilosophy’ with the prominent role of Slavoj Žižek and his philosophical, psychoanalytic turn, along with its ‘discovery’ of sexual difference and its possibility to reach beyond the ‘arrogance’ of the established philosophy, as well as the presumably ‘engaged’ feminist philosophical critique.
Regarding scientific development, psychoanalysis has been compared to the Copernican and Darwinian revolution. Freud has added his name to the well-established comparison of Copernicus and Darwin by ...introducing his notion of three blows to man’s narcissism, defining his discovery of psychoanalysis as the most dangerous last blow. The presentation examines the possible continuation of the series of the biggest scientific revolution in Jacques Derrida and Slavoj Žižek. Derrida has added to Copernicus, Darwin and Freud the name of Karl Marx as the fourth, disrupting one, defining his blow ‘in the name of the revolution’ as a much worse one, putting us today as Marx’s heirs in the position of debt and mourning. Derrida used the Freudian reading of Marx’s blow concerning the horrors of the October revolution, Stalinism, holocaust etc., while Slavoj Žižek – also relating Freud to Marx – examined the succession of Copernicus, Darwin and Freud by ‘many others’. The presentation focuses on Žižek’s idea of these ‘many others’, putting it in the context of Lacan’s return to Freud and prolonging it regarding the feminist revolution. The conclusion is made that Žižek’s elaboration of Lacan’s return of Freud, without and beyond the Lacanian feminist-psychoanalytic insistence on the centrality of sexual difference, can be understood as Žižek’s unfinished Copernican revolution.
Freud defined his discovery as “the birth of psychoanalysis”, whereas Lacan defined his relation to Freud as “a return to Freud”. The main characteristic of this return was its orientation into the ...opposite direction of the American ego-psychology, its positive definition being a return to the “letter of Freud”, or a return through language, and all what Lévi-Strauss and Lacan called “the symbolic”. The paper aims to present a philosophical reading of Freud, and the question whether, in Lacan's “structural” return, something has not been lost, what might have been of crucial importance for the discovery of psychoanalysis as such. In this context, some of the main Freud's concepts, needed for such a re-examination of “Lacanian orientation”, are being discussed, focusing upon Freud's insistence that subjectivity has to be defined by sexual difference and sexuality, and that beyond men and women there is no universal Man or Subject as such. Freud's initial question “What does a woman want?” is contextualized through his other question “How one becomes woman?”, whereas Freud's epistemological hesitations around symmetry and asymmetry of sexual difference are related to philosophical category of the aleatory. The paper concludes with the conclusion that in this perspective Lacan's return to Freud could be characterized as a return to essentialism, or even to implicit antifeminism. In opposition to Lacan, Freud always insisted on the difference between women and men as something that cannot be explained, and that the notion of bisexuality should not be abandoned. Using Beauvoir's critique of Lévi-Strauss, Freud's hesitations and his undecidedness of symmetry or asymmetry is explained as ontological category of a chance without a cause, and as the most repressed part of what later Althusser addressed to as “the repressed current” of aleatory materialism.
The paper presents Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the problem of the unity of his work. The Rousseau as the author of the social contract and the modern theory of education is related to the Rousseau of ...confessions; in this context, the importance of autobiography as a political category is discussed. The second part of the paper focuses on comparing the life, work, and autobiography of Rousseau and Nietzsche with special attention to their place in the eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries, respectively; the main target of the study is their common problem of how to face the corrupt nature of human civilization, and how to use education as a remedy, along with the way each one inscribed himself and his proper name in philosophy. The paper then focuses upon Rousseau's Enlightenment claim for transparency and self-transparency, and relates his claim to Nietzsche, to his claim for self-overcoming, and to what Derrida defines as his politics of the proper name. The paper concludes with a broader comparison of Rousseau, Nietzsche, and Derrida in relation to the question of how "the personal" should become "the political" precisely through education. PUBLICATION ABSTRACT
The intersection of philosophy and architecture opens up a question that is of crucial importance to understanding school spaces and the activities that occur there. That is, what defines a good ...space for thinking? The answer is divided into two parts. The first part examines the spaces that philosophers themselves describe as necessary for thinking and the ways in which these spaces become inherent to their "life and thought" as such. The second part emphasizes the space in preschools and schools as modern institutions and as ideological state apparatuses governed by "power" and "ideology" realized in the hidden curriculum. Through the problematization of these two answers, the essay opens up a third avenue of possible understanding: The definition of a good space for thinking refers to architecture as an event, space as "dislocation" and "heterotopies," and the related "ethics of suspension." PUBLICATION ABSTRACT
Freud je definirao svoju invenciju kao »rođenje psihoanalize«, a Lacan je definirao svoj odnos prema Freudu kao »povratak Freudu«. Za taj je povratak karakteristična orijentacija u suprotnom smjeru ...od američke ego-psihologije, a u »pozitivnoj« definiciji to je povratak »Freudovom pismu«, odnosno povratak kroz jezik i kroz sve ono što Lévi-Strauss i Lacan nazivaju »simboličko«. Prilog je namijenjen filozofskom čitanju Freuda i, u tom kontekstu, pitanju ne gubi li se u Lacanovom strukturalnom povratku Freudu upravo nešto bitno za samu Freudovu invenciju psihoanalize. Prikazani su glavni Freudovi pojmovi koji su potrebni za takvo ispitivanje »lakanovske orijentacije«, a naročita pažnja usmjerena je na Freudovo otkriće da je subjektivnost uvijek definirana spolom i seksualnošću i da ne postoji čovjek kao takav ili dijete kao takvo. Freudovo polazno pitanje »Što hoće žena?« postavljeno je u kontekst pitanja »Kako nastaje žena?«, a Freudova epistemološka kolebanja oko simetrije i asimetrije spolne razlike stavljena su u kontekst filozofske kategorije aleatoričnosti. Prilog završava zaključkom da bismo u tom pogledu Lacanov povratak Freudu mogli okarakterizirati kao povratak esencijalizmu, pa možda čak i implicitnom antifeminizmu. Suprotno tome, Freud je insistirao na spolnoj razlici kao nečemu što ne možemo objasniti, i na tome da pojam biseksualnosti ne možemo jednostavno napustiti. »Neobjašnjivost« frojdovske enigme na kraju je rastumačena kao ontološka kategorija slučaja bez uzroka, a sama psihoanaliza kao ono što je bilo najviše potisnuto u Althusserovom »potisnutom toku« aleatoričnog materijalizma.
Jacques Lacan described his contribution to the psychoanalytic movement with a short formula: that of a "return to Freud". The therapeutic process was now supposed to change reciprocal relations ...between different instances, and to put the ego once again into the centre of subjectivity. The new stress on the decisive role of the ego resulted in the "strengthening of the ego" doctrine of the cure. The ego of the mirror stage, starting from approximately the sixth month, is a polemic against the idea of a strong and all-round ego, figuring as a centre of human subjectivity. Lacan's notion of the mirror stage is a very serious endeavour to keep together, in their conceptual as well as practical intertwining, the ego, the body, and the gaze, along with his new definition of "the ideal ego" and of identification. The ego that is produced in this "moment" is a counterpart to the "fragmented body".
