Monday, March 19, 2012

Philosophy of jealousy


Eternal question, is it a reflection of love jealousy, or pathological state of mind?

Jealousy is not only possible topic for a different theoretical approaches, but also very complicated strategy that may be able to reveal some important moments of constructing the modern concept of subjectivity as one of the main concepts of modern philosophy. On the concept of jealousy at first I will discuss in relation to some aspects of its relationship to the concept of love, because I think that for a rethinking of the concept of jealousy, as a strategy of subjectivity, we need insight necessary connection between the concepts of love and jealousy.

Why hieroglyphics jealousy? Why hieroglyphics? We're talking about the hieroglyphics in the sense that all the complex - which means that it is all a sign, or it can be. The hieroglyphs are everywhere. So jealous lover never gives up the quest for knowledge about each other, the truth about each other. You could say that there is 'violence' sign. Signs of attack. They attack their necessity, their ambiguity, and therefore the jealous lover, but still trapped in their interpretation, which means to wander through the maze of hieroglyphics. So love and jealousy are painful means. Also, they are signs that mislead us. Lie. So what is the nature of each sign.Indeed, the particular character of love. About ljubomornome lover we can speak as the detective. As a police officer. As a scholar. As for someone who desperately seek the truth. As someone who pokušva see, find out what can be seen, and what you can not find out. (Voljeni. second.) Jealous lover, still searching for the truth about another to actually make it to the certainty of each other, the certainty of him or herself, and that means the search for truth that is impossible to detect (especially not with certainty) as to search for the truth about each other exactly at 'secret' of another, in his otherness as such. Jealous lover so as history shows bekonačnoga repeated failures, failures in the sense that knowledge of each other for that entity, or a jealous lover, unsuccessful searches, is, in fact, futile process of appropriation of another.Therefore, you have failed to re-appropriation process itself, or the failure of self-identity.Failure subjection of the subject.

Nothing we can not safely return to ourselves by revealing a strategy of jealousy, or disclosure strategies jealous lover. To quote Proust:

"How many people, cities and routes we want to encourage jealousy introduced! It is a thirst for knowledge, and thanks to her in the end gain, one after another, all such information on a variety of unrelated things, just not the one you seek ...

I realized the impossibility of love with which it grapples. Uobražavmo that her case will be closed in one body, we can lay beside him. But her case is the tension of being at all points of space and time which is occupied and which are yet to occupy. If you do not own his touch with this or that place, this or that hour, then you do not own to be. But we can not touch all the points ... Hence, mistrust, jealousy, stalking. "

Although I can not analyze all the meanings of the word "jealousy," I will try to specify and analyze only a few. Most classical and most common meaning is "it's a feeling that emerges from the fact that someone is in love, which is produced by fear that loved ones might prefer someone else" (French language in the nineteenth century, comp. Littre).

List of some significance jealousy I made on the basis of various dictionaries, because I want time to show how wide and varied use of the word. The above-mentioned dictionary of nineteenth-century lists eight main meaning of this term:

* Zealous
* Pain produced by the fact that someone gets or does not have what someone else gets or possesses;
* Feeling that occurs from being in love and produced fear that loved ones can love someone else more;
* »Lunnetes de jalousie" (a tool that allows someone to watch directly the objects that are at right angles to the one who looks);
* Feeling offended that the other causes the power of Prince or State; discomfort that occurs when the enemy army attacking some points of its defense (Decartes);
* Wooden or iron grating, which allows the watch, and not to be seen;
* Types of dancing; "in the dance called Jealousy three men and three women change partners so that every man at one point stands alone, separated from the other" (Baxandal 1972, 78). In the first half of the fifteenth century, the type of slow dance called the danza and bass, which became popular in Italy. These dances are poludramtični clear and transparent in terms of psychological relationships.
* Navy term that refers to a ship that carries a stormy sea, and turning like a jealous lover who throws the force of jealousy here and there.

Revised Unbridged Webster Dictionary (1913). Lists the following meanings of the noun "jealousy":

* The quality of that to be jealous
* A serious concern and diligence
* Painful anxiety for rivlastva cases in which almost induce one's luck
* Painful doubt as to the fidelity husband, wife, or lover.

Let us return to the classical meaning of this consultation times which suggests that jealousy is "fear of being loved can love someone else more." The fear that loved ones can love someone else more - or envy - that also (possibly) fear that we will not be loved, and also (possibly) the fear of slomljnoga heart. [1] In fact, slomljno heart is not in the sense that the heart is actually there before this crackdown. But I was the breakdown of what makes your heart. We always fear of a broken heart, or, to put it differently, we are afraid of it that we have heart. We fear that we will not keep the promise of love - the promise given to another, or our own promise. This means that we feel the fear of others, fear that he / she may break our hearts, and fear that "I" may have a heart. It is the fear of failure of love, or perhaps the fear of love itself. If we can be unloved, which is actually still possible, if we can not be one for the other to whom we refer our love, despite the fact that it can cause immense pain, it also threatens the "I" as such, since there is no "I" without anyone else adopt it in order to re-appropriated by them. [2] Moreover, if we return to the concept of jealousy, we can conclude that jealousy is a strategy significantly associated with fear, that jealousy is actually the fear that we can be self-produced second appropriation, that jealousy is the fear of not being a subject, or perhaps, the same result, that jealousy is fear that it is subject. This is a paradox as the paradox of all this is an argument that 'wants' to arrive at a conclusion. The paradox is that sense argument that never reaches the end of his own. [3]

The subject, although always has its own object [4] can never be completely and entirely appropriate object (the other, the beloved), which therefore means that the subject never completely and totally can not preempt itself. This means that the subject has always lack something - the subject itself. Jealousy is also emerging as a strategy that reveals the 'unfortunate' the truth of the subject. Before and after the fear of the subject, which means there is jealousy. Jealousy as a cause of fear - as she reveals her own strategy as a strategy of establishing subjectivity, and as a consequence, because they both fear and jealousy is constituted in the same 'gesture' and subjectivity itself. So it appears as a jealous fear that causes fear, just a terrible place this game is the subject itself.

If we remain within the concept of modern subjectivity, then jealousy is emerging as one of the most important moments of his constitution. Put differently, there is no subject that is always already jealous entity.

Writing of love and jealousy entered

»3 June 1977, New York

and when I call you my love, my love, I call you or your love? You, my love, is that you, the name, or are you addressing? I do not know whether the question of foundations, it scares me.But I'm sure you will answer, if one day to reach me, will come from you. Only from you, my love, only you will know it.

We asked each other impossible as possible, both. "[5]

These words were written on a postcard, introduced us, and lead us in the heart of the logic of the heart, which - perhaps - love. Because the structure of the cards is the paradox of love.Postcard is a clean surface, its text is visible not only is he to whom it is addressed, but also, for example, the postman always mean a third, and that means everyone. So intimate is the text entered in the heart of one's writing. He was added to the depth that becomes visible on the surface as a private matter, and that, in order to have as a private, not at all be private. Also, the structure of this paradoxical enrollment was entered into the very structure of the question, ie.in question, which examines the nature of the name, time and identity. In other words, if the love of speech, meaning, if you love each other is assumed, the question is: is this other one "you" differently from me, or if I'm one for yourself with the nature of love, which is therefore the work sharing identity. However, this structure postcards and addressing structure tells us something else.

If love is subordinated to the structure of speech, and therefore if the "invitation" to mean that love is something that must be told that because there is love out of the language outside the store. This does not necessarily mean that every story is a love story, but not necessarily mean that the love of every love story.

*
"Before I met you young lady, I was happy ..."
*
"And I was" - she sighed carelessly.
*
"Do not interrupt me!"

Victor Hugo in his novel "The Hunchback of Notre-Dame" describes a love of priests Claude Froloa torture. Although he was a young lady Esmeralda responded the same way, in a way that shows that the same troubles as him, saying that she was also unhappy love, he expresses anger.Moreover, he falls into an uncontrollable rage:

"Do not interrupt me!"

Do not interrupt me, because I am the one who speaks. Do not interrupt me, because I am the one who tells the story. Their story. I am in so far as my story unfolds. And my story tells me that you interrupt me, you second - interrupt me in speech, in the opinion. Interrupt me in my existence. Interrupt me in the pronunciation of the "I" when telling his story. The story of his love. The story about yourself ..

Complication

"Ein jeder Engel ist schrecklich" beloved.

Rilke-Derrida

If love is the structure of the call, then we face a different sort of paradox - the circular nature of each call, or, what turns out to be the same, with the speculative nature of each call. "I" "and" can only call if I have already called / and if you called me / by to invite him / her. One can therefore say that there is no such thing as the original call, the call naive. On the contrary, every call is a response to another call, which means that each question the answer to another question. This structure takes the call and address us, so, at the very core of the problem of love. Because the calls are calling my calls always multitudinous. There is another, there are many others. The second figure is the figure of multiplicity. The second and third means always, also. We invite one, the other, but we have invited many different other: "Too many calls from all around the bed. I'll call you soon. "[6] However, only a 'moment' before this promise, which promises to call, there are certain types of information that informs the other that the one who promises to call, but in fact always invited. If he / she has been invited / and everywhere. In too many beds. Here is a small complication. A complication that is related to the numbers, the numbering and counting. In a kind of calculations. This calculation, as is the case with every calculation and computation, foregrounds the debts and property. If I am the one to whom the promise was given, a promise is that we'll be together, and if this promise promise love, then there is a certain kind of issue this promise if the one who promises already promised to others, or if the person who promised to call me, one who at the same time responding to other calls. Is it always like that, is it always the case that many of us enrolled in a dual relationship? Have we not this what we can say that the other my love, given to another question: if the love of my property, does that mean that others who love her love match with my love and so it is also my property? That is why Rilke said, "Ein jeder ist schreckilch Angel" - as if an angel keeping watch over me, then carries the message of the angel, he is the angel of evil demons, evil genius:

"A genius is a symbol of evil in which they were collected and systematized all the dangers of such psychological events such as images from dreams, and sensory errors. Between God and man's evil genius has an absolute meaning: it is in all its rigidity, the ability of non-sense and the totality of his powers. He has more than mirroring human strength. Far beyond the man on danger signals that could prevent a man, once and for all, to gain access to the truth: he is the main obstacle of such a spirit, but such a reason. "[7]

The question of love, and the question of identity, and ownership is the basis, by its very nature, the question of the opinion: is my second property, which would therefore mean that I am different, and accordingly, where they would be the limits of my own identity? At the same time, this issue, which is included in the core of love, is the question of evil genius. This means that this issue is of the opinion of the danger signals that can prevent a man, once and for all, to gain root access. At the very core issues of truth is an obstacle to closing the road to truth - my truth can be denied simply because the demand. This is possible because the inability to answer written questions in the structure.

Your thing, my problem

The question of the truth in love - is another of my property, am I the only one / and that he / she call? - Reflects the structure of jealousy are there others? Am I the only one for another? - These are issues of a jealous lover.

In the traditional, classical definition of jealousy is determined by reference to the difference of envy.

For example, in Decartesovoj philosophy:

"Jealousy is the kind of fear related to the desire to remain in nešem owned some good (quelque bien), and it does not appear so from the power of reason, which leads to a conclusion that it may well be lost, but out of great respect in which it holds , that is why at least one review and the causes of doubt and take them as convincing reasons.

Envy is a kind of sadness mixed with hatred that stems from our vision for something good to happen to those we think do not deserve it, and it is reasonable to say things just for luck, as it is for those pertaining to the soul, or even body , to the extent they were acquired by birth, just to be deserved as they are derived from God before someone was able to do something wrong. "[8]

However, in his important clinical study, love, jealousy, Daniel Lagache has shown that this difference is hardly sustainable. This means that jealousy, or envy, determined attitude towards what someone has in a way still not having a possible. The terrifying truth of love (unbearable for jealous lovers) is that it never really has what it owns. There are always rivals, real or fictional, that is to say, that one always deals with (all) the others what he believes and has therefore never has anything.

Bad news for the identity

I do not have what it means at the same time has not himself possess. Self-identity is, by its very nature self-appropriation of personality self, self, self-identity is the self that has itself as its own property. Self-identity, in other words, the result of a whole strategy of appropriation, ownership and expropriation. It is structured according to the structure of jealousy, the structure of the secured property. But if jealousy is determined by the relationship where someone "owns" the way is always possible, and therefore always already consequent to lack, then that same structure is determined, in the same way, the relationship of self to himself as still possible and therefore have consequent to lack of self or expropriation. The self itself does not possess, according to its own structure, which is the structure of ownership. Possession, by its very nature, is not in possession of what they possess. Self, in other words, but always in danger, always eludes itself, and not able to catch it as its own property. "There is only one step away from this nesupstancijalne connections that can not guarantee proper possession (of something or someone) to the loss of connection that connects the self with itself, in relation to self-possession, or" self "[9].

This means that the self is always exposed to substantive possibility of losing this "nesupstancijalne connection", or losing yourself, no matter how reasonable and how diligently trying to keep themselves to themselves. So must all try harder, it actually has to 'invent' jealousy and envy as a tool to defend yourself from a disaster shortage of shortages or lack of identity.

Strategy that uses the self to himself for himself, was to avoid the relationship of self-removal, avoiding the mirror self-expression and self-mirroring. Self is trying to introduce "direct ideas about their own personality," bringing intuition as unmediated knowledge of self, as a kind of direct sense of self-presence of the self, as a kind of feeling prisvojenog self, self as her own property.

In accordance with a long tradition of thought and logic of selfhood (phenomenology) "I", there is at least one situation in which one can feel the directness of the self, and this is a situation where the object of discourse is never absent from the intuition of one who says, when "I" says to himself "I". "When I said I" I ", not only did I immediately know what I think, but I know that the" establishment "my meaning is present in the moment when I speak." [10] But the point is this: if I am the only / a to / a cork, then nothing can be changed, even directness of speech, precisely because this is always already mediated by the directness of them, the infinitesimal interval (interval is therefore demon identity). I will try to demonstrate that, therefore, there are only two possibilities. Or 'I' always floats and never able to catch yourself, or already is, therefore, always jealous of myself and the other, desperately trying to usurp the very thing that can not be appropriated, or idnentitet, or otherwise - that I do exist, death that I was necessary, which means life and death, jealousy of the 'I' as a living death:

"My death is structurally necessary that I will say / I la. This "I" is also "alive" and the certainty that it is alive beyond this think-tell. And this structure is operational, it retains its original efficiency, even when I say, "I'm alive / a", at the very moment when, if such a thing possible, I have complete and present the intuition about it ... The statement "I alive / a "followed by the time that I am dead / a, and its possibility requires the possibility that it I'm dead / a: and vice versa. This is not unusual Poe story, this is an ordinary story of language. "[11]

From this it may follow that jealousy is related to the effort to keep the identity of identity with them, and therefore the effort to stay alive.

Women's jealousy

Psychoanalysis is (and here specifically refers to Freud's interpretation of femininity), it imposed the idea that jealousy is something that the contents inscribed in the structure of human identity. On the other hand, also according to Freud, jealousy constitutes the very basis of female identity, moreover, jealousy is a condition of possibility idnetiteta women. Freud argued that the structure of the female identity organized around the function that is named as Penisneid, about a function that is designated as such as jealousy and envy, made with knowledge that it (the wife) is missing penis. Female identity is made with knowledge that it (a woman) has provided opportunities (male) identity. Thus, Freud's thesis can be summarized as follows: a woman is a place of desire that she wants (women) become a man, but since it is the desire "fantasy" is developing mišineriju envy and jealousy. The woman herself is jealous of its own being, and as such is merely the embodiment of envy and jealousy. Freud performed a series of theses on the feminine identity of this thesis which claims that a woman is by nature jealous being.

From this basic thesis about female jealousy Freud performed a second argument, claiming that the pair of jealousy / envy, something that makes women feel hostility toward men. In the book "Taboo of Virginity" Freud writes: "Behind this penis-envy, the light coming female intrinsic hostility toward men, which never fully disappears in the relations between the sexes, which is clearly expressed in literary pursuits and the production of 'emancipated 'woman'. This state of affairs, then, almost inevitably, it is therefore almost necessarily just because it is "natural". It is because by nature women jealous of the man, she is also "natural" one that encourages hostility between the sexes. In another essay, Freud went a step further and says that this state of female jealousy, when it brought to mind, actually feminism. In "Psychogenesis of a Case of Homosexuality in a Woman," he says, "The analysis showed that the girl had suffered since childhood from a very pronounced 'masculinity complex'. Brave little girl, always ready for mischief and fighting, was not at all prepared to be other than his slightly older brother, after examination of his genitalia she has developed a penis-envy, and the thoughts arising from this obvious envy continued to fulfill her mind. It was actually a feminist .... "

On the other hand, men's identity is not based on lack, but the restriction to intervene in a fullness, a wholeness, a limit to the castration complex. These products and other consequences of masculine identity, but anlizirajući them we come to the most important is that the man is just jealous "tentative", occasionally, by accident, not essential. To the jealous man, but that the jealousy does not produce any kind of hostility toward women.

Feminism Strikes Back

Feminist criticism, related to the Freudian thesis developed in parallel with his work on the problem of woman's nature. Indeed, his very succinct formulation of penis-envy - in the "lecture" about feminism in the New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis in his essay "Women's sexuality" - the answer to complaints that have already set the first-generation members of psychoanalyst Karen Horney, Helene Deutsche etc. This criticism again elaborated among others, Luce Irigaray and Sarah Kofman. Freud's thesis in this criticism became more reversed, but the fact is that the process of confirming his own thesis. In different ways, and Kofman and Irigaray argued that this Freudian view assumes, or assimilated "deconstruction Penisneid" for the benefit of the concept of a female subject who would, in theory, free from any constituent of envy or jealousy and, above all, free from the konsitutivne formation which Freud called penis-envy. The envy and jealousy could be thought of as a random or contingent conditions that can characterize this entity at any time. The idea of ​​female subjects would provide no matter the place to jealousy or envy, and would not have allowed the effects of jealousy in the constitution of the subject of sexual difference as a woman. The extent to which, therefore, jealousy operates as constitutive, irreducible determinants of sexual difference, it is actually a male determinant and as such, the determining factor of masculinity. In contrast to the contingent of female jealousy, unlike the female historically conditioned aversion to male privilege that Freud neglected and not taken into account, there is a substantial male jealousy is the result of thwarted drives that owns or appropriates female differences.

If we accept the feminist critique of Freud's theories, we should also try to examine this feminist theory according to which the determinants of male jealousy and according to which women are constitutionally exempt from jealousy - because this is the only answer is reversed mirror image of the Freudian answer. According to Freud, jealousy sex and only one - a female, and according to some feminist critics, sex and jealousy to just one - a male. I would, therefore, sent as a possible 'way' to something I call "deconstruction of jealousy as a strategy of subjectivity," which just means that we should try to think about other possibilities of female identity, which would not be excluded jealousy, but that it does not would not even included as a constituent element of its identity.

I would particularly emphasize that the jealousy, if we stay with the concept of modern subjectivity emerges as something that is not only inevitable, but the subject is one of the most important moments of his constitution. In other words - there is no subject that is always already jealous entity.



Bibliography

Armstrong, Nancy. Desire and Domestic Fiction, Oxford University Press, 1987

Barthes, Roland. A Lovers Discourse: trans. Richard Howard, New York: Hill and

Bataille, Georges. The Accursed Share, vol. II & III, trans. Robert Hurley, New York, Zone Books, 1993

Judith Butler. Gender Trouble, New York: Routledge, 1989

Baumgart, Hildegard. Jealousy: Experiences and Solutions, trans. Manfred Jacobson and

Blanchot, Maurice. Friendship, trans. Elizabeth Rottenberg, Stanford California: Stanford University Press, 1997

Booth, Wayne The company we keep, Berkeley, California University Press, 1988

Bush, ML What is love? Richard Carlile's Philosophy of Sex, London & New York, Verso, 1998

Copjec, Joan. Ed. Supposing the subject, London & New York, Verso, 1994

Copjec, Joan. Read my desire, London, The MIT Press, 1997

Deleuze, Gilles, Guattari, Felix. Anti-Oedipus Capitalism and Schizophrenia: Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1983

Deleuze, Gilles, Parnet, Claire. Dialogues, New York, Columbia University Press, 1987

Deleuze, Gilles. Coldness and Cruelty, New York, Zone Books, 1991

Deleuze, Gilles. Es (sa) ys critical and clinical, trans. By DW Smith and MA Greco, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1997

Derrida, Jacques. Given time: I. Counterfeit Money, trans. Peggy Kamuf, Chicago & London, The University of Chicago Press, 1994

Derrida, Jacques. Memories for Paul de Man, revised edition, The Welle Library Lectures at the University of California, Irvine, trans. C. Lindsay, Jonathan Culler, E. Cadava and P. Kamuf, New York, Columbia University Press, 1989

Derrida, Jacques. Politics of Friendship, trans. By George Collins, London, New York, Verso, 1997

Derrida, Jacques. Resistance of psychoanalysis, trans. By Peggy Kamuf, Pascale-Anne Ibrault & Michael Naas: Stanford, California, Stanford University Press, 1998

Derrida, Jacques. The Archeology of the Frivolous, Reading Condillac, trans. John P. Leavey, jr. Lincoln and London, University of Nebraska Press, 1987

Derrida, Jacques. The Gift of Death, trans. David Wills, Chicago & London, The University of Chicago Press, 1995

Derrida, Jacques. The Post Card From Socrates to Freud and Beyond, trans. Alan Bass, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1987

Doane, Mary Ann. Femmes fatales, New York and London, Routledge, 1991

Dolar, Mladen. "At first sight," In Gaze and Voice as Love Objects, ed. Salecel Renata and Slavoj Zizek, Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1966, p. 129-153

Doueihi, Milad. A perverse history of the human hearth, London, Harvard University Press, 1997

Evelyn Jacobson, Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1990

Foster, Hal. Compulsive Beauty, England, London: The MIT Press, 1997

Foucault, Michael. The will to knowledge, The History of Sexuality vol. 1, trans. By Robert Hurley

Sigmund Freud. Certain Neurotic Mechanisms in Jealousy, Paranoia and Homosexuality Standard Edition XVIII

Gallop, Jane. The Daughters Seduction, Ithaca: Cornell University Press

Grosz, Elisabeth. Volatile Bodies, Bloomington and Indianapolis, Indiana University Press, 11 994

Grosz, Elisabeth. Ontology and equivocation: Derrida's politics of sexual difference, ed.Nancy J. Holland, Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997

Grosz, Elisabeth. Space, time and perversion, New York and London, Routledge, 199 Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985

Johnson, Barbara A World of Difference: Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press, 1987

Kamuf, Peggy. "Deconstruction and Feminism: A repetition. Ed. Nancy J. Holland, Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania State University Press, p. 103-126

Kamuf, Peggy. Fiction of Feminine Desire, Disclosures of Heloise: Lincoln and London, University of Nebraska Press, 1982

Kamuf, Peggy. Introduction: "Reading Between the Blinds" A Derrida Reader Between the Blinds, ed. By Peggy Kamuf, New York: Columbia University Press, 1991, p. 13-42

Kamuf, Peggy. Signature-pieces on the institution of authorship, Ithaca and London, Cornell University Press, 1988

Kern, Stephen. The Culture of Love, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992

Sarah Kofman. The enigma of women: in Freud's Writings, trans. Catherine Porter's,

Kristeva, Julia. Tales of love, New York, Columbia, 1987

Kristeva, Julia. Time and Sense, New York, Columbia, 1996

Labarthe, Philippe Lacoue, Nancy, Jean-Luc. The Title of the letter, and the Reading of Lacan, Albany, State University of New York Press, 1992

Labarthe, Philippe Lacoue. Typography, trans. C. Fynske, Stanford California, Stanford University Press, 1998

Lagache, Daniel. La jalousie amoureuse, 3d ed. Paris: PUF, 1985

Rosemary Lloyd. Closer and closer apart: jealous in Literature, Ithaca: Cornell University Press - Ithaca and London, 1995

MacLachlan, Gale. "Reading in a mode jellies" Australian Journal of French Studies, 27, 3, 1990, p. 291-301

Nancy, Jean-Luc. The sense of the world, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1997

Salecel, Renata. "I can not love unless I give you up" In Gaze and Voice as Love Objects ed. Salecel Renata and Slavoj Zizek, Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1966

Spivak, Chakravorty Gaytri. "Discourse of Displacement and Women" in Feminist Interpretation of Jacques Derrida, ed. Nancy J.Holland, Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997, p.43-72

Stewart, Susan. On Longing, Durham and London, Duke University Press, 1993

Zizek, Slavoj. "There is no sexual relationship" in Gaze and Voice as Love Objects, ed. Salecl Renata and Slavoj Zizek, Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1996

[1] See Jean-Luc Nancy-The inoperative Community: Shattered Love, (University of Minnesota Press, 1991)

[2] For an explanation of the whole complex strategies of appropriation, re-appropriation and expropriation is due to Jacques Derrida and his brilliant contribution to the topic that explains the structure of the modern concept of subject and subjectification

[3] for example, as the aporia Zenonovoj movement Achilles never exceeds the turtle ...

[4] Subject who has always been sub / jected himself, so also its own facility

[5] Jacques Derrida, The Postcard, trans. Alan Boss, The University of Chicago Press, 1987, p. 8

[6] Jacques Derrida, The Postcard, trans. Alan Boss, The University of Chicago Press, 1987, p.8

[7] Michael Foucault, Folie et Deraison, p. 196, quoted in J. Derrida, "Resistance of Psychoalalysis," Stanford University Press, California, 1998, p. 87

[8] Descartes, Oeuvres et Lettres, Paris: Pleiadi, 1954

[9] Peggy Kamuf, Introduction: "readind Between the Blinds," A Derrida Reader Between the Blinds, ed. Peggy Kamuf, New York: Columbia University Press, 1991, p. 13-42

[10] Ibid. page. 114

[11] Jacques Derrida, Speecch and Phenomena, p. 108

No comments:

Post a Comment